Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-05-11
Planning and Development Committee Post-Meeting Agenda Date:May 11, 2026 Time:5:00 p.m. Location:Council Chambers or Electronic Participation Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, Ontario Inquiries and Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Laura Preston, Temporary Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at lpreston@clarington.net. Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Collection, Use and Disclosure of Personal Information: If you make a delegation, or presentation, at a Committee or Council meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording public on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar. Written and oral submissions which include home addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses become part of the public record. If you have any questions about the collection of information, please contact the Municipal Clerk. Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non-audible mode during the meeting. Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive The Revised Agenda will be published on Wednesday after 12:00 p.m. Late items added or a change to an item will appear with a * beside them. Pages 1.Call to Order 2.Land Acknowledgment Statement 3.Declaration of Interest 4.Announcements 5.Presentations/Delegations 5.1 Presentation by Henry Zekveld, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee, Regarding the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington Annual Update 6 Henry Zekveld, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee, was present regarding the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington Annual Update. Henry provided an overview *5.2 Delegation by Lisa Roy and Ron Hooper, Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge and Mia Trana, TWC Consulting, Regarding Report FSD-020-26 - Building Faster Fund Update 11 *5.3 Delegation by Tracy Greig Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation, Sheila Penny and Robert Raynor, Two Steps Homes, Regarding Report FSD-020-26 - Building Faster Fund Update 28 *5.4 Delegation by Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting Regarding Report PDS- 036-26 - Soper Hills Secondary Plan Recommendation Report 69 *5.5 Delegation by Leslie Payne regarding Report PDS-042-26 - Objection to Notice of Intention to Designate; 38 Second Street, Bowmanville 74 5.6 Presentation by Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, Brayden Siersma, Economic Development Officer, Adam Fischer, Manager, Watson and Associates and Robert Rappolt, Manager, WSP, Regarding Clarington Growth Management Study - Introduction and Overview 76 *5.7 Delegation by Wendy Bracken, Regarding the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Compliance Approval Application *5.7.1 Continuation of Delegation by Wendy Bracken, Regarding the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Compliance Approval Application Planning and Development Committee Agenda May 11, 2026 Page 2 *5.8 Delegation by Ramesh Jagannathan, Regarding the Durham York Energy Centre Environmental Compliance Approval Application 6.Consent Agenda 6.1 FSD-020-26 - Building Faster Fund Update 103 6.2 PDS-029-26 - Extension of West Side Drive (South Bowmanville Recreation Complex) 110 *6.3 PDS-036-26 - Soper Hills Secondary Plan Recommendation Report 115 *6.3.1 Correspondence from Paul Demczak, Principal, Batory Planning + Management regarding Report PDS-036-26 - Soper Hills Secondary Plan Recommendation Report 223 6.4 PDS-039-26 - Bill 98: Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 – Comments 252 6.5 PDS-047-26 - Official Plan Review Update and Introduction to the Growth Management Study 277 6.5.1 Correspondence from Grant Morris, Grant Morris Associates Ltd., regarding Report PDS-047-26 - Official Plan Review Update and Introduction to the Growth Management Study 293 7.Items for Separate Discussion 7.1 PDS-042-26 - Objection to Notice of Intention to Designate; 38 Second Street, Bowmanville 295 8.New Business 9.Public Meetings (6:45 p.m.) 9.1 Public Meeting for a Regional Official Plan Amendment and Clarington Official Plan Amendment 308 Applicant: Bousfields Inc. on behalf of Tribute Newcastle Limited Partnership and Littlewalsh Developments Inc. Location: 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Highway 115, Newcastle Planner: Tyler Robichaud, Senior Planner Planning and Development Committee Agenda May 11, 2026 Page 3 9.1.1 PDS-040-26 - Privately Initiated Planning Act Applications Proposing an 88-Hectare Expansion of the Newcastle Urban Settlement Boundary 330 9.2 Public Meeting for a Regional Official Plan Amendment and Clarington Official Plan Amendment 362 Applicant: Malone Given Parsons Ltd. on behalf of the NE Bowmanville Landowners Group Location: The lands generally located south of Concession Road 3, west of Providence Road, east of Soper Creek, and north of the local CPKC Railway in Bowmanville Planner: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner 9.2.1 PDS-041-26 - Privately Initiated Planning Act Applications Proposing 121-Hectares of Land to be Added to the Bowmanville Urban Settlement Boundary 380 9.3 Public Meeting for a Regional Official Plan Amendment, Clarington Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan Approval 400 Applicant: Batory Planning + Management on behalf of Mearns Avenue Limited Partnership Location: 933 Mearns Avenue, Bowmanville Planner: Jacob Circo, Senior Planner 9.3.1 PDS-044-26 - Applications to Amend the Durham Region and Clarington Official Plans, Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision to Facilitate 458 Residential Units on Lands Added to the Bowmanville Urban Area Through the 2024 Durham Region Official Plan 424 9.4 Public Meeting for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision 450 Applicant: The Biglieri Group Ltd. on behalf of Lifelong Group of Companies Inc. Location: 45 Raynes Avenue, Bowmanville Planner: Ruth Porras, Senior Planner Planning and Development Committee Agenda May 11, 2026 Page 4 9.4.1 PDS-045-26 - Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to Permit Multiple High-Density, Mixed-Use Blocks Containing Approx. 3,200 Residential Units and 9,890 Square Metres of Non-Residential Space with Heights Ranging from 4 to 25 Storeys 451 *9.4.1.1 Continuation of Report PDS-045-26 - Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision 10.Confidential Items 10.1 LGS-027-26 - OLT Appeal - OPA 136 Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan Municipal Act, 2001 Section 239 (2) (e) and (f) 10.2 LGS-028-26 - OLT Appeal - William Tonno Construction Ltd. Municipal Act, 2001 Section 239 (2) (e) and (f) 11.Adjournment Planning and Development Committee Agenda May 11, 2026 Page 5 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Zekveld Date:April 29, 2026 3:21:31 PM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington Annual Update Action requested of Council Receive with Thanks Date of meeting 5/11/2026 Summarize your delegation The Chair of the AACC will provide an overview of the Committee's activities. Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Sylvia Jennings Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person Do you require any accessibility accommodations in order to participate in the meeting? No First name: Henry Single/Last name Zekveld Page 6 Firm/Organization (if applicable) Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington Job title (if applicable) Chair Address Town/Hamlet Bowmanville Postal code Email address: Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? Yes Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. No I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 7 Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington – 2025 Annual Update Committee Goals The Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington was formed to support Council’s decision making on agriculture. The AACC provides an opportunity for the agricultural community to share their expertise. From the 2025/2026 AACC Work Plan, the Committee’s three areas of focus were: 1. Policy development, recommendations, advice 2. Communication, education, outreach 3. Emerging agricultural issues 2025 Members Henry Zekveld (Chair) Tom Barrie (Vice-Chair) Eric Bowman John Cartwright Jennifer Knox Craig Rickard Richard Rekker Brad Found Lloyd Vandergaast Mitch Morawetz* Councillor Zwart * Durham Region Federation of Agriculture representative Staff Liaison: Sylvia Jennings Meetings The Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC) met monthly in 2025, except for July and August (10 meetings total). Meetings were held in a hybrid format. Consultation Input In 2025, the AACC was consulted on and discussed various local and regional issues. Feedback was given formally by passing motions, or informally through discussions with presenters or delegators. The topics explored include: • Senate Soil Study: Critical Ground • Clarington Waterfront Strategy • Migrant Worker Housing • Stormwater Management Fees • Regional Roads Capital Program • Growing Agri-Food Durham Action Plan Page 8 Presentations to the Committee The AACC also expanded its knowledge of agricultural and agricultural-related issues by receiving presentations on the following: • Tile Drainage Systems • Conservation Authority Jurisdiction and Wetland Delineation • Stormwater Management Fees Building Relationships In 2025, the AACC focused on raising awareness of agricultural issues within the Municipal organization. The Committee hosted its first farm tour. Some highlights include: • Approximately 50 attendees including Councillors and Staff from a broad range of departments • Attendees toured a sheep farming operation, were given an overview of farming issues, and had the opportunity to ask questions • Representatives from industry and youth provided different perspectives on agriculture The AACC invited Municipal Staff to meetings to build relationships and discuss how municipal departments can have an impact on agriculture. Staff that attended meetings in 2025 included: • Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure • David Speed, Director of Emergency and Fire Services and Fire Chief • Matt Muirhead, Fire Prevention Officer • Sarah Parish, Principal Planner, Development Review • Laura Knox and Paul Pirri, Economic Development • Brendan Grigg, Deputy Chief Building Official Support for Agricultural Organizations AACC members also supported various organizations throughout the year that help promote and advocate for agriculture in Clarington and the Region of Durham. Some of these organizations include: • Durham Region Federation of Agriculture • T.H.E.E. Farmer’s Parade of Lights • Invest Durham, Rural Economic Development • Durham Farm Fresh Marketing Association • Durham Farm Connections • Durham East 4H Page 9 Planning for 2026 In 2026, the AACC will review the 2025/2026 work plan to ensure the Committee is working to support agriculture and provide advice to Clarington Council. The Committee will be particularly focused on the Clarington Official Plan Review. The Committee will also be available to consult on issues brought forward by Council or Municipal staff. Page 10 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Lisa Roy Date:Thursday, April 30, 2026 11:06:05 AM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Follow up from March's Delegation, Speak to Report FSD-020-26 Action requested of Council Approval of Funding Request Date of meeting 5/11/2026 Summarize your delegation Lisa Roy, Administrator, Ron Hooper, Director, Mia Trana, TWC Consulting Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Darryl Lyons, Mayor Foster and Members of Council Report number (if known) FSD-020-26 Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person Do you require any accessibility accommodations in order to participate in the meeting? No First name: Lisa Page 11 Single/Last name Lisa Roy Firm/Organization (if applicable) The Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge Job title (if applicable) Administrator Address Town/Hamlet Orono Postal code Email address: Phone number Alternate phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? Yes Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. Yes I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes Page 12 Municipality of Clarington Planning and Development Committee Meeting Resolution DATE: May 11, 2026 MOVED BY Councillor Zwart SECONDED BY Councillor Woo WHEREAS the Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge (‘the Lodge”) provides essential housing, and community support to older adults in the Municipality of Clarington; WHEREAS the Lodge currently contains 41 residential units, and is proposing an expansion of an additional 58 single-bedroom units that would be ‘affordable’ as they will be provided at or below CMHC Average Market Rent which also aligns with rents posted for Clarington in the Province of Ontario Affordable Residential Units for the Purposes of the Development Charges Act, 1997 Bulletin; WHEREAS the Lodge has identified a need for financial support to help offset upfront development-related costs associated with advancing the proposed expansion; WHEREAS the required replacement and upgrading of the septic system is essential to support the proposed new units and to maintain the long-term viability of the existing 41 residential units; and WHEREAS increasing the supply of affordable housing aligns with Council’s policies, Strategic Plan objectives, Clarington’s Housing Needs Assessment, and the commitment to fostering safe, inclusive, affordable, and age-friendly communities; and, WHEREAS Council passed Resolution PD-031-26 supported, in principle, the proposed expansion of the Lodge, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the following financial support be provided to support the proposed expansion to the Lodge: 1. Waive application fees for the required Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan; Page 13 2. Provide a grant-in-lieu of the required Building Permit application fees; and 3. Provide financial support in the amount of $255,000 as identified in Staff report FSD-020-26. THAT the financial support be funded from Clarington’s 2024 Build Faster Fund, as approved by the Province of Ontario and any remaining amount be funded from the Clarington Affordable Housing reserve fund; and, THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Board of Directors of the Lodge for their information. Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Affordable Housing Development at 200 Station Street, Orono Durham County Seniors Citizen Lodge (DCSCL) Page 19 Project Timeline Feasibility Studies (Completed) •Geotechnical Report •Hydrogeological Investigation •Septic Study •ESA Phase 1 Update Zoning By- Law Amendment June 2026 (Application Submitted) Site Plan Application Fall 2026 Building Permit Application Winter 2026/2027 Construction Start Spring 2027 Construction Completion Fall 2028 Page 20 Proposed Development Site Plan Page 21 Proposed Development 3D View Page 22 Funding Request •Durham County Seniors Citizen Lodge requests a grant of $250,000 for septic design, complete architect and engineering drawings, and other costs to achieve Site Plan and Building Permit. Page 23 Thank you! Page 24 Appendix Page 25 Appendix A: Project Budget Summary Total Project Costs Hard Costs $17,815,257 Soft Costs $1,557,265 Total Project Costs $19,372,522 Total Project Funding & Financing DCSCL Equity $150,000 Municipal Fee Waiver $79,126 Municipal Grant $250,000 Durham Region AHIP $8,000,000 Mortgage Financing $10,870,298 Total Project Costs $24,029,986 Page 26 Appendix B: Funding Request Breakdown Pre-Development Cost Breakdown Architect Fees $82,744 Mechanical, Electrical, and Civil Engineering $90,400 Structural Engineers $53,900 Detailed Septic Design $24,973 Total Pre-Development Costs $252,017 Municipal Fee Waiver Zoning By-law Amendment $11,255 Site Plan Application $32,240 Building Permit $58,729 Total Fee Waiver Value $102,224 Page 27 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Greig, Penny, Raynor Date:May 5, 2026 4:06:10 PM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Micro Modular Transitional Housing: Cabin Community in Bowmanville Action requested of Council Approval of Funding Resquest Date of meeting 5/11/2026 Summarize your delegation An overview of Micro Modular Transitional Housing: Cabin Community in Bowmanville location approval of Build Faster Funds Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Darryl Lyons, Amanda Tapp Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person Do you require any accessibility accommodations in order to participate in the meeting? No First name: 1. Tracy 2. Sheila 3. Robert Page 28 Page 29 Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? Yes Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. Yes I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 30 Celebrating More Than 40 Years Of Service DURHAM REGION NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION 28A Albert Street Oshawa, Ontario L1H 8S5 Tel: (905) 436-6610/686-1278 Fax: (905) 436-5361 E-mail: drnphc@durham-housing.com May 11, 2026 Planning and Development Committee The Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Dear Mayor and Members of Council, Re: Build Faster Funding Report, Agenda item 6.1 May 11, PDC - FSD-020-26 - Building Faster Fund Update | Request for Municipal Funding Support for $355,000 for 2009 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville On behalf of Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation (DRNPHC) and Two Steps Home (2SH), I am writing to formally request financial support from the Municipality of Clarington toward the development of a new modular housing project in Bowmanville that will help 50 unhoused people at a time move out of encampments and into secure, dignified, private units, regain their health & stability, and get ready to succeed into long-term housing. According to the most recent Built For Zero Report (February 2026), there are over 1,700 people who are homeless in Durham Region, with 62% being chronically unhoused (unhoused for six months or longer), with these numbers increasing steadily over the last five years. In Clarington alone, over 100 people are actively homeless. DRNPHC and Two Steps Home presented to Durham Region Committee of the Whole on January 14, 2026, sharing the problem and proposing the model of Micro-Modular Transitional Housing ‘Cabin Communities’ as a path forward. We requested to build a series of five communities (one in each municipality), with a total of 250 units, to create a coordinated, Region-wide pathway out of homelessness. The Committee of the Whole unanimously approved the following on a recorded vote: A) That the transitional housing model presented by the Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation (DRNPHC) and Two Steps Home be endorsed in principle as an important addition to the Region of Durham’s housing continuum; B) That Regional staff be directed to work with the Local Area Municipalities, DRNPHC, Two Steps Home, and Developers to identify an appropriate site and proceed with the next steps required to advance a transitional housing pilot project with the goal of opening the project in 2026; and C) That Regional staff be directed to work with DRNPHC and Two Steps Home to: • develop an operational model for the pilot that leverages existing resources and community partnerships; • identify and pursue all opportunities for capital and operating funding to support implementation; • establish evaluation criteria and reporting mechanisms to measure progress and outcomes, with an update to Regional Council prior to the pilot opening. The Region’s Chief Administrative Officer and Social Services Commissioner have also Page 31 – 2 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service confirmed the Region will fund the first year of the pilot community operating budget. We are asking the Municipality of Clarington to take immediate, visible action on homelessness by supporting the micro-modular transitional housing project at 2009 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville. A contribution of $355,000 from the Build Faster Fund would directly enable the rapid delivery of safe, well-managed housing that is purpose-built to move individuals from homelessness into stability and, ultimately, permanent housing. Specifically, this funding will support infrastructure, servicing and minor site plan fees and permitting. The timing of implementation for this project is to have the site ready to welcome its first occupants in December 2026, respecting the required time and actions for the municipal election process and the need to implement this project before the onset of winter 2027. 2009 Maple Grove Road Bowmanville was intentionally selected because it is close to transit, healthcare, and local supports, while still being set back from established neighbourhoods. This allows for a small, well-managed transitional housing community with 24/7 staffing, clear rules, and strong connections to Durham Regional Police Service and local services. The goal is to provide people with a safe, temporary place to stabilize and move forward—while maintaining the safety, character, and quality of life of the surrounding community The specific site benefits are: (i) Strong Proximity to Transit Networks • The site benefits from access to Durham Region Transit route at Highway 2, close to the site (ii) Close to Health and Social Services • The site is within reach of key services including Lakeridge Health Bowmanville and other regional supports. (iii) Proximity to Policing and Emergency Response • Nearby access to Durham Regional Police Service facilities strengthens the site’s operational viability. (iv) Proximity to retail of all types • Nearby access to stores such as Walmart, Loblaws grocery store, fast food and restaurants, and convenience stores (v) Ideal Balance: Accessibility + Separation • The Maple Grove Road corridor offers a transitional edge condition by being close enough to services, transit, and policing and removed enough from dense residential zones (vi) Suitability for Rapid Modular Deployment • The property offers characteristics ideal for a cabin community. It is flat, has few trees and as such permits a flexible layout for ~50 units + amenity space. (vii) Strong Clarington support from ICONIC, Seeds of Hope and other agencies that support homelessness. On behalf of our team, I thank you for your consideration of this matter and funding request. Should you have any further questions, I can be reached at 905-436-6610 x212, via cell 289- 685-3195 or via email at tracy.greig@durham-housing.com Sincerely Page 32 – 3 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Tracy Greig Chief Executive Officer cc: Two Steps Home Attachment 1 – Proposed Motions Attachment 2- Site plan for 2009 Maple Grove Road Attachment 3 - Elevations/floor plans for the cabins and communal facilities Attachment 4 - Project summary. Page 33 – 4 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Attachment 1 – Motions Municipality of Clarington Planning and Development Committee Meeting Resolution WHEREAS the Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation (DRNPHC) provides essential housing, and community support to all residents of Durham Region, and specifically in the Municipality of Clarington; WHEREAS DRNPHC currently owns and manages a portfolio of more than 1,200 affordable rental units, with 66 townhouse units located at 41 Freeland Drive Bowmanville and 60 townhouse units located at 94 Concession Street, Bowmanville , of which half are rent-geared-to income rentals and half are low affordable rental units at or below 80% of the CMHC Average Market Rent; WHEREAS DRNPHC has identified a need for financial support to help offset upfront and ongoing infrastructure costs associated with advancing a Micro Modular Transitional Housing Cabin Community located at 2009 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville to serve the unhoused population by providing 50 modular, heated, lockable private units and a communal facility with a kitchen, washrooms, showers, laundry and services areas and 24-7 wrap around supports; WHEREAS the required infrastructure support is essential to implement the Micro Modular Transitional Housing Cabin Community as immediate connection to in-ground infrastructure is not available in conjunction with Durham Region until 2027/8, and will help unhoused folks move out of encampments and street corners to secure dignified private units to regain their health and stability in preparation to move into more permanent housing; WHEREAS increasing the supply of affordable housing aligns with Council’s policies, Strategic Plan objective to support and invest in the creation of housing to meet the needs of the community.; WHEREAS Regional Council Committee of the Whole on January 14, 2026 passed unanimously in a recorded vote that supported, in principle, the proposed project, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the following financial support be provided to support the proposed Micro Modular Transitional Housing Cabin Community: 1. Waive application fees for required Minor Site Plan Applications and all other required amendments and applications (Up to $5,000). 2. Support expedited planning approvals and fee and permitting waivers. 3. Provide financial support in the amount of $355,000 to aid with infrastructure Page 34 – 5 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service needs. THAT the financial support be funded from Clarington’s 2024 Build Faster Fund, as approved by the Province of Ontario and, THAT a copy of this resolution be forward to the Board of Directors of the DRNPHC for their information. DATE: May 11, 2026 MOVED BY SECONDED BY Page 35 – 6 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Attachment 2 – Site Plan Page 36 – 7 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Google Maps View of 2009 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville, & Surrounding Area (Architectural firm WW+P completing the official site plan to be submitted via Minor Site Plan) Page 37 – 8 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Page 38 – 9 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Attachment 3 – Elevations & Layouts of Cabins and Communal Facilities Page 39 – 10 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Page 40 – 11 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Full drawing and specification packages available upon request. Page 41 – 12 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Attachment 4 – Project Summary 0 Executive Summary 0.1 DRNPHC sees a need for transitional housing that supports the acute needs of chronically unhoused individuals, as a first step to stability and way of preparing unhoused people to eventually move into their supportive housing units. DRNPHC has been working with non-profit Two Steps Home (2SH) to create five Micro-Shelter Transitional Housing ‘Cabin Communities’, one in each waterfront municipality in Durham Region, to support people transitioning out of encampments and into permanent housing. 0.2 This new modular project will help 50 unhoused people at a time move out of encampments and into secure, dignified, private units, regain their health & stability, and get ready to succeed into long-term housing. Each community will include 50 modular, heated, lockable Cabins for residents, a modular Communal Facility with a kitchen, dining room, living room, washrooms and showers, laundry, and health & social service offices, outdoor amenities and a community garden on a fenced site, and 24/7 wraparound supports. Construction drawings have been created for the structures, and site design is underway. 0.3 DRNPHC presented to Committee of the Whole on January 14, 2026, receiving unanimous approval to develop an operational model for the pilot that leverages existing resources and community partnerships, identify and pursue opportunities for capital and operating funding to support implementation; and establish evaluation criteria and reporting mechanisms to measure progress and outcomes. The Region will fund the first year of operating costs, and capital fundraising is underway. 0.4 The Region did not identify any Regionally-owned sites that is not on a flood plain and will remain vacant and undeveloped for the next 2-3 years, nor did any municipality. Private landowner Ledim Developments has brought forward for interim use their site at 2009 Maple Grove Road, across from the Durham Regional Police Services East Division Headquarters, in Bowmanville. The site will be leased for a nominal fee for a period of at least 3 years, to be prepared this fall for use. 0.5 Critically, the site is not connected to water and wastewater servicing. In the short term, DRNPHC is seeking approval to place water tanks on site and truck potable water into the site and truck wastewater out. This necessity will add approximately $355,000 to the costs of the community in the first year. 0.6 DRNPHC is seeking $355,000 from Clarington’s Build Faster Fund to bring water to and from the site for the first year, until underground connections can be made to existing infrastructure. With this funding, this pilot Cabin Community can launch in early 2027. Page 42 – 13 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service 1 Background Build Faster Fund 1.1 The Municipality received funding from the Build Faster Fund (BFF) in the amount of $2,877,680 for achievement of its 2024 housing target. These funds were confirmed in November 2025 and the Municipality has until 2028 to utilize the funds. Homelessness in Durham Region 1.2 According to the most recent Built For Zero Report (September 2025), there are over 1400 people who are homeless in Durham Region, with 59% being chronically unhoused (unhoused for six months or longer), with these numbers increasing steadily over the last five years. In Clarington alone, over 100 people are actively homeless. 1.3 DRNPHC is a non-profit housing builder and operator, currently managing over 1200 units of affordable or rent-geared-to-income supportive housing across Durham Region. 1.4 DRNPHC has experienced firsthand the challenges of bringing people directly from encampments and into permanent housing. Without the life skills and stable health needed to maintain an apartment unit, many people from encampments or shelters across Durham Region have been unable to successfully transition into DRNPHC units, leading to damages to their units and resulting in evictions back to encampments or shelter, and the problem of homelessness not being solved. 1.5 DRNPHC sees a need for form of transitional housing that supports the acute needs of chronically unhoused individuals, as a first step to stability and way of preparing unhoused people to eventually move into their supportive housing units. DRNPHC has been working with non-profit 2SH to create a blueprint out of homelessness for Durham Region, built around Micro-Modular Transitional Housing. Micro-Modular Transitional Housing model 1.6 This new modular project will help 50 unhoused people at a time move out of encampments and into secure, dignified, private units, regain their health & stability, and get ready to succeed into long-term housing. It will include: • 50 modular, heated, lockable Cabins for residents • a modular Communal Facility with a kitchen, dining room, living room, washrooms and showers, laundry, and health & social service offices • outdoor amenities and a community garden on a fenced site • 24/7 wraparound supports 1.7 Over a stay of 12-24 months, residents will receive on-site supports that prepare them with the skills they need to successfully transition back into permanent housing. Once they complete the program, the Cabin will open up for another person experiencing Page 43 – 14 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service homelessness to move out of their encampment and undertake the same process of preparing for DRNPHC supportive housing. This model is based on similar projects launched in Peterborough, Waterloo, and Brockville, which have seen measurable success in transitioning their residents to permanent housing for reduced costs compared to traditional models of shelter. 1.8 DRNPHC & 2SH visited the Modular Bridge Housing Project in Peterborough Ontario, operated for the 2.5 years by the Elizabeth Fry Society of Peterborough. This project placed 50 tiny homes on a disused parking lot that was home to a large encampment, and moved the encampment residents into the tiny homes where services were provided. 2 Proposed project Regional & Municipal Support 2.1 DRNPHC presented to Durham Region Committee of the Whole on January 14, 2026, sharing the problem and proposing the ‘Cabin Community’ model of Micro- Modular Transitional Housing as a path forward. We requested to build a series of five communities (one in each municipality), with a total of 250 units, to create a coordinated, Region-wide pathway out of homelessness. 2.2 After over an hour of discussion, Regional Councillor Joanne Dies brought forward three motions to Committee of the Whole: i. That the Committee of the Whole recommend to Regional Council that the transitional housing model presented by DRNPHC and Two Steps Home be endorsed in principle as an important addition to the Region of Durham’s housing continuum. ii. That Regional staff be directed to work with the Local Area Municipalities, DRNPHC, Two Steps Home, and Developers to identify an appropriate site and proceed with the next steps required to advance a transitional housing pilot project with the goal of opening the project in 2026. iii. That Regional staff be directed to work with DRNPHC and Two Steps Home to: a. develop an operational model for the pilot that leverages existing resources and community partnerships; b. identify and pursue all opportunities for capital and operating funding to support implementation; and c. establish evaluation criteria and reporting mechanisms to measure progress and outcomes, with an update to Regional Council prior to the pilot opening. Page 44 – 15 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service 2.3 All three of the above motions were unanimously supported (28-0) by Committee of the Whole attendees, and DRNPHC & 2SH have been working to search for land for the pilot site and further develop the model since this time. 2.4 Additionally, the Region has committed to funding the first year of operations for the pilot community, at a cost of approximately $2.2M. Site search & selection 2.5 Over the last three months, DRNPHC & 2SH have engaged with the Region and local municipalities to find Regionally-owned, municipally-owned, or privately-owned land for this project. Our requirements for land included: i. 0.75 acres or larger ii. the opportunity to use the site for the Cabin Community for a period of 3-5 years iii. site servicing, or the ability to bring water to site and remove wastewater appropriately iv. proximity to a local transit route 2.6 Despite a three-month search, the Region did not identify any Regionally-owned sites that is not on a flood plain and will remain vacant and undeveloped for the next 2-3 years, nor did any municipality. To create a pathway out of homelessness, a privately- owned site is currently the preference of the Region and municipalities. 2.7 Private landowner Ledim Developments has brought forward for interim use their site at 2009 Maple Grove Road, across from the Durham Regional Police Services East Division Headquarters, in Bowmanville. The site is 1.7 acres, close to Highway 2 and on the 902 bus line, and has one existing unoccupied structure that may be suitable for retrofit and use as the Communal Facility space. Reference Appendix 1. 2.8 Ledim Developments has agreed to temporarily lease the land to DRNPHC for a nominal fee for the next three years to pilot this model. At the end of this period, further discussions will take place as to how long the community will continue to exist on the land, with the intention to eventually develop the site for permanent housing. 2. The site currently runs on a well and septic system, which is not yet sufficient for the number of residents the community will host. To move forward, we need funding and approvals to truck water to and from the site until permanent water and wastewater infrastructure can be installed by the Region. Site & building plan 2.9 A schematic site plan is attached (Figure 1). The site layout is designed to build a sense of community among residents, with a multi-axis layout mimicking suburban cul-de-sacs. Units are spaced to ensure necessary fire separations are maintained. Page 45 – 16 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Of note, to promote the healing nature of the space and maintain the character of the existing neighbourhood, the site plan has been developed to maintain as many trees as possible on the property. When a construction plan is produced, this goal will be maintained. 2.10 The plan calls for 50 stick-frame cabins, each 8’x12’ in size, arranged in rows. The existing house on site may be modified to become the primary communal facility, including renovations for a commercial kitchen, laundry machines, case management offices, a large dining room, and washrooms. An additional modular multi-washroom unit will be installed on site to supplement the services in the existing house, placed in accordance with necessary setbacks while requiring minimal underground trenching within the boundary of the site for the eventual connection to water and wastewater. The pool will be filled in and turned into a community garden for residents. 2.11 The site will feature an aesthetically pleasing fence to maintain the privacy of the Micro-Modular Transitional Housing residents, and ensure their security. Other work to date 2.12 2SH has been working with WW+P Architects (formerly SvN Architects + Planners) to design the modular cabins and communal facility, with input both local shelter and housing operators as well as tiny home community operators throughout southern Ontario. WW+P created a set of Issue-For-Construction documents for the Cabins and Communal Facility, compliant to all relevant codes (OBC, NEBC, etc). A typical site plan with fire separations, vehicular access requirements, and site components was also drawn and is attached (Figure 1), with construction plans to be created upon the successful confirmation of a site. 2.13 Social purpose builder Building Up has been engaged as General Contractor, to build & deliver the modular community. Building Up is a social enterprise providing skills training to a workforce of over 60 people at risk of homelessness and helping them develop careers in construction. They are offering Is offering to train and employ residents of the micro-modular transitional housing community when they’re ready to enter workforce. 2.14 DRNPHC & 2SH have raised $2M towards the capital costs of this project, through private philanthropic and non-profit donations. Costs & budget 2.15 SHS Consulting was engaged to prepare a comprehensive project proforma, including capital and operating costs. 2.16 The pilot project is projected to cost $6.3M to build, including all hard and soft costs but excluding underground connections to water and wastewater. Importantly, at the end of the pilot site’s 3-5 year use as Micro-Modular Transitional Housing, the modular cabins and communal facility can be relocated to another site to continue the Page 46 – 17 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service project, amortizing the capital costs over a period of time longer than the length of tenure on this site. 2.17 The project will cost $1.7-$2.2M per year to operate, including all staffing, land leasing, food, and social services costs, but excluding the cost of trucking water to and from the site before underground connections can be made. Cabin Communities offer significant cost savings compared to other homelessness solutions. For someone living unsheltered, a month in hospital costs $60,000, a month in jail costs $15,000, and living in a tent encampment creates a burden on parks, police, and local businesses. By contrast, a spot in a Cabin Community will cost just $3,700 per resident per month. By taking pressure off hospitals and other critical infrastructure, the community will help ensure existing healthcare and hospital funding be used more effectively, potentially saving millions of dollars annually in taxpayer dollars. 2.18 In addition to the operating costs described above, we have estimated the cost of bringing water to site for the first year to be approximately $350,000. This includes the costs of renting water and wastewater containers, and hiring a private company to truck water to the site and wastewater from the site for 50 residents and 5 staff at a time. 2.19 We are working with the Region of Durham and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to ensure all necessary approvals for water tank sizes on the site. 2.20 In addition to the capital costs described above, we have estimated the cost of bringing underground servicing to the site to be at minimum $400,000, including building a force main & pumping station and running lines to the site from the main. The Region of Durham has advised that they cannot bring these services to the site until later in 2027. 3 Request to the Municipality 3.1 DRNPHC & 2SH are requesting $350,000 from the Municipality of Clarington’s Build Faster Funding to support bringing water to 2009 Maple Grove Road for the first year of this project, to allow us to move forward with this site and launch a pilot Micro- Shelter Transitional Housing project ahead of the Region making underground connections. 3.2 Given the temporary nature of this community, DRNPHC & 2SH are requesting expedited planning approvals and support from Clarington for the Micro-Modular Transitional Housing at 2009 Maple Grove Road, including any necessary Site Plan Approvals and Zoning Bylaw Amendments. We are also requesting Clarington to waive all fees and permit costs associated with this project, due to the nature of the project helping to end homelessness within the community. Page 47 – 18 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service 4 Strategic Plan 4.1 This project is directly in alignment with the Clarington Strategic Plan Connect Priority C.2.2: “Support and invest in the creation of housing to meet the needs of the community”. With over 100 actively homeless people in Clarington alone, this is a subset of the population who need a targeted housing approach to meet their needs, improve their circumstances, and help end homelessness within the municipality. 5 Climate Change • Small-footprint modular construction reduces material use • Relocatable structures minimize long-term land impact • Tree preservation prioritized in site design • Reduced strain on emergency services lowers broader environmental impacts 6 Concurrence 6.1 Not applicable. 7 Conclusion 7.1 We respectfully request that Council approve these requests, and support Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation and Two Steps Home in delivering Micro- Modular Transitional Housing at 2009 Maple Grove Road by: i. supporting $355,000 in operational costs of trucking water to the site until permanent servicing is installed by the Region for this project ii. supporting expedited planning approvals and fee & permitting waivers for this project iii. Waive application fees for required Minor Site Plan Applications and all other required amendments and applications. iv. Support expedited planning approvals and fee and permitting waivers. v. Provide financial support in the amount of $355,000 as identified in this report to aid with infrastructure needs including costs of trucking water to the site until permanent servicing is installed by the Region for this project Contact Information Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation Tracy Greig Chief Executive Officer Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation 905-436-6610 x212, Cell 289-685-3195 tracy.greig@durham-housing.com www.durham-housing Two Steps Home Sheila Penny, Director, Robert Raynor, Advisor www.twostepshome.com Page 48 – 19 – Celebrating More Than 30 Years of Service Page 49 MICRO MODULAR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING CABIN COMMUNITIES CLARINGTON PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE | MAY 11, 2026Page 50 WHO IS DRNPHC? ▪40+ Years ▪Affordable rental housing provider ▪1,200+ rental units ▪Mix of deeply affordable units ▪50% RGI ▪50% Low market rent ▪Provide tenant engagement and complex tenant issues supports ▪Added 200+ new units since 2018 Page 51 WHO IS TWO STEPS HOME? •Two Steps Home (2SH) is a nonprofit corporation founded to help resolve the unsheltered crisis in the Greater Toronto Area. •Founded in 2022 by John van Nostrand, the team includes architects, engineers, carpenters, former outreach workers, and retired public servants, with decades of collective experience working in affordable, supportive, and transitional housing. •Working in partnership with DRNPHC to bring a cabin community to Durham Region Page 52 HOUSING IS FOUNDATIONAL FOR EVERYONE ▪Need is great for all types of housing ▪Housing waitlists out of control ▪Homeless population growing exponentially ▪Financial drain on the public purse for those in need of housing and services is increasing ▪Funding streams and requirements for non-profits to add new housing is challenging and changing ▪Political climate difficult Page 53 ▪1,665 homeless folks in Durham, growing exponentially, > 100 in Clarington ▪Shelters are frequently at full capacity, leading to the continued presence of encampments ▪Homelessness is the most expensive way to “house” people: o Emergency room visits & hospital stays o Police & justice system involvement o Emergency shelters o Encampment management & by-law enforcement o Crisis mental health & addiction services Harwood & Achilles, Ajax HOUSING & HOMELESSNESS IN DURHAM REGION AND WE WENT THROUGH ANOTHER WINTER –WITHOUT A SOLUTION -AGAIN! •Hypothermia •Frostbite •Frozen bodies •Death Page 54 BY THE NUMBERS Table 2. Low, Moderate and High-Acuity Users —Public Cost Estimates Profile Cost (inflation-adjusted to 2026) / Year Service Notes / Unit Driver Low Acuity Moderate Acuity High Acuity Source / Notes Shelter¹Nightly shelter rate × nights/month × 12 $5,220 $15,660 $26,100 Housing First: The Pathway to Recovery Ambulance²Cost per EMS transport × annual transports $960 $1,440 $2,400 Ambulance Services, n.d; Norman et al. 2016 Ontario Hospital Inpatient Services³ (Hospital = Lakeridge Health, Durham Region) Cost per inpatient day × annual days $1,539 $26,163 $50,787 2025/26 Ontario Hospital Interprovincial per Diem Rates for Inpatient Services Effective April 1, 2025; Russolillo et al., 2016 Emergency Department Visit⁴˒⁵Cost per ED visit × annual visits $844 $17,302 $34,604 Whole of Community System Response to Health and Homelessness: Evaluation Report (2022– 2025); Chambers et al. 2013 Police Services (i.e., detention in police cells)⁶ Cost per detention day × annual days -$9,390 $18,780 Draaisma 2025; Mental Health Commision of Canada Incarceration and civil proceedings⁷Cost per case -$510 $1,019 Aditions and Mental Health Ontario; Civil Court Fees Additional collective costs (incarceration, judicial system, charitable supports)⁸ Aggregate system costs -$37,150 $74,299 Whole of Community System Response to Health and Homelessness: Evaluation Report (2022–2025) TOTAL $8,563 $107,615 $207,989 Note: Costs are mostly based on Table 1 and annualized using plausible use frequencies. All costs were inflation -adjusted to 2026 dollars using the Bank of Canada inflation calculator: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/. Sofia Panasiuk, Lead, Research, Doctorial Studies, University of Toronto, Psychology Department Page 55 BY THE NUMBERS Homeless Person Cost Per Year Low Acuity Medium Acuity High Acuity $8,563 $107,615 $207,989 Durham Region 1,665 14,257,395$ 179,178,975$ 346,301,685$ Ajax 330 2,825,790$ 35,512,950$ 68,636,370$ Area # Homeless Persons March 2026 Service Low Acuity Moderate Acuity High Acuity Additional collective costs (incarceration, judicial system, charitable supports)⁸ -$37,150 $74,299 Ontario Hospital Inpatient Services³ (Hospital = Lakeridge Health, Durham Region) $1,539 $26,163 $50,787 Emergency Department Visit⁴˒⁵ $844 $17,302 $34,604 Shelter¹$5,220 $15,660 $26,100 Police Services (i.e., detention in police cells)⁶ -$9,390 $18,780 Ambulance²$960 $1,440 $2,400 Incarceration and civil proceedings⁷ -$510 $1,019 Total $8,563 $107,615 $207,989 Page 56 BY THE NUMBERS Micro Modular, Cabins Supportive Housing Cost Comparison Type of Housing Capital Cost Per Person Operating Cost Per Person Annually Total Micro Modular, Cabin, Tiny Home 129,923$ 44,000$ 173,923$ Supportive Housing 560,000$ 44,000$ 604,000$ Page 57 THE MISSING LINK – MICRO MODULAR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING CABIN COMMUNITIES THE MISSING LINK – MICRO MODULAR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING CABIN COMMUNITIES Micro Modular Transitional Housing -Cabin Communities fill a critical gap between the community found in encampments and the security of affordable housing. They link folks who don’t access the shelter system into the actual housing continuum. Without this, they are left out. They are a rapid, low -cost, transitional approach to the growing unsheltered crisis, alleviating encampments while helping people break the cycle of homelessness. Quick to build, portable, & 24-7 wrap -around supports. Page 58 THE MICRO MODULAR TRANISITIONAL CABIN COMMUNITY MODEL What’s included THE MICRO MODULAR TRANISITIONAL CABIN COMMUNITY MODEL What’s included 0.75a of vacant land •future development sites •municipal/regional sites •faith organization-owned sites 50 Resident cabins •96 square feet each •lockable steel doors •ventilation & natural light •electric heating & AC •OBC compliant •flatbed & forklift-ready •easily relocatable Communal Facilities •washrooms & showers •laundry machines •kitchen & dining •wrap-around support & health spaces •community space •TV and living area ++ 24/7 services Meal programs, wound care, health clinics, education, ID assistance, housing case work, mental health support + Page 59 Prototype unit built on wheels to travel Prototype unit built on wheels to travel Page 60 PILOT SITE | 2009 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville ▪Owned by Ledim Developments ▪Lease $1/month, 3-5 yr window Page 61 PILOT SITE | 2009 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville Page 62 PILOT SITE | Common Facilities Page 63 PILOT SITE | The Cabin Page 64 Modular Bridge Housing Elizabeth Fry Society of Peterborough Ontario WHO HAS SEEN SUCCESS WITH THIS MODEL A proven concept across Canada WHO HAS SEEN SUCCESS WITH THIS MODEL A proven concept across Canada CBRM Pallet Shelter Village Allied Centre of Cape Breton Nova Scotia STEP Place John Howard Society of Kelowna & BC Housing British Columbia Page 65 ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY SUCCESSES ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY SUCCESSES Operating since November 2023 •50 modular units + community building for services •24/7 crisis support on -site, daily meal program, housing case work, & on -site medical •Replaced existing encampment •Approved & delivered in 8 months •90% reduction in emergency service calls to the area •Filled to capacity with two -week turnover of units •Y1 = 30 residents housed permanently, 11 moved to transitional housing units, 2 with employment Page 66 CLARINGTON SUPPORT REQESTED NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the following financial support be provided to support the proposed Micro Modular Transitional Housing Cabin Community: 1.Waive application fees for required Minor Site Plan Applications and all other required amendments and applications (Up to $5,000). 2.Support expedited planning approvals and fee and permitting waivers. 3.Provide financial support in the amount of $355,000 to aid with infrastructure needs. THAT the financial support be funded from Clarington’s 2024 Build Faster Fund, as approved by the Province of Ontario and, THAT a copy of this resolution be forward to the Board of Directors of the DRNPHC for their information. Municipality of Clarington Planning and Development Committee Meeting Resolution WHEREAS the Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation (DRNPHC) provides essential housing, and community support to all residents of Durham Region, and specifically in the Municipality of Clarington; WHEREAS DRNPHC currently owns and manages a portfolio of more than 1,200 affordable rental units , with 66 townhouse units located at 41 Freeland Drive Bowmanville and 60 townhouse units located at 94 Concession Street, Bowmanville, of which half are rent-geared-to income rentals and half are low affordable rental units at or below 80% of the CMHC Average Market Rent; WHEREAS DRNPHC has identified a need for financial support to help offset upfront and ongoing infrastructure costs associated with advancing a Micro Modular Transitional Housing Cabin Community located at 2009 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville to serve the unhoused population by providing 50 modular, heated, lockable private units and a communal facility with a kitchen, washrooms, showers, laundry and services areas and 24-7 wrap around supports; WHEREAS the required infrastructure support is essential to implement the Micro Modular Transitional Housing Cabin Community as immediate connection to in-ground infrastructure is not available in conjunction with Durham Region until 2027/8, and will help unhoused folks move out of encampments and street corners to secure dignified private units to regain their health and stability in preparation to move into more permanent housing; WHEREAS increasing the supply of affordable housing aligns with Council’s policies, Strategic Plan objective to support and invest in the creation of housing to meet the needs of the community.; WHEREAS Regional Council Committee of the Whole on January 14, 2026 passed unanimously in a recorded vote that supported, in principle, the proposed project, •$355,000 FROM THE BUILD FASTER FUND •WAIVE APPLICATION FEES •SUPPORT EXPEDITED PLANNING APPROVALS •Referencing Letter to the Clarington Planning and Development Committee, May 11, 2026, from Durham Region Non-Profit Housing CorporationPage 67 THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Durham Region Non -Profit Housing Corporation Tracy Greig, CEO tracy.greig@durham-housing.com 905-436-6610 x212 https://durham-housing.com/ Two Steps Home Sheila Penny, Director & Treasurer Robert Rayner, Advisor sheila.ina.penny@gmail.com robert@betterstreet.ca Page 68 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Guetter Date:May 4, 2026 1:36:09 PM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Item 6.3- Soper Hills Secondary Plan Action requested of Council Support staff's recommendation: Approving the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Date of meeting 5/11/2026 Summarize your delegation Delegation in support of Soper Hills Secondary plan Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Darryl Lyons, Lisa Backus, Emily Corsi, Keith Marshall Report number (if known) PDS-036-26 Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person Do you require any accessibility accommodations in order to participate in the meeting? No First name: Ryan Page 69 Single/Last name Guetter Firm/Organization (if applicable) Weston Consulting Job title (if applicable) President Address Town/Hamlet Vaughan Postal code Email address: Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? Yes Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. No I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 70 Page 1 of 2 Community Planning Department Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 May 6, 2026 File 9022 Attn: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure RE: Agenda Item 6.3- Planning and Development Committee on May 11, 2026 Soper Hills Secondary Plan Municipality of Clarington, Ontario Weston Consulting is the authorized planning consultant for the Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) Landowners Group Inc. (herein referred to as the “LOG”), the owners of lands within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Study Area (the “Secondary Plan Area”), and has been assisting the LOG throughout the Secondary Plan process since its inception. The land ownership within the LOG is illustrated in Appendix A, identifying the participating landowners. The LOG and its consultants have worked collaboratively with Municipality of Clarington staff throughout the Secondary Plan process and have reviewed Staff Report PDS-036-26 and its associated attachments. Following this review, and through continued collaboration with the landowners, the LOG wishes to express its support for Staff Report PDS-036-26, its recommendations and the associated materials, which are being considered at the May 11th meeting of Clarington’s Planning and Development Committee. The Secondary Plan Area is well-suited to accommodate future growth and the proposed land use plan provides an appropriate distribution of community uses across the area and reflects a well-planned community. On behalf of the LOG, we wish to express our appreciation for the work that Clarington Staff and their consultant team have undertaken to advance the Soper Hills Secondary Plan to this stage, and we reiterate our support for the Secondary Plan and its approval. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned (ext. 241) or Hanieh Alyassin (ext. 337). We respectfully request that this letter be circulated to members of the Planning and Development Committee. Yours truly, Weston Consulting Per: Ryan Guetter, BES, MCIP, RPP President Page 71 Page 2 of 2 c. Lisa Backus, Manager, Community Planning and Infrastructure Emily Corsi, Senior Planner, Community Planning Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) Landowners Group Inc. Daniel Steinberg, Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) Landowners Group Inc.Trustee, Loopstra Nixon LLP Keith Marshall, Planner II, Policy Planning, Municipality of Clarington June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Paul Lowes, Principal, SGL Shikha Jagwani, Senior Urban Design/Landscape Intern, SGL Appendix A – Secondary plan Area Landownership Map Page 72 CONCESSION ST E LAM BS RD HWY 2 LEGEND Planner: Date Drawn: Drawn By: Scale: CAD FILE: File No:9022 SM/ZW RG see scale bar REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON CONCESSION STREET EAST & LAMBS ROAD PROVIDENCE RD BREAGG RD the Environmental Protection designation. - The developable area is based on current extent of Bowmanville Urban Area, June 2018 consolidation. - Environmental Protection features digitized survey. mapping, save for Lot 6 area referenced from - Lot lines are approximate based on available Date of photography: 2019 - Air Photograph from First Base Solutions Inc. Notes: PARTICIPATING LANDOWNERS NON-PARTICIPATING LANDOWNERS BOWMANVILLE EAST SECONDARY PLAN AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION BOWMANVILLE EAST OWNERSHIP MAP 1A 2 3 ADDRESS Medallion Developments (Bowmanville I) Limited 5 Lambs Road Developmends Ltd. 4 Medallion Developments (Bowmanville II) Limited 2875 Concession St E 2273 Lambs Rd # 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 7 32 33 35 36 37 (ha.) AREA (ac.) AREA 34.07 84.19 9.07 0.19 0.48 0.17 0.43 0.24 0.60 0.17 0.42 0.17 0.42 0.14 0.35 0.14 0.35 0.15 0.37 0.22 0.55 0.23 0.57 0.24 0.60 0.13 0.32 0.21 0.51 1.70 4.21 0.52 1.29 0.54 1.33 0.55 1.35 0.55 1.36 0.52 1.29 1.01 2.50 0.89 2.19 3.02 7.46 0.55 1.36 2.00 4.95 0.84 2.07 0.67 1.66 7.08 0.66 1.62 6.67 0.41 1.00 0.41 1.01 0.38 0.93 22.40 2946 Hwy 2 2942 Hwy 2 2938 Hwy 2 2936 Hwy 2 2934 Hwy 2 2932 Hwy 2 2928 Hwy 2 2924 Hwy 2 2920 Hwy 2 2916 Hwy 2 2912 Hwy 2 2910 Hwy 2 2906 Hwy 2 2896 Hwy 2 2892 Hwy 2 2886 Hwy 2 2882 Hwy 2 2878 Hwy 2 2870 Hwy 2 1351 Lambs Rd 1415 Lambs Rd 1489 Lambs Rd 1555 Lambs Rd 1717 Lambs Rd 2930 Hwy 2 1769 Lambs Rd 2903 Concession St E 2887 Concession St E 2828 Concession St E Lambs Road School Property Ltd. 2023743 Ontario Ltd.; Marchetti, Catherine Blundell, Michael Bruce; Blundell, Mary Elizabeth Baseline Properties Ltd. (Courtice) Mostert, Richard; Bonsma, Loretta Rigby, Cheryl Lynn; Rigby, Mark Young, Barbara Ann; McKay, Kris Stacey Ormiston, Murray Ralph; Ormiston, Donna Denise Allen, Wayne Clair; Dawson, Nelda Roxanne Hoekstra, Peter; Hoekstra, Leemore Harmer, Dean; Bannon, Stacey Blanchard, Linda Anne; Blanchard, Donald 32.98 81.49 12.20 30.14 39.53 97.67 17.50 16.48 9022/concepts/ownership map.dgn 6 34 SCALE 0 100m 71.1228.781B 31 2025-06-18 Soper Hills Holding Inc. Lambs Road Holdings Inc. 1062609 ONTARIO Inc. 1062609 ONTARIO Inc. Laurich, Stephen Jopling, Brenda Ann Camenzull, Elizabeth Arlene Ayre, Wendy Elizabeth Thompson, Robert Douglas Gray, Ruth Ellen Murphy, Garry Albert Cameron, Christopher Michael Mayer Gemma; Dutra, Frank Holz, Brigitte; Holz, Klaus Muraki, Wallace Douglas Chafe, Linda Louise 1 1 PENDING FINAL ASSUMPTIONS AGREEMENT MacDonald, Gail Ann; MacDonald, Charles Bruce Adventist Church Ontario Conference Corporation of Seventh Day Anger, Roy Andrew; Reynolds, Cynthia Elizabeth Anger, Rose Aileen; Stapleton, Edith Catherine; Sinclair Witvoet, Rhonda Lynn; Vandermeer, Arnold Martha Paterson, Keith Enoch; Paterson, Diane Lynda Maria MacArthur, Brian Sidney; MacArthur, Alexandra Corrina Flonk, Adrian Christopher Gerald; Flonk, Angela 8910111213141516171819 212223242526 27 28 4 4 29 1B 3 31 32 33 34 2 3 36 35 5 1A 37 6 7 20 30 Page 73 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Payne Date:May 5, 2026 11:01:22 PM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Objection to Notice of Intention to Designate; 38 Second Street, Bowmanville Action requested of Council Remove 38 Second St from Historical Designation List Date of meeting 5/11/2026 Summarize your delegation The municipality has been gaslighting us ever since we first tried to make contact in regard to some errors in our home's description. Most recently, by misrepresenting our concerns in report PDS-042- 26. We do not have faith in the municipality. We would like 38 Second St removed from the Heritage Designation because we do not believe that it is in our best interest as homeowners for our home to be on it. Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Alicia da Silva, Sarah Allin Report number (if known) PDS-042-26 Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person Do you require any accessibility accommodations in order to participate in the meeting? No Page 74 First name: Leslie Single/Last name Payne Address Town/Hamlet Bowmanville Postal code Email address: Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? No Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. No I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 75 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Fischer Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 10:31:05 AM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Clarington Growth Management Strategy Action requested of Council To receive for information Date of meeting 5/11/2026 Summarize your delegation To provide an overview of the Growth Management Strategy Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Sarah Allin Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person First name: Adam Single/Last name Fischer Firm/Organization (if applicable) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Job title (if applicable) Manager Page 76 Address Town/Hamlet Mississauga Postal code Email address: Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? No Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. Yes I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 77 From:no-reply@clarington.net To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:New Delegation Request from Rappolt Date:Friday, April 24, 2026 8:51:18 AM EXTERNAL A new delegation request has been submitted online. Below are the responses provided: Subject Municipality of Clarington Growth Management Study - Consultant Update Action requested of Council Information Purposes Date of meeting 5/11/2026 Summarize your delegation A brief presentation from Watson & Associated Economists and WSP Canada Inc. to provide information on the Growth Management Study Have you been in contact with staff or a member of Council regarding your matter of interest? Yes Name of the staff member or Councillor. Sarah Allin Will you be attending this meeting in person or online? In person Do you require any accessibility accommodations in order to participate in the meeting? No First name: Robert Single/Last name Rappolt Page 78 Firm/Organization (if applicable) WSP Canada Inc. Job title (if applicable) Urban Planner Address Town/Hamlet Kitchener Postal code Email address: Phone number Do you plan to submit correspondence related to this matter? No Do you plan to submit an electronic presentation (i.e. PowerPoint)? If yes, the file must be submitted to the Municipal Clerk’s Department by 2 p.m. on the Friday prior to the meeting date. Yes I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law Permits seven minutes for delegations and five minutes for Public Meeting participants. Yes [This is an automated email notification -- please do not respond] Page 79 Study Introduction and Overview Planning and Development Committee May 11, 2026 Page 80 Project Team Page 81 Consultant Team Members Adam Fischer Manager, Planning and Land Economics Robert Rappolt Manager, Urban and Community Planning Municipal Project Team Members Lisa Backus Manager, Community Planning lbackus@clarington.net Sarah Allin Principal Planner sallin@clarington.net Brayden Siersma Economic Development Officer bsiersma@clarington.net Paul Pirri Director of Economic Development ppirri@clarington.net Page 82 Presentation Overview •Official Plan Review and Growth Management •Growth Management Study •Key Aspects •Process •Key Deliverables •Policy Context •Clarington’s Growth Context and Preliminary Growth Management Considerations •Next Steps Page 83 Project Introduction and Overview Page 84 Official Plan Review and Growth Management Phase 5: Final Official Plan, Council Adoption Phase 4:Draft Official Plan Phase 3: Policy Directions and Recommend-ations Phase 2: Technical Studies and Topic Discussion Papers Phase 1: Visioning and Information Gathering The Growth Management Study is a key component of the Official Plan Review Page 85 Key Aspects of what the Growth Management Study will do: Establish Growth Forecasts Assess Residential Land Needs Review Employment Land Requirements Support Economic Development Inform Land Use Designations & Phasing Assess Growth and Infrastructure Provide Policy Direction The Study provides the technical and strategic foundation that informs future Official Plan policies, land use designations, and long-term growth management direction Page 86 Growth Management Study Process Pre-Phase / Study Start-up Phase 1 Background Review and Analysis Phase 2 Technical Studies: Land Needs, Employment, Intensification Phase 3 Strategic and Policy Recommendations Phase 4 Scenarios, Phasing, Growth Management Report, Council Endorsement Community Engagement We are here Q4 2025-Q2 2026 Q3, Q4 2026 Q1 2027 Q2, Q3 2027 Page 87 Growth Management Study - Key Deliverables 9 2006 to 2021 Growth Rate: 1.4% Land Needs Assessment (L.N.A.) Assesses population and employment growth to 2056. Identifies how much is needed by 2056 to accommodate homes and businesses. Intensification Strategy Assesses how much and what type of growth can be accommodated within the existing ‘Delineated Built Boundaries’ of the Municipality (known as intensification). Employment Land Strategy (E.L.S.) Evaluates the supply and demand for employment lands. Supports job growth, economic competitiveness, and long-term employment land planning. Scenarios, Phasing, Growth Management Report Provides a plan to support growth to 2056 that considers forecast demand, community planning, servicing capacity, and infrastructure availability. Page 88 Policy Context Page 89 Provincial Policy Framework 11 Provincial Policy and Plans Evolving Land Use Planning Framework Page 90 Regional and Local Framework 12 Local Plans and Policy Complementary Initiatives Page 91 Land Use Policy Framework – Key Considerations 13 1.Evolving provincial policy framework 2.Settlement Area Boundary Expansions 3.Removal of Durham Region’s planning responsibilities 4.Changes to Employment Area planning (e.g., definition, policies, etc.) 5.Continued protection of Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan lands from incompatible development 6.Relationship to complimentary initiatives (e.g., Transportation Master Plan) Page 92 Clarington’s Growth Context 14Page 93 Ministry of Finance Population Forecasts for Durham Region 15 M.O.F.Growth Rate 2021-2046: 2021: 1.1% 2022: 0.8% 2023: 1.6% 2024: 1.4% 2025: 1.3% 2006 to 2021 Growth Rate: 1.4% Durham MoF Spring 2021 Durham MoF Summer 2022 Durham MoF Summer 2023 Durham MoF Fall 2024 Durham MoF Summer 2025 Ministry of Finance projections are all lower than the Growth Plan/Envision Durham Page 94 Envision Durham: Clarington Population Growth Forecast 16 Historical 1.8% Forecast 2.5% Annual Growth Rates Clarington is forecast to grow at a significantly faster pace than historically observed. Page 95 Historical Residential Building Permit Activity Historical Permit Activity (2016 – 2025) 650 Forecast Annual Housing Growth (Envision Durham: 2026 – 2051) 1,490Development has slowed considerably in 2024 and 2025 Page 96 Envision Durham: Clarington Employment Growth Forecast 18 Note: Activity Rate is defined as the ratio of jobs within the municipality compared to the population Page 97 Envision Durham: Clarington Land Needs 19 Urban Expansion Areas Community Area Land Need 845 ha Employment Area Land Need 490 ha Total urban expansion areas designated under Envision Durham 1,335 Gross ha Page 98 Clarington’s Growth Context– Key Considerations 20 1.Ministry of Finance Projections reflect a lower growth outlook for the Region compared to the Growth Plan and Envision Durham. 2.The growth forecast for Clarington represents a considerable increase in growth compared to historical trends. 3.Recent 2024/2025 building activity in the Municipality has slowed compared to the previous decade. Over the 30-year forecast, it is expected to rebound. 4.The Study will evaluate the metrics utilized through Envision Durham to evaluate the amount and timing of urban expansion. Page 99 Next Steps 21Page 100 Next Steps 22 •Virtual Public Information Centre in June 2026 •Q3/4 2026, prepare draft technical reports: Land Needs Assessment, Intensification Strategy, and Employment Lands Strategy •Q1 2027, undertake public engagement and Councillor Interviews on draft technical reports •Q2 2027, report to Council with Final Reports Page 101 Thank you Visit www.clarington.net/OPReview for project updates Or Email comments to OPReview@clarington.net 23Page 102 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: FSD-020-26 Authored By: Planning and Infrastructure Services Staff Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, Finance and Technology Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: Report Subject: Building Faster Fund Update Recommendations: 1. That Report FSD-020-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That the projects identified in Report FSD-020-26 be approved pending Province of Ontario approval of the required 2026 investment plan; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-020-26, be advised of Council’s decision. Page 103 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report FSD-020-26 Report Overview are seeking Council’s endorsement of the projects to 1. Background 1.1 The Municipality received funding from the Build Faster Fund (BFF) in the amount of $2,877,680 for achievement of its 2024 housing target. These funds were confirmed in November 2025 and the Municipality has until 2028 to utilize the funds. 1.2 Each year the Municipality must provide an investment plan to ensure that the projects utilizing the BFF are eligible and approved by the Province of Ontario. 1.3 The Province required an initial investment plan in 2025 recognizing that it was late in the year and advised Staff that projects could be added, or removed as part of the 2026 investment plan. Staff provided some projects to determine the potential range of eligibility and the Province approved use of the funding for the Courtice Shores Drive and CN Rail Grade Crossing, Former Newcastle Firehall Land Remediation , and the use of funds for any Development Charge eligible project that supported increasing the supply of housing. Eligible Expenditures 1.4 Capital expenditures on housing-enabling core infrastructure and site servicing to accommodate future residential development. This may also include capital maintenance for renewal, rehabilitation and replacement of core infrastructure to preserve existing housing supply or site servicing/preparation costs for the direct creation of more housing. 1.5 Operating or capital expenditures that support the creation of net new affordable housing. Expenditures must have a net new effect on affordable housing stock. 1.6 Operating or capital expenditures that support the creation of new attainable ownership housing, including through modular construction. Page 104 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report FSD-020-26 1.7 Capital expenditures for homelessness services centers. This could be either shelter space or municipal homelessness service hubs. 2. Proposed Projects Courtice Shores Drive and CN Rail Grade Crossing 2.1 Through report PSD-002-26 Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan Recommendation Report, Council provided approval for the use of $500,000 for the environmental assessment to determine transportation improvements that may be required to facilitate access to the Courtice Waterfront Park and to unlock housing in the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan. 2.2 Safe, unobstructed, secondary emergency access for the development lands is needed, particularly as access is restricted via the waterfront and the limited existing surrounding road network. 2.3 To ensure this secondary emergency access, Staff have undertaken a technical feasibility assessment of modifying (lowering) Courtice Shores Drive through the CN underpass to achieve required access clearance requirements for emergency vehicles to the Courtice Waterfront Secondary Plan area. The assessment demonstrated that the modification is feasible with a reduced total project cost and time to completion compared to the implementation of a new grade separated crossing over the CN corridor. 2.4 Staff are requesting that an additional $500,000 be allocated to this project, for a total allocation of $1,000,000. This would allow for the immediate advancement of the project and retention of consultants to complete all required studies, stakeholder engagement, and detailed design to advance the project to a tender -ready stage. An allocation of $1,000,000 positions the project for the most efficient execution and ensures continuous progress. 2.5 This project had been provided to the Province as part of the 2025 initial investment. The project was approved for $500,000, and the additional requested allocation, if approved by Council, would be included as part of the upcoming 2026 Investment Plan. Former Newcastle Firehall Land Remediation 2.6 This project proposes remediation of the vacant former Newcastle Firehall lands located at 247 King Avenue East to prepare the land for disposition to enable housing on the site that supports Clarington’s housing target and regeneration of these lands . Previous environmental investigation determined that past uses of the property have led to contamination of the underlying soils and have made the property unsuitable for sensitive land uses. Page 105 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report FSD-020-26 2.7 To prepare the property for future development the contaminants / contaminated soils will need to be removed from the property and properly disposed. Costs and risks associated with site remediation are generally prohibitive for developments. Utilization of BFF funding up to $1,000,000 would allow for immediate advancement of the required environmental studies, development of a remediation plan, and construction to ready the site for disposition and development, therefore unlocking new housing opportunities in Newcastle 2.8 Recent public-realm improvements in Newcastle, including enhanced streetscape design, upgraded pedestrian connections, and investments that have strengthened the walkability and vibrancy of the village core, further position this site as a strong candidate for new housing units. The property’s central location, proximity to amenities, and integration with an increasingly walkable main street environment make it well-suited for residential intensification. Bringing this site forward for redevelopment would contribute meaningfully to achieving Clarington’s 13,000-unit housing pledge, while supporting growth in an area that is already benefiting from coordinated municipal investment. 2.9 To prepare the property for future development the contaminants / contaminated soils will need to be removed from the property and properly disposed. Costs and risks associated with site remediation are generally prohibitive for developments. Utilization of BFF funding up to $1,000,000 would allow for immediate advancement of the required environmental studies, development of a remediation plan, and construction to ready the site for disposition and development, therefore unlocking new housing opportunities in Newcastle. 2.10 This project had been provided to the Province as part of the initial 2025 investment plan and was approved for use of the BFF funding. If approved by Council, this project would be carried forward into the 2026 Investment Plan. Durham County Seniors Citizen Lodge Expansion 2.11 The Durham County Senior Citizen Lodge (“the Lodge”), located within the Municipality of Clarington, is proposing a significant expansion of its facility. The Lodge currently has 41 one-storey residential units, a community centre, a garage and approximate 55 parking spaces. The proposed expansion would provide for an additional 58 single- bedroom units and an updated septic system which would support the new and existing units. 2.12 According to the Lodge, these units will be ‘affordable’ and provided at or below CMHC’s Average Market Rent (AMR). In Clarington, the latest CMHC AMR (2024) is a maximum of $1,563/month. This rent CMHC (AMR) is also slightly less than the $1,567/month for Clarington as produced in the Province of Ontario Affordable Residential Units for the Purposes of the Development Charges Act, 1997 Bulletin . Page 106 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report FSD-020-26 2.13 The proposed expansion would provide the Durham County Seniors Citizen Lodge with a total of 99 units, thus increasing the supply of affordable housing options in Clarington and supporting seniors aging within their community, close to established social networks, services, and supports. The project aligns with both municipal and regional priorities related to housing affordability and aging in place. Request for Municipal Support 2.14 The Lodge made a delegation at Planning and Development Committee on March 9, 2026 seeking financial assistance to advance the proposed development. The request sought waiving of the Planning Act application fees for a Zoning By-law amendment and Site Plan; waiving of the Building permit fees and a letter of funding intent, but did not have any specific amount. At a meeting held on March 23, 2026, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington approved the following Resolution #PD-031-26: “That the delegation by Ron Hooper, Lisa Roy, and Tim Welsh, Durham Senior Citizens Lodge regarding, a request to Waive Fees for the Non -Profit Seniors Intensification Housing Project, be received with thanks; That this project be referred to Staff to work through the logistics of the request and bring it back to Council; and That Clarington Council supports the project in principle.” 2.15 Through meetings between Staff and the Lodge it was confirmed that the Lodge is seeking approximately $105,000 for waiving of the planning fees for the required zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications and a grant-in lieu of the Building permit fee. 2.16 The Lodge is also requesting approximately $255,000 that is intended to help offset upfront development-related costs, including architectural and engineering consulting work, detailed septic design, and other technical studies required to move the project forward. This support would help reduce early-stage financial pressures and allow the Lodge to continue progress of the project. 2.17 The Building Faster Fund (BFF) could be used to support this initiative, as the proposed work includes infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate growth—specifically, the replacement of the existing septic system that must be completed before additional affordable units can be developed. Municipal support through the BFF would enhance the financial viability of the project and reinforce Clarington’s commitment to enabling new affordable housing options for vulnerable and fixed-income seniors. Page 107 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report FSD-020-26 Municipal Contribution 2.18 Staff are proposing that Council could support the allocation of $360,000 to assist with the expansion of the Durham County Senior Citizen Lodge in Orono that will increase the supply of affordable units and contribute to meeting Clarington’s provincial housing pledge of 13,000 units by 2031. 2.19 The requested funding would address key project needs, including: • Supporting architectural, engineering, septic design, and other technical work required to advance the project. • Reducing upfront development costs to improve the financial viability of the expansion. • Enabling the replacement and upgrading of the septic system, which is essential not only for accommodating the new units but also for maintaining the long-term viability of the existing 41 units. • Helping the Lodge leverage additional funding sources and advance a shovel-ready project that aligns with municipal housing priorities and provincial housing-supply targets. 2.20 Staff have contacted the Province regarding eligibility of this potential project under the BFF and have received a favourable response that it would meet the criteria for inclusion in the 2026 investment plan. Other Eligible DC Projects 2.21 Staff propose to use any remaining BFF funds for eligible DC projects from out-years that could be accelerated and prioritized earlier than originally planned. The strategy of using BFF funds for DC projects that could be brought forward had been provided to the Province as part of the initial 2025 investment plan and was approved for use of t he BFF funding. If approved by Council, these DC projects would be carried forward into the 2026 Investment Plan. 3. Financial Considerations 3.1 This report provides projects which are intended to utilize the BFF grant on eligible projects and help support housing development in Clarington. Unused funds must be returned to the Province of Ontario. Page 108 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report FSD-020-26 3.2 If these projects are approved for inclusion in the 2026 investment plan, utilization of the BFF grant funds will support increasing the supply of housing that provides benefits, including financially, to the community. This is a non-tax source of funding for these projects which will unlock housing opportunities and meet Council’s strategic priorities for development. 4. Strategic Plan 4.1 The utilization of the BFF funds supports Priority C.2.2: Support and invest in the creation of housing to meet the needs of the community. The recommended projects in this report are intended to directly contribute to increasing the supply of housing in Clarington and advancing the Municipality’s ability to meet the housing target assigned by the Province. By enabling remediation, preparation, and advancement of key development sites, the BFF funding helps remove barriers to construction and accelerates the delivery of new units. These projects form part of the Municipality’s broader strategy to support growth, facilitate development readiness, and ensure Clarington can achieve its provincially mandated housing commitments. 5. Climate Change Not Applicable. 6. Concurrence Not Applicable. 7. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the recommendations in this Staff report. Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA, Deputy CAO/Treasurer, tpinn@clarington.net Attachments: Not Applicable Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 109 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-029-26 Authored By: Tony Ricciardi, Manager, Construction and Inspections Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: SPA2024-0029 Report Subject: Extension of West Side Drive (South Bowmanville Recreation Complex) Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-027-26 and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That the draft By-law (Attachment 2) to PDS-027-26, be approved; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-027-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 110 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-029-26 Report Overview — — 1. Background 1.1 As part of the supporting infrastructure for the South Bowmanville Recreation Centre, the project includes the construction of a new road and intersection improvements (known as the extension of West Side Drive) at Baseline Road and Green Road, as shown in Attachment 1. 1.2 These works were undertaken to ensure safe and efficient access to the new recreation centre and adjacent municipal amenities. 1.3 Accordingly, the newly created roadway, known as West Side Drive, now requires formal dedication and assumption as a public highway in accordance with municipal practice. 2. Proposal 2.1 A by-law is required to permit the Municipality to dedicate the street illustrated as Part of Lot 15, Broken Front Concession, Parts 1-5 (inclusive), 40R-33216 and Part of Lot 16, Broken Front Concession, Parts 6-10 (Inclusive), 40R-33216, Municipality of Clarington, as public highway for permanent public use. These lands will be fully incorporated into the municipal road network. The draft by-law to give effect to this assumption and dedication is provided as Attachment 2 to this report. 3. Financial Considerations 3.1 Upon assumption, the Municipality of Clarington will be responsible for all repair, maintenance, and replacement obligations once all warranties expire. 3.2 Ongoing operational requirements, including winter control activities, will be incorporated into the Municipality’s annual operating budgets. 4. Strategic Plan 4.1 The construction of a new road and the upgraded intersection at Baseline Road and Green Road (known as the West Side Dr. extension) will provide critical transportation infrastructure needed to support safe, efficient access to the South Bowmanville Recreation Centre. This investment aligns with Clarington’s Strategic Plan commitments to maintain, protect, and invest in municipal infrastructure and assets and to ensure that services keep pace with a rapidly growing community. By improving connectivity and traffic flow in a high‑growth area, the roadway directly supports the municipality’s objective of delivering efficient, effective, and meaningful public services. Page 111 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-029-26 5. Climate Change Not Applicable. 6. Concurrence Not Applicable. 7. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that Council pass the by-law found as Attachment 2 to this report. Following its passage, the Municipal Solicitor will register it in the Land Registry Office. Staff Contact: Ben Courville, Bcourville@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Key Map Attachment 2 – By-law Report to PDS-027-26 Interested Parties: There are no Interested Parties Page 112 GR E E N R O A D MA R T I N R O A D ENERGY D R I V E HIGHWAY 4 0 1 BASELINE ROAD WE S T S I D E D R I V E RID G E C T OA D MI L L B U R N D R I V E GR E E N R O A D DODDS WOOLNER LANE SPICER SQUARE SQUARE BA N N I S T E R S T R E E T West Side Drive Extension DRAWN BY: . BOWMANVILLE KEY MAP Ma r t i n Ro a d Baseline Road DATE: FILE NAME: March 2026 E.L. J:\Engineering\Attachments\Attachments Post ESRI Upgrade\KeyMaps_Engineering\Subdivision Assumption Keymaps Gr e e n Ro a d WEST SIDE DRIVE EXTENSION Re g . R d . 5 7 South Bowmanville Recreation Complex Ma p l e G r o v e Ro a d BLAW TINRMAR Attachment 1 to Report PDS-029-26 SITE Page 113 Attachment 2 to Report PDS-029-26 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 2026- Being a by-law to establish certain lands as public highways WHEREAS the lands herein have been conveyed to The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for road widening purposes. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows: 1. The lands known as Part of Lot 15, Broken Front Concession, Parts 1-5 (inclusive), 40R-33216 and Part of Lot 16, Broken Front Concession, Parts 6-10 (Inclusive), 40R-33216, Municipality of Clarington are hereby dedicated and assumed as public highways; 2. This by-law shall come into effect on the date of passage. BY-LAW passed this day of , 2026. ___________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor ___________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 114 Municipality of Clarington Soper Hills Secondary Plan Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines May 2026 Attachment 1c to Report PDS-036-26 Page 115 1547 BLOOR STREET WESTTORONTO, ONM6P 1A5 *info@sglplanning.ca T (416) 923-6630 Planning& Design Inc. Page 116 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINES .......................................................................................... 5 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE GUIDELINES ..................................................................................... 6 1.3 INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................... 7 1.4 PLACEMAKING AND DESIGN EXCELLENCE ................................................................. 7 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 REGIONAL CORRIDOR .......................................................................................................... 12 2.2 LOCAL CORRIDOR / MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ......................................... 13 2.3 NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE .............................................................................................. 14 2.4 URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS ........................................................................................... 15 2.5 PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS .......................................................................................... 16 2.6 PARKS ......................................................................................................................................... 17 2.7 TRAILS ......................................................................................................................................... 18 3 STREETS AND BLOCKS ....................................................................................................... 19 4 BUILT ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 21 4.1 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL ...................................................................................................... 21 4.1.1 GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.1.2 SINGLE AND SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS ................................................. 22 4.1.3 TOWNHOUSES ............................................................................................................. 24 4.1.4 GARAGES AND DRIVEWAYS ................................................................................ 25 4.2 RESIDENTIAL MID-RISE and HIGH-RISE ....................................................................... 26 4.3 MID-RISE AND HIGH-RISE MIXED USE .......................................................................... 29 4.4 NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE .............................................................................................. 31 Page 117 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 2 4.4.1 BUILT FORM .................................................................................................................. 31 4.4.2 STREETS, STREETSCAPES AND MID-BLOCK CONNECTIONS ............... 31 4.4.3 PARKING LOTS ............................................................................................................. 32 4.5 PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS .......................................................................................... 33 4.6 INSTITUTIONAL BUIDLINGS - SCHOOLS ...................................................................... 34 5 MOBILITY .................................................................................................................................. 36 5.1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... 36 5.1.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES ............................................................................................. 36 5.1.2 TRAILS ............................................................................................................................. 37 5.1.3 CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 38 5.2 TRANSIT ..................................................................................................................................... 38 5.3 ROAD TYPOLOGIES AND CROSS SECTIONS ............................................................. 39 5.3.1 STREETSCAPE ELEMENTS ..................................................................................... 40 5.3.2 SIDEWALKS ................................................................................................................... 40 5.3.3 STREET TREES AND PLANTING ........................................................................... 41 5.3.4 STREET LIGHTING ....................................................................................................... 41 5.3.5 UTILITY PLACEMENT ................................................................................................ 41 6 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................. 43 6.1 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES .................................................................................... 43 6.1.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES ............................................................................................. 43 6.1.2 WOODLANDS ............................................................................................................... 44 6.1.3 URBAN FOREST ........................................................................................................... 44 6.2 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ................................................................................................. 46 6.2.1 NEIGHBOURHOOD PARKS ...................................................................................... 46 6.2.2 PARKETTES .................................................................................................................. 48 6.2.3 PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACES ................ 48 7 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUILDINGS ............................................................... 49 7.1 ENERGY CONSERVATION .................................................................................................. 49 7.2 WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................. 50 7.3 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 51 7.4 MATERIAL RESOURCES AND SOLID WASTE ............................................................ 51 Page 118 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 3 7.5 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................. 52 7.6 LIGHTING .................................................................................................................................... 52 7.7 GREEN BUILDINGS ................................................................................................................. 53 7.8 STEWARDSHIP ......................................................................................................................... 53 Page 119 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 4 GUIDELINE STRUCTURE The document is organized as a series of guidelines along with detailed guidance to assist designers in achieving that objective. 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 objective 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 Page 120 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 5 1 INTRODUCTION The Soper Hills Secondary Plan Study Area is a 193 hectare (ha) area on the east side of Bowmanville in the Municipality of Clarington. It is generally bound by Regional Highway 2 to the south, Lambs Road to the west, the Canadian Pacific Railway to the north and Providence Road and its unopened road allowance to the east. 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 sustainable 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. Figure 1: Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area Page 121 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 6 The Guidelines are to be used by: 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 Hills 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. Page 122 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 7 1.3 INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION The Guidelines are intended to implement the Secondary Plan direction for the Soper Hills 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 Hills 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 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 Hills 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 Hills 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. Page 123 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 8 1.5 VISION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Soper Hills 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: 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 2 summarizes each of the four key themes: built environment, mobility, natural environment and open space, and infrastructure and buildings and identifies the urban design and sustainability principles within each theme. Page 124 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 9 Figure 2: Key themes for design principles in Soper Hills Page 125 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 10 1.6 THE LAND USE SCHEDULE Figure 3: Schedule A - Land Use NP NP P P P Schedule A - Land Use Legend High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor Neighborhood Park Elementary School Stormwater Management Facility (SWF) Parkette Neighbourhood Centre P Environmental Protection Areas Collector Roads Arterial Roads Potential Cultural Heritage Resources Prominent Intersection SHSP Boundary NP - Soper Hills Secondary Plan -Watercourse Medium Density Residential Railway MAY 2026Low Density Residential Concession Street East Providence Road Lambs Road Regional Highway 2 Page 126 Soper Hills 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. A detailed vignette for the design of the Neighbourhood Centre has also been prepared to demonstrate one possible way the area could be designed in Section 4.4 of these Guidelines. Each land use and community element is described in Section 2 of these Guidelines. Page 127 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 12 2 COMMUNITY STRUCTURE The Soper Hills 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 REGIONAL CORRIDOR The Regional Corridor is located along Regional Highway 2 and is comprised of Medium and High Density/ Mixed Use designations. Mid- and high-rise apartments and mixed use buildings can be up to 12 storeys in height. Page 128 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 13 2.2 LOCAL CORRIDOR / MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Lambs Road, Providence Road, and Concession Street East are identified as Local Corridors and contain Medium Density Residential land uses. Local Corridors are intended to provide residential and mixed use development between 3 and 6 storeys in height with a variety of uses to achieve higher densities and transit-oriented development. Street townhouses are permitted to be 2-storeys, and as well as where adjacent to low density residential. Permitted housing types include mixed use buildings, apartments, and all forms of townhouses. Along Local Corridors, non-residential uses are only permitted in mixed use buildings. Page 129 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 14 2.3 NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE A Neighbourhood Centre located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Collector Road D serves as a focal point to the community and permits a range of retail and service uses to accommodate daily needs of residents. It provides the opportunity for residents to walk or bike to the node for daily needs and helps to create a more sustainable plan. Figure 4: Example of site and built form layout in the Neighbourhood Centre Figure 5: The Neighbourhood Centre is a focal point for the community and may include built form that orients to the Prominent Intersection, public art, layby parking, and a mix of land uses Page 130 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 15 2.4 URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS Outside the Regional Corridors, most lands are planned for Low Density Residential land uses and are generally located south of Collector Road B, north of Concession Street East, and north of Collector Road A. 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. Page 131 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 16 2.5 PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS Prominent Intersections are located at Providence Road and Concession Street East, Concession Street East and Lambs Road, Concession Street East and Collector Road D, Regional Highway 2 and Lambs Road and Regional Highway 2 and Providence Road. Prominent Intersections apply to all four corners of the intersection and will form the primary gateway into the community. These areas will also have the greatest concentration of height and commercial uses. Page 132 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 17 2.6 PARKS Neighbourhood Parks serve active and low intensity recreational needs of the surrounding residents. Neighbourhood parks are between 1.5 to 3 ha in size depending on the area served and the activities to be provided. A Neighbourhood Park located between Collector Road B and C is larger to accommodate a knoll in this location. Parkettes are intended to augment the recreation, leisure and amenity needs of a neighbourhood and are between 0.5 and 1 ha in size. They will not contain sports fields. Parkettes are required wherever the Municipality deems it necessary to augment or adjust the park requirements of any neighbourhood (COP policy 18.3.7). Page 133 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 18 2.7 TRAILS Multi-use paths (MUPs) and park trails are proposed for Soper Hills. 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. MUPs in the EPA are either paved or unpaved and provides access to environmental areas. 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. Page 134 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 19 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 and allow for appropriate built form typologies, 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. 7.Design of streets should create views to landmarks or natural features through careful placement of intersections and terminus. Figure 6: An example of a modified grid layout of streets Figure 7: Example of a grid layout of streets Figure 8: Blocks should be generally 250m wide Page 135 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 20 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 should 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. Figure 9: Views accentuating natural features and road terminus at neighbourhood amenities such as schools and parks Page 136 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 21 4 BUILT ENVIRONMENT 4.1 LOW RISE RESIDENTIAL As identified in Section 2.5, Low Rise Residential accounts for most of the Urban Residential Areas of Soper Hills. Low-rise built form includes singles, semi- detached, all forms of townhouses, and low-rise apartment up to 3 storeys in height. Some higher density low-rise uses, identified in Section 2.2, 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 10: Example of townhouses with high-quality architectural detail Figure 11: Difference between adjacent buildings should generally not vary more than 1 storey Page 137 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 22 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 12: Porches are encouraged to give prominence to the front entrance Page 138 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 23 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 where feasible to maximize the extent of continuous green planting area. Figure 14: Set garages flush or behind the main front wall to reduce visual dominance of garages Figure 13: Example of a dwelling with a portico and recessed garage Page 139 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 24 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 should 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 should be broken down with architectural elements to promote visual integration. Figure 17: Example of a rear-lane townhouse Figure 15: Example of a rear-lane townhouse Figure 16: Example of a back-to-back townhouse Page 140 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 25 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 should 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. 2. The width of the driveway should be no larger than the interior width of the garage. 3.Garages should not dominate the streetscape. Figure 18: Reduce visual prominence of garages Page 141 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 26 4.2 RESIDENTIAL MID-RISE AND HIGH-RISE For the purposes of these guidelines a mid- rise building is defined as a building between 4 and 6 storeys in height. A high- rise building is defined as a building between 7 and 12 storeys in height. 1. The Regional and Local Corridor should include the greatest heights and massing, typically with the greatest heights at the corner of the Prominent Intersection. 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 forms, lower heights and adjacent to 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 15m is required for high- rise buildings. 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.High-rise apartment buildings and 6 storey mid-rise buildings should include a minimum 1.5m building stepback above the 3rd storey to aid with transition and prevent slab buildings. Where a mid-rise or high-rise apartment building abuts a low-rise Figure 19: Examples of mid-rise built form Figure 20: Example of a high-rise residential built form Page 142 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 27 designation provide additional transition through increased building setbacks and stepbacks to prevent overlook to low-rise dwellings. Figure 21: High-rise buildings should have a clear base, middle and top 8.High-rise buildings should have a clear base, middle and top to provide articulation and high-quality design. 9.Pair corner buildings at either side of a Prominent Intersection to create a gateway to the community. 10. Orient visual and accessible primary building entrances to the public roads. 11. 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 22: Create privacy and direct access for residential units at grade through building setbacks Page 143 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 28 Figure 23: Example of built form transition for a mixed use building Page 144 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 29 4.3 MID-RISE AND HIGH- RISE MIXED USE 1.Distinguish residential entrances from commercial entrances through building design and location. 2.At-grade retail should be broken down in scale and designed with a finer grain frontage. 3.Active at grade uses such as cafes or patios should be provided to animate the street and encourage pedestrian activity where appropriate. 4.The 1st floor of a mixed use building should have a minimum height of 4.5m. 5.High-rise buildings should have a clear base, middle and top to provide articulation and high- quality design. 6.High-rise apartment buildings and 6 storey mid-rise buildings should include a minimum 1.5m building stepback at every 3rd floor 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. 7. For mid-rise buildings balconies above the 1st floor are encouraged. For high-rise buildings balconies are encouraged above the 3rd floor. 8.Temporary parking and bicycle storage should be incorporated into all buildings wherever possible. Figure 25: Examples of mid-rise and high-rise buildings with built from transition to the rear of the building Figure 24: Example of a live-work townhouse Page 145 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 30 9.Parking within mid-rise and high- rise mixed use buildings is encouraged to be underground. Where underground is not feasible structured parking could be acceptable. Surface parking is the least preferred. 10. Locate surface parking at the rear or side of the building or buildings. 11. 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. 12. Screen all rooftop mechanicals and telecom infrastructure with the design of the building or parapet walls. 13. Servicing, loading and parking access should be accessed from the rear or side of the building. Figure 27: Development blocks can incorporate a variety of building types to provide transition to lower density areas Figure 26: Screen rooftop equipment and utilities from the public view Page 146 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 31 4.4 NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE Section 10.5 of the Official Plan sets out the criteria for development within the Neighbourhood Centre. In addition to the design criteria, development should follow the design guidelines of this section. 4.4.1 BUILT FORM 1.Buildings designs should include added height at corner locations, articulation and massing features. 2.Primary entrances should be clearly visible and emphasized through wall articulation, canopies and/or material change, be accessed via sidewalks and ensure connections are AODA compliant. 4.4.2 STREETS, STREETSCAPES AND MID-BLOCK CONNECTIONS 1. The portion of Concession Street East and the new Collector Road D fronting the Neighbourhood Centre land use (Zone A) will be designed as an enhanced streetscape. The streetscape will incorporate street trees, seating areas, wider sidewalks, and street- oriented retail units on the ground floor. 2. The northern side of this portion of Concession Street East will include a tree lined street and multi-use pathway. ZONE A ZONE A Figure 28: Zone A in the Neighbourhood Centre Figure 29: Example of a multi-use path showing separation between pedestrian and cycling areas Page 147 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 32 3. Roads and mid-block connections within the Neighbourhood Centre blocks should include wider walking and cycling paths and street trees to provide comfortable pedestrian and cyclist connections between retail uses. 4. Mid-block connections will have adequate lighting from adjacent streets or from within the mid-block connection to enhance safety and visibility, but without causing adverse impacts on adjacent residential land uses. 5. Sidewalk surface should be continuous from building face to on-street parking lane. Sod boulevards are not appropriate. 6. Sidewalk, cycle track and on-street / layby parking zones should be distinguished through different material, colour and/or texture. 4.4.3 PARKING LOTS 1. Layby parallel parking should be provided, wherever possible in Zone A, to animate streets, provide traffic calming and serve as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles. 2. Convenient parking for bicycles, scooters and strollers should be provided within the public realm of Zone A to encourage alternative transportation options and active transportation. Figure 30: Urban streetscapes in the Neighbourhood Centre should be designed with street trees and wider sidewalks Figure 31: Potential locations of layby parallel parking areas in Zone A Page 148 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 33 3.Indoor bike parking for mixed use, standalone commercial and residential buildings should be provided for long term use by employees and residents. 4.Locate bicycle parking so it does not obstruct pedestrian movement, gathering areas or children’s play. 5.Surface parking spaces shall be located behind the building front wall at the side or rear of buildings and shall be accessed by laneways or through consolidated block-level access. 6.Surface parking lots should be screened from view along adjacent streets, with low-level landscape buffering. 7.Accessible parking spaces should have direct access to building entrances and should not be placed across a drive aisle. 4.5 PROMINENT INTERSECTIONS 1.Design Prominent Intersections as community focal points. 2.Prominent Intersections will be emphasized through building massing, architectural treatment and materials, street furniture, landscaping, and public art. Figure 32: Consider providing on-street parking in Zone A Figure 33: Screen parking lots with low-level landscape buffering Page 149 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 34 3.Prominent Intersections will be the primary gateways to the Soper Hills Community. The commercial use buildings in the Neighbourhood Centre should provide special architectural elements such as corner design, massing and height, awnings, and entrance door features. 4. Privately-owned publicly- accessible open spaces 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. 4.6 INSTITUTIONAL BUILDINGS - SCHOOLS Soper Hills Secondary Plan Areas proposes 3 elementary schools. The Secondary Plan shows the general location of future schools co-located with neighbourhood parks. The following guidelines apply to school sites: 1.School Boards are encouraged to consider alternative standards for schools that would optimize the use of land by promoting multi-storey school buildings and minimizing parking and pick-up/drop-off areas. Figure 34: Built form surrounding Prominent Intersections should be designed to address the intersection Figure 35: Prominent Intersections should include street furniture such as bike racks, landscaping, and high-quality streetscape materials Page 150 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 35 2.Co-location of parks and schools is strongly encouraged to facilitate shared play facilities, parking and efficient use of land. 3.Schools should be located close to the street to help define the street and create prominence. 4. Schools should be designed with high quality finishes, and architectural details. 5. The front door should face the main street and be directly accessible from the public sidewalk. 6.No parking or drop off should be located between the building and the street with the front door. Parking should be located at the side of the building. 7.Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screen from view through a parapet wall or complementary materials. 8.Schools should be designed to ensure safe cycling and pedestrian access and crossing. Students should be able to reach the entrances without crossing bus zones, parking and drop off areas. Figure 36: Examples of multi-storey schools Page 151 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 36 5 MOBILITY 5.1 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION The active transportation network consists of pedestrian, cycling and trail networks that include both on and off- street facilities. The Soper Hills 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 38: Design multi-use paths in accordance with Municipal standards Figure 37: Design multi-use paths in accordance with Municipal standards Page 152 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 37 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. Page 153 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 38 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 Municipality of Clarington design standards. 3.Grading and sloping should be minimized to meet accessibility requirements and serve all users. 4. Provide clear signage for all cycling routes. 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 should 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 40: Example of a transit shelter Figure 39: Example of a multi-use path which includes separated lanes for pedestrians and cyclists Page 154 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 39 5.3 ROAD TYPOLOGIES AND CROSS SECTIONS The design of roads within the Soper Hills 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 Municipality of Clarington engineering standards. Soper Hills is surrounded by three Type B Arterial Roads - Cross Sections for Lambs Road, Concession Street East and Regional Highway 2, as well as a Type C Arterial Road Cross Section for Providence Road. Typical sections for collector and local roads are provided below. Figure 41: Recommended 30m wide cross-section for Lambs Road prepared by TYLin (Cross section conceptual and NTS) Figure 42: Recommended 23m wide collector road cross-section, prepared by TYLin (Cross section conceptual and NTS) Page 155 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 40 Figure 43: 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 Hills. 5.3.2 SIDEW ALKS 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, MUPs and transit stops. 4.Connect sidewalks with other public realm components such as parks and open spaces and tie directly with trails. Figure 44: Example of an urbanized streetscape Page 156 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 41 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 should be selected over smaller ornamental varieties. 4.Tree species should be selected to support the character of distinct neighbourhoods. 5. For mixed use developments, enhance landscaping should be considered. 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 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, or daylighting triangles. Where Figure 47: Example of boulevard planting Figure 48: Utilities should be consolidated and screened from view Figure 46: Example of boulevard planting Figure 45: Example of boulevard planting Page 157 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 42 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 49: Clear pedestrian movement along sidewalks with public utilities Page 158 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 43 6 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 6.1 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES The Environmental Protection Area (EPA) is a key structural element of the Soper Hills Community. The EPA will contribute to Soper Hills 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 between the north and south EPA and to the Municipal trail network west of Lambs Road. 4.The preservation of existing vegetation, particularly mature trees, is strongly encouraged.Figure 50: Place parks in proximity or adjacent to EPAs Page 159 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 44 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 large native shade tree 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 where not impeded by utilities or other infrastructure; for multi-unit sites or commercial sites, provide as may trees, ensuring a minimum soil volume. Figure 51: Consider the inclusion of boardwalks in EPAs Figure 52: Encourage access to trails Figure 53: Contribute to the success of the urban forest by planting large native shade tree to help heat island effect Page 160 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 45 3.Provide street trees on both sides of the road in the public right-of-way where feasible. 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 55: A double row of trees may be used in key areas, such as adjacent to parks and where a wider boulevard exists Page 161 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 46 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. The Soper Hills parks and open space system will be functional and safe. 6.2.1 NEIGHBOURHOOD PA RKS 1.Neighbourhood Parks should be located on collector roads and where possible adjacent to the NHS. 2. Locate Neighbourhood Parks within a 5 to 10 minute (400m to 800m) walking distance of all residents creating the opportunity for physical activity and gathering. 3.Neighbourhood Parks are typically 1.5 to 3 ha in size and configured to accommodate both passive and active programming. 4. Site a larger Neighbourhood Park to preserve the existing knoll. 5.Connect parks to the trail system and sidewalks. 6.Where appropriate, co-locate parks and schools to allow shared amenities such as parking and recreational fields. 7.Provide on-street parking adjacent to the park wherever possible, as well as internally to the park. Page 162 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 47 8.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. 9.Signage and tree planting should clearly define access to the park. 10. Accessible and visible bicycle parking should be located on hard surfaces adjacent to play areas and entrances. Figure 59: Include street furniture such as benches, bike racks and garbage receptacles in parks Figure 56: 400 m and 800 m walking radius surrounding neighbourhood parks Figure 58: Neighbourhood Parks should accommodate both passive and active programming Figure 58: Include wayfinding signage in parks Page 163 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 48 6.2.2 PARKETTES 1.Parkettes vary in size from 0.5 to 1 ha and can be accessed by walking within 5 minutes (400 m). 2.Parkettes should be designed with a minimum 30% public road frontage. The remainder is encouraged to front a school or 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 OPE N 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 60: Examples of Parkettes Figure 61: Example of unique design features that may be accommodated in parks and POPS Page 164 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 49 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 building orientation to maximize the potential for sunlight and natural ventilation. 3. Encourage constructing all 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 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 62: Solar panels Figure 64: White roofs help reduce the urban heat island effect by reflecting sunlight Figure 63: Charging stations Page 165 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 50 6.Consider 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 Low Impact Design Standards including the use of 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. Figure 65: Bioswales help to collect runoff after storm events Figure 66: Example of a porous pavement that contributes to runoff management Page 166 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 51 5.Plant native, drought-tolerant plants to conserve water and other resources 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. 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 68: Example of a stormwater pond with tree and shrub planting in Barrie Figure 67: Example of a Bioswale Figure 69: Reclaimed materials can be used for new infrastructure such as gabion walls Page 167 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 52 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. 2. Choose light fixture that direct light down to minimize light spillage onto other properties. Figure 70: Accommodate electric vehicle charging spots in parking lots Figure 71: Consider including carpool parking spots in parking lots Figure 72: Choose light fixture that are Dark Sky Compliant that direct light down to minimize light spillage onto other properties Page 168 Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines 53 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 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. 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 73: signage in restoration areas to facilitate education opportunities Page 169 Page 1 of 53 Public/Landowner Comment Summary Table Karunakaran, Sanjeai May 30, 2025 S-1 life...prep work is key. This council has a history of approving building but not really thinking about the infrastructure to support said development. This in turn takes people who would otherwise support projects like this and turns them into neighsayers. My question to you is, what is Clarington actually planning to do to support these communities if they're approved? Specifically the much needed roads, sewers and schools that we already lack in supporting the current population, let alone thousands that this would bring. This community will always be a vehicle-based community, as our transit system is a joke and realistically most people need to commute for work because jobs are generally out of the area. As long as infrastructure isn't there, it's not attractive for private businesses to setup shop here. Saying we can build the community around transit is not realistic, the people need vehicles and vehicles need roads. What arterial roads will you be expanding to support this influx of people? Or do you really expect to keep the main roads as one lane country streets like it's evident to see around some of the current roads, servicing, and schools, is addressed through the Secondary Plan and supporting technical studies. Key road connections, including the extension of Providence Road to Highway 2 and improvements to Lambs Road and Concession Street East, are planned to accommodate growth within the Secondary Plan Area. May 30, 2025 S-2 description of the location do not match. It appears to be NORTH of Concession St., EAST of Lamb's Rd., SOUTH of the railway tracks. and WEST of Providence Rd. Would you please clarify. Highway 2, south of the railway tracks, east of Lambs Road, and west of Providence Road. The introduction describes the location of the boundary roads relative to the plan area, with Lambs Road to the west and Providence Attachment 4 to Report PDS-036-26 Page 170 Page 2 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Whitefield, Melissa June 19, 2025 S-3 completed. Melissa expressed concerns regarding weather and snow clearing, infrastructure, public parking, and access to medical care, education, etc. been planned in Clarington. Infrastructure matters are addressed through the supporting transportation and servicing reports. Access to education is accommodated through three proposed school sites requested by the School Boards, and medical services are permitted within the Neighbourhood Centre and mixed-use areas along Regional Andrew June 27, 2025 S-4 servicing, road network proceeding with development. First landowners must submit draft plan of subdivision applications and accompanying detailed studies to further their development Landowner Comments Lambs Road Holdings Inc. / 2875 Concession St. E June 17, 2025 school on the Property as depicted in Schedule A of the draft Secondary Plan. The Property comprises a steep slope and would present significant grading challenges for the development and operation of an elementary school. The Property is constrained by its topography and is not an appropriate site for a school. Identifying the Property as a potential location for an elementary school would send the wrong message to school boards about the suitability of the Property for this purpose. side of the north-south collector road. Page 171 Page 3 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response communities, collaboration between planning authorities and school boards as well as the encouragement of innovative approaches in the design of schools. The conceptual location of a school on the Property would not be consistent with these PPS policies. Our client submits that there are other sites within the proposed Secondary Plan area where the development and operation of an elementary school would be appropriate and feasible. The conceptual elementary school should be located elsewhere in the Secondary Plan area – Requested to be redesignated Low Density Landowner’s Group (LOG) June 19, 2025 Comment Soper Hills Secondary Plan and the Public Meeting. There is general support for many of the policies and direction of the Secondary Plan, however, there are some outstanding concerns with aspects of Secondary Plan, including but not limited to, the policies and approach to the Neighbourhood Centre land use designation as an example. The approach to the Neighbourhood Centre remains subject to ongoing / Part of Lot 6, Concession 1 (Darlington) June 19, 2025 Centre the Subject Site. We request that the designation of the lands at the southwest corner of Concession Street and the north- south collector road be revised to Medium Density Residential, which we believe is more appropriate given the Subject Site’s location on a Local Corridor and to meet housing demands and market considerations. Further, in the No change. The location of the neighbourhood centre is still supported in the Commercial Needs Assessment peer review response (Tate Research, August 2025). The current proposed location is appropriate given that it provides a central location for Page 172 Page 4 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, the Medium Density Residential designation permits retail and service commercial uses including office uses within mixed-use buildings. The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan designates the Subject Site as Urban Residential. When the lands were acquired, it was intended to be for residential uses as it was not identified as a Neighbourhood Centre in the Official Plan. Further, as outlined in our previous submission, we believe that the majority of commercial uses should be directed towards Highway 2 where greater densities will be realized and along a throughfare that connects multiple communities in Clarington. The Commercial Needs Assessment prepared by Urban Metrics (Draft Dated April 21, 2025) indicated that “Highway 2 presents the most attractive commercial location compared to anywhere else within the Secondary Plan Area, sufficient demand for these uses in this area. Centre Medium Density Residential, we offer the following comments with respect to the Neighbourhood Centre policies. As opposed to the proposed designation, a Neighbourhood Centre overlay symbol can be applied with an underlying designation of Medium Density Residential. This would allow for medium density residential to be the predominant land use with flexibility in having commercial uses should it be determined the suitability of the Subject Site for greater commercial uses. Further, commercial uses are permitted in mixed-use buildings in the Medium Density Residential designation, thus not precluding non-residential uses. No change. See above response. We support the permission for stand-alone residential buildings; however, we do not agree with the requirement that commercial uses are developed as part of the first phase of Policy 4.5.8 revised to: residential buildings containing the dwelling types set out in Policy 4.4.4 may be permitted Page 173 Page 5 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response the neighbourhood centre block. We request that this requirement be deleted. submission, it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, that a range of retail uses, service uses and / or office uses intended to meet day to day needs are planned to be, or have been, achieved within the Neighbourhood Centre. Such demonstration may be provided: a) on the same site as the stand-alone residential development; or b) through a coordinated development application submission with other lands within the Neighbourhood Centre. This is a small area so allowing for residential use to occur first may jeopardize the potential for the commercial to occur. The Municipality must be assured that commercial Medium Density Residential Density Residential north of the east-west collector road as well as the density permissions. However, we request the permitted building heights between revised to be between 2 Policy 4.4.7 revised to: be a minimum of 3 storeys and a maximum of 6 storeys. However, street townhouses and buildings adjacent to Low Density Residential designations shall be a minimum of 2 storeys 4.6.3 We do not agree with the proposed ratio. While the comments matrix in response to our March 21, 2024, letter notes that the 20% limit on townhouses conforms to the Official Plan and that having no limit would thus not conform, this is contradiction to Policy 12.2.2 of the draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan that states “in the event of a conflict between the Official Plan and this Secondary Plan, the policies of the Secondary Plan shall prevail.” This policy permits deviation townhouse/apartments in the Low Density Residential designation is consistent with Council's direction. Page 174 Page 6 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response provides a minimum of 13 units per net hectare without a maximum. Density can be controlled through built form policies such as height and building types so long as ground- related building types are maintained. As such, we request School from the Subject Site. As previously noted, the topography of the land where the Elementary School is identified slopes significantly and may not be the most appropriate location for Collector Road / Land Use Schedule that is planned to crosscut the Subject Site south of Concession Street. Given its proximity to Concession Street, it is preferred that this Collector Road be removed from the Land Use Schedule (and shown as a Local Road in the demonstration plan in the Urban Design Guidelines for the The Collector Road here has been removed for the west portion connecting to Lambs Road. / Part of Lot 6, Concession 1 (Darlington) July 17, 2025 Centre the Subject Site. We request that the designation of the lands at the southwest corner of Concession Street and the north- south collector road be revised to Medium Density Residential, which permits residential and retail and service commercial uses including office uses within mixed-use buildings, and is not prescriptive, which we believe is more appropriate given the Subject Site’s location on a Local Corridor. The Commercial Needs Assessment prepared by Urban Metrics (April 21, 2025) indicates that “Highway 2 presents the most attractive commercial location compared to neighbourhood centre is still supported in the Commercial Needs Assessment peer review response (Tate Research, August 2025). The current proposed location is appropriate given that it provides a central location for commercial uses and the Commercial Needs Assessment peer review notes that there is sufficient demand for these uses in this area. Page 175 Page 7 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response lands along Concession Street East.” Urban Metrics Peer Reviewer Responses (dated July 3, 2025) states “commercial permissions should be concentrated in high-visibility, high- traffic, and high-density locations, such as along Highway 2” and that “it is our opinion that the requirement for ground floor commercial space within Neighbourhood Centre designation, as currently outlined, is not necessary to support the delivery that the Collector Road south of Concession Street East (Collector Road B on the Demonstration Plan) be designated as a local road. This recommendation follows the NexTrans Peer Review memo (May 28, 2025) that states “the forecast volumes are low therefore this road can be designated as a local road, and it does not meet the warrant to be a collector for the west portion connecting to Lambs Road. Further, Policy 9.3.8 has been added to consider removal of the east-west collector road south of Concession Road connecting to Providence, subject to a comprehensive transportation study to the satisfaction of the 4.5.8 buildings; however, we do not agree with the requirement that commercial uses are developed as part of the first phase of the neighbourhood centre block. It is stated in Urban Metrics Commercial Needs Assessment (April 21, 2025) “the Secondary Plan must be flexible regarding the zoning and phasing of potential commercial development, ensuring that there is a sufficient on-site or nearby population to support businesses before they open.” We request that this and arterial road intersections” be deleted as it is redundant with Policy 4.4.8. Further, there is no definition of “mid-rise” in the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan. redundancy. Revised Policy 4.4.8 to clarify low-rise and mid-rise as follows: Notwithstanding Policy 4.4.7, the highest and densest forms are encouraged to be located at collector and arterial road intersections along the Local Corridors to provide built form and housing type variety along the Local Page 176 Page 8 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Corridors. As such, a minimum of 4 storeys shall be required adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads and the intersection of collector and arterial roads subject to a compatible transition to adjacent cultural heritage resources and Low Density Residential designations. 4.4.6 Policy 4.4.6 states “The implementing zoning by-law shall identify sites adjacent to the intersections of collector and arterial roads where mixed use buildings are required.” Comment: We recommend “required” be replaced with “permitted”. Revised Policy 4.4.6 to replace “required” with “permitted”. 4.4.8 adjacent to the intersection of arterial and collector roads. We request that the minimum height be 3 storeys. See above response. Policy 4.4.8 has been revised to require a minimum of 4 storeys adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads and the intersection of collector and arterial roads subject to a compatible transition to adjacent cultural heritage resources and Low Density Residential designations. Previous versions of the Secondary Plan contained two medium density designations - a low rise and mid rise. The Plan was revised to include one designation for flexibility provided that the secondary plan indicates that the higher heights occur at key Page 177 Page 9 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Comment: We recommend replacing “shall be” with “is”. 4.5.13 We do not agree with a minimum height of 5 storeys adjacent to the intersection of Concession Street and the north-south policy be deleted. The Official Plan does not prescribe percentages based on dwelling types within lower density Council direction. We recommend that townhouses should not be more than 8 attached units. Townhouse blocks with 8 units are very common across the GTA. They are also more affordable due to construction costs less with one foundation than two blocks Plan. URBAN DESIGN AND SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES It is unclear why only the Low Density area south of Collector Road B has a geographical limit for townhouses, back-to- back townhouses and stacked townhouses. We recommend the last sentence be deleted as these built forms are permitted throughout the Low Density Residential Guideline 2.4 (previously Guideline 2.5) revised to remove reference to 100m depth. Density Residential Designation permits up to 6 storeys in the Secondary Plan. We recommend this sentence be deleted Guideline 4.1 revised to remove reference to 4 storey height. blocks, we do not support a requirement for a mix of unit types within individual subdivision blocks. We recommend the following: “New residential subdivisions should contain a mix of units. Individual subdivision blocks shall have variation in elevations and are encouraged to have a mix of unit types.” 4.1.1.2) revised to: 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. Page 178 Page 10 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response garage for flexibility for storage including waste bins. A typical garage is minimum 3.0 metres wide, so restricting garage width to 50% precludes smaller townhouses (i.e. 5.5 metres) from being built, which may be used to meet minimum density requirements and address affordability. Further, we recommend that the maximum garage door width be 60% of the garage on the house and the streetscape. be limited to a maximum of 6 units.” Comment: Refer to comment on Policy 5.4.7. townhouse blocks. We recommend this Guideline to be removed and replaced with the following in Section 5.1.1: “Mid-block pedestrian connections are encouraged for blocks added: mid-block connections are encouraged for blocks longer than 250 metres. levels of the buildings, a minimum separation distance of 15m is required. This space should be void of any building projections.” Comment: We do not support this being applied to mid-rise buildings where standard Ontario Building Code requirements not provide separation distance for buildings to prevent shadow impacts. 15m - 25m (for high rise buildings) building separation is standard to prevent overlook and allow sunlight for units. buildings. These increase construction costs as each level requires unique forms, resulting in reduced affordability for end users. guidelines: Guideline 4.2 7: High-rise apartment buildings should include a minimum 1.5m building stepback above the 3rd storey to aid with transition and prevent slab buildings. Where a mid-rise or high-rise apartment building abuts a low-rise designation provide additional transition through increased building setbacks and stepbacks to prevent overlook to low-rise Page 179 Page 11 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Guideline 4.2.8: High-rise buildings should have a clear base, middle and top to provide UDSG direct the use of stepbacks for mid rise buildings. This prevents a walled condition We recommend revising to state the following: “Accessible parking spaces should have direct access to building entrances where possible.” provided closest to the building where possible, it is a requirement of the Ontario 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.” Comment: Replace “plazas” with “spaces”. with “spaces”. Cross-sections Section Comments: The driving lanes appear to be in the same direction. Further, street furniture such as benches should be within the planting strips and not on the multi-use path. Lastly, the cross-section suggests buildings built right to the property setbacks). section is conceptual and the final location of street furniture should follow the Municipality's standards. Cross-sections collector road cross-section Comments: Policy 5.6.2 of the Secondary Plan states “On- street parking should be provided along collector roads.” We recommend the cross-section be updated to show on-street Page 180 Page 12 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response typical Clarington 23m cross-sections with 10.5m pavement widths. Section 5.3, Cross-sections Section Comments: The driving lanes appear to be in the same direction, while on-street parking is facing the opposite direction. Further, the cross-section suggests buildings built right to the property line (no setbacks). Lastly, if 3m sidewalks are suggested, we recommend having them divided evenly designed to connect to adjoining trails and MUPs.” Comment: We recommend revising to state the following: “The sidewalk network should be designed to connect to adjoining trails, MUPs and transit stops.” 5.3.2.2) revised to: The sidewalk network should be designed to connect to adjoining trails, MUPs and transit stops. Guideline 7.1.4 states “Design mid sunlight and absorb less heat through the use of 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.” Comment: Recommend revising beginning of first sentence to “Consider designing mid-rise buildings...” Revised Guideline 7.4.1 to include "consider designing" to be consistent with other guidelines. non-residential buildings.”. Comment: Recommend revising beginning of first sentence to “Consider providing EV charging...” Revised as requested. Weston Consulting on behalf of the Soper Hills andowner’s Group July 18, 2025 Page 181 Page 13 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Overall, there is general support for many of the policies and direction of the Secondary Plan, however, there are some outstanding concerns with aspects of Secondary Plan as outlined further in this letter. The approach to the Neighbourhood Centre remains subject to ongoing discussions with Staff in relation to the completion of a Commercial Needs Study by UrbanMetrics and Peer Reviewed on behalf of the Municipality by Tate Economics. It should be noted that in response to Tate’s review and comments, a Response Letter has been prepared by UrbanMetrics to address the comments raised and will be submitted under separate cover. We recommend that the Secondary Plan maintain flexibility in the permitted land use within the designations. The flexible permissions enable the support and delivery of warranted commercial space without prescriptively requiring commercial space as contemplated in the Neighbourhood Centre designation. The requirement for ground floor commercial space within the Neighbourhood Centre designation, as currently outlined in the policies of the Secondary Plan, is not necessary to support the delivery of the projected warranted space. In addition, commercial uses may be more suitable within higher-density land use designations in high-traffic and more intensive development areas such as along Highway 2, which is reinforced through policies 3.1.3 and 3.1.4. It is important to acknowledge that we support the permissibility of commercial uses in several designations, and we are not recommending these uses be prohibited. However, it is our opinion that the flexibility provided in the permitted uses within the Medium Density Residential designation in the Secondary Plan would allow commercial space to be implemented based on market demand and would support Page 182 Page 14 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Furthermore, we request that a policy be included in the Secondary Plan to provide flexibility in the location of the north-south collector road currently spanning from Highway 2 to Concession Street. The location currently would require a crossing/bridge over the valley to connect to Highway 2. The requested flexibility is based on the following reasons. It was always envisioned that this road would benefit the broader Bowmanville community; thus, the expectations were that the cost for constructing the bridge/crossing would be fully recoverable through the Municipality’s Development Charges. The latest release of the Development Charges Background Study dated March 24, 2025, proposes not to include Secondary Plan crossings and collector roads as projects within the DC By-law. It is also important to note that not all of the lands required for the bridge crossing and associated collector road connection are participating landowners within the Group, and the approach, including timing, to the development of the respective non-participating owners’ lands are uncertain as well as their acquisition cost which could be significant should they not gratuitously convey lands for this road infrastructure. Therefore, there may be significant challenges in the construction of the bridge crossing and north-south collector road, which could result in significant delays in this road being 12.1.7 and 12.1.8 to clarify interim solutions for road alignment and phasing, so the bridge and road connection can be provided as the area is built out to interim conditions. The north-south collector road alignment was contemplated as part of the development of the three land use alternatives. In the evaluation of the alternatives, this alignment was most preferred by the team including TYLIN as it allowed better connection to the overall Secondary Plan Area and to Regional Highway 2. enable an alignment that would connect to Lambs Road instead of across the valley would allow the participating landowners within the Soper Hills LOG to control the construction based on the timing of development for the Secondary Plan Area. We suggest that a policy be : 9.2.2, 9.3.1 and 9.3.2, if the collector road connection to Highway 2 is delayed due to property acquisition or construction delays, an alternative connection to Lambs Road may be provided subject to a comprehensive Page 183 Page 15 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response alternative collector road alignment. We support the policies of 12.1.6 and 12.1.7, but suggest they could be enhanced to recognize the concerns expressed herein and enable flexibility. the Region of Durham that demonstrates that transportation capacity can be accommodated by other collector roads in the Secondary Plan area; active transportation and future transit connections to Highway 2 and the future development to the south can be provided through other road network connections; the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment are satisfied; and that protection is provided local and collector roads within the Secondary Plan. This clarity would include matters related to the design of the roads, road widths, right-of-way, intersections and specific details as they are known. We do acknowledge the cross sections in the guidelines, but would appreciate clarity as to these road sections and their status related to policies and addressed through the Municipality’s engineering standards, with guidance provided in the Secondary Plan and Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines. permitted if affordable housing units are provided. We support the above policy however request clarification for what is considered affordable housing units in the Secondary Plan. In addition, we request that this policy be applicable to the Medium Density Residential designation as well for lands along Arterial or Collector Roads. “Affordable” is defined in Section 24.2 of the Official Plan. No changes are proposed to extend Policy 4.3.10 to additional designations beyond those identified in the Secondary Plan. and size of parks shall be determined at the draft plan of subdivision stage, based on the requirements of the Planning Act. We support the above policy, however, request that the above based on parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. Page 184 Page 16 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response 9.3.3 The Municipality may consider development on private roads outside of the Low Density Residential designation. We support the above policy in providing consideration of private roads for development; however, we would like permission for this to be considered in all residential designations, including Low Density. This comment has been made before, and we ask that it be considered again. No change. It is a Council direction not to permit private streets in Low density residential areas. required if such units are proposed: 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; 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 support the modifications to the above policy, however, : development application for residential developments the following information is required for the subject application…” Regional Corridors shall should be the location of commercial, retail and service uses to serve the community, where appropriate. Commercial, retail and service uses shall may be concentrated to reinforce community focal points, while ensuring a good level of amenity within walking distance of all residential areas. We support the above policy with the above policy modifications as it allows for residential and non-residential uses to be implemented based on market demand in a more use designation. Consolidation of small parcels is encouraged as well as shared access from side streets where available and feasible. Revised Policy 3.1.6 to: Page 185 Page 17 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Due to the close location of the Soper Creek tributary, continued individual access from Regional Highway 2 may be required as the properties. We wish to raise that the last sentence of policy 3.1.6 feasible. As development occurs, access management shall prioritize shared access and cross-access easements.” Mixed use developments and stand-alone residential developments at the intersection of Concession Street East and the new north-south collector road shall also contribute to the Prominent Intersection. We request that policy 3.3.4 be revised to allow flexibility for residential developments to contribute to the Prominent Intersections, not only mixed use developments. This the intent of the Neighbourhood Centre designation is to be mixed use, which could entail stand alone residential and stand alone commercial in the designation. A Neighbourhood Centre is located central to the Secondary Plan Area on Concession Street East providing neighbourhood retail commercial uses in stand-alone or a mixed use format. We request that policy 3.4.2 be deleted, which aligns with our request for the Neighbourhood Centre designation to be appropriate given that it provides a central location for commercial uses and the Commercial Needs Assessment peer review notes that there is sufficient demand for these uses in this area. To create a central Neighbourhood Centre providing a range of commercial uses to support the residents of the Secondary Plan area No change. See above response. 4.2.1 Secondary Plan Area as shown on Schedule A: a) High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor; b) Medium Density Residential; No change. The Neighbourhood Centre designation is appropriate and supported by the Commercial Needs Assessment peer review. Page 186 Page 18 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response d) Low Density Residential; e) Parks (See Section 7); and f) Environmental Protection Areas (See Section 6). We request that policy 4.2.1 be revised to remove the The implementing zoning by-law shall identify sites adjacent to the intersections of collector and arterial roads where mixed use buildings are required permitted. We request that policy 4.4.6 be revised to include the above with “permitted”. Building heights shall be a minimum of 3 storeys and a maximum of 6 storeys. For the Medium Density Residential designation, we request that the minimum height be 2 storeys as noted in the previous draft of the Secondary Plan. : be a minimum of 3 storeys and a maximum of 6 storeys. However, street townhouses and buildings adjacent to Low Density Residential designations shall be a minimum of 2 4.4.8 Notwithstanding Policy 4.4.7, the highest and densest forms are encouraged to be located at key intersections along the Local Corridors to provide built form and housing type variety along the Local Corridors . As such, a minimum of 5 storeys shall be required adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads and the intersection of collector and arterial roads subject to a compatible transition to adjacent cultural heritage resources and Low Density Residential designations. In regards to policy 4.4.8, we request that the minimum height olicy 4.4.8 revised to re height to 4-storeys at specified intersections. Notwithstanding Policy 4.4.9, a minimum of an increased site density of 100 units per net hectare shall be encouraged adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads and adjacent to the intersection of collector and arterial roads. of 100 units per net hectare at the intersection of two arterial roads and at the intersection of collector and arterial roads is intentional and Page 187 Page 19 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response In regards to policy 4.4.10, we request that the above language be incorporated. Based on the above comments, we recommend that the Neighbourhood Centre policies be revised and the designation be removed in favour of permissions that would enable commercial uses, but not prescribe mandatory built development to support efficient land use, transit-supportive development, and a compact built form. The Neighbourhood Centre will be the focal point of the neighbourhood, a hub of activity with a concentration of commercial uses in a pedestrian-oriented main street format along the north-south collector road, complemented by adjacent Medium-Density Residential uses. We request this policy be removed together with associated policies in section 4.5 to: Centre will be the focal point of the neighbourhood, a hub of activity with a concentration of and mix of retail uses, service uses, office uses and residential uses in a pedestrian-oriented main street format along the north-south collector road, complemented by adjacent Medium Density The predominant use of lands within the Neighbourhood Centre designation is a mix of retail, service commercial and office uses serving the day to day needs of residents in the Secondary Plan area as set out in Section 10.5 of the Official Plan. The above policy could be modified to incorporate elements of this into the Medium Density Residential designation to enable flexibility and encourage permissions for these uses in revised to: of lands within the Neighbourhood Centre designation is a mix of retail uses, service uses, residential and office uses serving the day-to-day needs of residents in the Secondary Plan Area as set out in Section 10.5 of the Official Plan.” The Medium Density designation does allow for mixed use buildings so additional text not 4.5.8 4.5.7 Residential uses shall be permitted in mixed use buildings in conjunction with permitted non- residential uses. 4.5.8 Stand-alone residential buildings, containing the dwelling types set out in Policy 4.4.4, may be permitted provided the intent of the designation as a focal point for the Policies 4.5.7 and 4.5.8 provide flexibility by allowing residential uses in the Neighbourhood Centre. Page 188 Page 20 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response and office uses to meet day to day needs is achieved and provided commercial uses are developed prior to or at the same time as the stand-alone residential uses. We request that policy 4.5.7 and 4.5.8 be removed to be in alignment with the findings of the Commercial Needs Study. We support the permissibility of commercial uses, however, request that it not be prescriptive and do not support a policy that requires commercial uses to be development prior to or at the same time as residential uses. We do support the permission for mixed use buildings comprising both residential and non residential uses within the Medium Density Residential designation and we support the permission for stand alone residential and stand alone commercial buildings as outlined in policy 4.5.6. This flexibility would allow development to occur based on demand and the 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 apartments accounting for the remainder. We recommend the above policy to be modified to eliminate the minimum percentage. The parent OP policies do not prescribe minimum percentages and we believe this is unnecessarily restrictive. We suggest that the existing policy in the parent OP does provide appropriate guidance for percentage targets, but do not support a more restrictive for low density areas, and has been implemented in other Secondary Plans. 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 access to transit. flexibility for where mid-block connections should go but also ensures that pedestrian connections are provided within a walkable Page 189 Page 21 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response We recommend that policy 5.1.3 remove the “generally blocks longer than 250 metres” and include this in a guideline The Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines, appended to this Secondary plan, as Appendix A, provide specific guidelines for the public and private realms. They clarify the Municipality’s expectations with respect to the form, character and qualities of development in the Soper Hills Secondary Plan area. If there is conflict between a Secondary Plan policy and the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines, the Secondary Plan policy prevails. We recommend that this policy be revised or a policy be added to reinstate a clear reference that the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines are not considered policy. Policy 5.1.1 revised to “The Soper Hills 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 Hills UDSG. The Soper Hills UDSG provide guidance on the implementation of the Secondary Plan but should not be construed as policies.” A dense tree canopy should be provided along public streets to enhance the pedestrian experience of the community. In regards to the above policy, we request clarification on revised to: coverage should be extensive enough to create a comfortable walking environment for pedestrians and to enhance the pedestrian A building stepback shall be provided encouraged above the third storey for mid-rise buildings. We request that policy 5.4.3 be revised per the above Policy 5.4.3 revised to: UDSG and the implementing zoning by-law shall provide direction on building stepbacks for mid-rise and high-rise buildings.” Townhouses shall generally not comprise more than 6 attached units. We request that the above policy be more appropriate as an Urban Design and Sustainability Guideline. Plan. Ground floor non-residential uses should have a floor-to-floor height of approximately 4.5 metres in support of larger display windows and signage area as well as providing opportunities No change. A 4.5m ground floor height is standard for non-residential uses and supports active street frontages. Page 190 Page 22 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response We request that the above policy be more appropriate as an Urban Design and Sustainability Guideline. Environmental Constraint: Vegetation Protection Zone Overlay represents 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 Environmental Constraint: Vegetation Protection Zone will not require an amendment to this Plan. We generally support the above policy but request that “sensitives” be revised to “sensitivity” as shown above as we Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Area Overlay identified in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study comprise features in which development intrusion is not restricted by existing policies and regulations. It is encouraged that these features be incorporated into site level plans where appropriate to avoid net loss of natural cover. Should net loss of natural cover not be avoidable, appropriate compensation opportunities within other areas of the Secondary Plan area may be considered where appropriate. We request that the above language be included in policy possible”. Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study Overlay represents areas providing candidate and / or unconfirmed significant wildlife habitat or potential wildlife No change. The policy is to confirm the presence or absence. As such, the word "potential" is not necessary. Page 191 Page 23 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response An environmental impact study prepared in support of development applications shall confirm the presence or absence of the potential 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 request that the above policy include “potential” habitat and/or linkage. The functions and sizes for the parks listed in Policy 7.2.3 are set out in and to be in general conformity with Section 18.3 of the Official Plan. We request that the above policy be revised per the olicy 7.2.4 revised to: sizes for the parks listed in Policy 7.2.3 are set out in Section 18.3 of the Official Plan except that the Neighbourhood Park south of Concession Street East shall be larger than 3 The locations of the Community Park, Neighbourhood Parks and Parkettes are shown on Schedule A. The precise size and location of Community Park, 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 a park is not required, the land use surrounding the symbol will be the applicable land use designation. In regards to policy 7.2.5, we request that the above language be incorporated to ensure clarity. Policy 7.2.5 revised to: Neighbourhood Parks 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, the land use surrounding the symbol will be the applicable land use designation.” The Secondary Plan no longer provides a The collector road network shown in Schedule B has been confirmed through Phases 1 and 2 of the Class C Environmental Assessment process. Further refinements will be considered through Phases 3 and 4 conducted during the Policy 9.3.2 revised to: “The collector road network shown in Schedule B has been confirmed through Phases 1 and 2 of the Class C Environmental Assessment process. Page 192 Page 24 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Secondary Plan. Further to previous comments raised in this Letter, we request that the location of collector roads be flexible to ensure timely development. draft plan of subdivision process without amendment to the Secondary Plan. Arterial road intersection locations shown on Schedule B may be refined through draft plan of subdivision and transportation studies to address sight distance criteria, without amendment to this Secondary Plan.” 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 request that the above policy be deleted. (now 11.3.4) approval of the first development application”. The Preliminary Municipal Engineering/Servicing Report is a high level document that looks at servicing feasibility. There is a need to review the Subwatershed Study targets to confirm the drainage and stormwater plan for the Secondary Plan as a 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. Strategy will not be at the level to address the stormwater considerations as final grading and draft plan design is required. This is a standard requirement for subdivision development. The submission of the following plans and reports shall be required to determine the impact of stormwater Policy 11.3.7 (now policy 11.3.6) revised to: “The submission of the additional plans and Page 193 Page 25 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response development. All reports shall be prepared in accordance with the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study including: a) Master Drainage Plan; b) Stormwater Management Report and Plan; c) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; d) Servicing Plans; e) Grading Plans; f) Geotechnical reports; g) Hydrogeologic reports; and h) Other technical reports as deemed necessary. In regards to policy 11.3.7, we request that the Master Drainage Plan requirement be removed as it is dealt with in the Draft Functional Servicing Report. impact of stormwater quality/quantity, erosion and water balance of the proposed development. A Master Drainage Pan 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 : a) Functional Servicing Report; b) Stormwater Management Report and Plan; c) Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; d) Servicing Plans; e) Grading Plans; f) Geotechnical reports; g) Hydrogeologic reports; and h) Other technical reports as deemed necessary.” The Preliminary Servicing Strategy is not addressing the comprehensive matters required to be addressed in the Master Drainage Plan. water balance target set in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study is achieved. In regards to policy 11.3.9, we request that this be removed as it is dealt with in the Draft Functional Servicing Report. Secondary Plan level requirement; detailed stormwater management and water balance analysis will be addressed through Stormwater Management Report at the draft Stormwater management for all development shall be undertaken on a volume control basis and shall demonstrate the maintenance of recharge rates, flow paths and water quality to the greatest extent possible. Peak flow control and No change. The Preliminary Municipal Engineering/Servicing Report is a more general document that doesn't address the detailed stormwater management plans Page 194 Page 26 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response prevention of erosion shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington in consultation with CLOCA. In regards to policy 11.3.10, we request that this be removed as it is dealt with in the Draft Functional Servicing Report. Detailed studies prepared in support of a development application, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, may refine and confirm the 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. We recommend that the above policy be modified to include Revised Policy 12.1.1 to: “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 Subwatershed 12.1.8 Certain benefiting The landowners within the Secondary Plan area have entered, or will enter, into an agreement or agreements amongst themselves to address the distribution of all costs of development including those which may not be recoverable by the Municipality under the Development Charges Act, 1997, or any successor legislation, particularly but not limited to the provision of community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external services, stormwater management facilities, public/private utilities and school sites. We request that policy 12.1.8 be modified based on the above language. 8 ): “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 of developing the property, including but not limited to Region of Durham costs, that are to be shared for the provision of community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external services, stormwater management facilities, public/private utilities and school Page 195 Page 27 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response sites. 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) prior to registration of a plan of In order to implement Policy 12.1.8, the Municipality shall include conditions of Draft Plan Approval that may require shall require the benefiting owners of land landowners to enter into agreements with other benefitting landowners with respect to the provision of servicing. If a benefitting landowner chooses not to enter into such agreements, it is the Municipality’s intention that no development shall be permitted until it has been demonstrated that the benefitting landowner has entered into required agreements with other affected landowners with respect to the provision of services and other infrastructure. located in the Secondary Plan area to enter into a landowners group cost sharing agreement with respect to the provision of community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external services, stormwater management facilities, public/private utilities and school sites. It is the Municipality’s intention that no development shall be permitted in the Secondary Plan area until it has been demonstrated that the landowner has become a participating owner in good standing pursuant to the landowners group cost sharing agreement. The Municipality will require, as a condition of draft approval, that proof be provided to the Municipality that the landowners have satisfied their obligations with respect to the landowners group cost sharing agreement prior to registration of a plan of Policy deleted and replaced with revised Policy 12.1.9 above. Page 196 Page 28 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response We request that policy 12.1.19 be revised to include the above text which uphold the intent of the originally proposed Draft Clarington Official Plan Amendment and Exhibit B Based on the comments above in relation to the collector roads, we recommend that Exhibit B be altered to provide for the removal of the east west collector road based on comments herein and that the potential alternative alignment for the north south collector road be implemented in the appropriate manner either through policy text or depiction on proposed Exhibit B. In addition, we recommend that Exhibit B be revised to Land Use and Schedule B Constraint and Transportation With respect to parkland, it is our understanding that the size of the Community Park remains the same size as previous and exceeds the requirements of the Planning Act. Although we understand that the Municipality will purchase the Community Park, we request that the Community Park be conceptual in size and subject to the Planning Act requirements at the time of Draft Plan. We acknowledge the adjustments to the Park and School Community Park. location, we wish to reiterate outstanding concerns noted earlier in this letter. We support the permissibility for both residential and commercial uses within the Secondary Plan, appropriate and supported by the Commercial Needs Assessment peer review. Page 197 Page 29 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response not to explicitly require a concentration of commercial uses and have the predominant use of lands be commercial uses. It is our opinion that the permissions within the Medium Density Residential along major roads should enable flexibility to permit commercial uses. These areas should be developed based on market demand and the needs of the Secondary Plan Area as opposed to being the predominant use in a specific area. We would support revisions to the policy framework that would encourage such uses but not be included in the Secondary Plan to provide flexibility in the location of the north-south collector road currently spanning from Highway 2 to Concession Street. The location currently would require a crossing/bridge over the valley to connect to Highway 2 and would need to be located on non-participating lands. Flexibility in this collector road would allow for construction of this road to occur in a timely manner with the alternative connection to Lambs Road, should the collector road connection to Highway 2 be delayed, while ensuring that the lands necessary to accommodate a future collector road connection to Highway 2 are protected. Transportation Study, the Mid Block Collector Road south of Concession Street is not warranted as a collector road. This analysis by NexTrans will be provided under separate cover. We request that the Schedule A and Schedule B be revised to been removed. revised regarding the portion of land identified as an Area of Further Study Overlay. The schedule identifies all areas of further study to be considered the same without recognizing the distinction of each as identified in the Subwatershed rationale for the Areas of Further Study and references the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. Any EIS undertaken should build on the rational for identification as an area of URBAN DESIGN AND SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES Rows of street townhouses should generally be limited to a maximum of 6 units. Page 198 Page 30 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response We request that the above noted guideline permit a maximum of 8 units. 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. We request that the above guideline be limited to high-rise buildings up to 6 storeys in height which may cause adverse impacts. Minimize the design of a slab building and reduce the overall massing with a maximum building length of 60m. We request that the above guideline allow for flexibility and supported by similar built form guidelines. As this is part of the Guidelines it is not policy so some flexibility in building length is permitted. height of 4.5m. We request that the above policy be removed or additional flexibility added so as not to prescribe the height of the 1st standard for non-residential uses. Medallion Developments (Bowmanville I and II) Limited July 18, 2025 8 Additional Area of Further Study without an Environmental Constraint overlay, we request clarification as to what the potential environmental These areas are candidates for: turtle nesting areas, reptile hibernaculum, butternut habitat, and linkage opportunities. 2. For the land on Parcel 4 depicted as Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Areas with no Additional Area of Further Study overlay, we request clarification as to why this is not considered with Additional Area of Further Study. Low Constraint Areas and Additional Areas of Further Study area address different matters and are identified for different purposes as explained in the policies and in the Page 199 Page 31 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response 3. We request that the lands depicted in Appendix C be designated from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential to permit lower density residential dwelling types. Alternatively, we request that the Medium Density Residential designation permit all uses in the Low Density Residential designation. Schedule A revised to include suggested revision. 4. We request justification for the location of the Stormwater Management Pond depicted on Parcel 3 conceptually located on the land use schedule. The final location of ponds will be determined at the draft plan stage and adhere to the findings of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and the Preliminary 1735 Lambs Road / 2023743 Ontario Ltd., Catherine Marchetti and Marek Smieja July 31, 2025 As currently proposed, the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan is unnecessarily limiting as it designates a significant portion of the Subject Site as Neighbourhood Park. This designation is excessive and conflicts with provincial requirements, as demonstrated in the comments provided below. Additionally, with further information, the Neighbourhood Park may be limiting the developable area needed to achieve minimum density targets and support a school that may not be provided in this location as it preserves the knoll. Parkland is based on Planning Act dedication requirements. The Secondary Plan meets minimum density targets and accommodates school requirements. Comment 1: Parkland Budget Methodology Clarington’s municipal parkland dedication policy, as outlined in its Official Plan, Parkland and Open Space Dedication By- law (#2023-042), and the Clarington Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP), complies with the Planning Act requirements of 5% of land area or 1 hectare per 600 units. However additional per capita parkland standards are also implemented through the Clarington Official Plan, which currently sets a target of 1.8 hectares per 1,000 persons and remove the Community Park. Parkland is based on Planning Act dedication requirements and will be implemented through development review. Page 200 Page 32 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response recommends increasing this to 2.0 hectares per 1,000 persons in the PRCMP. While these standards may be reasonable at a municipal-wide scale, applying them to the Soper Hills Secondary Plan study area is not reasonable, as they result in parkland requirements that significantly exceed those mandated by the Planning Act (Table 1). As described in Section 7.2.5 of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, 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. As currently proposed, the 18 hectares of parkland in the Land Use Plan is equivalent to 10.3% of the developable land area, or a rate of 1 hectare per 292 units. It is my opinion that in order to become compliant with the Planning Act, the proposed parkland area in the Land Use Plan must be are only symbolically illustrated in the Land Use Plan, Batory would like to request that the current proposed Neighbourhood Park on the Subject Site be removed and replaced with Low Density Residential (refer to Appendix - Preferred Land Use Plan). Applicable parkland dedication requirements can then be applied to the Subject Site at the time if and when it goes through the development approval has been selected to preserve the knoll. Deferring parkland locations to the development approval stage would not ensure parkland is secured in an optimal or coordinated location. Comment 2: Minimized Developable Area One objective of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan is to realize efficient and transit-supportive urban densities by achieving a minimum density target of 50 people and jobs per hectare. The total developable area for the Secondary Plan study area, exclusive of the areas designated as in accordance with the Planning Act dedication requirements. The Plan achieves the minimum density target and supports efficient land use consistent with provincial policy. Page 201 Page 33 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response this, the Secondary Plan area should be designed to accommodate approximately 8,750 residents and jobs. The Soper Hills Secondary Plan Phase 2 Summary Report (December 2022), provided land areas and projected units, population, and jobs that could arise from three alternatives of the Land Use Plan (see Table 2 for Land Use Alternative 1 as an example). Batory would like to formally request this information to be provided for the latest Land Use Plan, along with references for how the number of units, people and jobs were calculated for each land use. In order to accommodate the proposed 18 hectares of parkland, other land uses that contribute to residents and jobs would need to be reduced within the Secondary Plan limits. Depending on the specific land use and the assumptions applied regarding units and persons per unit, this reduction could negatively impact the ability to achieve density targets. By limiting parkland in the Land Use Plan to 8.76 hectares, there is an opportunity to more appropriately allocate more land to density producing uses that contribute towards achieving 8,750 residents and jobs. Comment 3: Potential Overprovision of Schools In the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Phase 2 Summary Report (December 2022), it is mentioned that as part of the background work in Phase 1 of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan, consultation with the applicable school boards identified the need for a total of 3 elementary school sites. Batory would like to formally request any background documentation or liaison memos with the school boards that reference or support this conclusion. Additionally, we recommend exploring whether the three proposed schools based on the pupil yield rates from each school board and have been confirmed by the school board. Page 202 Page 34 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response facility, which would more efficiently utilize land and resources within the Secondary Plan Area. Weston Consulting on behalf of the Soper Hills Landowner’s Group November 20, 2025 and December 19, 2025 Land Use Plan Concession St E and Lambs Road. symbolic stormwater management pond density residential adjacent to the of collector road next to neighbourhood park, minor n/ a policy for cost sharing. The red text below has been added to the proposed new policy that the MOC had previously put forward. "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, applicants/landowners shall have entered into appropriate cost sharing agreements that establish the : 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 of developing the property, including but not limited to Region of Durham costs, that are to be shared for the provision of community and Page 203 Page 35 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response 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, public/private utilities and school sites. 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 landowners have met their obligations under the relevant cost sharing agreements prior to registration of a plan of subdivision." As discussed, it is important that we have the items noted included given the clarity that is needed for road improvements, external services, stormwater management facilities, public/private utilities and school sites. 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) prior to registration of a plan of subdivision. Weirfoulds LLP 1735 Lambs Road /2023743 Ontario Ltd., Catherine Marchetti and Marek Smieja November 11, 2025 Plan on the Subject Lands and/or in the plan area exceeds the amount of parkland Clarington is entitled to as parkland dedications under the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (the “Planning Act”). Unless Clarington intends to purchase these identified parklands utilizing existing parkland funds, and to do so immediately, the over identification of parkland undermines the optimization of land and the provision of housing. Moreover, the need for the amount of parkland identified in the Plan has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Furthermore, the Neighbourhood Park identified on the Subject Lands in the Plan and its appropriate location needs to be reassessed. While it is acknowledged that the Municipality has the Clarington Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan (“PRCMP”), the PRCMP does not reflect remove the Community Park and replace it with a Neighbourhood Park. The other neighbourhood park is sited on a knoll. The use of the knoll for a park makes efficient use of land that may be otherwise difficult to develop. Page 204 Page 36 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response The Plan seeks to secure three school sites within the Plan area, of which one appears to be partially on the Subject Lands. There is an existing school immediately outside of the Plan area. As such, the Plan’s three school sites, together with the existing school, would result in four schools servicing the Plan area. The need for four schools to service the population of the Plan area has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Moreover, the appropriate location of these planned schools needs to be reassessed, especially in light of ensuring an equitable distribution of municipal infrastructure co-locate with the Neighbourhood Park. The number of school sites are based on the pupil yield rates from each school board and have been confirmed by the school board. proposed number, size and location within the Plan area will undermine the achievement of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”) and the Plans goal of achieving a density target of 50 residents and jobs per minimum density target of 60 people and jobs per gross hectares. Providing for public service facilities including parks and schools is also a key direction of the PPS. school site on the Subject Lands significantly erodes the developable area of the Subject Lands. If the designations are allowed to persist as currently proposed, the incentive for our Clients to sell the Subject Lands to a developer is significantly diminished. This will undermine the realization of this important municipal infrastructure, which is presumably planned to be achieved together with development of the Subject Lands. secondary plan area. As such, these lands must be designed as a holistic community and not as one parcel at a time. New communities must provide adequate facilities such as schools and parks to accommodate new residents. Secondary Plan policy 12.1.9 outlines that a cost-sharing agreement amongst landowners is expected prior to approval of any draft plan. This includes sharing costs for "of community and infrastructure facilities such as parks, roads, road improvements, external services, stormwater management facilities, public/private utilities and school sites" Page 205 Page 37 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response The Plan’s proposed municipal infrastructure on the Subject Lands does not align with the housing objectives of the PPS 2024, as it fails to make sufficient land available for supports efficient land use and housing objectives consistent with provincial policy. The Subject Lands are located on the east side of Lambs Road, north of Highway 2 (Kingston Road) and south of Concession Street East. The Subject Lands have a lot area of approximately 7.08 hectares and are presently used for agricultural purposes. The Plan applies to a broader area of approximately 193 hectares (the “Plan Area”) inclusive of the Subject Lands. The Plan designates 18 hectares of land for parkland purposes. Of this, 2.5 hectares are identified as a Neighbourhood Park on the Subject Lands. This means that nearly 35% of the Subject Lands is allocated for park purposes. Adding a school site on the Subject Lands further reduces the developable area. While our Clients support the planning principles in the Plan, the current identification of parks and potentially schools on the Subject Lands fails to achieve this infrastructure in a manner that is balanced, equitable, efficient, and consistent The Plan’s proposed allocation of 18 hectares of parkland - representing 10.3% of the total developable land - exceeds the amount of parkland Clarington is entitled to in connection with the development of the Plan Area pursuant to the Planning Act. The details of this are reflected in the July 31, 2025, correspondence from our Clients’ planner, Batory Planning and Management, attached hereto as Appendix 1. In summary, whether the 5% standard is applied or the one hectare per 600 units is applied (each applied in accordance remove the Community Park. Parkland is based on Planning Act dedication requirements and will be implemented through development review. Page 206 Page 38 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Space Dedication By-law No. 2023-042), the maximum parkland dedication that Clarington is entitled to is approximately 8.76 hectares. The proposed 18 hectares of parkland identified in the Plan is more than double the amount of parkland Clarington can obtain gratuitously in connection with development. Notably, the Municipality of Clarington’s Parkland and Open Space Dedication By- law No. 2023-042 comply with the Planning Act’s five percent standard, underscoring the inconsistency of the Plan’s proposal. While Clarington’s Official Plan may set an objective for more parkland than what Clarington is otherwise able to obtain gratuitously under the Planning Act, setting such a parkland requirement would mean that Clarington would have to purchase the land for parkland purposes and would be undermining its objective of achieving a minimum number of people and jobs in the Plan Area. Accordingly, our Clients seek that the proposed Neighbourhood Park designation on the Subject Lands be removed and replaced with a Low Density Residential The Plan proposes three elementary school sites. Based on the projected population, this represents an over-supply of institutional land, especially given that four elementary schools would exist within a three-kilometre radius of the Subject Lands if the Plan were implemented as proposed. Our Clients seek that Clarington, in consultation with the applicable school boards, reduce the number of proposed elementary schools from three to two, incorporating a shared park facility. This refinement would be consistent with Principle 1 of the Phase 2 Summary Report and PPS 2024 promoting efficient relocate the school and co-locate it with the Neighbourhood Park. The number of school sites is based on pupil yield rates confirmed by the school boards. Page 207 Page 39 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response educational and recreational spaces remain functional and sustainable. The removal of this school should be from the Subject Lands together with the removal of the Neighbourhood Park from the Subject Lands. In the alternative, should all three school sites remain in the Plan, the school sites should be clearly identified to be off from the Subject Lands to ensure a fair and nefficient Land Use and Reduced Developable Area The excessive allocation of parkland and schools reduces the developable area available for residential and employment uses, directly undermining the Plan’s goal of achieving the density target of 50 residents and jobs per hectare. The designation of Neighbourhood Park and potentially a school on the Subject Lands results in an inequitable distribution of infrastructure through the Plan Area such that the incentive for developing the Subject Lands is significantly reduced. Furthermore, the need for the amount of parkland proposed in the Plan has not been justified by an updated PRCMP. If parkland dedication were limited to the statutory five percent (i.e., 8.76 hectares), significantly more land could be devoted to density-generating uses, supporting both the Plan’s growth objectives and PPS 2024 directives for promoting intensification and efficient land use. For the foregoing reasons, the Plan is not consistent with PPS 2024 and is neither consistent with the principles of good planning nor in the public interest. Furthermore, while our Clients are willing to work toward a resolution of the above-noted concerns, they have no desire to sell the Subject Lands, or any part of it, for community purposes. relocate the school and co-locate it with the Neighbourhood Park. The park preserves the knoll and is provided in accordance with the Planning Act dedication requirements. The Plan achieves the minimum density target and supports efficient land use consistent with provincial policy. Page 208 Page 40 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to your response regarding the above. Batory on behalf of Batory Management on behalf of 1735 Lambs Road / 2023743 Ontario Ltd., Catherine Marchetti and Marek Smieja February 19, 2026 As described in Section 7.2.5 of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, 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. As currently proposed, the 20.33 hectares of parkland in the Land Use Plan is equivalent to 13% of the developable land area, or a rate of 1 hectare per 257 units. It is my opinion that in order to comply with the Planning Act, the proposed parkland area in the Land Use Plan must be reduced to a maximum of 11.25 hectares. Understanding that the current location of the proposed parks are only symbolically illustrated in the Land Use Plan, Batory requests that the current proposed Neighbourhood Park on the Subject Site be removed and replaced with Low Density Residential (refer to Appendix - Preferred Land Use Plan). Applicable parkland dedication requirements can then be applied to the Subject Site at the time if and when it goes remove the Community Park. Parkland is based on Planning Act dedication requirements and will be implemented through development review. Minimized Developable Area While the Land Use Plan achieves the minimum target of 60 people and jobs per gross hectare, the identification in the plan of parkland that exceeds the planning requirements represents a missed opportunity to accommodate additional housing and further improve land use efficiency, as land is in accordance with the Planning Act dedication requirements. The Plan achieves the minimum density target and supports efficient land use consistent with provincial policy. Page 209 Page 41 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response base. Reallocating a portion of the parkland to residential use would reduce pressure for unnecessary outward expansion and make more efficient use of infrastructure and services It is acknowledged that the December 2025 revision of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan relocated the centrally proposed school site further east, away from the Subject Site. It is appropriate to consider relying on the nearby parkettes, each proposed adjacent to the school sites, to meet recreational needs.In the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Phase 2 Summary Report (December 2022), it is mentioned that as part of the background work in Phase 1 of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan, consultation with the applicable school boards identified the need for a total of 3 elementary school sites. Batory would like to formally request any background documentation or liaison memos with the school boards that school sites are based on the pupil yield rates from each school board and have been confirmed by the school board. on behalf of the Soper Hills Landowner’s Group February 20, 2026 & April 2026 Land Use Schedule: While school sites are distributed across the Secondary Plan Area, Parcels 3 and 4, under the same ownership (Medallion Development), would collectively accommodate two of the three proposed schools (Appendix 1). This concentration places a disproportionate burden on these lands, particularly Parcel 4, which, due to its smaller size, would be significantly impacted. The area preference would follow the Landowner Group’s Preferred Land Use Plan issued to the Municipality of Clarington, previously (Appendix 2). Co-locating the school site adjacent to the larger Neighbourhood Park facilitates the integrated programming and the shared use of school-related site location was reviewed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board and the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board. The School Boards advised that criteria such as preferred location, site servicing, and grading are established within their respective real estate acquisition regulations. Based on this review, the School Boards have requested that the proposed alternative location not be identified as a potential school site. Page 210 Page 42 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response pedestrian connectivity and creates a centralized focal point for community activity. This approach is consistent with Policy 7.3.4, which promotes the co-location of schools and Centre designation The Landowner Group maintains the same concerns regarding this designation, as previously stated, under the current Policies as presented. However, these concerns could be addressed, provided that the policy language, proposed in this memo is implemented, together with the Land Use Schedule in its current form. See above comments. Collector Road crossing the valley 9.3.2 traverses the valley area, which is not considered a preferred option. This alignment would result in significantly higher construction costs due to grading, structural requirements, and environmental constraints, leading to substantial servicing costs across the entire Secondary Plan Area. In contrast, extending the east–west Collector Road to accommodate traffic movements would be a more cost- effective and practical solution. Appendix 2 illustrates an alternative east–west Collector Road alignment that resolves this issue without impacting natural features within the Secondary Plan Area or incurring the aforementioned additional costs. Given the recent approval of the Traffic Impact Study, we recommend that the Secondary Plan Schedule B illustrates both Collector Road alternatives, and that Policy 9.3.2 be revised as outlined below, in order to enable the Secondary Plan to be finalized. south collector road crossing the valley to connect with Highway 2 is the preferred option and should be maintained as a connection in either the short or long term. Added Policy 9.3.7: Notwithstanding Policies 9.2.2, 9.3.1 and 9.3.2, if the collector road connection to Highway 2 is delayed due to property acquisition or construction delays, an alternative connection to Lambs Road may be provided subject to a comprehensive transportation study to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the Region of Durham that demonstrates that transportation capacity can be accommodated by other collector roads in the Secondary Plan area; active transportation and future transit connections to Highway 2 and the future development to the south can be provided through other road network connections; the requirements of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment are satisfied; and that protection is provided Page 211 Page 43 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response High Density / Mixed Use Regional Corridor Policy 4.3.7 “Stand-alone retail uses, service uses or office uses are not permitted within this designation.” Proposed Revisions Recommend deletion Rationale As currently written, this policy would preclude the development of standalone medical office uses, which may medical offices are a permitted use and may be accommodated within mixed-use buildings. In addition, medical offices are permitted within the Neighbourhood Centre designation, which is centrally located within the Secondary plan area and intended to accommodate retail, service and office uses. discussions with the landowners, with respect to the list of stand-alone uses to be permitted in Section 4.3.7 of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan (as referenced in our Meeting Minutes), please see the following list: Stand-alone uses to be permitted, Hight Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor designation: • _Grocery Stores/ Supermarkets; • _Financial Services / Bank / Credit Union; • _Business, Professional or Administrative Office; • _Healthcare Services; • _Daycare Facilities; • _Pharmacy; and • _Medical / Dental Office. are already permitted within the High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor designation and the Neighbourhood Centre designation, and can be accommodated in accordance with the existing policies of the Secondary Plan. Medium Density Residential Policy 4.4.7 “Building heights shall be a minimum of 3 storeys and a maximum of 6 storeys. However, a minimum of 2 storeys shall be permitted for buildings adjacent to Low Density Residential designations.” Proposed Revisions Building heights shall be a minimum of 3 2 storeys and a maximum of 6 storeys. However, a minimum of 2 storeys shall be permitted for buildings adjacent to Low Density Residential designations. Revised Policy 4.4.7 to specify that street townhouses may be permitted at a minimum height of two storeys. Page 212 Page 44 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Rationale The proposed revision provides flexibility to permit two-storey buildings within Medium Density Residential areas. This flexibility is essential to facilitate the intended built form in these areas while, also ensuring that the prescribed minimum Policy 4.4.8 “Notwithstanding Policy 4.4.8, the highest and densest forms are encouraged to be located at collector and arterial road intersections along the Local Corridors to provide built form and housing type variety along the Local Corridors. As such, a minimum of 4 storeys shall be required adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads and the intersection of collector and arterial roads subject to a compatible transition to adjacent cultural heritage resources and Low Density Residential designations.” Proposed Revisions “Notwithstanding Policy 4.4.87, the highest and densest forms are encouraged to be located at collector and the intersection of two arterial roads intersections along the Local Corridors to provide built form and housing type variety along the Local Corridors. As such, a minimum of 4 storeys shall be required adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads and the intersection of collector and arterial roads subject to a compatible transition to adjacent cultural heritage resources and Low Density Residential designations.” Rationale The proposed revision better aligns the location of the highest and densest built forms with the functional hierarchy of the road network by emphasizing arterial road intersections, which are designed to accommodate higher traffic volumes, transit service, and pedestrian activity. Collector roads are typically intended to serve a transitional role and are intended Policy 4.4.8 directs the highest and densest development to key intersections along Local Corridors in order to achieve the built-form mix outlined in the Official Plan. A minimum height of four storeys represents a moderate and appropriate level of development, particularly within a Medium Density designation. Page 213 Page 45 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response development to intersections of two arterial roads, the revised policy supports efficient land use, minimizing impacts on “Notwithstanding Policy 4.4.9, a minimum of site density of 100 units per net hectare shall be required adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads and adjacent to the intersection of collector and arterial roads.” Proposed Revisions Notwithstanding Policy 4.4.9, a minimum of site density of 100 60 units per net hectare shall be required adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads and adjacent to the intersection of collector and arterial roads. Rationale After site design analyses, it has been determined that a minimum density of 60 units per net hectare represents the most appropriate alternative and aligns with the intent of the Policy. Given that a Neighbourhood Centre is likely to include a network of private roads and amenity areas, the net developable area, and therefore the achievable density, will be reduced. Additionally, as the minimum building height at the Prominent Intersection has been reduced to a more reasonable three storeys, it is appropriate that this change be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the minimum of 100 units per net hectare at the intersection of two arterial roads and at the intersection of collector and arterial roads is intentional and remains appropriate. These locations are intended to accommodate the highest density development to support efficient land use, transit-supportive development, and a compact built form. density calculations based on the attached Concept Plan. They have applied their standard design approach and calculated two density scenarios. To achieve a higher unit yield within the Neighbourhood Centre area, the townhouse units are proposed in a condominium format with a mix of residential and non- residential uses. Under this scenario, the density is calculated t definition. However, when No change. This methodology is not consistent with how density is defined or applied and is not supported. All components necessary to facilitate development, including private roads, parking areas, and landscaped areas, must be included in the density calculation. Page 214 Page 46 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response private roads, parking areas, and landscaped areas are deducted in the calculation, the density increases to 106.15 uph. This concept has been prepared to illustrate how the Centre Policy 4.5.3 “The Neighbourhood Centre will be the focal point of the neighbourhood, a hub of activity with a concentration of retail uses, service uses and office uses in a pedestrian-oriented main street format along the north-south collector road, complemented by adjacent Medium Density Residential uses.” Proposed Revisions The Neighbourhood Centre will be the focal point of the neighbourhood, a hub of activity with a concentration and mix of retail uses, service uses and office uses, and residential in a pedestrian-oriented main street format along the north- south collector road, complemented by adjacent Medium Density Residential uses.” Rationale The inclusion of residential uses in this Policy provides clarity and consistency with the land use permissions and built form framework of the Neighbourhood Centre designation. Residential uses are a fundamental component to support a viable pedestrian-oriented main street by providing a resident population to sustain retail, service, and office uses. This approach also enhances the flexibility and implementability of the Neighbourhood Centre while maintaining the intended : Centre will be the focal point of the neighbourhood, a hub of activity with a concentration and mix of retail uses, service uses, office uses, and residential in a pedestrian-oriented main street format along the north-south collector road, complemented by adjacent Medium Density Residential uses.” “The predominant use of lands within the Neighbourhood Centre designation is a mix of retail uses, service uses and office uses serving the day-to-day needs of residents in the : of lands within the Neighbourhood Centre designation is a mix of retail uses, service uses, residential and office uses serving the Page 215 Page 47 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Secondary Plan Area as set out in Section 10.5 of the Official Plan.” Proposed Revisions The predominant use of lands within the Neighbourhood Centre designation is a mix of retail uses, service uses, residential and office uses serving the day-to-day needs of residents in the Secondary Plan Area as set out in Section 10.5 of the Official Plan and in accordance with the policies of Section 4.5 this Secondary Plan. Rationale 10.5 of the Official Plan.” Policy 4.5.8 “Stand-alone residential buildings, containing the dwelling types set out in Policy 4.4.5, may be permitted provided it is demonstrated that a range of retail uses, service uses and office uses to meet day to day needs are planned to be achieved on site in accordance with the policies of the Neighbourhood Centre.” Proposed Revisions Stand-alone residential buildings, containing the dwelling types set out in Policy 4.4.5, may be permitted provided it is demonstrated that a range of retail uses, service uses and or office uses to meet day to day needs are planned to be achieved on site within the Neighbourhood Centre Area. For the purposes of this Policy there shall be no minimum required floor area for a site that contains retail, service and or office uses.” in accordance with the policies of the Neighbourhood Centre. Rationale The policy requires the demonstration of a range of retail, service, and office uses; therefore, the provision of such uses within the Neighbourhood Centre Area is permissive. Allowing these uses to be achieved across the Neighbourhood Centre Revised Policy 4.5.8 to: “Stand-alone residential buildings containing the dwelling types set out in Policy 4.4.4 may be permitted within the Neighbourhood Centre, provided that, at the time of development application submission, it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Municipality that a range of retail uses, service uses and/or office uses intended to meet day to day needs are planned to be, or have been, achieved within the Neighbourhood Centre. Such demonstration may be provided: a) on the same site as the stand alone residential development; or b) through a coordinated development application submission with other lands within the Neighbourhood Centre.” Page 216 Page 48 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response accommodation of day-to-day needs over a broader area and supports a sufficient concentration of commercial uses to serve the residential population. This approach also provides flexibility in development and does not preclude or restrict the development of stand-alone residential buildings within the Neighbourhood Centre. It is noted that the revised language of Policy 4.5.8 requires the retention of Policy 4.5.7, as proposed to be revised. Policy 4.5.12 “Residential development within the Neighbourhood Centre designation shall have a minimum site density of 100 units per net hectare.” The proposed 100 uph density exceeds the minimum required along Local Corridors. It is challenging to achieve this level of density without going higher or providing underground parking, which are not achievable in the current market. Requiring non-residential uses further exacerbates the challenge of requiring a minimum residential density. Neighbourhood Centres primary objective is providing retail and service uses, not higher density residential. Proposed Revision: Residential development within the Neighbourhood Centre designation shall have a minimum site density of Policy 4.5.12 revised to: “Residential development within the Neighbourhood Centre designation shall have a minimum site density of 100 units per net hectare, except on sites that include permitted non-residential uses, which shall have a minimum density of 60 units per net hectare.” Low Density Residential Policy 4.6.3 “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 No change. This is Council direction and has been implemented in other Secondary Plans. Page 217 Page 49 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Proposed Revisions Recommend deletion as this is very prescriptive in our opinion. Building Siting and Design Policy 5.4.7 “Townhouses shall generally not comprise more than 6 attached units.” Proposed Revisions Street Townhouses shall generally not comprise more than 6 attached units. Rationale The proposed revision clarifies that the limitation applies specifically to street townhouses, ensuring consistency with the intended built form along public streets. This distinction provides greater flexibility in the design of other townhouse forms while maintaining appropriate massing, scale, and : shall generally not comprise more than 6 attached units” Policy 7.3.3 “In the event that all or part of a school site should not be required by a School Board, the Municipality of Clarington shall be given the first opportunity to purchase all or part of the school site for a community use.” Proposed Revisions Recommend deletion. Rationale This is recommended for deletion, given that there are no additional community uses had been identified as required by the Municipality within the proposed school site locations and it is not appropriate to provide such direction to the Municipality, absent the need for community uses and it is recognized that the acquisition by the Municipality will be Policy 18.5.3 of the Clarington Official Plan. Policy 7.2.5 “The locations of the Community Park, Neighbourhood Parks and Parkettes are shown on Schedule A. The precise size No change. This is not needed. Page 218 Page 50 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response 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, the land use surrounding the symbol will be the applicable land use designation._” _ Proposed Revisions The locations of the Community Park, Neighbourhood Parks 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, generally based on the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. In the event that a park is determined not to be required, the land use surrounding the symbol will be the applicable land use Policy 9.3.2 “The collector road network shown in Schedule B has been confirmed through Phases 1 and 2 of 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.” _ Proposed Revisions The collector road network shown in Schedule B has been confirmed through Phases 1 and 2 of the Class C Environmental Assessment process; and two options are identified on Schedule B in the south portion of the Plan. The preferred option is to connect to Lambs Road as opposed to Highway 2, across Soper Creek. The final option shall be based on the findings of a Transportation Impact Study and further refinements will be considered through Phases 3 and 4 conducted during the draft plan of subdivision process Page 219 Page 51 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response Rationale Please refer to the rationale provided on the first and second pages of this memo regarding the proposed Collector Road collector road connection to Highway 2 is delayed due to property acquisition or construction delays, an alternative connection to Lambs Road can be provided and this connection may be removed without amendment to this Secondary Plan, subject to a comprehensive transportation study to the satisfaction of the Municipality that demonstrates that transportation capacity can be accommodated by other collector roads in the Secondary Plan area and active transportation and future transit connections to Highway 2 and the future development to the south can be provided through other road network connections and that protection is provided for an ultimate connection to alternative connection to Lambs Road, should the collector road connection to Highway 2 be delayed, while ensuring that the lands necessary to accommodate a future collector road connection to Highway 2 are protected. Management and Low Impact Development Policy 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.” Proposed Revisions A Master Drainage Plan / Master Environmental Servicing Plan shall be completed for the Secondary Plan Area prior to the submission of the first approval of development application within the Secondary Plan Area. The above Policy is subject to final review and acceptance, : 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.” Page 220 Page 52 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response “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 : a)Functional Servicing Report; b)Stormwater Management Report and Plan; c)Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; d)Servicing Plans; e)Grading Plans; f)Geotechnical reports; g)Hydrogeologic reports; and h)Other technical reports as deemed necessary.” Recommendation The above Policy is subject to final review and acceptance, 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 of developing the property (including Region of Durham costs, costs of planning, engineering and environmental studies for the secondary plan area, and the cost of construction, land dedications and associated soft cost required for the delivery of community services and infrastructure) of developing the property are to be shared including, but not limited to the provision of community and infrastructure facilities such as Page 221 Page 53 of 53 Submission Number Details of Submission Staff Response stormwater management facilities, public/private utilities and school sites. 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 potential cultural heritage resource. A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report will be required for each property listed in Policy 8.1.2 as part of a development application. Collector Road to be removed on property 3. Proposed school relocation from property 3 to 33. No change. The proposed alternative school site location was reviewed in consultation applicable school boards and was determined from Property 4 to Property 31 is not supported, as school sites are required to be located on a collector road in accordance with subject to review of complete policies. Page 222 May 6, 2026 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attention: Lisa Backus, Manager Community Planning RE: Comments of Soper Hills Secondary Plan 1735 Lambs Road, Clarington Batory Management (“Batory”) has been retained by the landowner (2023743 Ontario Ltd., Catherine Marchetti and Marek Smieja) as the planning consultant for the property located at 1735 Lambs Road (“Subject Site”), legally known as PT LT 6 CON 1 DARLINGTON PT 2, 40R17505; in the Municipality of Clarington, Ontario. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the May 2026 Soper Hills Secondary Plan as posted on Clarington’s Soper Hills webpage. The Soper Hills Secondary Plan is being recommended for approval by Council at the Planning and Development Committee meeting on Monday, May 11, 2026 at 5 p.m. Previous commenting letters submitted as part of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan process are also included in the Appendix of this letter. While there is appreciation for the reconfiguration and refinement of land use locations, the proposed Soper Hills Secondary Plan in its current form continues to be unnecessarily limiting. A significant portion of the Subject Site is designated as Neighbourhood Park, which is excessive and conflicts with provincial requirements, as outlined in the comments below. Figure 1: Aerial View & Context 1 Page 223 The Subject Site is located on the east side of Lambs Road, north of Highway 2 (King Street) and south of Concession Street East in the community of Bowmanville within the Municipality of Clarington. It is 17.5 acres (7.08 ha) in size with 141.1 metres of frontage along Lambs Road, and is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. As included in the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, Schedule A - Land Use (“Land Use Plan”), the majority of the Subject Site is proposed to be designated as Neighbourhood Park with portions of the site along Lambs Road proposed to be designated as Medium Density Residential, and the remainder as Low Density Residential. Study Area Estimated Population 13,000 residents Estimated # of Units 5,340 Study Area 193 hectares Developable Area Unspecified in 2026 plan Total Parkland Proposed Unspecified in 2026 plan Subject Site Lot Area 7.08 hectares Neighbourhood Park Area Approx. 3.5 hectares Legend Figure 2: Soper Hills Secondary Plan, Schedule A Land Use, Subject Site outlined in cyan 2 Page 224 While we are supportive of the municipality’s intentions on diversifying the uses within the secondary plan area, we have several concerns with the current Land Use Plan as it relates to the Subject Site. Comment 1: Parkland Budget Methodology Detailed land budget statistics for the previous December 2025 Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan were provided by Clarington Planning Staff, and reviewed as part of Batory’s previous letter dated February 19, 2026 (refer to the Appendix). Based on the statistics provided, the Planning Act would require 11.25 hectares of parkland, whereas the December 2025 Land Use Plan provided 20.33 hectares. This means 9.08 hectares of additional parkland was proposed that the municipality is not entitled to under the parkland dedication provisions of the Planning Act. No updated land budget statistics have been provided as part of the May 2026 Land Use Plan. Without this information, we continue to be concerned there is an overdedication of parkland across the plan area. The estimated population of the study area has also increased to 13,000 residents and 5,340 dwelling units from the previous 11,800 and 5,240 respectively. The staff recommendation report also references 5,900 residential units instead of the 5,340 carried in the Secondary Plan. We would like to formally request updated land budget statistics for the May 2026 plan, and clarification regarding the calculation of estimated population and dwelling units. Comment 2: Proposed Park Type and Size Policy 7.2.3 has been updated to remove the proposed Community Park from the Land Use Plan, however Policy 7.2.4 suggests the need for a larger park: 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 except that the Neighbourhood Park south of Concession Street East shall be larger than 3 hectares. Previous iterations of the Land Use plan proposed a larger Community Park to the north of Concessions Street East. We suggest the municipality consider providing a larger Community Park closer to the two schools to the north, removing the need for the larger Neighbourhood Park over the Subject Site (refer to the Appendix for our Preferred Land Use Plan). We would also request the municipality replace the word “shall” with “may” in Policy 7.2.4 to provide flexibility in the final parkland size, allowing exact size and location to be determined during the development review and approval. This is in keeping with Policy 7.2.5 as described below. 3 Page 225 As per Secondary Plan Policy 7.2.5, at the time of development review and approval, Planning Act parkland dedication requirements will determine the exact size and location of the Neighbourhood Park. Aligned with this policy, we request that the Subject Site be designated as Low Density Residential and that parkland dedication will be reviewed upon the submission of a development application. The proposed adjustment to the land use of the Subject Site is modest in scale, with approximately 3.5 hectares of Low Density land use yielding an additional 260 residents. This incremental increase does not result in a dramatic shift in built form. Please refer to the Appendix for our Preferred Land Use Plan. Comment 3: Removal of Parkland Designation Process Policy 7.2.5 also states that “In the event that a park is determined not to be required, the land use surrounding the symbol will be the applicable land use designation”. While this policy language does provide flexibility, it also introduces significant uncertainty and potential hurdles to the development approvals process. The policy does not clearly establish whether the removal of a park designation at the development stage would necessitate an Official Plan Amendment to change the underlying land use. In addition, where a park symbol is located adjacent to multiple land use designations, it is unclear which designation would apply if the park is ultimately determined not to be required. This lack of clarity limits the effectiveness of the Secondary Plan and increases the risk of implementation challenges. Comment 4: Natural Heritage Feature The May 2026 Soper Hills Secondary Plan has been revised to accommodate an existing ‘knoll’ located on the Subject Site. A central school has been relocated and a western portion of a proposed collector road has been removed due to grading and topographic constraints. A portion of the Subject Site is also designated Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Area Overlay and Additional Area of Further Study in the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Schedule B Environmental Constraint and Transportation Plan. We would anticipate that an Environmental Impact Study is undertaken by a professional ecologist to confirm the potential extent of environmental constraints that would assist in the determination for parkland dedication on the Subject Site. 4 Page 226 In conclusion, we thank staff for taking our concerns into consideration and request council defer the approval of the Secondary Plan until such time that these matters are addressed and we can work through these items in a collaborative fashion. Yours very truly, Paul Demczak, MCIP, RPP Principal, Batory Planning + Management (647) 530-3634, pdemczak@batory.ca 5 Page 227 Appendix - Preferred Land Use Plan 6 Page 228 Appendix - Previous Commenting Letters 7 Page 229 July 31, 2025 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attention: Lisa Backus, Manager Community Planning RE: Comments of Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan 1735 Lambs Road, Clarington Batory Management (“Batory”) has been retained by the landowner (2023743 Ontario Ltd.) as the planning consultant for the property located at 1735 Lambs Road (“Subject Site”), legally known as PT LT 6 CON 1 DARLINGTON PT 2, 40R17505; in the Municipality of Clarington, Ontario. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan as presented at the Statutory Public Meeting held on June 19, 2025, as it relates to the Subject Site. As currently proposed, the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan is unnecessarily limiting as it designates a significant portion of the Subject Site as Neighbourhood Park. This designation is excessive and conflicts with provincial requirements, as demonstrated in the comments provided below. Additionally, with further information, the Neighbourhood Park may be limiting the developable area needed to achieve minimum density targets and support a school that may not be required. The Subject Site is located on the east side of Lambs Road, north of Highway 2 (Kingston Road) and south of Concession Street East in the community of Bowmanville within the Municipality of Clarington. It is 17.5 acres (7.08 ha) in size with 141.1 metres of frontage along Lambs Road, and is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. 1 Page 230 Figure 1: Aerial View & Context As included in the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, Schedule A - Land Use (“Land Use Plan”), the majority of the Subject Site is proposed to be designated as Neighbourhood Park with portions of the site along Lambs Road proposed to be designated as Medium Density Residential, and the remainder as Low Density Residential. The Draft Land Use Plan is provided on the following page. 2 Page 231 Study Area Estimated Population 11,800 residents Estimated # of Units 5,250 Study Area 193 hectares Developable Area 175.14 hectares Total Parkland Proposed Approx. 18 hectares Subject Site Lot Area 7.08 hectares Neighbourhood Park Area Approx. 2.5 hectares Figure 2: Soper Hills Secondary Plan, Draft Schedule A Land Use, Subject Site outlined in cyan 3 Page 232 While we are supportive of the municipality’s intentions on diversifying the uses within the secondary plan area, we have several concerns with the current Land Use Plan as it relates to the Subject Site. Comment 1: Parkland Budget Methodology Clarington’s municipal parkland dedication policy, as outlined in its Official Plan, Parkland and Open Space Dedication By-law (#2023-042), and the Clarington Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP), complies with the Planning Act requirements of 5% of land area or 1 hectare per 600 units. However additional per capita parkland standards are also implemented through the Clarington Official Plan, which currently sets a target of 1.8 hectares per 1,000 persons and recommends increasing this to 2.0 hectares per 1,000 persons in the PRCMP. While these standards may be reasonable at a municipal-wide scale, applying them to the Soper Hills Secondary Plan study area is not reasonable, as they result in parkland requirements that significantly exceed those mandated by the Planning Act (Table 1). Table 1: Parkland Dedication Policy Review Policy Rate Application to Study Area Planning Act 5% or 1 hectare/ 600 units (no greater than 15%) Requires 8.76 hectares Clarington Parkland and Open Space Dedication By-law #2023-042 Greater of the above (5% applies) Requires 8.76 hectares Clarington Official Plan Capita Parkland Standard: 1.8 hectares/1,000 persons Requires 21.24 hectares Parkland Dedication: 5% or 1 hectare/ 300 units (no greater than 15%) Requires 17.50 hectares Clarington Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP)* Capita Parkland Standard: 2.0 hectares/1,000 persons Requires 23.60 hectares 4 Page 233 Parkland Dedication: 5% or 1 hectare/ 600 units (no greater than 15%) Requires 8.75 hectares Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan Proposes approximately 18 hectares *Recommendations of the PRCMP are not yet in effect. PRCMP recommends to update the alternative rate in Section 23.10.3(a), (c) and (e) of the Official Plan to one hectare of parkland per 600 dwelling units in order to comply with the Planning Act, and to adjust the park standard to align with its current level of service at 2.0 hectares per 1,000 persons. As described in Section 7.2.5 of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, 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. As currently proposed, the 18 hectares of parkland in the Land Use Plan is equivalent to 10.3% of the developable land area, or a rate of 1 hectare per 292 units. It is my opinion that in order to become compliant with the Planning Act, the proposed parkland area in the Land Use Plan must be reduced to a maximum of 8.76 hectares. Understanding that the current location of the proposed parks are only symbolically illustrated in the Land Use Plan, Batory would like to request that the current proposed Neighbourhood Park on the Subject Site be removed and replaced with Low Density Residential (refer to Appendix - Preferred Land Use Plan). Applicable parkland dedication requirements can then be applied to the Subject Site at the time if and when it goes through the development approval process. Comment 2: Minimized Developable Area One objective of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan is to realize efficient and transit-supportive urban densities by achieving a minimum density target of 50 people and jobs per hectare. The total developable area for the Secondary Plan study area, exclusive of the areas designated as Environmental Protection Area, is 175.14 hectares. Based on this, the Secondary Plan area should be designed to accommodate approximately 8,750 residents and jobs. The Soper Hills Secondary Plan Phase 2 Summary Report (December 2022), provided land areas and projected units, population, and jobs that could arise from three alternatives of the Land Use Plan (see Table 2 for Land Use Alternative 1 as an example). Batory would like to formally request this information to be provided for the latest Land 5 Page 234 Use Plan, along with references for how the number of units, people and jobs were calculated for each land use. Table 2: Land Area, Units, People, Retail Floor Area and Jobs for Land Use Alternative 1, Soper Hills Secondary Plan: Phase 2 Summary Report In order to accommodate the proposed 18 hectares of parkland, other land uses that contribute to residents and jobs would need to be reduced within the Secondary Plan limits. Depending on the specific land use and the assumptions applied regarding units and persons per unit, this reduction could negatively impact the ability to achieve density targets. By limiting parkland in the Land Use Plan to 8.76 hectares, there is an opportunity to more appropriately allocate more land to density producing uses that contribute towards achieving 8,750 residents and jobs. Comment 3: Potential Overprovision of Schools In the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Phase 2 Summary Report (December 2022), it is mentioned that as part of the background work in Phase 1 of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan, consultation with the applicable school boards identified the need for a total of 3 elementary school sites. Batory would like to formally request any background documentation or liaison memos with the school boards that reference or support this conclusion. Additionally, we recommend exploring whether the three proposed schools could be consolidated into 6 Page 235 two, potentially with a shared park facility, which would more efficiently utilize land and resources within the Secondary Plan Area. In conclusion, we thank staff for taking our concerns into consideration and kindly request a follow-up in which we can work through these items in a collaborative fashion. Yours very truly, Paul Demczak, MCIP, RPP Principal, Batory Planning + Management (647) 530-3634, pdemczak@batory.ca 7 Page 236 Appendix - Preferred Land Use Plan 8 Page 237 Barristers & Solicitors 22978124.1 Raj Kehar Partner t. 416-947-5051 rkehar@weirfoulds.com File 23517.00001 4100 - 66 Wellington Street West, PO Box 35, TD Bank Tower, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. M5K 1B7 T: 416-365-1110 F: 416-365-1876 www.weirfoulds.com November 11, 2025 VIA EMAIL Lisa Backus Manager Community Planning Municipality of Clarington- Planning Services 40 Temperature Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Dear Ms. Backus Re: Comments on Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan 1735 Lambs Road, Clarington We are counsel for 2023743 Ontario Ltd., Catherine Marchetti and Marek Smieja (collectively, the “Clients”) with respect to the above referenced matter. Our Clients are the owner of the lands municipally known as 1735 Lambs Road, located in the community of Bowmanville, in the Municipality of Clarington (the “Subject Lands”). We write to express our Clients’ concerns with the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan (the “Plan”), including as it applies to the Subject Lands. Our Clients’ primary concerns are as follows: 1. The proposed size and amount of parkland identified in the Plan on the Subject Lands and/or in the plan area exceeds the amount of parkland Clarington is entitled to as parkland dedications under the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (the “Planning Act”). Unless Clarington intends to purchase these identified parklands utilizing existing parkland funds, and to do so immediately, the over identification of parkland undermines the optimization of land and the provision of housing. Moreover, the need for the amount of parkland identified in the Plan has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Furthermore, the Neighbourhood Park identified on the Subject Lands in the Plan and its appropriate location needs to be reassessed. While it is acknowledged that the Municipality has the Clarington Parks, Recreation, and Culture Master Plan (“PRCMP”), the PRCMP does not reflect the current legislation and policy regime. 2. The Plan seeks to secure three school sites within the Plan area, of which one appears to be partially on the Subject Lands. There is an existing school immediately outside of the Plan area. As such, the Plan’s three school sites, together with the existing school, would result in four schools servicing the Plan area. The need for four schools to service the population of the Plan area has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Moreover, the Page 238 2 22978124.1 Barristers & Solicitors appropriate location of these planned schools needs to be reassessed, especially in light of ensuring an equitable distribution of municipal infrastructure across the Plan area. 3. The identification of municipal parks and schools at their proposed number, size and location within the Plan area will undermine the achievement of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”) and the Plans goal of achieving a density target of 50 residents and jobs per hectare within the Plan area. 4. The identification of a Neighbourhood Park and, potentially, a school site on the Subject Lands significantly erodes the developable area of the Subject Lands. If the designations are allowed to persist as currently proposed, the incentive for our Clients to sell the Subject Lands to a developer is significantly diminished. This will undermine the realization of this important municipal infrastructure, which is presumably planned to be achieved together with development of the Subject Lands. 5. The Plan’s proposed municipal infrastructure on the Subject Lands does not align with the housing objectives of the PPS 2024, as it fails to make sufficient land available for development to support housing supply. Background The Subject Lands are located on the east side of Lambs Road, north of Highway 2 (Kingston Road) and south of Concession Street East. The Subject Lands have a lot area of approximately 7.08 hectares and are presently used for agricultural purposes. The Plan applies to a broader area of approximately 193 hectares (the “Plan Area”) inclusive of the Subject Lands. The Plan designates 18 hectares of land for parkland purposes. Of this, 2.5 hectares are identified as a Neighbourhood Park on the Subject Lands. This means that nearly 35% of the Subject Lands is allocated for park purposes. Adding a school site on the Subject Lands further reduces the developable area. While our Clients support the planning principles in the Plan, the current identification of parks and potentially schools on the Subject Lands fails to achieve this infrastructure in a manner that is balanced, equitable, efficient, and consistent with provincial policy. Page 239 3 22978124.1 Barristers & Solicitors Excessive Parkland Allocation The Plan’s proposed allocation of 18 hectares of parkland - representing 10.3% of the total developable land - exceeds the amount of parkland Clarington is entitled to in connection with the development of the Plan Area pursuant to the Planning Act. The details of this are reflected in the July 31, 2025, correspondence from our Clients’ planner, Batory Planning and Management, attached hereto as Appendix 1. In summary, whether the 5% standard is applied or the one hectare per 600 units is applied (each applied in accordance with the Planning Act and Clarington’s Parkland and Open Space Dedication By-law No. 2023-042), the maximum parkland dedication that Clarington is entitled to is approximately 8.76 hectares. The proposed 18 hectares of parkland identified in the Plan is more than double the amount of parkland Clarington can obtain gratuitously in connection with development. Notably, the Municipality of Clarington’s Parkland and Open Space Dedication By- law No. 2023-042 comply with the Planning Act’s five percent standard, underscoring the inconsistency of the Plan’s proposal. While Clarington’s Official Plan may set an objective for more parkland than what Clarington is otherwise able to obtain gratuitously under the Planning Act, setting such a parkland requirement would mean that Clarington would have to purchase the land for parkland purposes and would be undermining its objective of achieving a minimum number of people and jobs in the Plan Area. Accordingly, our Clients seek that the proposed Neighbourhood Park designation on the Subject Lands be removed and replaced with a Low Density Residential designation. Over-Allocation of Elementary School Sites The Plan proposes three elementary school sites. Based on the projected population, this represents an over-supply of institutional land, especially given that four elementary schools would exist within a three-kilometre radius of the Subject Lands if the Plan were implemented as proposed. Our Clients seek that Clarington, in consultation with the applicable school boards, reduce the number of proposed elementary schools from three to two, incorporating a shared park facility. This refinement would be consistent with Principle 1 of the Phase 2 Summary Report and PPS 2024 promoting efficient land use and infrastructure investment while ensuring that educational and recreational spaces remain functional and sustainable. Page 240 4 22978124.1 Barristers & Solicitors The removal of this school should be from the Subject Lands together with the removal of the Neighbourhood Park from the Subject Lands. In the alternative, should all three school sites remain in the Plan, the school sites should be clearly identified to be off from the Subject Lands to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of infrastructure across the Plan Area. Inefficient Land Use and Reduced Developable Area The excessive allocation of parkland and schools reduces the developable area available for residential and employment uses, directly undermining the Plan’s goal of achieving the density target of 50 residents and jobs per hectare. The designation of Neighbourhood Park and potentially a school on the Subject Lands results in an inequitable distribution of infrastructure through the Plan Area such that the incentive for developing the Subject Lands is significantly reduced. Furthermore, the need for the amount of parkland proposed in the Plan has not been justified by an updated PRCMP. If parkland dedication were limited to the statutory five percent (i.e., 8.76 hectares), significantly more land could be devoted to density-generating uses, supporting both the Plan’s growth objectives and PPS 2024 directives for promoting intensification and efficient land use. For the foregoing reasons, the Plan is not consistent with PPS 2024 and is neither consistent with the principles of good planning nor in the public interest. Furthermore, while our Clients are willing to work toward a resolution of the above-noted concerns, they have no desire to sell the Subject Lands, or any part of it, for community purposes. Should you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to your response regarding the above. Yours truly, WeirFoulds LLP Raj Kehar Partner RK Cc: Paul Demczak pdemczak@batory.ca Page 241 February 19, 2026 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attention: Lisa Backus, Manager Community Planning RE: Comments of Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan 1735 Lambs Road, Clarington Batory Management (“Batory”) has been retained by the landowner (2023743 Ontario Ltd., Catherine Marchetti and Marek Smieja) as the planning consultant for the property located at 1735 Lambs Road (“Subject Site”), legally known as PT LT 6 CON 1 DARLINGTON PT 2, 40R17505; in the Municipality of Clarington, Ontario. The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the December 2025 Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan as shared via email from Clarington Planning and Infrastructure Services Staff on January 12, 2026, as it relates to the Subject Site. It is our understanding that Staff have reviewed the Land Use Plan, however, have not reviewed the draft policy. Not all policy changes proposed may be agreed to by Staff. While there is appreciation for the reconfiguration and refinement of land use locations, the proposed Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan in its current form continues to be unnecessarily limiting. A significant portion of the Subject Site is designated as Neighbourhood Park, which is excessive and conflicts with provincial requirements, as outlined in the comments below. Figure 1: Aerial View & Context 1 Page 242 The Subject Site is located on the east side of Lambs Road, north of Highway 2 (Kingston Road) and south of Concession Street East in the community of Bowmanville within the Municipality of Clarington. It is 17.5 acres (7.08 ha) in size with 141.1 metres of frontage along Lambs Road, and is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. As included in the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, Schedule A - Land Use (“Land Use Plan”), the majority of the Subject Site is proposed to be designated as Neighbourhood Park with portions of the site along Lambs Road proposed to be designated as Medium Density Residential, and the remainder as Low Density Residential. Study Area Estimated Population 11,823 residents Estimated # of Units 5,229 Study Area 184.22 hectares Developable Area 156.75 hectares Total Parkland Proposed 20.33 hectares Subject Site Lot Area 7.08 hectares Neighbourhood Park Area Approx. 3.5 hectares Legend Figure 2: Soper Hills Secondary Plan, Draft Schedule A Land Use, Subject Site outlined in cyan 2 Page 243 While we are supportive of the municipality’s intentions on diversifying the uses within the secondary plan area, we have several concerns with the current Land Use Plan as it relates to the Subject Site. Comment 1: Parkland Budget Methodology Clarington’s municipal parkland dedication policy, as outlined in its Official Plan, Parkland and Open Space Dedication By-law (#2023-042), and the Clarington Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP), complies with the Planning Act requirements of 5% of land area or 1 hectare per 600 units. However additional per capita parkland standards are also implemented through the Clarington Official Plan, which currently sets a target of 1.8 hectares per 1,000 persons and recommends increasing this to 2.0 hectares per 1,000 persons in the PRCMP. While these standards may be reasonable at a municipal-wide scale, applying them to the Soper Hills Secondary Plan study area is not reasonable, as they result in parkland requirements that significantly exceed those mandated by the Planning Act. Detailed land budget statistics for the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan have been provided by the municipality of Clarington, with parkland calculations summarized in Table 1 below. The Planning Act rate of the greater of 5% or 1 hectare per 600 units (no greater than 15%) is applied per land use category. This results in a total parkland requirement of 11.25 hectares of parkland, whereas 20.33 hectares is planned for, representing 9.08 hectares of additional parkland that the municipality is not entitled to under the parkland dedication provisions of the Planning Act. The overdedication by approximately 80% not only conflicts with provincial requirements, but limits developable area as described in Comment 2 below. Table 1: Parkland Dedication Review Land Use Category Gross Area 5% 1 ha/600 units Higher Rate Low Density 96.19 ha 4.81 2.27 4.81 ha Medium Density 55.79 ha 2.79 5.27 5.27 ha High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor 4.77 ha 0.24 1.18 1.18 ha 156.7 ha Total Parkland Required: 11.25 ha Total Parkland Provided: 20.33 ha 3 Page 244 Over Dedication by: 9.08 ha As described in Section 7.2.5 of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, 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. As currently proposed, the 20.33 hectares of parkland in the Land Use Plan is equivalent to 13% of the developable land area, or a rate of 1 hectare per 257 units. It is my opinion that in order to comply with the Planning Act, the proposed parkland area in the Land Use Plan must be reduced to a maximum of 11.25 hectares. Revised Parks and Community Facilities Policy 7.2.5 from the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan, December 2025, states the following, with new text italicized: The locations of the Community Park, Neighbourhood Parks 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, the land use surrounding the symbol will be the applicable land use designation. While this revised policy language does provide flexibility, it also introduces significant uncertainty and potential hurdles to the development approvals process. The policy does not clearly establish whether the removal of a park designation at the development stage would necessitate an Official Plan Amendment to change the underlying land use. In addition, where a park symbol is located adjacent to multiple land use designations, it is unclear which designation would apply if the park is ultimately determined not to be required. This lack of clarity limits the effectiveness of the Secondary Plan and increases the risk of implementation challenges. Understanding that the current location of the proposed parks are only symbolically illustrated in the Land Use Plan, Batory requests that the current proposed Neighbourhood Park on the Subject Site be removed and replaced with Low Density Residential (refer to Appendix - Preferred Land Use Plan). Applicable parkland dedication requirements can then be applied to the Subject Site at the time if and when it goes through the development approval process. Comment 2: Minimized Developable Area One objective of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan is to realize efficient and transit-supportive urban densities by achieving a minimum density target of 50 people and jobs per hectare. However, proposed December 2025 revisions to the Secondary 4 Page 245 Plan policy suggest an even greater density target of 60 people and jobs per gross hectare (Policy 4.1.1). The total developable area for the Secondary Plan study area, exclusive of the areas designated as Environmental Protection Area, is 184.22 hectares. Based on this, the Secondary Plan area should be designed to accommodate approximately 11,050 residents and jobs, an increase by approximately 1,800 from previous draft policy. A detailed breakdown of the proposed people and jobs for the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan have been provided by the municipality of Clarington, summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2: Land Area, Units, People, Retail Floor Area and Jobs for Land Use Alternative 1, Soper Hills Secondary Plan: Phase 2 Summary Report Land Use Category Area (ha) Units People Retail (sm) Jobs Low Density 57.60 1,364 4,283 Medium Density - Intersection 10.59 1,176 1,764 Medium Density 42.21 1,874 4,554 Neighbourhood Centre 2.99 109 164 3,650 78 High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor 4.77 705 1,058 1,322 28 Public School 7.37 - - 40 5,229 11,823 4,972 146 People /ha 75.4 People + Jobs /ha 76.4 While the Land Use Plan achieves the minimum target of 60 people and jobs per gross hectare, the identification in the plan of parkland that exceeds the planning requirements represents a missed opportunity to accommodate additional housing and further improve land use efficiency, as land is unnecessarily removed from the residential land base. Reallocating a portion of the parkland to residential use would reduce pressure for 5 Page 246 unnecessary outward expansion and make more efficient use of infrastructure and services already planned to support the secondary plan area. The proposed adjustment to the land use of the Subject Site is modest in scale, with approximately 3.5 hectares of Low Density land use yielding an additional 260 residents, increasing the overall density from approximately 76.4 to 78.0 people and jobs per hectare. This incremental increase does not result in a dramatic shift in built form. Comment 3: Potential Overprovision of Schools It is acknowledged that the December 2025 revision of the Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan relocated the centrally proposed school site further east, away from the Subject Site. It is appropriate to consider relying on the nearby parkettes, each proposed adjacent to the school sites, to meet recreational needs. In the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Phase 2 Summary Report (December 2022), it is mentioned that as part of the background work in Phase 1 of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan, consultation with the applicable school boards identified the need for a total of 3 elementary school sites. Batory would like to formally request any background documentation or liaison memos with the school boards that reference or support this conclusion. In conclusion, we thank staff for taking our concerns into consideration and kindly request a follow-up in which we can work through these items in a collaborative fashion. Yours very truly, Paul Demczak, MCIP, RPP Principal, Batory Planning + Management (647) 530-3634, pdemczak@batory.ca 6 Page 247 Appendix - Preferred Land Use Plan 7 Page 248 May 8, 2026 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attention: Lisa Backus, Manager Community Planning RE: Comments of Soper Hills Secondary Plan 1735 Lambs Road, Clarington Batory Management (“Batory”) has been retained by the landowner (2023743 Ontario Ltd., Catherine Marchetti and Marek Smieja) as the planning consultant for the property located at 1735 Lambs Road (“Subject Site”), legally known as PT LT 6 CON 1 DARLINGTON PT 2, 40R17505; in the Municipality of Clarington, Ontario. The Municipality of Clarington, Planning and Infrastructure Services, provided responses to our commenting letter regarding the Soper Hills Secondary Plan, dated May 6, 2026, via email correspondence on May 8, 2026. We appreciate the Municipality’s timely consideration and response to our comments. The purpose of this letter is to provide responses to the Municipality’s comments, as outlined below. Municipality of Clarington: Please note that the Secondary Plan’s estimated unit count was corrected in the revised agenda posted May 6, 2026, as the previous figure reflected a typographical error. Batory Response: Thank you for providing clarification regarding the typographical error. A detailed justification for the increase in estimated population and dwelling units has not been provided. Municipality of Clarington: As requested, please find attached updated land budget corresponding to the May 2026 Land Use Plan. The updated Land Use Plan removes the Community Park and reflects a total parkland area of approximately 10.6 hectares, based on minimum densities established in the Secondary Plan. For your information, the attached land budget outlines both the minimum and target parkland calculations and identifies the assumptions used to derive the estimated population and unit counts of the Secondary Plan area, based on the overall land use framework established by the Secondary Plan. Batory Response: Batory confirms receipt of the updated land budget corresponding to the May 2026 Land Use Plan. The Planning Act parkland dedication requirements (5% of the land area or 1 hectare per 600 units) when 1 Page 249 applied to the total site area of 158.1 hectares and assumed minimum unit count of 4,539, still result in an overdedication of parkland: 158.1 ha gross area x 5% = 7.905 ha of parkland 4,539 units / 600 = 7.56 ha of parkland Based on the above, 7.905 hectares of parkland are required by the Planning Act, whereas the Soper Hills Secondary Plan proposes 10.6 hectares. This represents an overdedication of 2.695 hectares of parkland. If using the target densities (5,836 units) there is still an overdedication: 158.1 ha gross area x 5% = 7.905 ha of parkland 5,836 units / 600 = 9.727 ha of parkland The Soper Hills Secondary Plan currently applies the Planning Act parkland dedication to each land use density area separately, arbitrarily increasing the total parkland requirement. In our opinion, the applicable parkland requirement should instead be applied comprehensively across the entirety of the Secondary Plan, based on the total developable area and unit count. This will ensure a consistent application of the Planning Act requirements and avoid disproportionate parkland calculations. Municipality of Clarington: With respect to Comment 2 in your letter, the park is approximately 5.3 hectares in size due to the topography of the knoll and the need to provide programmable park space within these constraints. Policy 7.2.4 establishes that this Neighbourhood Park is required to be larger than typical. Batory Response: We request the municipality explore alternative park locations such a Community Park closer to the two schools to the north, as proposed in our previous letter dated May 6, 2026. As such the site topography would not be a constraint to programmable park space and deviation from the Official Plan is not required. Municipality of Clarington: In response to Comment 3, Policy 7.2.5 is intended to provide implementation flexibility without requiring an Official Plan Amendment. Where a park is located adjacent to multiple land use designations, the applicable designation would be determined through the development approvals process, based on the land use framework of the Secondary Plan. Batory Response: We maintain our request to replace the word “shall” with “may” in Policy 7.2.4 to provide flexibility in the final parkland size, allowing exact 2 Page 250 size and location to be determined during the development review and approval. This is in keeping with Policy 7.2.5 Municipality of Clarington: Regarding Comment 4, Schedule B identifies environmental constraint overlays informed by the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. For the subject lands, the Schedule identifies Additional Areas of Further Study Overlay and a Low Constraint Overlay. Batory Response: Acknowledged that further study is anticipated on the Subject Site. Municipality of Clarington: Policy 6.4.4 (Additional Area of Further Study Overlay) identifies areas associated with candidate and/or unconfirmed significant wildlife habitat or potential wildlife linkages. An Environmental Impact Study prepared in support of development applications will be required to confirm the presence or absence of the habitat and/or linkage and the extent of sensitivity, in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan and to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Batory Response: Acknowledged that an EIS will be required as part of any future development application. Municipality of Clarington: Policy 6.4.5 (Low Constraint Area Overlay) applies to features where removal or development intrusion is not restricted by existing policies or regulations. Where feasible, these features are encouraged to be incorporated into site level plans to avoid net loss natural cover. Where avoidance is not possible, appropriate compensation opportunities within other areas of the Plan may be considered, as appropriate. Batory Response: Acknowledged these areas are encouraged to be incorporated into site level plans to avoid net loss natural cover. In conclusion, we thank staff for taking our concerns into consideration and request council defer the approval of the Secondary Plan until such time that these matters are addressed and we can work through these items in a collaborative fashion. Yours very truly, Paul Demczak, MCIP, RPP Principal, Batory Planning + Management (647) 530-3634, pdemczak@batory.ca 3 Page 251 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-039-26 Authored By: Amanda Crompton, Principal Planner; Sarah Allin, Principal Planner Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: PLN 1.1.38 Report Subject: Bill 98: Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 – Comments Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-039-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That Report PDS-039-26, including the Detailed Comments forming Attachment A, be endorsed as the Municipality’s comments to the Province on the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 (Bill 98) (Environmental Registry of Ontario Postings: 026-0300, 026-0305, 026-0309, 026-0310, 026-0311, 026-0312, 026-0313, 026-0314 and 026-0315) and forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-039-26, be advised of Council’s decision. Page 252 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-039-26 Report Overview Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 Planning Act Building Code Act Municipal Act Council’s endorsement to submit staff comments to the Province in advance of the may limit the Municipality’s ability to respond to the local context. These include maintaining the Municipality’s ability to deliver for submission to the Province as the Municipality of Clarington’s formal response to Bill 98 Page 253 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-039-26 1. Background 1.1 On March 30, 2026, the Province released Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 (Bill 98). Bill 98 is another omnibus bill that proposes amendments to several statutes relevant to municipalities, including the Planning Act, Building Code Act and Municipal Act. 1.2 A 45-day comment window was provided to receive feedback on all proposed changes and consultation documents. Staff comments included in this report and Attachment A focused on the following Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) postings: ERO 026-0300: Proposed Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, Building Code Act, 1992 and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 1, 2 and 7 of Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure A ct, 2026) ERO 026-0305: Proposed Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act to Facilitate the Electronic Submission of Information and Materials to Approval Authorities and Allow Notices to be Given Electronically to the Province ERO 026-0309: Proposed Regulation to Prohibit Mandatory Enhanced Development Standards as a Condition of Land Division Approvals ERO 026-0310: Proposal to reform site plan control under the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 ERO 026-0311: Proposed Regulatory Approach to Establish a Minimum Residential Lot Size in Urban Areas ERO 026-0312: Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act ERO 026-0313: Streamlining the information and material that planning authorities can require as part of a complete application ERO 026-0314: Proposed Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to Specify Additional “Prescribed Professions” for the Purposes of a Complete Application ERO 026-0315: Consultation on upper-tier official plans, secondary plans, and site and area-specific policies 1.3 The Province also released a Technical Briefing that provides an overview of the changes proposed through Bill 98, as well as several related initiatives that are not currently reflected in the legislation. These include, among other items, the proposed initiation of a section-by-section review of the Ontario Building Code, consultation on the disclosure of municipal Development Charges (DCs) in new home purchase and sale agreements, and the standardization of GO station design to reduce construction costs. Page 254 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-039-26 1.4 In addition to Bill 98, on March 30, 2026, the federal and provincial governments announced the Canada-Ontario Partnership to Build fund that would provide a combined $8.8 billion over 10 years for infrastructure investments in Ontario. The key elements of this funding announcement include the following: The goal of the funding is to support housing-enabling infrastructure projects across the Province. The federal and provincial government would jointly agree on a list of priority municipalities where DCs are considered cost-prohibitive and where growth is critical to support Ontario’s future. Municipalities on this list would be required to commit to reducing DCs by approximately 30 to 50 per cent, and to maintain those reductions for a minimum of three years. The funding is intended to offset the financial impact associated with DC reductions; however, municipalities are expected to also support the reductions, reflecting a shared responsibility among all three levels of government. 2. Summary and Key Comments 2.1 This section provides an overview of the proposed changes under Bill 98 , as well as related initiatives that are not currently reflected in the legislation, that are of direct interest to the Municipality of Clarington, along with staff comments on the associated implications. Detailed staff analysis of the proposed changes is provided in Attachment 1. 2.2 Generally, Bill 98 represents a continued shift towards increased provincial control over land use planning and development standards, which may limit the Municipality’s ability to tailor planning tools to local conditions and community priorities. Streamlining and Standardization of Official Plans and Secondary Plans 2.3 Bill 98 introduces a mandatory standardized structure and prescribed land -use designations for municipal Official Plans to improve consistency and navigation across Ontario. Municipalities would be required to align with the standardized format upon their next official plan update or review. 2.4 Staff previously provided comments on this matter as part of the consultation on simplifying and standardizing Official Plans undertaken by the Province in fall 2025, via PDS-073-25. 2.5 As provided previously and currently, staff does not object to the standardization of the table of contents and schedules as proposed, provided municipalities will retain the autonomy to establish land use designation policies that are appropriate to the local context (e.g. built form, height, density) in consideration of supportive infrastructure (e.g. servicing, transportation, transit, community amenities an d services). Page 255 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-039-26 2.6 The Province is also seeking feedback on a proposal to create a distinct framework for Secondary Plans and Site-and-Area-Specific Policies (SASPs) with the aim of increasing consistency across municipalities. 2.7 Staff does not object to the creation of a framework for Secondary Plans and SAPSs. Staff request that municipalities retain discretion to determine where the preparation of a Secondary Plan is necessary. Municipalities should retain discretion to implement, update, and maintain secondary plans. Reduced Municipal Authority Over Green and Enhanced Development Standards 2.8 Bill 98 repeals municipal powers to require environmental or “green” building standards that exceed the Ontario Building Code. Specifically, the proposed changes would remove references to “sustainable design” from site plan control, clarify zoning cannot be used to require sustainable elements, and prohibit mandatory green building/construction standards. 2.9 Clarington’s green municipal framework is currently under development. While staff continue to support green development standards, the framework is now being developed as a voluntary program as opposed to a mandatory one in response to restrictions on green construction standards imposed by Bill 17, the Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 and Bill 60, the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025. Reforms to Site Plan Control 2.10 The Province is proposing significant legislative and regulatory reforms to the site plan control process. 2.11 Staff has previously provided comments on changes to site plan control via Reports on previous Bills, including PDS-051-22, PDS-054-22, FSD-024-24, and PDS-073-25. 2.12 In response to previous provincial changes and to accelerate application review timelines, staff have undertaken a comprehensive review of the site plan control process and are implementing several improvements. One enhancement already in place is the transition to electronic submissions for all applications. This change has improved efficiency and enabled real-time status updates on submissions to keep applicants better informed throughout the review process. 2.13 Additional improvements are proposed, including: the introduction of a formal escalation process when timelines are exceeded or cross -departmental issues remain unresolved; the provision of standardized templates to improve submission quality and reduce the number of resubmissions; and the expanded use of digital platforms to improve internal coordination, automate routine communications and notifications, and track performance metrics. 2.14 A summary of the five potential reforms to site plan approvals, along with staff comments on each, is included in the table below. Page 256 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-039-26 Table 1: Potential Reforms to Municipal Site Plan Approvals 1 Removing site plan control as a land use planning tool. Staff strongly objects. Site plan control is an important tool used to ensure sites are developed in a way that is safe for the public, ensuring: New developments blend with adjacent properties, minimizing issues like privacy, lighting, and noise. Functional layout of parking, loading, waste disposal, and safe vehicular/pedestrian access; and Proper site grading, drainage, and utility services to prevent environmental hazards or infrastructure overload. 2 Requiring municipalities to have a maximum of three circulations after which a mandatory meeting is triggered to resolve issues. Staff is generally supportive. This alternative should consider how to address cases in which the municipality receives a second or third submission for circulation that does not address the comments provided on a previous submission. 3 Scoping the site plan review process to a standard site plan approval checklist of functional aspects of a site (e.g., health and safety). Additional studies or plans may not be requested. Staff objects. As noted above, the site plan review process addresses several key elements that are essential to building safe, functional and well-designed communities. 4 Requiring municipal arbitration process/ review panel for site plan applications that have exceeded the government’s 60- day timeline and a specified number of circulations. Staff have concerns that the introduction of an arbitration process or review panel could place additional strain on municipal resources and lead to additional delays due to the number of applications expected to proceed through arbitration. 5 Requiring municipalities establish different site plan approval streams for different kinds of proposed development, with corresponding scope of matters that may be controlled. Staff don’t object to establishing different approval streams but request the province to clarify the definition of “different kinds of proposed development”. For example, does this refer to land use, scale of the development/ project or the scope of materials that would be required in support of the application. The municipality could consider formalizing a major and minor site plan application process whereby applications for which supporting technical studies are not required (i.e., Plans only) could be handled through a simple stream. Page 257 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-039-26 Establishment of Minimum Lot Sizes 2.15 Bill 98 sets a minimum lot size of 175 square metres (approximately 1900 square feet) on parcels of urban residential land outside the Greenbelt area. 2.16 Staff previously provided comments on this matter as part of PDS-073-25. At that time, staff comments outlined that provincially standardized minimum lot sizes and zoning requirements were not supported. 2.17 For reference, current minimum lot sizes in Clarington vary by housing type and range from approximately 170 square metres for street townhouses to 550 square metres for semi-detached and duplex dwellings. Generally, the minimum lot size for a single detached dwelling is 460 square metres, which equates to a lot frontage of approximately 15 metres. 2.18 Staff strongly objects to a prescribed province-wide urban residential minimum lot size. Each municipality and neighbourhoods within urban areas have different characteristics and are equipped with varying levels of infrastructure, services, and amenities that are considered when establishing minimum lot sizes and determining what needs to be accommodated on each urban residential lot. 2.19 The proposed minimum lot size of 175 square metres is too small to be applied across all urban residential lots within the Province for all permitted built forms, and will be particularly challenging to implement: (i) on single detached and semi-detached lots (ii) within contexts where auto-reliance is high and on-site parking is essential; (iii) with respect to the provision of adequate private amenity space; (iv) in accommodating required servicing and utility infrastructure; and (v) in providing sufficient space for snow storage. 2.20 The Province is requested to maintain municipal discretion to establish appropriate minimum lot sizes based on local context to ensure proper function of the site and neighbourhood. If a minimum lot size is to be prescribed, it is recommended that the minimum lot size be established by dwelling type. Parkland Dedication Reforms 2.21 Bill 98 advances parkland dedication changes first introduced under Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, providing greater flexibility in how parkland is conveyed or credited. Bill 98 proposes requiring municipalities to accept developer-identified land for parks, including those with encumbrances and Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space (POPS) to count towards parkland dedication requirements. 2.22 The proposed changes would introduce the following: provisions to facilitate easements for POPS; authorization for municipalities to require agreements for encumbered land that can be registered on title; the establishment of a credit system whereby encumbered land and POPS arrangements would receive a minimum credit of 70 percent; and the establishment of a 90-day timeframe for municipal decisions regarding the acceptance of developer-identified parkland, after which a developer could appeal a non-decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). Page 258 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-039-26 2.23 Comments on proposed changes to parkland requirements were provided previo usly in response to Bill 23 via PDS-054-22. 2.24 The process for identifying the appropriate location, size and configuration of parks is currently done through a comprehensive and municipally led planning process, such as a secondary plan, or detailed review of a development application. These processes allow the Municipality to consider the broader community structure and recommendations stemming from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Master Plan (PRCMP). 2.25 Staff are concerned that allowing developers to identify parkland may result in the conveyance of small and fragmented parcels, which can limit their usability while increasing municipal operational and maintenance costs. The creation of fewer, less functional parks could have negative long‑term impacts on community livability and recreational service delivery and detrimentally impact the Municipality’s ability to implement the PRCMP. 2.26 Staff are further concerned that requiring municipalities to accept encumbered parkland could impact the Municipality’s ability to ensure access to quality, safe, and functional park spaces for residents. Encumbrances, such as easements, stormwater infrastructure, underground parking or environmental constraints can significantly limit the usable area of a park and pose potential safety and liability risks. 2.27 In addition, accepting encumbered lands and POPS would require additional resources, including Legal, to ensure that appropriate agreements are secured. Staff recommend the minimum credit be lowered to 50% or less, given the administrative and operational burden associated with the acquisition and long-term management of encumbered land as part of our municipal park system. 2.28 The Province is now seeking feedback on parkland suitability criteria that would be prescribed in a future regulation. 2.29 The suitability criteria, as currently drafted, use subjective terminology, which may create challenges during negotiation and implementation. The Province is requested to provide greater clarity and definitions for terms such as “contaminated lands”, “lands adjacent to natural features” and “lands that would not support park use”. Parkland must meet established levels of service and include specific amenities to function effectively as part of the public parks system. Streamlining of Complete Application Requirements 2.30 The Province is proposing a standardized list of information that planning authorities can require to deem an application complete, and is seeking feedback on a framework that organizes this information into two categories: Core Studies, which could always be required, and Contingent Studies, which could only be required when a specific on-site or surrounding condition exists. Page 259 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PDS-039-26 2.31 Staff generally support the proposed organization of each study and the objectives identified for each study type and support a flexible approach to determining when specific information and supporting materials are required. 2.32 Staff request that a Sun/Shadow Study be added to the list of Contingent Studies to evaluate potential shadow impacts on sensitive uses, including surrounding neighbourhoods and parks and open spaces, generated by taller buildings. 2.33 Staff also request that Subwatershed Studies and Master Drainage Plans be added to the list of Contingent Studies. These types of Studies/Plans may be required for larger applications, such as for Settlement Area Boundary Expansions. 3. Financial Considerations 3.1 The full financial implications of the proposed changes cannot be determined at this time, as several matters remain under consideration by the Province. There is potential for indirect operational impacts, particularly if arbitration is introduced for site plan applications or if OLT proceedings are introduced for encumbered parkland. In this case, the same planning staff would be required to support arbitration proceedings and OLT hearings, reducing capacity to process other development applications and potentially slowing overall application timelines. 3.2 There may also be financial implications associated with encumbered parkland. Increased reliance on cash‑in‑lieu (CIL) of parkland contributions to assemble neighbourhood parks could pose financial challenges, particularly if CIL rates do not keep pace with rising land values. 3.3 As additional information on the new funding partnership between the federal and provincial governments becomes available, as detailed in Comment 1.4, staff will evaluate any potential financial impacts on the Municipality. 3.4 Changes to the scope and format of the Official Plan Review resulting from Bill 98 and other amendments to provincial legislation over the last few years may necessitate an additional budget request to support the Review in 2027. 4. Strategic Plan 4.1 The changes proposed have the potential to affect how actions within the 2024-2027 Clarington Strategic Plan can be implemented, particularly where outcomes depend on development regulation and land-use planning. 5. Climate Change 5.1 The changes proposed have potential to impact Clarington’s ability to implement several climate change related actions embedded in the Strategic Plan. Specifically, Bill 98 and related initiatives propose to: Page 260 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PDS-039-26 Repeal provisions in the Planning Act that previously required official plans to include goals, objectives, and policies related to climate change mitigation and adaptation; Eliminate municipal authority to require enhanced or “green” development standards beyond the provincial Building Code; and, Restrict the use of site plan control to secure sustainable design elements, removing references to “sustainable design” in enabling legislation. 6. Concurrence 6.1 Not Applicable. 7. Conclusion 7.1 This report has been prepared to inform Council of recently proposed provincial legislative changes and to seek Council’s endorsement to submit the detailed comments contained in Attachment A to the Province regarding Bill 98 in advance of the May 14, 2026, deadline. 7.2 It is respectfully recommended that Council adopt the recommendation as presented. Staff Contact: Amanda Crompton, Principal Planner, acrompton@clarington.net; Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, sallin@clarington.net; Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning, lbackus@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Staff Comments on Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 and related Environmental Registry of Ontario Consultation Postings Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 261 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-039-26 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-039-26 – DRAFT Table 1: Staff Comments on Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act Comments on Bill 98 Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 1 026-0300 Proposed Planning Act, Building Code Act, 1992 and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 1, 2 and 7 of Bill 98 Planning Act s 16 (Contents of an Official Plan) Streamlining and Standardizing Official Plans Proposed amendments to the Planning Act intend to streamline and standardize municipal official plans by establishing a standardized structure for lower- and single-tier municipalities official plans, including a prescribed table of contents and schedules, including a standardized set of land use designations. Staff remains concerned about the extent to which standardization could undermine the purpose of a municipal official plan, which is to set out the long-term vision for how a community wants to grow, and to makes sure that growth is coordinated and meets the community’s needs. Staff does not object to the standardization of the table of contents and schedules as proposed, provided municipalities will retain the autonomy to establish land use designation policies that are appropriate to the local context (e.g. built form, height, density) in consideration of supportive infrastructure (e.g. servicing, transportation, transit, community amenities and services). Staff does not support the standardization of official plans where standards are imposed to the extent that the result is the development of standardized built communities. The Province is requested to clarify how land use designations in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan will be accommodated within the proposed structure. Oak Ridges Moraine land use designation policies (e.g. Natural Core Area) list permitted uses that may not align with or be more restrictive than the standardized set of land use designations (e.g. for the Prime Agricultural Area or Rural Lands). Similarly, clarity is requested as to how to address rural settlements within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation and Greenbelt Plans. The Province could support municipalities with additional resources to support the development of policies for the Indigenous Engagement chapter of official plans. Staff previously provided comments on this matter as part of the consultation undertaken by the Province in fall 2025, via PDS-073-25. 2 Planning Act s 16 Transition to new Official Plan Framework Proposed changes to the Planning Act would establish transition rules for the new official plan framework, allowing the existing framework to remain in effect for a municipality until a new official plan or an official plan amendment under section 26 is adopted after the applicable transition date. As Clarington is a large and fast-growing municipality, the identified transition date is January 1, 2028. Staff would support transition provisions that require new official plans to conform to a new framework at the next scheduled five- or ten-year review, as proposed. This would better enable municipalities to plan and budget for the update. Staff does not support transition provisions where compliance is required by a specified date. Such an approach would lack regard for the timing of Page 262 municipalities’ most recent official plan review cycle and would put undue pressure on municipal resources and budgets by requiring another update in advance of the five-year cycle. 3 Planning Act s (14) (18.1), (24) Complementary Changes to Support Implementation of Streamlining and Standardizing Official Plans Changes are proposed to the Planning Act intended to support implementation of the proposed new official plan framework, including: Removing redundant requirement for municipalities to include climate change policies in their official plans, Providing that for an already approved protected major transit station area (PMTSA), only official plan amendments changing the boundaries of the PMTSA or the planned population and jobs for the area would require the Minister’s approval, and Providing the Minister with authority to exempt lower-tier municipalities from requirement to conform with upper-tier official plan to facilitate implementation of testing for the proposed official plan framework. Staff supports the proposed change to enable Council to approve policies or amendments to policies relating to the use of lands within PMTSAs. This would remove an additional layer of approval and speed up implementation of policy in these critical strategic growth areas. 4 Planning Act s 41(4), Site Plan: Prohibit Mandatory Municipal Enhanced Development Standards and Green Building Standards Changes are proposed to the Planning Act, Municipal Act, 2001, and Building Code Act, 1992 that would have the effect of: Removing municipal authority to require certain mandatory Enhanced Development Standards (EDS) at the lot level, outside of buildings (e.g., green development standards), that are not specifically required for health or safety (e.g., stormwater management) Providing even greater clarity that green building/construction standards are voluntary and cannot be imposed by municipalities. Specifically, the proposed changes would: Remove references to “sustainable design” from site plan control Clarify zoning cannot be used to require sustainable elements (e.g. electric vehicle parking), Expressly provide that mandatory green building/construction standards are not permitted, including as part of site plan control (including those for the protection or conservation of the environment), and Remove provisions that would have authorized municipalities to require green building standards, if the government had made enabling regulatory amendments (i.e., a green pick list). Clarington’s green municipal framework is currently under development. While staff continue to support green development standards, the framework is now being developed as a voluntary program as opposed to a mandatory one in response to the Province’s Bill 17 and Bill 60 restrictions on green construction standards. 5 Planning Act s 34(3.1), (3.2), (3.3) Minimum Lot Sizes Changes are proposed to the Planning Act to create a regulation-making authority to allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to set a minimum lot size on parcels of urban residential land, outside the Greenbelt Area. Staff does not support a prescribed province-wide urban residential minimum lot size. Each municipality and neighbourhoods within urban areas have different characteristics and are equipped with varying levels of infrastructure, Page 263 A parcel of urban residential land is defined in the Planning Act as a parcel within the settlement area of a municipality that is zoned for residential use (other than ancillary residential use) and is fully serviced by public sewage and water. Any municipal zoning requirement for minimum frontage and/or minimum depth that would not allow for the minimum lot size standard to be met would be inapplicable. It is noted a regulation under this authority would not apply directly to the subdivision or consent process, but could be relevant to such applications services, and amenities (stormwater management, transit service, nearby parkland etc.) that are considered when establishing minimum lot sizes and determining what needs to be accommodated on each urban residential lot. Staff previously provided comments on this matter via Report PDS-073-25. The comments continue to apply. 6 Planning Act s 42 Encumbered Parkland and Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, added subsections 42 (4.30) to (4.39) to the Planning Act, which, once brought into force, would provide for: developer-identified lands, including those with encumbrances and privately owned public spaces (POPS), to count towards any municipal parkland dedication requirement, the landowner to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) in cases where the municipality rejects developer- identified land, with the OLT required to order the land to be conveyed to the municipality if it meets prescribed criteria. Staff strongly opposes requiring municipalities to accept developer-identified land for parks, including lands with encumbrances and POPS, to satisfy municipal parkland dedication requirements. These changes will detrimentally impact the Municipality’s ability to implement the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP) and deliver access to quality, safe and functional park spaces for residents. Developer identified lands could result in small, fragmented parks limiting their development ability while increasing operational costs. The potentially fewer functional parks will have long-term impacts on community livability. There may also be financial implications associated with encumbered parkland. Increased reliance on cash‑in‑lieu (CIL) of parkland contributions to assemble neighbourhood parks could pose financial challenges, particularly if CIL rates do not keep pace with rising land values. Comments opposing the proposed changes that required municipalities to accept developer-identified and encumbered lands towards parkland dedication were provided previously in response to Bill 23 via PDS-054-22. The comments continue to apply. 7 Changes are proposed to the Planning Act to facilitate the following: easements for POPS, authorize municipalities to require agreements for encumbered land (i.e., strata lands) that can be registered on title, provide for a credit system whereby encumbered land and POPS arrangements would receive a minimum credit of 70%, and establish a timeframe of 90 days for municipal decisions related to acceptance of developer-identified parkland, Staff strongly oppose the proposed changes. Requiring municipalities to accept encumbered parkland could impact the Municipality’s ability to ensure access to quality, safe, and functional park spaces for residents. Encumbrances, such as easements, stormwater infrastructure, underground parking or environmental constraints can significantly limit the usable area of a park and pose potential safety and liability risks. Furthermore, accepting encumbered lands and POPS would require additional resources, including Legal, to ensure that appropriate agreements are secured. This may have implications for approval timelines. Staff also Page 264 Table 2: Staff Comments on Proposed Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act to Facilitate the Electronic Submission of Information and Materials to Approval Authorities and Allow Notices to be Given Electronically to the Province Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act to Facilitate the Electronic Submission of Information and Materials to Approval Authorities and Allow Notices to be Given Electronically to the Province Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 8 026-0305 Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act to Facilitate the Electronic Submission of Information and Materials to Approval Authorities and Allow Notices to be Given Electronically to the Province To support the government’s move towards building a digital Ontario, the government is seeking feedback on proposed changes to various regulations under the Planning Act that would: remove the requirement for information and material to include an original or certified copy, and allow required notices to be given electronically to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Proposed changes to remove the requirement for information and material to include an original or certified copy and allow required notices (i.e., notices of: public meeting, open house, application/complete application and adoption of a proposed official plan or plan amendment) to be given electronically to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing would affect the following regulations: o O. Reg. 543/06: Official plans and plan amendments o O. Reg. 545/06: Zoning by-laws, holding by-laws and interim control by-laws o O. Reg. 544/06: Plans of subdivision o O. Reg. 197/96: Consent applications These proposed changes would facilitate the electronic submission of information and material to approval authorities. They are intended to help streamline and expedite review of land use planning matters and are Staff is generally supportive of the Province’s move towards facilitating the electronic submission of information and material to approval authorities. Staff has previously provided comments in support of a transition to digital submission official plans and official plan amendments that require Ministry approval. after which a developer could appeal a non-decision to the OLT. have concerns that potential appeals to the OLT could further strain municipal resources and result in additional delays. Staff recommend the minimum credit be lowered to 50% or less, given the administrative and operational burden associated with the acquisition and long-term management of encumbered land as part of our municipal park system. Further, staff recommend that a clear and consistent framework be established—either by the Province in consultation with municipalities, or by individual municipalities—to guide how the credit rate is calculated and applied. Page 265 Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act to Facilitate the Electronic Submission of Information and Materials to Approval Authorities and Allow Notices to be Given Electronically to the Province Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments complementary to the broader government move towards building a digital Ontario. Table 3: Staff Comments on Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards Comments on Consultation on Enhanced Development Standards Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 9 026-0309 Proposed Regulation to Prohibit Mandatory Enhanced Development Standards as a Condition of Land Division Approvals The Province has suggested enhanced development standards at the lot level vary across jurisdictions, which results in inconsistent requirements, added complexity, and may add to project costs for some developments. Consultation was undertaken previously as part of Bill 60 initiatives to help identify understand the issue and explore solutions (025-1101). The government is seeking feedback on a proposed Minister’s regulation that would have the effect of removing authority to require, as a condition of land division approvals, mandatory enhanced development standards at the lot level (outside of buildings), that are not specifically required for health, safety, accessibility or protection of adjoining lands (e.g., stormwater management). A regulation would be created under the Planning Act to prohibit “sustainability” conditions as part of land division approvals. Municipalities use development standards as conditions of approval, as appropriate, to implement strategic policy directions, such as those relating to energy conservation, air quality, and climate change that are also consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. Standards relating to climate resiliency and sustainability, and low impact development measures that reduce strain on or complement conventional infrastructure should be among the types of standards municipalities are able to consider outside of buildings when supporting gentle intensification of neighbourhoods through land division approvals. Comments were provided previously on this matter in response to ERO Posting 025-1101 via PDS-073-25. Table 4: Staff Comments on the Proposal to reform site plan control under the Planning Act Proposal to reform site plan control under the Planning Act Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 10 026-0310 Proposal to reform site plan control under the Planning Act Planning Act s. 41 The Province has suggested Site plan control is not working as it was intended and can take years instead of the 60-day legislated timeline set out in the Planning Act. The government has heard that a reform of site plan is required to speed up the approvals process and reduce overall associated costs. Province has previously proposed changes to the site plan control as part of Bill 109, Bill 23, Bill 185, Bill 17, and Bill 60. In response to previous provincial changes and to accelerate application review timelines, staff have undertaken a comprehensive review of the Site Plan Control process and are implementing several improvements. One enhancement already in place is the transition to electronic submissions for all applications. This change has improved efficiency and enabled Page 266 Proposal to reform site plan control under the Planning Act Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments The following potential reforms to municipal site plan approvals reflect both Provincial and stakeholder concerns that the site plan process is taking too long. These potential reforms are intended to generate discussion on these challenges and work towards solutions that would enable a faster, more predictable, cost effective and coordinated site plan approval process. real-time status updates to keep applicants better informed throughout the review process. Additional improvements are proposed, including: the introduction of a formal escalation process when timelines are exceeded or cross-departmental issues remain unresolved; the provision of standardized templates to improve submission quality and reduce the number of resubmissions; and the expanded use of digital platforms to improve internal coordination, automate routine communications and notifications, and track performance metrics. Comments were previously provided on the changes to Site Plan Control via Reports on previous Bills, including PDS-051-22, PDS-054-22, FSD-024-24, and PDS-073-25. Staff have consistently requested the Province maintain municipalities’ use of site plan control to implement development standards that align with strategic and policy directions relating to energy conservation, air quality, and climate change resilience that are also consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024. 11 The government is seeking feedback on suggested reforms and/or other reforms you feel will speed up site plan approvals. Proposed reforms are outlined below: 1. Remove site plan control as a land use planning tool in the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006. Staff strongly objects to Proposed Reform No. 1 that would remove site plan control as a land use planning tool. Site plan control is an important tool used to ensure sites are developed in a way that is safe for the public, ensuring: New developments blend with adjacent properties, minimizing issues like privacy, lighting, and noise; Functional layout of parking, loading, waste disposal, and safe vehicular/pedestrian access; and Proper site grading, drainage, and utility services to prevent environmental hazards or infrastructure overload. The Province is requested to not remove site plan control (Proposed Reform No. 1) as a land use planning tool 12 2. Require municipalities to have a maximum of three circulations after which a mandatory meeting is triggered with all relevant municipal department representatives and the applicant to work through and resolve all outstanding issues. Staff generally supports Proposed Reform No. 2, where municipalities would have a maximum of three circulations, prior to a meeting being triggered. This alternative should consider how to address cases in which the municipality receives a submission for circulation that does not address the comments provided on a previous submission. As noted above, the Site Plan Control process is under review, with several improvements proposed, including an approach Page 267 Proposal to reform site plan control under the Planning Act Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments similar to Proposed Reform No. 2 that establishes a formal escalation process when timelines are exceeded, or cross- departmental issues remain unresolved. 13 3. Further scope the site plan review process to a standard site plan approval checklist of functional aspects of a site (e.g., those related to health and safety), with use of certified professionals for acceptance and approval of reports and studies. A municipality is not permitted to request additional studies and plans beyond what is included in the standard site plan approval checklist. If technical and drawing requirements identified in the checklist are met, site plan approval is issued. Staff objects to Proposed Reform No. 3. As noted above, the site plan review process addresses several key elements that are essential to building safe, functional and well-designed communities. 14 4. Establish or require a municipal arbitration process / site plan review panel for site plan applications that have exceeded the government’s 60-day timeline and a specified number of circulations. Participants in this process would include the applicant and the municipal development review team. This would be an alternative to a hearing at the OLT with a goal of speeding up approvals and cutting down on associated costs. An arbitration process / site plan review panel decision-making timeline could be applied to ensure timely decisions on approvals. Staff have concerns that the introduction of an arbitration process or review panel could place additional strain on municipal resources and lead to additional delays due to the number of applications expected to proceed through arbitration. 15 5. Establish or require municipalities to establish different site plan approval streams for different kinds of proposed development, with corresponding scope of matters that may be controlled. This would mean that a “full” site plan process would only be permitted for larger, complex development initiatives resulting in fewer matters being regulated through site plan control. Less complex development would be triaged to a more expedited stream or could be exempted from site plan control completely. Staff don’t object to establishing different approval streams but request the province to clarify the definition of “different kinds of proposed development”. For example, does this refer to land use, scale of the development/ project or the scope of materials that would be required in support of the application. The municipality could consider formalizing a major and minor site plan application process whereby applications for which supporting technical studies are not required (i.e., Plans only) could be handled through a simple stream. Table 5: Staff Comments on Proposed Regulatory Approach to Establish a Minimum Residential Lot Size in Urban Areas Page 268 Proposed Regulatory Approach to Establish a Minimum Residential Lot Size in Urban Areas Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 16 026-0311 Proposed Regulatory Approach to Establish a Minimum Residential Lot Size in Urban Areas The government is seeking public feedback on a proposed regulation under the Planning Act, if Bill 98 Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 is passed, to set a minimum lot size of 175 square metres (approximately 1900 square feet) on parcels of urban residential land outside the Greenbelt Area. A parcel of urban residential land is defined in the Planning Act as a parcel within the settlement area of a municipality that is zoned for residential use (other than as an ancillary use) and is fully serviced by public sewage and water. Previous public consultation on the matter of minimum residential lot size in urban settings was held for 30 days from October, 23, 2025 – November, 22, 2025 in connection with the Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025 ERO #025-1100. Staff strongly objects to a prescribed province-wide urban residential minimum lot size. Each municipality and neighbourhoods within urban areas have different characteristics and are equipped with varying levels of infrastructure, services, and amenities (stormwater management, transit service, nearby parkland etc.) that are considered when e stablishing minimum lot sizes and determining what needs to be accommodated on each urban residential lot. A one-size-fits-all lot size minimum across Ontario does not recognize the differences in service levels available across municipalities, communities, and neighbourhoods. The proposed minimum lot size of 175 square metres is too small to be applied across all urban residential lots within the Province for all permitted built forms, and will be particularly challenging to implement: (i) on single detached and semi-detached lots (ii) within contexts where auto-reliance is high and on-site parking is essential; (iii) with respect to the provision of adequate private amenity space; (iv) in accommodating required servicing and utility infrastructure; and (v) in providing sufficient space for snow storage. The Province is requested to maintain municipalities’ autonomy to implement appropriate minimum lot sizes based on local context to ensure proper function of the site and neighbourhood. At a minimum, the minimum lot size be established by dwelling type. Consideration should be given to implications to stormwater management in existing neighbourhoods where design is based on previous standards. Comments were previously provided on this matter as part of PDS-073-25. The comments are consistent in that staff strongly objects to a province-wide urban residential minimum lot size. Table 6: Staff Comments on Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 17 026-0312 Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act Planning Act s 42 The government is seeking public feedback on a Minister’s regulation under the Planning Act to prescribe criteria for developer- identified parkland and related implementation matters for the conveyance of developer-identified lands for municipal parkland dedication, to implement provisions in Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, that are not yet in force. Bill 23 added provisions to the Planning Act which, once in force, would provide for: Staff strongly opposes requiring municipalities to accept developer- identified land for parks, including lands with encumbrances and POPS, to satisfy municipal parkland dedication requirements. These changes will detrimentally impact the Municipality’s ability to implement the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (PRCMP) and deliver access to quality, safe and functional park spaces for residents. Developer identified lands could result in small, fragmented parks limiting their development ability while increasing operational costs. The potentially fewer functional parks will have long-term impacts on community livability. Page 269 Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments developer-identified lands, including land with encumbrances and POPS arrangements, to count towards municipal parkland dedication requirements, the landowner to be able to appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) in cases where the municipality rejects developer-identified land, with the OLT required to order the land to be conveyed to the municipality if it meets prescribed criteria. There may also be financial implications associated with encumbered parkland. Increased reliance on cash‑in‑lieu (CIL) of parkland contributions to assemble neighbourhood parks could pose financial challenges, particularly if CIL rates do not keep pace with rising land values. Comments opposing the proposed changes that required municipalities to accept developer-identified and encumbered lands towards parkland dedication were provided previously in response to Bill 23 via PDS-054-22. The comments continue to apply. 18 The land suitability criteria that are proposed to be prescribed in regulation would include the following: 1. Ineligible Land – land with any of the following conditions cannot be required to be conveyed to municipalities for park and recreational purposes: Contaminated lands – lands that have in or on them any contaminants from industrial or other uses that pose a public health risk. Natural and human-made hazard lands – hazardous lands and hazardous sites as described in section 5.2 of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS 2024) as well as lands affected by human-made hazards as described in section 5.3 of the PPS 2024. Lands within and adjacent to natural heritage features and areas are eligible on the condition that a park would not interfere with or compromise the natural heritage features and areas. Lands in the Natural Heritage System of the Greenbelt Plan or in the Natural Core or Natural Linkage Areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan or unless in accordance with policies of the Niagara Escarpment Plan. o Lands that would not support park use – lands that would not accommodate fill and/or soil depths to accommodate structural footings as per the Ontario Building Code or support tree planting. o Lands with financial encumbrances – lands with liens, charges, etc. registered on title. o Lands that are privately-owned and not accessible to public at all times. The Province is requested to clarify what constitutes contaminated lands, and lands adjacent to natural heritage features. There is a great deal of subjectivity in these criteria. The Province is requested to provide clarity as to how municipalities will be able to evaluate developer- proposed lands for functionality and comfort of use. Where municipalities have a Parks Recreation Master Plan, Official Plan policies, and/or parkland criteria, will such local plans or policies be upheld in the event of an appeal relating to the acceptance of encumbered parkland? More clarity is required on who determines ‘park use’ – whether it is the Municipality or the Developer. “Lands that would not support park use” is vague and subjective. There needs to be a distinction between active and passive lands otherwise developers can identify the least functional lands, a green space with no development opportunity. For a Municipality, park use must meet a specific level of service and include specific amenities. Developer identified lands could result in small, fragmented parks limiting their development ability while increasing operational costs. The potentially fewer functional parks will have long-term impacts on community livability. Page 270 Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 2. Land Accessibility/Comfort for Use – parkland must be accessible, visible and comfortable to facilitate public use of it and, in particular, must be: Accessible by all users directly from the public realm and readily visible from the public realm. Land must be of a size and shape that is capable of serving park or public recreational purposes. Table 7: Staff Comments on Streamlining the information and material that planning authorities can require as part of a complete application Streamlining the information and material that planning authorities can require as part of a complete application Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 19 026-0313 Streamlining the information and material that planning authorities can require as part of a complete application Planning Act The Province is proposing amendments to the Planning Act that are intended to achieve clearer and more predictable complete application requirements across the province. This will ensure that applicants and planning authorities understand what information may be required at the outset. The proposed provincial list identifies the types of information and material that planning authorities can require and is intended to be comprehensive enough so that proposals can be effectively evaluated to ensure that provincial interests in land use planning are upheld. The proposed list of the types of information and material that municipalities may require is not a mandatory list, rather, municipalities can determine from that list what types of information or material are required depending on the specific circumstances. Staff is generally supportive of a comprehensive list of studies, as proposed, to reduce unnecessary variation in the naming and scoping of studies. Staff’s interpretation is that the proposed provincial list continues to allow municipalities to require the information necessary to assess potential development impacts on public safety and the enjoyment of spaces, in support of creating communities where people want to live, work and play. 20 The Ministry is seeking feedback on a proposed list of information and material that has been categorized into two types of studies and when they could be required: 1. Core Studies:Core studies are those that could always be required since planning authorities typically require these to assess most planning application types (i.e., official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, plans of subdivision/plans of condominium, site plan control, and/or consents). These studies address fundamental planning and engineering matters such as environmental impacts, existing servicing capacity, transportation impacts, and public health and safety. Staff does not object to this approach to categorize information and materials into two types of studies, provided that municipalities retain autonomy to identify which contingent studies are applicable in each situation. Page 271 Streamlining the information and material that planning authorities can require as part of a complete application Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 2. Contingent Studies: Contingent studies could only be required when a specific on-site or surrounding condition exists in the local municipality that makes the study relevant for the consideration of the planning application. For example, certain studies may only be needed if a subject property is located on or near airports, rail corridors, significant natural hazards, or major facilities, or when the property contains particular environmental, cultural, or resource-based features on site. 21 Is the list of the types of information and material identified in this proposal comprehensive enough for planning authorities to effectively evaluate all planning applications they may receive? 1. If not, why? What information or material is missing from the proposed list? 2. Should any of the types of studies identified in this proposal be removed from the proposed list? Staff request that the following studies and plans be added to the list of Contingent Studies: Subwatershed Study and Master Drainage Plan to evaluate drainage, stormwater management and watershed impacts across a larger area beyond an individual site. These studies may be required for larger applications where such plans do not already exist, such at Settlement Area Boundary Expansions. A Sun/Shadow Study to assess potential impacts on existing adjacent sensitive uses, including surrounding neighbourhoods and parks and open spaces, generated by development proposals of at least 10 storeys in height. The Study should provide mitigation measures, through building siting and design, to maintain safe and comfortable public (parks, open spaces) and private spaces (adjacent properties). Master Block Plan to demonstrate how proposed development will relate and connect to existing or planned development on surrounding lands and guide coordinated implementation of required infrastructure and community facilities. Retail Market Impact Study to assess current and future market conditions for retail development within a specific area, including recommendations on the type, size, and format of retail. 22 Do you have any feedback on the objectives identified for each of the types of studies listed in this proposal? Are they broad enough to support planning authorities in obtaining sufficient information to evaluate applications, comply with applicable legislation, and determine consistency with provincial policies or conformity with provincial and municipal plans? Is there anything missing? Should the list identify the types of applications that the information and material could be required for (i.e., official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, site plan control, plans of subdivision/condominium, consents)? If so, why? Staff generally support the objectives identified for each study type outlined in the proposal and support a flexible approach to determining in which cases, and for which applications certain information and materials are required. Staff do not support identifying the types of applications that the information and material could be required for. For the most part, this is standardized, but there are unique cases and specific on-site conditions that warrant some degree of flexibility. There may also be more simple applications that don’t require the full list. Page 272 Streamlining the information and material that planning authorities can require as part of a complete application Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 23 Are there studies listed that should only be required for certain types of applications? If so, which ones and why? 24 Should planning authorities maintain the ability to develop terms of reference to specify the breadth of information required for each of the types of studies included in the provincial list? Please elaborate on your response. While staff would welcome provincial guidance outlining suggested standards for various studies to provide a clearer understanding of and reduce unnecessary variation in what is required, planning authorities should maintain the ability to modify the terms of reference for required studies to address local circumstances, as needed. 25 Do you have any other input or suggestions of relevance to this proposal? Tabe 8: Staff Comments on Proposed Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to Specify Additional “Prescribed Professions” for the Purposes of a Complete Application Page 273 Proposed Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to Specify Additional “Prescribed Professions” for the Purposes of a Complete Application Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 26 026-0314 Proposed Changes to Various Regulations Under the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to Specify Additional “Prescribed Professions” for the Purposes of a Complete Application The Protect Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 (Bill 17) made changes to the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to create regulation-making authority for the Minister to scope complete application requirements by, among other things, providing that municipalities would be required to accept studies from certified professionals in professions specif ied in regulation. Further to these legislative changes, new and amending regulations under the Planning Act were filed on January 22, 2026 to specify professional engineering as a “prescribed profession” for the purposes of a complete application. The government is now seeking feedback on adding additional certified professionals, for example registered landscape architects, for the purposes of a complete application. This change is suggested to help further speed up development approvals and reduce some initial application costs associated with development proposals. The prescribing of certified professionals by regulation means that municipalities would be required to accept technical studies and r eports prepared by these professionals as satisfying complete application requirements (without requiring further review or revisions prior to deeming the application complete). Municipalities could still request additional information or undertake a review of the technical information submitted, but these requests do not affect the decision-making timelines in the Act or the applicant’s right of appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal after the decision timeline has expired. We welcome your thoughts on which additional registered professionals should be added as certified professions for the purposes of a complete application. Staff do not object to adding additional certified professionals for the purposes of a complete application. The Province is requested to ensure any additional prescribed professions are adequately regulated by independent bodies of accreditation and certification. The regulation should also specify the types of information and supporting material (based on the list of studies proposed in ERO 26-0313) that each prescribed profession is qualified to submit. Table 9: Staff Comments on Consultation on upper-tier official plans, secondary plans, and site and area-specific policies Page 274 Consultation on upper-tier official plans, secondary plans, and site and area-specific policies Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 27 026-0315 Consultation on upper-tier official plans, secondary plans, and site and area- specific policies The government is seeking feedback on a proposal to create a distinct framework with clear parameters for secondary plans and site and area specific policies (SASPs) with the aim of increasing consistency across municipalities while preserving development permissions. Proposed changes for secondary plans and SASPs could include: identifying the types of areas where secondary plans could be used separating secondary plans from the primary official plan, so they would exist as a standalone document while being subject to the same process requirements exempting secondary plans from Minister’s approval (lower- tier municipalities in upper-tier municipalities with planning responsibilities would not be exempt from approval by the relevant upper-tier municipality) The government is also seeking feedback on a proposal to simplify and standardize the format of official plans for upper-tier municipalities. Staff recognize the Province’s objective to improve consistency and clarity in the planning framework. However, Secondary Plans are a critical planning tool used to address the unique characteristics, infrastructure constraints, servicing considerations, and community objectives of specific geographic areas. Staff request that the Province clearly distinguish between Secondary Plans and SASPs within any proposed regulatory or policy framework. Secondary Plans provide comprehensive, integrated planning direction for defined areas, whereas SASPs are typically narrow in scope and intended to address specific circumstances or exceptions. Comments relating to the importance of secondary plans and site- specific policies were previously provided via PDS-073-25. Staff have no comments on the proposal to simplify and standardize the format of official plans for upper-tier municipalities. 28 Which types of areas are most appropriate for the use of secondary plans (i.e. new neighbourhoods, growth areas, settlement areas, employment areas, and/or areas where there are land use compatibility concerns)? Are there additional types of areas or policy objectives that should be eligible or prioritized? Secondary Plans are most appropriately used in areas where detailed, comprehensive, and coordinated planning direction is required to manage growth, change, or complexity beyond what can be addressed through Official Plan policies alone, such as: new neighbourhoods, growth areas, settlement areas, employment areas, and areas where there are land use compatibility concerns. Staff request that municipalities retain discretion to determine where the preparation of a Secondary Plan is necessary. 29 What benefits or challenges, if any, might you anticipate if municipalities had the option to organize secondary plans as standalone documents, while still being subject to the same Planning Act processes that apply to official plans (e.g., notification, public meetings, appeals)? Staff don’t believe this proposal would change what is done in practice at the Municipality of Clarington. Secondary Plans in Clarington are adopted as part of the Official Plan (forming Part VI) but are prepared as standalone documents and made available on the Official Plan webpage to enhance accessibility and transparency. Page 275 Consultation on upper-tier official plans, secondary plans, and site and area-specific policies Item Number ERO/ORR Number Title of ERO/ORR Post Section Overview of Proposed Change Staff Comments 30 Looking ahead, how would a future framework support the ongoing applicability of existing secondary plans and SASPs? Are there any considerations we should keep in mind about how these documents are maintained or updated over time? Should we establish principles to evaluate and transition existing secondary plans and SASPs to a new framework, and if so, what should these principles include? According to the Clarington Official Plan, Secondary Plans are intended to be reviewed and updated on a five-year cycle from the time of adoption. If a new framework is proposed, adopted Secondary Plans should transition at the time of the next review. 31 Would you support exempting secondary plans from Ministerial approval (except for lower-tier municipalities within an upper-tier municipality with planning responsibilities)? What advantages or risks do you anticipate with this approach? Staff would support this proposal, as exempting secondary plans from Ministerial approval could streamline the approvals process and help facilitate the timely delivery of development. 32 What level of flexibility should municipalities retain to effectively implement, update, and maintain secondary plans under the proposed framework? Municipalities should retain discretion to implement, update, and maintain secondary plans in accordance with a proposed framework. Page 276 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-047-26 Authored by: Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, Brayden Siersma, Economic Development Officer Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Paul Pirri, Director of Economic Development, Office of the CAO Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: PLN 42 Report Subject: Official Plan Review Update and Introduction to the Growth Management Study Recommendation: 1. That Report PDS-047-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be received for information. Page 277 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-047-26 Report Overview 1. Background 1.1 The Planning Act requires municipalities to review their Official Plan every five years to ensure conformity with provincial policy. Clarington’s current Official Plan was approved in 2018, and Council initiated a formal review in June 2023 under section 26 of the Planning Act. An Introductory Discussion Paper was released to identify key issues and remains available on the Official Plan Review Clarington Connected project page. 1.2 Progress on the Official Plan Review was paused in late 2023 to allow staff to respond to significant and ongoing changes to the provincial and regional planning framework. These included multiple amendments to the Planning Act, the adoption of the Envisio n Durham Regional Official Plan (2024), a new Provincial Planning Statement (2024), the repeal of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the removal of Durham Region’s planning responsibilities effective January 1, 2025. Most recently, the Province has advanced initiatives to simplify and standardize municipal official plans through its latest omnibus bill (Bill 98) and associated Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) postings, outlined in subsection 2.2, below. 1.3 On October 6, 2025, General Government Committee received Report FSD-032-25 and passed Resolution #GG-156-25 to award the contract for the Growth Management Study to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Council ratified the resolution at its meeting on October 27, 2025. 2. Official Plan Review 2.1 As outlined in the Introductory Discussion Paper, key topics that will be covered as part of the Review continue to include: A Vision for Clarington to 2051; Continued planning for complete communities and balanced growth, diverse housing, and economic development, including adapting to the Province’s new definition of Employment Area; Protecting our rural and agricultural lands, natural heritage, and distinct community identity; and Social, economic, environmental, and fiscal sustainability. Page 278 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-047-26 2.2 The Official Plan Review will reflect that: Clarington is expected to continue to be one of the fastest -growing municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), forecast to grow to 221,000 residents and 70,300 jobs by 2051. The vision for the Municipality must continue to meet the community’s evolving needs; There have been substantial changes to the provincial and regional planning framework that must be incorporated into the Official Plan in a way that makes sense for Clarington, including the elimination of the Growth Plan and new Provincial Planning Statement, 2024; The Region of Durham became an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities on January 1, 2025, meaning Clarington now administers both the Regional Official Plan (Envision Durham) and the Clarington Official Plan and will have to undertake an integration exercise as part of the Official Plan Review; and On March 30, 2026, the Province released Bill 98, Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026 and associated ERO postings, proposing a province-wide standardized table of contents for municipal official plans, including land use designations, and schedules (maps). These changes could significantly affect the scope, format, timing, and cost of Clarington’s Official Plan Review. Also included are potential changes that may provide the Minister with authority to exempt lower-tier official plans from the requirement to conform to the upper-tier official plan for the purpose of testing the proposed official plan framework. Staff are assessing the potential impacts of Bill 98 (addressed in separate report PDS-039-26) while continuing work on priority components, including the Growth Management Study and the procurement of a consultant to support the broader Official Plan Review. 2.3 Staff are now exploring an Official Plan Review program whereby a single, new, streamlined Official Plan would be developed through the Review. This considers the substantial changes outlined above, including that the Province is now proposing to require that official plans follow a provincially prescribed table of contents. The Program may include certain upfront official plan amendments to address critical or housekeeping matters. Generally, it is anticipated that Review program will follow the five phases outlined in Figure 1, below. Figure 1: Phases of the Official Plan Review Page 279 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-047-26 2.4 The Review will be supported by technical studies to inform policy development, including the Growth Management Study (currently underway and discussed below), Transportation Master Plan, Natural Heritage System review, and Agricultural and Rural policy review. 2.5 Staff anticipate reporting to Council with the full Official Plan Review program in Q1 2027, once the Province has solidified its direction for the contents of official plans. Growth Management Study 2.6 Growth Management is a key component of the Official Plan Review as it will establish the population and employment planning framework to 2056 and assess the amount and location of land required to accommodate growth . 2.7 The purpose of the Growth Management Study is to: Confirm population and employment growth assumptions to 2056; Assess the supply of designated urban land to accommodate projected growth; Review employment land needs considering recent provincial policy changes; and Provide input to future Official Plan policy work related to growth, servicing, and settlement area boundaries. 2.8 The Growth Management Study is being prepared based on the following general assumptions: A planning horizon to 2056, using Envision Durham forecasts as a basis for the Official Plan Review and considering updated growth projections from the Ministry of Finance; Continued strong population and employment growth within Clarington requiring an increased rate of residential development compared to historical trends; Consistency with provincial planning policy, including the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024; Consideration of existing designated urban areas, expectations for intensification, and long-term urban expansion areas identified in Envision Durham; and Coordination with related technical work being undertaken as part of the other components of the Official Plan Review. 2.9 The Growth Management Study will be introduced through an accompanying presentation by the project team at the May 11 Planning and Development Committee meeting. Page 280 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-047-26 2.10 The Growth Management Study will include the following key deliverables: Land Needs Assessment (LNA): Assesses population and employment growth to 2056 and identifies the amount of land required to accommodate growth in accordance with provincial and regional policy framework. Intensification Strategy: Evaluates the Municipality’s capacity to accommodate growth within existing urban areas and identifies where intensification should occur to support complete communities. Employment Lands Strategy: Reviews the supply and function of employment areas to ensure sufficient and competitive land is available to support long‑term economic growth and job creation. Growth Phasing and Urban Expansions Options Report: Establishes a framework for the orderly and cost‑effective sequencing of growth based on servicing capacity, infrastructure readiness, and policy priorities. 2.11 The Growth Management Study is intended to be completed in phases that align with the broader Official Plan Review, including (and illustrated in Figure 2): Phase 1: Background Review and Analysis: Establishes existing conditions, confirms assumptions, and gathers early public input to inform the Growth Management Study. Phase 2 and Phase 3: Technical Findings and Policy Directions: Develops growth forecasts and land needs analysis, engages stakeholders and Council, and identifies preliminary policy directions. Phase 4: Scenarios, Phasing and Consolidated Reporting: Refines growth scenarios and phasing options and consolidates findings through public engagement and final reporting. Figure 2: Phases of the Growth Management Study Page 281 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-047-26 2.12 The Growth Management Study is planned to advance with a Phase 1 Public Information Centre in June, and the release of a Background Paper. The preparation of the draft Land Needs Assessment, Intensification Strategy, and Employment Lands Strategy will take place through 2026, followed by consultation on the Phase 2 and Phase 3 deliverables. The Phase 4 preparation of growth phasing and the finalization of the Growth Management Study will take place in 2027. 3. Public Engagement Considerations 3.1 Residents and stakeholders are encouraged to participate in the Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study by signing up for project updates by either emailing OPReview@clarington.net or by clicking ‘Follow’ on the Official Plan Review Clarington Connect project webpage. 3.2 A virtual Public Information Centre on the Growth Management Study project is being planned for June 2026. Additional details will be confirmed shortly via the Clarington Connected project page, promoted across Clarington’s social media platforms and digital signs, and will be emailed to those who have joined the project’s interested parties list. 4. Financial Considerations 4.1 Funding for the Official Plan Review was approved as part of the 2022 Planning and Infrastructure Department budget. A portion of the Growth Management Study, specifically relating to the Employment Land Strategy, is funded by Economic Development. 4.2 Changes to the scope, complexity and format of the Official Plan Review resulting from Bill 98 and other legislative amendments over the last few years will necessitate an additional budget request for 2027, as part of the annual budget process. 5. Strategic Plan 5.1 The Official Plan Review aligns with the Strategic Plan Priority G2.1 to ‘prepare a new Official Plan that will guide community growth to 2051’ to proactively plan for responsible, sustainable and resilient development. 5.2 The Growth Management Study aligns with the Economic Development Action Plan (CAO-001-25) by undertaking an employment lands study and informing growth and servicing considerations that support investment readiness, including actions to identify priority, unserviced employment areas and advocate for increased water, wastewater, and electrical servicing capacity for industrial and commercial lands (Action 2.5). 6. Climate Change 6.1 The Official Plan Review is an opportunity to review and update policies to ensure the Plan continues to support sustainable and climate resilient communities informed by Clarington’s Corporate Climate Action Plan. Page 282 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-047-26 7. Concurrence 7.1 Not Applicable. 8. Conclusion 8.1 It is respectfully recommended that this report be received for information. Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, sallin@clarington.net , Lisa Backus, Manager, Community Planning, lbackus@clarington.net, or Brayden Siersma, Economic Development Officer, BSiersma@clarington.net Attachments: Not Applicable Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 283 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 1 of 9 May 8, 2026 Mayor Adrian Foster and Members of Council Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 cc: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk, Municipality of Clarington Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO, Municipality of Clarington Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services. Sarah Allin, Principal Planner – Community Planning RE: Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study PDS-047-26 — Lands North of Highway 2, Between Boswell Drive and Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville Dear Mayor Foster and Members of Council, We are writing on behalf of the undersigned landowners in the Bowmanville area to provide this submission as part of the Municipality of Clarington’s Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study. We respectfully request that this letter and the views expressed herein be placed on the public record and given full consideration by the Municipality and its consultants as the Review and Study proceed. This submission addresses the lands located north of Regional Highway 2 (King Street), generally between Boswell Drive and Maple Grove Road, in the Municipality of Clarington. These lands are included within the 2051 Urban Expansion Areas as identified in the Durham Regional Official Plan, as approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in September and December 2024, and now assumed by the Municipality of Clarington following the January 1, 2025 planning services transfer from the Region to the Municipality. Our purpose is to demonstrate why the expansion of the Bowmanville urban boundary to include these lands represents sound planning and a significant community development opportunity for Clarington. We urge the Municipality to recognize these lands as a pr iority for boundary expansion through the Growth Management Study and the Official Plan Review. Page 284 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 2 of 9 1. A Twenty-Year Vision for Growth The development potential of this area is not a new concept. It has been contemplated by regional and municipal planning authorities for two decades: 2006 — Regional Official Plan Amendment 114: As part of the Durham Region Official Plan Review, Regional staff identified future growth areas for Bowmanville, including the westerly expansion to Maple Grove Road. Clarington’s own staff report (PSD-096-06) acknowledged the logic of “rounding out” the Bowmanville Urban Area to Maple Grove Road as a boundary that helps mitigate potential impacts on agricultural operations at the urban/rural interface. While the Municipality recommended deferring these decision s to the Growth Plan conformity exercise, the Region attached the proposed Future Growth Areas as Supplemental Attachment 2 (Schedule F) to the Regional Official Plan, signalling a long-term vision for urban expansion in this area. 2011 — Extension of Municipal Services (ROPA 2011-0004): The Region of Durham amended its Official Plan to extend municipal water and sanitary sewer services outside the Bowmanville Urban Area boundary, along Regional Highway 2, to service the Durham Regional Police Service facility at the southwest corner of Hi ghway 2 and Maple Grove Road. Clarington Council had no objections to this extension (Report PSD -070-11). This approval established a critical precedent: municipal infrastructure was extended beyond the urban boundary into the very area now identified for expansion. 2019 — Ministerial Zoning Order for Long-Term Care (O. Reg. 336/19): The Rekker family donated a 3.25-acre parcel of land at 285 Boswell Drive to Durham Christian Homes Inc. for the construction of a 224-bed long-term care facility. Clarington Council unanimously supported the request for a Ministerial Zoning Order (Resolution JC-114-19, September 9, 2019), and the Province enacted Ontario Regulation 336/19 on October 15, 2019. Council’s resolution explicitly noted that “water and sewer servicing can readily be extended to the site due to the close proximity to the Bowmanville Urban Boundary.” This was a further confirmation—by the Municipality, the Region, and the Province—that development on these lands is appropriate and serviceable. It is important to note that the long -term care facility at 285 Boswell Drive, approved through the Ministerial Zoning Order and supported by Clarington Council, is located outside the current Bowmanville urban boundary but within the Regionally approved urban boundary expansion. The Province of Ontario, the Region of Durham, and Clarington Council all approved development on these lands notwithstanding their location outside the urban area. The expansion of the Bowmanville urban boundary to include the subject lands would simply recognize and formalize what has already been approved and built. Page 285 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 3 of 9 2024 — Envision Durham and Provincial Approval: The Durham Regional Official Plan, as approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in September and December 2024, formally includes these lands within the 2051 Urban Expansion Areas (Map 1). Pursuant to the Planning Act, the Minister’s decisi on is final and not subject to appeal. The 2051 population forecast of 221,020 people and 70,320 jobs for Clarington is now locked by the Minister’s Approval. These lands are no longer “proposed” for development—they are designated for it through a provincially approved process. 2025 — Pre-Consultation with the Municipality (PC2024-0060): On March 27, 2025, Rekker Gardens Ltd. and its planning consultants held a formal pre-consultation meeting with the Municipality of Clarington, Durham Region Works Department, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. A concept plan was presente d proposing low density residential, medium density residential, mixed-use, high density residential, stormwater management, park, and environmental protection area uses. Notably, the agency comments received did not oppose the principle of the boundary expansion. The Region confirmed the lands are within the Bowmanville 2051 Urban Expansion Area overlay. The comments focused on procedural and technical requirements for development—confirming that the question is not whether these lands will develop, but when and how. 2. The Role of the Growth Management Study The Urban Boundary Expansions identified in the Durham Regional Official Plan were the product of extensive technical work undertaken through the Envision Durham municipal comprehensive review. This process included comprehensive land needs analyses, environmental assessments, agricultural impact reviews, infrastructure capacity studies, and extensive public and stakeholder consultation carried out over several years in consultation with the Municipality of Clarington. The final expanded boundaries received the support of the Mayor and Clarington Council, the development community, and were ultimately approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with no appeal rights under the Planning Act. These boundaries, and the associated population and employment forecasts to 2051, represent settled planning policy at the highest level of provincial authority. We note that the Growth Management Study, as confirmed by Clarington Staff Report PDS -047-26, is being undertaken on an extended planning horizon to 2056, using Envision Durham forecasts as a basis while incorporating updated projections from the Ministry of Finance. The Envision Durham 2051 Urban Expansion Area designation of the subject lands is therefore a floor , not a ceiling—and reinforces their priority for early phasing within the Study’s longer -range growth framework. Page 286 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 4 of 9 It is our respectful submission that the Growth Management Study should not revisit or seek to diminish the Provincial, Regional, and Clarington Council approval of the Regional Official Plan urban boundaries. The purpose of the Growth Management Study, in our view, is to determine the timing and phasing of when those approved expansion lands will receive municipal services and proceed to development —not whether they should develop at all. We submit that the timing for our lands is now. Municipal water and sewer services have already been extended to the adjacent long-term care facility and the Durham Regional Police station along Highway 2. The infrastructure backbone exists. The pre - consultation process has been initiated. The landowners are prepared to invest in the technical studies and planning work required to bring these lands into the urban area. There is no reason to defer what every level of government has already approved. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., the Municipality’s appointed Growth Management Study consultant, has been engaged to prepare, among other deliverables, a Growth Phasing and Urban Expansions Options Report that will establish a framework for the orderly and cost-effective sequencing of growth based on servicing capacity, infrastructure readiness, and policy priorities. We respectfully submit that the subject lands—given their existing servicing access, their status as Envision Durham -approved expansion lands, and their proximity to the Bowmanville West MTSA —satisfy each of these criteria and should be identified by Staff and Watson & Associates as a priority area in that report. 3. Building Complete Communities — Not Just Housing We wish to emphasize that this submission is not solely about planning policy compliance. It is about the kind of community Bowmanville can become. The expansion of the urban boundary to include these lands offers an opportunity to plan proactively for the needs of a growing municipality. Housing for a Growing Population. Clarington is forecasted to grow from approximately 107,000 people today to 221,000 by 2051. This growth must be accommodated in well - planned communities with a range of housing types and densities. The subject lands provide an opportunity to deliver a mix of housing forms—from ground-related to mid- rise—in an area that is immediately adjacent to established neighbourhoods, services, and infrastructure. Commercial and Mixed-Use Opportunities. The Bowmanville West Town Centre, Clarington’s largest commercial centre, is approaching build -out with limited room for expansion. As the Municipality plans to accommodate the Envision Durham population targets, additional commercial and mixed-use lands will be essential to serve the daily Page 287 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 5 of 9 needs of residents and create local employment. The subject lands offer a unique opportunity for new commercial and mixed-use development that is currently unavailable elsewhere in the municipality. Parks, and Community Facilities. Well-planned growth on these lands can include the dedication of parkland, community facilities like the expansion of the long term care facility, and trail connections. Local Employment. Complete communities require places to work. The expansion area can accommodate employment uses, small business incubators, and live -work opportunities that reduce commuting, strengthen the local economy, and make Bowmanville more self-sufficient. 4. Strategic Location: The Bowmanville GO Station and Major Transit Station Area The subject lands are located in close proximity to the planned Bowmanville GO Station, which is designated as a Protected Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The Municipality is actively preparing the Bowmanville West Urban Centre & MTSA Secondary Plan, which envisions mid- and high-rise development, enhanced connectivity, and transit-supportive land uses in the area immediately adjacent to our lands. Provincial and regional policy direct that development in and around MTSAs should be planned to achieve minimum density targets and support transit ridership. The expansion of the urban boundary to include the subject lands is entirely consistent with this policy direction. These lands can provide the population base necessary to support the significant public investment in the GO train extension and contribute to the creation of a vibrant, transit-oriented community. The Bowmanville West Secondary Plan work also confirms that infrastructure planning— including water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation—is being undertaken to support expected intensification in the area. Extending that planning to include the adjacent expansion lands is a logical, efficient, and cost-effective approach. 5. Infrastructure Readiness and Servicing Precedents As described above, municipal water and sewer services have already been extended beyond the Bowmanville urban boundary along Regional Highway 2 to the Durham Regional Police facility (2011) and to the Rekker property for the long -term care home (2019). These servicing extensions demonstrate that the infrastructure backbone exists and can be readily extended to serve the broader expansion area. Page 288 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 6 of 9 The Growth Management Study Terms of Reference require the consultant to assess whether additional lands are required to accommodate Clarington’s 2051 growth forecasts and to develop a framework for evaluating boundary expansion requests. We submit that the servicing history in this area, combined with the proximity to the MTSA and existing urban services, makes these lands among the most logical and cost -effective candidates for boundary expansion in Clarington within the next five years. 6. The Rekker Family: Investing in Bowmanville’s Future The Rekker family has operated Rekker’s Garden Centre on these lands for decades and is deeply invested in the Bowmanville community. Their donation of 3.25 acres of land — valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars—for the construction of a 224-bed long-term care facility demonstrates a commitment to community building that goes well beyond commercial interest. 7. Long-Term Care Campus Expansion – Community Benefits The 224-bed Glen Hill Terrace long-term care facility at 285 Boswell Drive is now substantially complete and preparing to welcome its first residents. This facility, made possible by the Rekker family's land donation and the unanimous support of Clarington Council, will serve some of the most vulnerable members of our community and ease the chronic pressure on hospital beds across Durham Region. Durham Christian Homes Inc. has expressed an interest in acquiring additional lands adjacent to the facility to create a long-term care campus. A campus model would allow for the co-location of complementary services — such as supportive housing, adult day programs, rehabilitation services, and seniors' wellness amenities — that significantly enhance quality of life for residents and reduce the burden on the broader health care system. Across Ontario, long-term care campuses have proven to be among the most effective models for delivering integrated seniors' care, and the opportunity to create one in Bowmanville would be a significant benefit to the entire municipality. The community benefits of a long-term care campus on these lands are substantial. It would generate sustained local employment in health care and support services, provide a continuum of care that allows seniors to age in place within their own community, and attract complementary uses — medical offices, pharmacies, personal services — that serve the surrounding neighbourhood. The expansion of the urban boundary to include these lands is essential to enabling this campus vision and ensuring that the plannin g framework keeps pace with the community investments that have already been made. Page 289 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 7 of 9 8. Request The landowners represented in this submission are not speculative developers, (see attach property map). They are families and businesses with deep roots in Bowmanville who want to see their lands developed in a manner that benefits the entire community. We are prepared to work constructively with the Municipality, its consultants, and neighbouring property owners to ensure that the planning for this area is coordinated, comprehensive, and responsive to the community’s needs. We respectfully request that the Municipality of Clarington and its Growth Management Study consultants: (a) Recognize that the subject lands have already been approved as an urban boundary expansion by the Province of Ontario through the Durham Regional Official Plan, with the support of the Mayor and Clarington Council, and that the Growth Management Study should accordingly identify these lands as a priority area for the extension of the Bowmanville urban boundary and the commencement of detailed secondary planning; (b) Consider the significant community development opportunities presented by these lands, including the potential for commercial, mixed -use, residential, and community facility development that complements and supports the Bowmanville West MTSA and future GO Station; (c) Acknowledge the servicing precedents established by the 2011 police facility and 2019 long-term care MZO approvals, which confirm the availability of municipal services in the area; and (d) Provide the undersigned landowners with notice of all public consultation opportunities related to the Growth Management Study and Official Plan Review, and ensure our submissions are given full consideration in the Study’s findings and recommendations. We are aware that a virtual Phase 1 Public Information Centre is being planned for June 2026 and confirm our intention to participate. We request that we be added to the project’s interested parties list; and (e) Confirm, that s part of the Growth Management Study, lands with existing infrastructure access—including the subject lands—as priority candidates for early boundary expansion. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important planning process and look forward to continued engagement with the Municipality. We are available to meet with staff and the Official Plan Review/Growth Management Study consultants at any time to discuss this submission further. Page 290 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 8 of 9 Respectfully submitted, Rekker Gardens Limited (Richard Rekker, Gerard Prins) Property 3 | 2258 Regional Highway 2, Bowmanville | 30.038 acres Carmela Cupelli, Carmine Cupelli, Frank Cupelli and Lisa Cupelli Property 1 | 2298 Regional Highway 2, Bowmanville | 9.679 acres (Additional submission under separate cover) Durham Christian Homes Inc. Property 2 | 285 Boswell Drive, Bowmanville | 3.854 acres Letter of Interest on file Shaik, Raj Property 4 | 2290 Regional Highway 2, Bowmanville | 0.784 acres Whitehead, Tania and Don Property 5 | 2286 Regional Highway 2, Bowmanville | 0.749 acres Prins, Nancy Lorraine Property 6 | 2278 Regional Highway 2, Bowmanville | 0.745 acres Hussain, Kayrul and Chowdhury, Busra Property 8 | 2270 Regional Highway 2, Bowmanville | 0.744 acres Barrett, Dana and Christine Property 10 | 2153 Maple Grove Road, Bowmanville | 0.697 acres Rekker, Lucy Ann; Rekker, Richard Siebe Property 9 | 2264 Regional Highway 2, Bowmanville | 0.669 acres Burton, Marjorie and Robert Property 7 | 2274 Regional Highway 2, Bowmanville | 0.461 acres All landowners listed above have executed this submission. Original signatures are on file with the undersigned. This submission collectively represents 48.420 acres (19.59 ha) of land within the approved urban boundary expansion area, see attached map. For further information regarding this submission, please contact: Richard Rekker, Rekker Gardens Ltd., Tel: 905-623-0286 ext. 223, richard@rekkergardens.com; or Carlos Salazar, RPP, MCIP, tel: 905-809-1798, carlos@planningcanada.com. Page 291 Submission to the Clarington Official Plan Review and Growth Management Study Page 9 of 9 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-042-26 Authored By: Sarah Allin, Principal Planner Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO By-law Number: Resolution Number: File Number: PLN 34 Report Subject: Objection to Notice of Intention to Designate; 38 Second Street, Bowmanville Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-042-26 and any related delegations or communication items, be received; 2. That the Notice of Objection considering 38 Second Street, Bowmanville (Attachment 1 to PDS-042-26) be received; 3. That Council affirms its intention to designate 38 Second Street, Bowmanville under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act based on its identified cultural heritage value or interest; 4. That Staff be directed to bring the Designation By-law (Attachment 2 to PDS-042-26) for the property at 38 Second Street, Bowmanville before Council at a future meeting; 5. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-042-26, be advised of Council’s decision. Page 295 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-042-26 Report Overview Ontario Heritage Act 1. Background 1.1 On January 19, 2026, Council endorsed staff recommendations via Planning and Development Committee Report PDS-003-26 to pursue the designation of 17 properties along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane, as being of cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). 1.2 Notices of Intention to Designate were sent to property owners and published on the Municipality’s website on February 13, 2026, in accordance with the OHA. The 30-day statutory objection period ended on March 15, 2026. 1.3 On March 10, 2026, the Municipal Clerk received a notice of objection to the proposed designation of 38 Second Street, Bowmanville. 1.4 The OHA requires Council to consider and make a decision on an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate within 90 days of the end of the objection period, which i n the case of 38 Second Street is June 13, 2026. 1.5 Council may choose to affirm or withdraw the intention to designate the property at 38 Second Street, Bowmanville. 2. Discussion 2.1 The subject property is located on the north side of Second Street, Bowmanville, and contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 (shown in Figure 1, below). The property forms part of the Bowmanville Victory Housing initiative that includes properties along Veterans Avenue, and Second Street, and Lambs Lane , brought forward for designation together as part of Report PDS-003-26. Page 296 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-042-26 2.2 The subject property has been researched for cultural heritage significance using the prescribed criteria under Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the OHA through a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report prepared by Archaeological Research Associates Ltd. The property was found to meet three of the nine criteria demonstrating cultural heritage value or interest, meaning the threshold for designation is met. 2.3 The property has design value as a representative example of purpose-built post-WWII Victory Housing. The property has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act, as well as for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers. The property, along with neighbouring properties, is important in supporting the character of the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. A more detailed description of the property’s cultural heritage value or interest is found in PDS-003-26. 2.4 Council endorsed the recommendations from staff to pursue the designation of 38 Second Street at its January 19, 2026, Planning and Development Committee meeting on the basis that the property meets three of the prescribed criteria. 2.5 The property is currently on the Municipality’s Heritage Register as a listed property under section 27 of the OHA. However, its status as a listed property will expire on January 1, 2027, in accordance with changes to the OHA implemented through Bill 23. 2.6 Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022, introduced a requirement that properties listed on the municipal Heritage Register must be advanced to designation by January 1, 2027, or they will be automatically removed from the Register. Once a property is removed from the Register, it cannot be added back onto the Register for a period of five years. If Council chooses to withdraw the notice of intention to designate, the property will remain unprotected from further alteration or demolition. Figure 1: 38 Second Street, Bowmanville Page 297 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-042-26 Consultation 2.7 Effort was made to consult with the owners of the subject property throughout the heritage designation process over the last eighteen months, above the statutory requirements under the Ontario Heritage Act, including: October 2024 – The Municipality hosted a Heritage Information Session to explain the heritage designation process to listed property owners whose properties required evaluation before the Bill 23 deadline of January 1, 2027. All listed property owners were invited. A recording of the session was later made available online, with the link included in subsequent correspondence. July and November 2025 – Letters were sent advising that a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report had been completed and that the property would be considered for designation at an upcoming Clarington Herita ge Committee meeting. The letters offered to share the report, invited property owners to attend the meeting, and provided staff contact information for questions or comments. January 2026 – A letter was issued notifying the property owner that the Clarington Heritage Committee had recommended the property for designation and that a staff report would be considered by the Planning and Development Committee. The letter included instructions for attending or participating in the meeting and provided staff contact information. 2.8 Additional consultation will occur should the property proceed to designation, including a notice of passing of the designation by-law. Notice of Objection 2.9 A summary of the key issues raised in the notice of objection is provided below. 2.10 The property owners have objected to the designation. Although they acknowledge the historical significance of the house and its association with Camp 30, their objection is based on concerns regarding an inaccuracy in the Statement of Significance (specifically, that the property fronts Veterans Avenue rather than Second Street), the adequacy of notice and consultation, the requirement for heritage permits for routine property maintenance and the timely and cost -effective completion of required works, and a perceived lack of transparency and trust in the Municipality. 2.11 Staff has reviewed the reasons for objection and appreciates the property owner’s comments regarding the description of the property in the Statement of Significance. The draft by-law has been revised to address the inaccuracy. The property’s cultural heritage value or interest continues to meet the criteria for designation under the OHA. 2.12 As noted in subsection 2.7, the Municipality exceeded the required notification by issuing numerous communications throughout the designation process to engage the property owner. Page 298 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-042-26 2.13 Staff acknowledges that designation introduces a heritage permit process for works affecting identified heritage attributes. Routine maintenance typically would not trigger the need for a heritage permit, unless it is seeking to alter or replace heritage attributes that are listed in the designation by-law. Heritage permit applications are processed as efficiently as possible, and designated property owners may access the Munic ipality’s Heritage Incentive Grant Program to support the cost of ongoing property maintenance. 2.14 Staff maintains the recommendations presented in PDS-003-26 to designate the property on the basis that the property meets the criteria specified in Ontario Regulation 9/06 under the OHA. Next Steps 2.15 The OHA requires that Council consider the notice of objection and make a decision either to affirm or withdraw its intention to designate no later than June 13, 2026. If Council does not make a decision within this timeframe, the Notice of Intention to Designate is deemed to be withdrawn. 2.16 Should Council affirm the intention to designate, staff will bring forward the designation by-law for passing at a subsequent Council meeting, based on the attached Draft Designation By-law (Attachment 2). A notice of passing will be sent to the property owners, any person who issued a notice of objection, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and published on the Municipality’s webpage, following which there would be a 30 -day appeal period where any person who objects to the by-law could appeal the by-law to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). 2.17 Alternatively, should Council withdraw the intention to designate, a notice of withdraw would be issued to the same parties noted above, and published on the Municipality’s website. The property would be removed from the Heritage Register and would no longer have protection from demolition or alteration under the OHA. 2.18 Should Council choose to withdraw its intention to designate, the following alternate recommendations could be considered in place of Recommendation Nos. 3 and 4: That Council withdraws its intention to designate the property located at 38 Second Street, Bowmanville, under Section 29 of the OHA; and That staff be directed to carry out the requirements as prescribed under Section 29(7) of the OHA, including issuing a notice of withdrawal of intention to designate the property at 38 Second Street, Bowmanville. 3. Financial Considerations 3.1 Potential financial consideration may be to hire external legal counsel and external heritage consultants to provide evidence at the OLT in support of designation if direction is received from Council to pursue designation of the property a nd an appeal is made to the OLT. Page 299 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-042-26 4. Strategic Plan 4.1 The Clarington Strategic Plan 2024-27 outlines the objectives to cultivate a strong, thriving, and connected community where everyone is welcome. Designation of the subject properties contributes to achieving one of the priorities (Connect 4.1) that promotes and supports local arts, culture, and heritage sectors. 5. Climate Change 5.1 Not Applicable. 6. Concurrence 6.1 Not Applicable. 7. Conclusion 7.1 It is respectfully recommended (i) that Council affirms its intention to designate 38 Second Street, Bowmanville and (ii) that staff be directed to bring the draft Designation By-law (Attachment 2 to PDS-042-26) before Council at a future meeting as presented in the Recommendations section of this report. 7.2 Should Council choose to withdraw its intention to designate the property at 38 Second Street, Bowmanville, the alternate recommendations included in subsection 2.18 may be considered. Staff Contact: Sarah Allin, Principal Planner, sallin@clarington.net or Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning, lbackus@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Notice of Objection; 38 Second Street, Bowmanville Attachment 2 – Draft Designation By-law; 38 Second Street, Bowmanville Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 300 -------------------1111 Sent: To: Cc: Subject: March 10, 2026 9:39 AM ClerksExternalEmail; Mayor Shared Mailbox Heritage Designation Objection Some people who received this message don't often get email from EXTERNAL Attn: Municipal Clerks Good day, Learn why this is important I am writing to formally request that 38 Second St. be taken off the list of houses that will be undergoing this upcoming by-law change. As the owners of this property, my spouse and I were attracted by the historical significance of this house and its direct ties to Camp 30. We have always intended to honour its historical value and as such we have been following this process as the Municipality has been rolling it out. Although, attending the meetings has not been possible due to our work schedules and in one instance, receiving the notification for a meeting after it already happened. We have no issue with the Heritage designation as it currently stands. When the last letter was mailed out by the municipality, the one advising about the by-law change, there were mistakes in the description of 38 Second St and I wanted clarity on a few other points. When I attempted to have these addressed I was sent on an absolute wild goose chase trying to find the correct person to answer my questions and fix these mistakes. It took 2 weeks to get an answer to my questions and I don't believe I would have heard back at all if it weren't for the fact that I started asking to be taken off the registry. The primary reason we want to be removed from this registry is that I don't want to chase my tail for weeks while I wait for the municipality to approve my request for a Heritage Permit when maintenance needs to be done on this house. I also don't want this designation to get to a point were this house is receiving Heritage Audits resulting in us being required to meet specific criteria with our outdoor finishes. (Ex: only being allowed to use specific windows/doors or siding in a specific style and colour.) The lack of transparency from the municipality (and the way I was kind of gaslit in regard to my issues with the most recent notice) has made me very concerned for the long term plan for these homes and our ability to maintain ours in a cost efficient and timely manner. For the record, I have already sent an email to you (clerks@clarington.net) when I was trying to address my concerns in the first place, and was told that it's the wrong department and that you can't help me. So I find it notable that I've been advised to contact you again in regard to removing myself from the registry entirely. 1 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-042-26 Page 301 2 I feel like the goal here is to have me chase my tail until the 30-day-window to make objections closes, which is why I eventually requested correspondence via email only. Frankly, I don't trust the Municipality of Clarington and I don't believe this Designation By-law to be in the best interests of this house or us as homeowners. Sincerely, Leslie & Lindsey Payne 38 Second St. Sent from Outlook Page 302 Attachment 2 to Report PDS-042-26 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2026-XXX Being a by-law to designate the property known for municipal purposes as 38 Second Street, Bowmanville, Municipality of Clarington as a property of historic or architectural value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act, R. S. O. 1990, Chapter O.18; Whereas the Ontario Heritage Act, R. S. O., 1990, c.O. 18 authorizes the Council of the Municipality to enact by- laws to designate properties to be of historic or architectural value or interest for the purposes of the Act; and Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington has caused to be served upon the owner of the property known for municipal purposes at 38 Second Street, Bowmanville, and upon the Ontario Heritage Foundation, Notice of Intention to Designate the aforesaid real property and has caused such Notice of Intention to be published on the municipal website having general circulation in the area of the designation on [DATE]; and Whereas the reasons for the designation of the aforesaid property under the Ontario Heritage Act are contained in Schedule "A" attached to and forming part of this by-law; and Whereas the Clarington Heritage Committee has recommended that the property known for municipal purposes as 38 Second Street, Bowmanville, be designated as a property of historic or architectural value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act; and Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington has affirmed its intention to designate the property; Now Therefore the Council of the Corporation of The Municipality of Clarington hereby enacts as follows: 1. The property known for municipal purposes at 38 Second Street, Bowmanville, which is more particularly described in Schedule "B" which is attached to and forms part of this by- law, is hereby designated as a property which has historic or architectural value or interest under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R. S.O. 1990, c. O. 18. 2. The Solicitor for the Municipality of Clarington is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be registered against the title to the property described in Schedule "B" hereto. Page 303 3. The Municipal Clerk is hereby authorized to cause a copy of this by-law to be served upon the owner of the property described in Schedule "B" hereto and on the Ontario Heritage Foundation. The Municipal Clerk also is authorized to cause notice of the passing of this by-law to be published on the municipal website.. Passed in Open Council this [DATE]. [SIGNATURES] Written approval of this by-law was given by Mayoral Decision [NUMBER] dated [DATE]. Page 304 Schedule 'A' To By-law 2026-XXX Statement of Significance and List of Character Defining Features Description of Property 38 Second Street is located on the north side of Second Street in the Town of Bowmanville. The property contains a one-storey building constructed between 1946 and 1947 as part of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing Initiative. Physical/Design Value 38 Second Street has design value as a representative example of purpose -built post-WWII Victory Housing. Typical of this type of building is its one -storey construction, rectangular plan, asymmetrical massing and side gable roof with modest overhanging ea ves. The subject building features a simple and compact form with wood frame construction clad with horizontal siding. 38 Second Street showcases unadorned rectangular window openings and a simple, single, asymmetrically placed entrance door opening. The subject building does not feature any ornamentation or highly decorative features, which is typical of the Victory House style. The building has an exterior brick chimney, which is a feature found on all the Victory Houses within the planned Victory Housing neighbourhood. Historical/Associative Value 38 Second Street has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act. The subject property was originally part of local entrepreneur John Jury’s large estate, which was purchased by the Town of Bowmanville in 1946 to be the site of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s housing subdivision. The Town of Bowmanville Council allocated funds to construct the subdivision, likely marking the first time the Town acted as a builder. The subject property is one of 18 lots undertaken as part of the Town of Bowmanville’s Veteran’s Housing initiative. Throughout Ontario and Canada, the planned and deliberate construction associ ated with these kinds of Veteran’s Housing initiatives was the result of legislation like the Veteran’s Land Act. The Veteran’s Land Act sought to provide affordable housing to returning veterans and personnel associated with domestic war industries in Can ada. 38 Second Street was constructed between 1946 and 1947 by the Toronto Construction Company. As intended by the Veteran’s Housing initiative, the first occupant of 38 Second Street was Richard Patfield, who purchased the property from the Town of Bowmanville in 1947. Richard Patfield enlisted in 1941, was wounded in Italy in 1943, and returned to Bowmanville at the end of the war, where he worked for Goodyear. 38 Second Street has historical value for its association with Camp 30, a Prisoner of War Camp for German military officers that was located at the intersection of Concession Street East and Lambs Road. Camp 30 was originally a Boys’ Training School, which was also built on part of the Jury estate in the 1920s but expropriated by the federal gover nment in 1941 for the war effort. Camp 30 was declared excess property after the cessation of World War II. At that time, the Town of Bowmanville purchased the buildings and due to a post -war material shortage, materials were taken from Camp 30 and used to construct the 18 Victory Houses. Additionally, the cost of installing municipal services in the neighbourhood was also supported by the sale of salvaged Camp 30 materials not required for the Victory Housing project. Page 305 Contextual Value 38 Second Street is important in supporting the character of the Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. As part of the Veteran’s Housing initiative begun by the Town of Bowmanville, simple one -storey Victory Houses were constructed on 18 uniform lots in the planned community. All 18 buildings followed a uniform and rhythmic layout and design achieved through setback, massing, and height, which has created a cohesive and uniform streetscape. The subject property exhibits setback, height, and massing consistent with the character of the area. 38 Second Street, and the surrounding 17 houses located in the neighbourhood, support one of the best examples of a Victory Housing neighbourhood in the Municipality of Clarington. Description of Heritage Attributes 38 Second Street has design value as a representative example of purpose -built post-WWII Victory Housing. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: • One-storey Victory House • Asymmetrical three-bay fenestration • Simple and compact rectangular form • Side gable roof with modest overhanging eaves • Rectangular window and entranceway openings • Exterior brick chimney 38 Second Street has historical value for its association with the Veteran’s Housing initiative spearheaded by the local municipal government as a result of the Veteran’s Land Act and historical value for its association with Camp 30. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: • One-storey Victory House • Frame construction • Overall massing and setback • Location on Second Street 38 Second Street is important in supporting Bowmanville’s Victory Housing neighbourhood located along Veterans Avenue, Second Street, and Lambs Lane. The property contains the following heritage attributes that reflect this value: • One-storey Victory House • Location along Second Street Page 306 Schedule 'B' To By-law 2026 - XXX Legal Description: LT 2 PL 595 BOWMANVILLE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PIN 266160431 Page 307 Agent/Owner: Bousfields Inc on behalf of Tribute Newcastle Limited Partnership and Littlewalsh Developments Inc. Application Details: A Regional Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan Amendment which proposes an 88- hectare expansion of the Newcastle Urban Settlement Boundary and to re-designate the subject lands as 'Community Areas' within the Durham Region Official Plan (Envision Durham) and as 'Urban Residential' in the Clarington Official Plan. Statutory Public Meeting ROPA2026-0002 and COPA2025-0019 Location: Lands generally located north of Concession Road 3 and east of Hwy 35/115, adjacent to the Newcastle urban boundary. Meeting Date: May 11, 2026 Page 308 The Power of Commitment GHD , Ontario L1P 0S4 Our ref: 11220074 May 8, 2026 Mr. Tyler Robichaud, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner Planning and Infrastructure Services Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Re: Applications to amend Regional Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan Files ROPA-2026-0002, COPA-2025-0019 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Highway 115, Newcastle Comments on behalf of the North Village Landowners Group Dear Mr. Robichaud: As you are aware, we are the planning consultants to the North Village Landowners Group (NVLOG), who collectively own the assembly of lands located south of Concession Road 3, east of Highway 35/115 and west of Arthur Street (the “Subject Lands”). The Subject Lands are within the area proposed for the North Village Secondary Plan, hereinafter referred to as the “NVSP”. We are writing to provide formal comments, on behalf of the NVLOG, in response to the applications for Regional Official Plan Amendment and Clarington Official Plan Amendment, submitted by Bousfields Inc., for the lands municipally known as 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Highway 115 (Municipality files ROPA-2026-0002 and COPA-2025-0019). GHD on behalf of the NVLOG has reviewed the submitted applications and supporting materials and provide the following comments. North Village Secondary Plan By way of background, NVLOG has been actively participating with Municipality of Clarington Staff in the NVSP initiative since its commencement in 2019. The Municipality commenced work on the NVSP in 2019 and once complete, the NVSP will formalize a guiding framework for how growth and development is to occur over the long-term across the North Village Secondary Plan area. The NVSP will implement a planning framework for lands that are to be planned to accommodate growth within Clarington’s Urban Area boundary up to the year 2031. Since the commencement of the NVSP work in 2019, a series of supporting background studies have been prepared and a series of public engagement opportunities have been held, including a series of non- statutory Public Information Centres (PICs) throughout 2019 to 2023. Further, as informed by the noted extensive background study work, a draft North Village Secondary Plan, including a final land use plan and a corresponding policy framework, was presented at a Statutory Public Meeting at Clarington Council in June 2023. It is recognized that further collaborative efforts to resolve Provincial Ministry of Transportation (MTO) comments and completion of the Regional Road 17 Municipal Class Environmental Assessment are still required in order bring the NVSP to an approval status and adopted by Clarington Council. We can confirm that efforts are continuing to resolve these MTO comments and the NVLOG is hopeful that the NVSP can be Page 309 11220074 | Comment Letter for ROPA-2026-0002, COPA-2025-0019 – Newcastle 2 brought forward by Clarington staff for Council approval early in 2027. Council adoption of the NVSP is a key milestone and would enable the ongoing Secondary Plan initiative to be completed. Comments on the Requested Newcastle Urban Area Boundary Expansion We understand that the proposed amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan solely seek to permit an expansion to the existing Newcastle Urban Boundary north of Concession Road 3 to provide for additional urban area to a 2051 planning horizon. We also understand that the current applications do not propose or include a specific Secondary Plan framework for the additional urban area lands. NVLOG does not oppose the proposed Settlement Area Boundary Expansion (“SABE”) in principle, provided that any approval of the SABE does not, expand, restart, or delay the current NVSP process, including its supporting technical studies, public consultation program, infrastructure planning, and approval timeline. The requested SABE may represent a natural and logical extension of the surrounding Newcastle community; however, no opposition to the SABE in principle should not be interpreted as support for incorporating those lands into the current NVSP process as further discussed below. Comments on Potential Implications for the North Village Secondary Plan As informed by the materials submitted in support of the SABE and as indicated in Clarington staff report PDS- 040-26, we understand the intention is that these additional urban lands are included as part of the current NVSP. The NVLOG is concerned that if these additional urban lands are included into the NVSP by Clarington, this will further delay approval of the North Village Secondary Plan. As noted in the planning materials submitted in support of ROPA-2026-0002 and COPA-2025-0019, these additional urban lands would require a new and substantive background study work to inform future land use designations, road networks and delineation of natural heritage features, along other review matters to then develop a preferred land use plan. Given the extent and depth of the background studies required, this work could take more than two years to complete. Further, the NVLOG fully anticipates that a separate and additional public engagement process would also be required, further delaying the approval of the NVSP. It is the submission of the NVLOG that should the requested lands be added to the Urban Area, these lands can and should be reviewed for how growth and development can be accommodated up to the year 2051 rather than be included as part of the current NVSP, planned to accommodate growth up to the year 2031. The current NVSP and the SABE lands are not part of the same planning horizon and therefore should have separate Secondary Plan processes. The Settlement Area Boundary Expansion can be approved, however the future planning for the additional urban area lands should be kept separate from the approval of the NVSP. On behalf of the NVLOG, thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. We trust that our comments will be considered as part of the review of the submitted applications. Regards, Scott Waterhouse, RPP Planning Manager +905-429-4999 scott.waterhouse@ghd.com cc. Municipality of Clarington, Tom Hunt, Darryl Lyons and Lisa Backus North Village Landowners Group Page 310 From:gail mckenzie To:ClerksExternalEmail Subject:Fw: re:Official Plan Amendment:COPA-2025-0019 Date:Monday, May 11, 2026 9:31:51 AM You don't often get email from pgail_mckenzie@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important EXTERNAL Please confirm that this was received. Thank you From: gail mckenzie Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 5:09 PM From: gail mckenzie Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 5:05 PM To: mayor@clarington.net <mayor@clarington.net>; willy woo <wwoo@clarington.net>; mzwart@clarington.net <mzwart@clarington.net>; council@clarington.net <council@clarington.net> Subject: re:Official Plan Amendment:COPA-2025-0019 I wish to speak to the Official Plan Amendment:COPA-2025-0019 and especially concerning the parcels of agricultural land contained in this amendment. I am placing strong disagreement to the approval of same. I would like you to consider that this land is prime agricultural land and contains some of the best in Ontario, being Newcastle loam soil. This is some of Canada’s best and irreplaceable farmland. Once it is gone it is gone forever, never to be replaced. You are making this decision and are looking toward the future generations, our children, grandchildren and beyond. With the ever-increasing population, although housing is important and certainly necessary, the population also needs to be fed, and I believe I would not be alone in stating that the production of food is much better done in Ontario and Canada rather than bringing it from further reaches of the world. I for one, do not wish to buy from foreign countries, nor do I trust their production methods in many cases. I also believe it is much cheaper to transport it within our own boundaries. I recognize the Ford government has passed a mandate for municipalities to provide a prescribed number of housing units but, I do not believe this was done with good forethought or consideration of what this might mean in many of the rural areas in Ontario. We should not be answering to big money but look toward the future and the farming population in our community and beyond. Our existing and upcoming young farmers need support rather than trying to compete with foreign producers due to the impact, as well as the demands of a population dense community. Page 311 Asking for your close attention and consideration to this. Please vote NO to this amendment. Gail and Ian McKenzie Orono Page 312 May 11, 2026Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Newcastle, Municipality of Clarington File Numbers: ROPA-2026-0002 and COPA-2025-0019 Page 313 Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 2 Meet our Team Planning Transportation Agriculture Economics Servicing Environment Page 314 Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 3 Site & Surroundings 0 50 100 500 m 250 1,000 24265 -- 38sk February, 2025 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington (±88 ha.) CONTEXT PLAN Showing Approved and Proposed Expansion Areas 0 50 100 500 m 250 1,000 24265 -- 38sk February, 2025 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington (±88 ha.) CONTEXT PLAN Showing Approved and Proposed Expansion Areas 0 50 100 500 m 250 1,000 24265 -- 38sk February, 2025 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington (±88 ha.) CONTEXT PLAN Showing Approved and Proposed Expansion Areas 0 50 100 500 m 250 1,000 24265 -- 38sk February, 2025 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington (±88 ha.) CONTEXT PLAN Showing Approved and Proposed Expansion Areas Proposed North Village Secondary Plan Area Approved Subdivisions Concession Rd 3 Hi g h w a y 3 5 / 1 1 5 Ar t h u r S t Mo f f a t R d Concession Rd 3 Hi g h w a y 3 5 / 1 1 5 Ar t h u r S t Mo f f a t R d Clarke High School Clarke High School The Pines Senior Public School The Pines Senior Public School Subject Site Tribute Communities Lands Existing Settlement Area Greenbelt Plan Boundary 2051 Urban Expansion Area Existing Commercial and Retail Uses LegendLegend Page 315 Concession Rd 3Concession Rd 3 Hi g h w a y 3 5 / 1 1 5 Hi g h w a y 3 5 / 1 1 5 Ar t h u r S t E x t e n s i o n Ar t h u r S t E x t e n s i o n 3 2 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 1514 16 17 11 Subject Site Tribute Communities Public Lands (Schools) Legend Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 4 Ownership Legend Page 316 Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 5 Existing Policy & Regulatory Context Official Plans Clarington Official Plan Map A1 – Land Use !!!!!! ! ! ! s s s s s s kkkk k å CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROADCONCESSIONROAD 7BETHESDACONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKETOWNLINE RDACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROADMOSPORTROADBESTROADALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROADROAD LANGSTAFF ROADCONCESSIONROAD 8HIGHWAY 407BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD)CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCERROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROADSOPERROADCONCESSION ROAD 6ROADROADBEST ROADLESKARD ROADREGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9CONCESSION 813CONC. 10CONCESSION 7CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP La k e On t ar i o ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 SUBJECT SITE ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA HP WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARKCP MUNICIPALMP !!!!!! ! ! ! sssss s kkkk k åCONCESSION ROAD 3PROVIDENCEROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42ROADLAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROADCONCESSIONROAD 7BETHESDACONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKETOWNLINE RDACRES ROAD(TAUNTON ROAD)MEARNSAVENUE BETHESDAROAD STEPHENS MILLROADCONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROADMOSPORTROADBESTROADALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROADROAD LANGSTAFF ROADCONCESSIONROAD 8HIGHWAY 407BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD)CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCERROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROADSOPERROADCONCESSION ROAD 6ROADROADBEST ROADLESKARD ROADREGIONAL ROAD 4(TAUNTON ROAD)CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROADEASTGILMOREROADCONCESSION ROAD 4WALSH ROADLAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115SQUAIR ROADROADCONCESSIONROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROADROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA(SEE MAP A5)BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINEINTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9CONCESSION 813CONC. 10CONCESSION 7CONCESSION 6CONCESSION 5CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINEINTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lake Onta r io ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 !!!!!! ! ! ! sssss s kkkk k åCONCESSION ROAD 3PROVIDENCEROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42ROADLAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROADCONCESSIONROAD 7BETHESDACONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKETOWNLINE RDACRES ROAD(TAUNTON ROAD)MEARNSAVENUE BETHESDAROAD STEPHENS MILLROADCONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROADMOSPORTROADBESTROADALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROADROAD LANGSTAFF ROADCONCESSIONROAD 8HIGHWAY 407BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD)CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCERROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROADSOPERROADCONCESSION ROAD 6ROADROADBEST ROADLESKARD ROADREGIONAL ROAD 4(TAUNTON ROAD)CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROADEASTGILMOREROADCONCESSION ROAD 4WALSH ROADLAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115SQUAIR ROADROADCONCESSIONROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROADROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA(SEE MAP A5)BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINEINTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9CONCESSION 813CONC. 10CONCESSION 7CONCESSION 6CONCESSION 5CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINEINTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lak e On tario ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 !!!!!! ! ! ! sssss s kkkk k åCONCESSION ROAD 3PROVIDENCEROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42ROADLAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROADCONCESSIONROAD 7BETHESDACONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKETOWNLINE RDACRES ROAD(TAUNTON ROAD)MEARNSAVENUE BETHESDAROAD STEPHENS MILLROADCONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROADMOSPORTROADBESTROADALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROADROAD LANGSTAFF ROADCONCESSIONROAD 8HIGHWAY 407BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD)CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCERROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROADSOPERROADCONCESSION ROAD 6ROADROADBEST ROADLESKARD ROADREGIONAL ROAD 4(TAUNTON ROAD)CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROADEASTGILMOREROADCONCESSION ROAD 4WALSH ROADLAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115SQUAIR ROADROADCONCESSIONROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROADROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA(SEE MAP A5)BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINEINTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9CONCESSION 813CONC. 10CONCESSION 7CONCESSION 6CONCESSION 5CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINEINTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lake Ontario ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE SPECIAL POLICY AREA SECONDARY SCHOOL MAP A1 Land Use ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! s s s s s s k k k k k å CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 7 BETHESDA CONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE RD ACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10 SKELDING ROAD MOSPORT ROAD BEST ROAD ALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOX ROAD HIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROAD ROAD LANGSTAFF ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 8 HIGHWAY 407 BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD) CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCER ROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD SOPER ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 6ROAD ROAD BEST ROAD LESKARD ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9 CONCESSION 8 13 CONC. 10 CONCESSION 7 CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP La k e On ta rio ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 SUBJECT SITE ORM BOUNDARY APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA HP WATERFRONT GREENWAY CP MUNICIPALMP !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! s s s s s s k k k k k å CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 7 BETHESDA CONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE RD ACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROAD MOSPORTROAD BEST ROAD ALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROAD ROAD LANGSTAFF ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 8 HIGHWAY 407 BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD) CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCER ROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD SOPER ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 6ROAD ROAD BEST ROAD LESKARD ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9 CONCESSION 813CONC. 10 CONCESSION 7 CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lake Ontario ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! s s s s s s k k k k k å CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 7 BETHESDA CONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE RD ACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROAD MOSPORTROAD BEST ROAD ALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROAD ROAD LANGSTAFF ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 8 HIGHWAY 407 BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD) CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCER ROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD SOPER ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 6ROAD ROAD BEST ROAD LESKARD ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9 CONCESSION 813CONC. 10 CONCESSION 7 CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lake On tario ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLANMUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! s s s s s s k k k k k å CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 7 BETHESDA CONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE RD ACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROAD MOSPORTROAD BEST ROAD ALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROAD ROAD LANGSTAFF ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 8 HIGHWAY 407 BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD) CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCER ROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD SOPER ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 6ROAD ROAD BEST ROAD LESKARD ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9 CONCESSION 813CONC. 10 CONCESSION 7 CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lak e Ontar io ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLANMUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE SPECIAL POLICY AREA SECONDARY SCHOOL MAP A1 Land Use !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! s s s s s s k k k k k å CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 7 BETHESDA CONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE RD ACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROAD MOSPORT ROAD BEST ROAD ALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROAD ROAD LANGSTAFF ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 8 HIGHWAY 407 BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD) CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCER ROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD SOPER ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 6ROAD ROAD BEST ROAD LESKARD ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9 CONCESSION 8 13 CONC. 10 CONCESSION 7 CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lake On tar io ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 SUBJECT SITE A107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM HP COMMUNITY PARKCP MUNICIPALMP !!!! ! ! ! ! ! s s s s s s k k kk k å CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROADCONCESSIONROAD 7 BETHESDA CONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE RD ACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROADMOSPORTROADBESTROADALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROADROAD LANGSTAFF ROADCONCESSIONROAD 8 HIGHWAY 407 BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD) CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCERROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD SOPER ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 6ROAD ROAD BEST ROAD LESKARD ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9CONCESSION 813CONC. 10 CONCESSION 7 CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lake On tario ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! s s s s s s k k kk k å CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROADCONCESSIONROAD 7 BETHESDA CONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE RD ACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROADMOSPORTROADBESTROADALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROADROAD LANGSTAFF ROADCONCESSIONROAD 8 HIGHWAY 407 BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD) CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCERROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD SOPER ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 6ROAD ROAD BEST ROAD LESKARD ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9CONCESSION 813CONC. 10 CONCESSION 7 CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lake Ontario ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLANMUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! s s s s s s k k kk k CONCESSION ROAD 3 PROVIDENCE ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 42 ROAD LAMBS ROAD AKED ROAD 8 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE ROADCONCESSIONROAD 7 BETHESDA CONCESSION ROAD 6 DARLINGTON-CLARKE TOWNLINE RD ACRES ROAD (TAUNTON ROAD) MEARNS AVENUE BETHESDA ROAD STEPHENS MILLROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 STAPLETON ROAD REID NEWTONVILLE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ELLIOTT ROAD McCULLOUGH ROAD REID ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 ROAD BROWNSVILLE ROAD BRAGG CONCESSION STREET REGIONAL ROAD 20 CONCESSION ROAD 10SKELDINGROADMOSPORTROADBESTROADALLIN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 WILCOXROADHIGHWAY 115HIGHWAY 35 BOUNDARY ROADROAD LANGSTAFF ROADCONCESSIONROAD 8 HIGHWAY 407 BROWN ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 COONEY ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 9 (GANARASKA ROAD) CARSCADDEN WHITE ROAD THOMPSON ROAD MERCERROAD ROAD COLD SPRINGS CAMP ROAD SOPER ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 6ROAD ROAD BEST ROAD LESKARD ROAD REGIONAL ROAD 4 (TAUNTON ROAD) CONCESSION ROAD 5 OCHONSKI ROAD GAMSBY ROAD VICKERS ROAD JEWEL HENRY CONCESSION ROAD 5 REGIONAL ROAD 18 SHILOH ROAD TOWNLINE ROAD EAST GILMORE ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 WALSH ROAD LAWRENCE ROAD HIGHWAY 35/115 SQUAIR ROAD ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 4 POLLARD MOFFAT ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 ROAD GOLF COURSE GRAHAM ROAD MORGANS ROAD DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 BELLWOOD DRIVE DURHAM HIGHWAY 2 HIGHWAY 401 MILL STREET STEPHENSON ROAD MORGANS LAKESHORE ROADJANES ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 1 NEWTONVILLE ROAD ROAD ELLIOTT ROAD NICHOLS ROAD EAST TOWNLINE ROAD LOCKHART ROAD ROAD 4 LANCASTER SPECIAL POLICY AREA A ORONO URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A5) BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A3) NEWTONVILLE KENDALKIRBY BROWNSVILLE LESKARD NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA (SEE MAP A4) TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE HYDRO CORRIDOR HYDRO CORRIDOR TRANS CANADA/INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE TRANS-NORTHERN PIPELINE 23 LOT 182973334354561211109141516171819202122232428272625303132 CONCESSION 9CONCESSION 813CONC. 10 CONCESSION 7 CONCESSION 6 CONCESSION 5 CONCESSION 4 CONCESSION 3 CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 1 CONCESSION B.F. (B) CONCESSION B.F. (A) C.N.R. C.P.R. TRANS-CANADA PIPELINE INTER-PROVINCIAL PIPELINE C.N.R. C.P.R. CONCESSION ROAD 7 CP A107-11A107-11 A107-2 A107-11 A107-14A107-11 MP HP HP Lake On tario ³NATURAL CORE AREA NATURAL LINKAGE AREA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE k AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL sHAMLET PARK!HP ORM BOUNDARY GREENBELT BOUNDARY URBAN UTILITY ESTATE RESIDENTIAL HAMLET WATERFRONT GREENWAY GREEN SPACE COMMUNITY PARK!CP MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK!MP SECONDARY SCHOOLå APPEALED TO THE OMBA107 D3-DEFERRED BY THE REGION OF DURHAM EAST CLARINGTON RURAL AREA OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON JUNE, 2018 OFFICE CONSOLIDATION LAND USE MAP A1 TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL TOURISM NODE GOLF COURSE AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA SPECIAL POLICY AREA PRIME AGRICULTURAL AREA RURAL SECONDARY SCHOOL MAP A1 Land Use SUBJECTSITE MAP 1 Regional Structure - Urban & Rural Systems SUBJECT SITE MAP 1 Regional Structure - Urban & Rural Systems SUBJECTSITE MAP 1 Regional Structure - Urban & Rural Systems SUBJECT SITE MAP 1 Regional Structure - Urban & Rural Systems SUBJECT SITE MAP 1 Regional Structure - Urban & Rural Systems Durham Region OP Map 1. Regional Structure – Urban & Rural Systems SUBJECT SITE MAP 1 Regional Structure - Urban & Rural Systems SUBJECT SITE MAP 1 Regional Structure - Urban & Rural Systems Page 317 2.3.2 New Settlement Areas and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions e. whether the new or expanded settlement area complies with the minimum distance separation formulae; f. whether impacts on the agricultural system are avoided, or where avoidance is not possible, minimized and mitigated to the extent feasible as determined through an agricultural impact assessment or equivalent analysis, based on provincial guidance; and g. the new or expanded settlement area provides for the phased progression of urban development. 1. In identifying a new settlement area or allowing a settlement area boundary expansion, planning authorities shall consider the following: a. the need to designate and plan for additional land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses; b. if there is sufficient capacity in existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities; c. whether the applicable lands comprise specialty crop areas; d. the evaluation of alternative locations which avoid prime agricultural areas and, where avoidance is not possible, consider reasonable alternatives on lower priority agricultural lands in prime agricultural areas; Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 6 Existing Policy & Regulatory Context Provincial Planning Statement (2024) Page 318 Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 7 What is a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion? 1. Permitted through provincial and city policy subject to meeting criteria. 2. Informed by response to criteria that includes technical reports and studies. 3. Contemplates land for future development to accommodate anticipated growth. 4. Publicly or privately initiated modification to an Official Plan to bring lands into the Urban Area. Page 319 Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 8 Purpose of the Application Add the Subject Site to the urban area and designate the lands as Community Areas in the Durham Region Official Plan and Urban Residential in the Clarington Official Plan to accommodate population growth to 2051. Provide a logical expansion of the urban area and bring existing urbanized uses into the urban boundary, including the existing commercial and community uses on Hwy 35/115 which currently face access constraints. Proposes to add lands to the on-going Draft North Village Secondary Plan, to establish appropriate land use designations and policies for development, and complete the extension of Regional Road 17 on the lands. Page 320 SCHEDULE A: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ##Map 1 - Regional Structure - Urban and Regional Systems LANDS TO BE ADDED AS COMMUNITY AREA WITHIN THE URBAN BOUNDARY SCHEDULE A: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ##Map 1 - Regional Structure - Urban and Regional Systems LANDS TO BE ADDED AS COMMUNITY AREA WITHIN THE URBAN BOUNDARY Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 9 Proposed Official Plan Amendment Draft Region Official Plan Amendment SCHEDULE B: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map A4 - Land Use (Newcastle Village Urban Area) LANDS TO BE ADDED WITHIN THE URBAN BOUNDARY AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA Urban Residential Environmental Protection Area Draft Local Official Plan Amendment Community Areas Major Open Space Areas Greenbelt Boundary (excluding Urban River Valleys) Prime Agricultural Areas Page 321 RR 17 Realignment The Pines Senior Public School Clarke High School Proposed North Village Secondary Plan Area NP Hi g h w a y 3 5 / 1 1 5 Concession Rd 3 Ar t h u r S t E x t e n s i o n Ar t h u r S t Street CPotential Access Street B St r e e t A Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 10 Preliminary Structure Plan Subject Site Tribute Lands Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Neighbourhood Park Highway Commercial Existing Institutional Uses Potential Stormwater Management Facility Preliminary Environmental Limits Legend Subject Site Tribute Lands Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Neighbourhood Park Highway Commercial Existing Institutional Uses Potential Stormwater Management Facility Preliminary Environmental Limits School Collector Road Bike Route Multi Use Path Existing Settlement Areas Gateway Prominent Intersection Legend Legend Page 322 • Land Needs Analysis and Fiscal Impact Analysis • Master Drainage Plan • Environmental Site Assessment • Noise Assessment • Planning Rationale Report • Preliminary Structure Plan • Transportation Impact Study • Agricultural Impact Assessment • Archaeological Assessment • Community Energy Plan • Draft Official Plan Amendment (Regional and Clarington) • Environmental Conditions Report • Functional Servicing Report • Geotechnical Investigation Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 11 Supporting Reports & Studies Prepared Page 323 Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 12 Why should these lands be in included in the Urban Area? Appropriate and desirable given the site’s location to the existing urban boundary and logical extension to the proposed North Village Secondary Plan Can accommodate the Municipality’s forecasted growth, is consistent with policy direction in the PPS and supported by technical studies Provides the Planned Extension of Regional Road 17 aligning with Clarington’s ongoing North Village Secondary Plan Utilizes planned infrastructure that will service the approved development to the south and the proposed North Village Secondary Plan area Page 324 • RR17 is proposed to be realigned and is currently undergoing and Environmental Assessment. • Portion of the subject lands would be required to complete the realignment based on the preferred alignment shown in the draft Secondary Plan. Source: BT Engineering Alternative 4 - Regional Road 17 Integrated Class EA Study Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 13 Regional Road 17 Realignment EA Legend Tribute Lands Page 325 Planned infrastructure will be available to service the subject site and have capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 14 Planned Servicing 0 50 100 500 m 250 1,000 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington (±88 ha.) CONTEXT PLAN Showing Approved and Proposed Expansion Areas 0 50 100 500 m 250 1,000 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington (±88 ha.) CONTEXT PLAN Showing Approved and Proposed Expansion Areas 0 50 100 500 m 250 1,000 24265 -- 38sk February, 2025 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington Existing Settlement Area Proposed Settlement Area Boundary Expansion (±88 ha.) CONTEXT PLAN Showing Approved and Proposed Expansion Areas Urban Expansion Area (2051) Approved Plan Area North Village Secondary Plan Tribute and Halminen Lands (65ha) Existing Institutional Uses Existing Commercial Uses NHS Features and Buffers *Alternative #4 based on Clarington EA Study050100 500 m 250 1,000 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington (±88 ha.) CONTEXT PLAN Showing Approved and Proposed Expansion Areas Proposed North Village Secondary Plan Area Approved Subdivisions Concession Rd 3 Hi g h w a y 3 5 / 1 1 5 Ar t h u r S t Mo f f a t R d Concession Rd 3 Hi g h w a y 3 5 / 1 1 5 Ar t h u r S t Mo f f a t R d LegendLegend Subject Site Tribute Lands Existing Settlement Area Greenbelt Plan Boundary 2051 Urban Expansion Area Existing Commercial and Retail Uses Sanitary Water Page 326 Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 15 Application Timeline & Next Steps Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Application Submission December 18, 2025 Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Application Circulation February 2026 Council Meeting & Decision Target: June/July 2026 Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Application Deemed Complete February 5, 2026 Future Applications • Zoning By-law Amendment • Draft Plan of Subdivision Statutory Public Meeting May 11, 2026 We are here! Page 327 Public Meeting 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 Hwy 115 Page 16 • Aligns with the policy framework outlined in the Provincial Planning Statement • A portion of the lands are needed to complete the extension of Regional Road 17 • Appropriate from a fiscal, servicing, transportation and land use planning perspectives • The Application allows for the future development of a new and complete community to serve the fast-growing community of Clarington and Durham Region • Provides an opportunity to bring existing community and urban services and amenities already used by the Clarington residents into the urban boundary • Represents a logical extension of the current Newcastle urban boundary and planned infrastructure which is being brought directly to the subject site Conclusion Page 328 ThankYou Questions & Comments? Page 329 Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-040-26 Authored By: Tyler Robichaud, Senior Planner, Development Review Division Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO File Number: ROPA-2026-0002 and COPA-2025-0019 Resolution#: Report Subject: Privately initiated Planning Act applications proposing an 88-hectare expansion of the Newcastle Urban Settlement Boundary Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide information to the public and Council regarding privately initiated applications that have been received under the Planning Act. It does not constitute, imply or request any degree of approval. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-040-26 and any related communication items, be received for information only; 2. That Staff receive and consider comments from the public, review agencies, and Council with respect to the privately initiated Regional Official Plan Amendment and Clarington Official Plan Amendment applications and continue processing the applications including the preparation of a subsequent recommendation report; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-040-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 330 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-040-26 Report Overview The Municipality is seeking the public’s input on 1. Application Details Owner: Tribute Newcastle Limited Partnership & Littlewalsh Developments Inc. Applicant: Bousfields Inc. Proposal: Regional Official Plan Amendment Proposed Settlement Area Boundary Expansion (SABE) to add lands to the Newcastle Urban Boundary and to re-designate the subject lands as Community Areas. Clarington Official Plan Amendment Proposed Settlement Area Boundary Expansion (SABE) to add lands to the Newcastle Urban Boundary and to re-designate the subject lands as Urban Residential. Additionally, to include the expansion lands as part of the North Village Secondary Plan area. Area: 88 hectares Location: 3574 Concession Road 3 and 3171 ON-Hwy 115, Newcastle. Page 331 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-040-26 2. Background 2.1 Bousfields Inc, submitted applications on behalf of Tribute Newcastle Limited Partnership & Littlewalsh Developments Inc for an Official Plan Amendment (submitted December 18, 2025) and Regional Official Plan Amendment (submitted January 15, 2026). The proposal seeks to facilitate an 88-hectare expansion to the Newcastle Urban Boundary. Figure 1 – Proposed Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Page 332 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-040-26 2.2 The Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS) establishes the policy framework for Settlement Area Boundary Expansions (SABE). Section 2.3 of the PPS permits privately initiated applications for expanding a settlement area boundary which is a change from previous provincial policy that required a municipal comprehensive review since 2005. 2.3 In 2021, the subject lands were examined as a potential expansion area through the Regional Official Plan Update. However, alternative locations offering stronger connectivity and a more logical eastward expansion pattern for a Community Area Settlement Area Boundary Expansion (SABE) were ultimately selected for Newcastle (See Figure 2). The preferred expansion area was identified through a comprehensive land needs assessment to ensure a logical, sequential, efficient, and progressive extension of municipal services. This work was informed by extensive meetings and discussions with area municipal planning staff. The analysis concluded that no additional settlement area expansions were required to accommodate the 2051 population and employment forecasts. Figure 2 – Proposed expansion area bounded in red, in relation to the prescribed 2051 Urban Expansion area (Envision Durham). Page 333 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-040-26 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The proposed 88-hectare urban boundary expansion would encompass all lands identified in Figure 1. The subject area is bounded by Concession Road 3 to the south, Highway 35/115 to the west, an unopened road allowance located north of Arthur Street to the east, and the limits of the lands owned by Tribute and the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) to the north. 3.2 The lands are primarily comprised of agricultural farming operations, highway commercial uses along Highway 35/115 and an existing public elementary school and secondary school. 4. Policy and Zoning Analysis 4.1 Staff are reviewing the applications and will prepare a policy analysis that will be included in a future recommendation report. 5. Summary of Background Studies 5.1 The applicant has submitted the required supporting plans and studies which have been circulated to departments and agencies for review and comment. The list of studies and drawings are on the development application webpage at www.clarington.net/3574ConRd3 and are also available upon request. A summary and analysis of the submitted reports and studies will be provided in a future recommendation report. 6. Public Notice and Submissions 6.1 Public Meeting Notices were mailed to 44 landowners within 300 metres of the subject lands on April 17, 2026. Public Notice was also sent to relevant public agencies and members of Clarington Council. Public meeting signs were installed on the subject lands. Details of the proposed application were also posted on the Municipality’s website, and in the Clarington Connected e-newsletter. 6.2 As of writing this report, staff have received one public submission with concerns about excessive growth and a lack of available infrastructure. 6.3 Staff will continue to process any public inquiries received. Comments received at the Statutory Public Meeting will also be considered and included in the recommendation report. Page 334 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-040-26 7. Departmental and Agency Comments 7.1 The application was circulated to internal departments and external agencies for review and comments. A list and summary of the agency and internal department comments received, as well as all public comments received, will be included in a subsequent recommendation report. 8. Discussion 8.1 The proposed Newcastle urban settlement area boundary expansion lands are comprised of 17 parcels, including Tribute’s lands and 15 additional properties, and are intended to accommodate a comprehensively planned complete community and supporting transportation network. The Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) and Clarington Official Plan Amendment (COPA) amendment applications propose to add the expansion lands to the urban area and designate them as Community Areas within the Durham Region Official Plan, and as Urban Residential within the Clarington Official Plan. In addition, the OPA would identify the subject site as being within a proposed Secondary Plan boundary, with the intention of incorporating the lands into the Newcastle Village Secondary Plan that is underway. 8.2 The purpose of the Public Meeting is to present the privately initiated applications for Council and public input. Staff will continue to process the applications; work closely with the applicant to address comments; and provide a future recommendation report for consideration by Council. 9. Conclusion 8.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information and obtain comments on the submitted applications for a Regional Official Plan Amendment and Clarington Official Plan Amendment, for the expansion of Newcastle’s Urban Boundary at the Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue to review and process the applications, including consideration of department, agency and public feedback and will prepare a subsequent recommendation report for Council’s consideration. Comments received at this public meeting will be considered and included in the final recommendation report. Staff Contact: Tyler Robichaud, Senior Planner, trobichaud@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Draft Regional Official Plan Amendment Submitted by Applicant Attachment 2 – Draft Clarington Official Plan Amendment Submitted by Applicant Attachment 3 – Draft Concept Land Use Plan Submitted by Applicant Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 335 December 2, 2025 Tribute Newcastle - SABE Draft AMENDMENT No. ### to the Envision Durham Clarington: Regional Official Plan Purpose and Effect: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Municipality can accommodate a portion of Clarington projected growth, provide an adequate supply of housing and continue to support the achievement of a complete community through an expansion of the existing settlement area boundary (also referred to as the urban boundary) in the Newcastle Village Urban Area through a privately-initiated Official Plan Amendment. Further, this Amendment confirms Clarington’s intensification rate of 40 percent. This Amendment also states that development of the expansion lands is subject to the policies in the Clarington Official Plan. Location: This Amendment applies to 88 hectares of land generally bounded by Highway 35/115 to the west, Concession Road 3 to the south, Arthur Street (unopened road allowance) to the east, and property boundaries approximately 1,140 metres north of Concession Road 3. The subject site is located adjacent to the north boundary of the Newcastle urban area boundary and the planned North Village Secondary Plan area (“NVSP”), which is a planned future residential and mixed use neighbourhood. These lands are comprised of several individual properties that vary in size, shape and use, including residential, commercial and agricultural uses. Basis: The Provincial Planning Statement (2024) introduced policies to permit Settlement Area Boundary expansions outside a municipal comprehensive review, including those that are privately-initiated, subject to addressing a set of criteria in the Planning Statement. In this regard, the evaluation of Settlement Area Boundary Expansions must address the need, any impacts to agriculture, phased development and capacity in existing and planned infrastructure. Analysis prepared in support of this Amendment to address the Provincial Planning Statement criteria demonstrates that there is a need to accommodate additional population growth in Clarington to achieve the Municipality’s housing targets by 2051. The analysis prepared in support of the Amendment also demonstrates that there Attachment 1 to Report PDS-040-26 Page 336 December 2, 2025 Tribute Newcastle - SABE will be no impact on agriculture or natural areas. Further, the subject site is located adjacent to the existing northern urban boundary in Newcastle in the Municipality of Clarington, which is the planned North Village Secondary Plan area, bring urbanized uses and municipal services directly to the southern boundary of the subject lands, including water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure and the realignment of Regional Road 17 at its intersection with Concession Road 3. In this regard, the expansion of Newcastle’s urban boundary to include the subject site is an appropriate and logical progression of urban development given the site’s location immediately adjacent to the existing urban boundary where infrastructure and community services will be brought to the southern boundary of the expansion lands. The urban boundary expansion will also accommodate urban uses that can absorb a portion of the Municipality’s and Region’s population and employment growth within whitebelt lands while optimizing the use of existing and planned infrastructure and community services. This Amendment will bring existing community and urban services and amenities already used by the Newcastle and Clarington community into the urban boundary. Urban expansion in this part of Clarington will extend the planned complete community and transportation network through the subject lands. The technical studies which support this Amendment, including studies addressing the matters outlined in the Provincial Planning Statement to be evaluated for Settlement Area Boundary expansion, include: • Agricultural Impact Assessment • Land Needs Analysis • Fiscal Impact Study • Planning Rationale Report • Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1) • Environmental Conditions Report • Functional Servicing Report • Master Drainage Plan Page 337 December 2, 2025 Tribute Newcastle - SABE • Transportation Review • Environmental Noise Assessment • Community Energy Plan Actual Amendment: The Envision Durham Clarington: Regional Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. Mapping Changes: a. Map 1 Regional Structure – Urban & Rural Systems is hereby amended by designating the subject site Community Areas including a “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” overlay. b. Map 2a Regional Natural Heritage System is hereby amended by changing the boundaries of the Natural Heritage System and designating the subject site as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” overlay. c. Map 3a – Transit Priority Network is hereby amended by designating the subject site as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” overlay. d. Map 3b – Road Network is hereby amended by designating the subject site as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” overlay. e. Map 3c – Strategic Goods Movement Network is hereby amended by designating the subject site as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” overlay. f. Map 3d – Active Transportation Network is hereby amended by designating the subject site as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” overlay. g. Map 3e – Regional Road Right-of-Way Requirements is hereby amended by designating the subject site as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” overlay. h. Map 4 – Aggregate Resources is hereby amended by designating the subject site as “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” overlay. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provision set forth in the Regional Official Plan regarding the interpretation of this Plan shall apply in regards to this Amendment. Page 338 CONCESSION RD 3 CONCESSION RD 4 NO R T H S T R E E T AR T H U R S T R E E T HW Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HWY 3 5 / 1 1 5 SCHEDULE A: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map 1 - Regional Structure - Urban and Regional Systems LANDS TO BE ADDED AS COMMUNITY AREA WITHIN THE URBAN BOUNDARY Page 339 CONCESSION RD 3 CONCESSION RD 4 NO R T H S T R E E T AR T H U R S T R E E T HW Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HWY 3 5 / 1 1 5 SCHEDULE B: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map 2a - Regional Natural Heritage Systems LANDS TO BE ADDED AS URBAN AREA Page 340 CONCESSION RD 3 CONCESSION RD 4 NO R T H S T R E E T AR T H U R S T R E E T HW Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HWY 3 5 / 1 1 5 SCHEDULE C: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map 3a - Transit Priority Network LANDS TO BE ADDED AS URBAN AREA Page 341 CONCESSION RD 3 CONCESSION RD 4 NO R T H S T R E E T AR T H U R S T R E E T HW Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HWY 3 5 / 1 1 5 SCHEDULE D: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map 3b - Road Network LANDS TO BE ADDED AS URBAN AREA Page 342 CONCESSION RD 3 CONCESSION RD 4 NO R T H S T R E E T AR T H U R S T R E E T HW Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HWY 3 5 / 1 1 5 SCHEDULE E: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map 3c - Strategic Goods Movement Network LANDS TO BE ADDED AS URBAN AREA Page 343 CONCESSION RD 3 CONCESSION RD 4 NO R T H S T R E E T AR T H U R S T R E E T HW Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HWY 3 5 / 1 1 5 SCHEDULE F: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map 3d - Active Transportation Network LANDS TO BE ADDED AS URBAN AREA Page 344 CONCESSION RD 3 CONCESSION RD 4 NO R T H S T R E E T AR T H U R S T R E E T HW Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HWY 3 5 / 1 1 5 SCHEDULE G: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map 3e - Regional Right-of-Way Requirements LANDS TO BE ADDED AS URBAN AREA Page 345 CONCESSION RD 3 CONCESSION RD 4 NO R T H S T R E E T HW Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 HWY 3 5 / 1 1 5 SCHEDULE H: Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map 4 - Aggregate Resources LANDS TO BE ADDED AS URBAN AREA Page 346 December 2, 2025 Tribute Newcastle - SABE Draft AMENDMENT No. ### TO THE CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Municipality can accommodate a portion of Clarington projected growth, provide an adequate supply of housing and continue to support the achievement of a complete community through an expansion of the existing settlement area boundary (also referred to as the urban boundary) in the Newcastle Village Urban Area through a privately-initiated Official Plan Amendment. Further, this Amendment creates a planning framework, including requirements for a future planning study, to facilitate the development of a new and complete community. The Amendment outlines the requirements for this future planning study to ensure the subject site is developed in a manner that establishes a complete community and complements the existing character of Newcastle. Location: This Amendment applies to 88 hectares of land generally bounded by Highway 35/115 to the west, Concession Road 3 to the south, Arthur Street (unopened road allowance) to the east, and property boundaries approximately 1,140 metres north of Concession Road 3. The subject site is located adjacent to the north boundary of the Newcastle urban area boundary and the planned North Village Secondary Plan area (“NVSP”), which is a planned future residential and mixed use neighbourhood. These lands are comprised of several individual properties that vary in size, shape and use, including residential, commercial and agricultural uses. Basis: The Provincial Planning Statement (2024) introduced policies to permit Settlement Area Boundary expansions outside a municipal comprehensive review, including those that are privately-initiated, subject to addressing a set of criteria in the Planning Statement. In this regard, the evaluation of Settlement Area Boundary Expansions must address the need, any impacts to agriculture, phased development and capacity in existing and planned infrastructure. Analysis prepared in support of this Amendment to address the Planning Statement criteria demonstrates that there is a need to accommodate additional population growth in Clarington to achieve the Municipality’s housing targets by 2051. The analysis prepared in support of the Amendment also demonstrates that there will be no impact on agriculture or natural areas. Further, the subject site is located adjacent to the existing northern urban boundary in Newcastle in the Municipality of Clarington, which is the planned North Village Secondary Plan area, bring urbanized uses and municipal services directly to the southern boundary of the subject lands, including water, Attachment 2 to Report PDS-040-26 Page 347 December 2, 2025 Tribute Newcastle - SABE wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure and the realignment of Regional Road 17 at its intersection with Concession Road 3. In this regard, the expansion of Newcastle’s urban boundary to include the subject site is an appropriate and logical progression of urban development given the site’s location immediately adjacent to the existing urban boundary where infrastructure and community services will be brought to the southern boundary of the expansion lands. The urban boundary expansion will also accommodate urban uses that can absorb a portion of the Municipality’s and Region’s population and employment growth within whitebelt lands while optimizing the use of existing and planned infrastructure and community services. This Amendment will bring existing community and urban services and amenities already used by the Newcastle and Clarington community into the urban boundary. Urban expansion in this part of Clarington will extend the planned complete community and transportation network through the subject lands. In addition to adding the lands to the Settlement Area Boundary, the proposed amendment provides two designations to the subject site. Most of the lands are designated Urban Residential and the remainder Environmental Protection Area. Further, it is intended that the subject site would form part of a Secondary Plan, specifically the future NVSP, through a future Official Plan Amendment. The technical studies which support this Amendment, including studies addressing the matters outlined in the Planning Statement to be evaluated for Settlement Area Boundary expansion, include: • Agricultural Impact Assessment • Land Needs Analysis • Planning Rationale Report • Archaeological Assessment (Stage 1) • Environmental Conditions Report • Functional Servicing Report • Master Drainage Plan • Transportation Review • Environmental Noise Assessment Actual Amendment: The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. Chapter 17 – Special Study Areas is amended by adding Special Study Area ## to read as follows: Page 348 December 2, 2025 Tribute Newcastle - SABE “Special Study Area ##” X.X.X.1 The lands subject to Special Study Area ##, identified on Schedules A-R to this Amendment, are intended to develop as a complete community that is compact and well connected, including integration with the existing land uses and servicing infrastructure of urban communities in the present Urban Area boundaries to the south. In this regard, development of the subject site will be a continuation of the planned community within the North Village Secondary Plan area to the south. X.X.X.2 The vision is to establish a predominantly residential community, supported by existing and future commercial, institutional, and mixed uses that protects existing natural heritage features, minimizing impacts and consumption of agricultural lands and is compatible with adjacent planned and existing land uses. X.X.X.3 The majority of the subject lands are to be redesignated to Urban Residential and the remainder to Environmental Protection Area. X.X.X.4 To guide the development of these lands, prior to development of the subject site, a Secondary Plan will be completed, either as a new Secondary Plan or an update to the North Village Secondary Plan. The Secondary Plan will identify the land uses to best enable the vision for the lands, confirm infrastructure and public service facility capacity and requirements, and determine the conceptual limits of development based on natural areas and natural hazards to be protected. The Secondary Plan will implement Policies 3.3.4 and 5.4.9 of the Envision Durham Clarington: Regional Official Plan and Policy 23.3.9 of the Clarington Official Plan. 2. Clarington Official Plan is amended as follows: 2.1.1 Map A1 – Land Use (East Clarington Rural Area) be amended by included the Lands outlined in Schedule “I” to this Amendment to be added in the Newcastle Village Urban Area within the Urban Boundary and identified as Special Study Area ##; 2.1.2 Map A4 – Land Use (Newcastle Village Area) be amended by redesignating the Lands outlined in Schedule “J” to this Amendment as Urban Residential and Environmental Protection Area and to be identified as Special Study Area ##; Page 349 December 2, 2025 Tribute Newcastle - SABE 2.1.3 Map B – Urban Structure (Clarington Urban Areas) be amended by redesignating the Lands outlined in Schedule “K” to this Amendment as Greenfield within the Urban Boundary; 2.1.4 Map C– Secondary Plan Boundaries be amended by including the Lands outlined in Schedule “L” to this Amendment as within the Settlement Area Boundary and identified as Not Completed Secondary Plan; 2.1.5 Map D3 – Natural Heritage System (Southeast Clarington) be amended by including the Lands outlined in Schedule “M” to this Amendment as within the Settlement Area Boundary; 2.1.6 Map F2 – Natural Hazards and Waste Disposal Assessment Areas be amended by including the Lands outlined in Schedule “N” to this Amendment as within the Settlement Area Boundary; 2.1.7 Map G – Potential Aggregate Resources Areas be amended by including the Lands outlined in Schedule “O” to this Amendment as within the Settlement Area Boundary; 2.1.8 Map H – Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine be amended by including the Lands outlined in Schedule “P” to this Amendment as within the Settlement Area Outside of the Greenbelt Boundary; 2.1.9 Map J4 – Transportation Network Roads and Transit (Newcastle Village Urban Area) be amended by designating the Lands outlined in Schedule “Q” to this Amendment as within the Urban Area; and 2.1.10 Map K – Trails (Clarington) be amended by designated the Lands outlined in Schedule “R” to this Amendment as Urban Area. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the Clarington Official Plan regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Page 350 SPECIAL STUDY AREA SPECIAL STUDY AREA ## SCHEDULE A: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map A1 - Land Use (East Clarington Rural Area) LANDS TO BE ADDED AS NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA Page 351 SPECIAL STUDY AREA SPECIAL STUDY AREA ## SCHEDULE B: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map A4 - Land Use (Newcastle Village Urban Area) LANDS TO BE ADDED WITHIN THE URBAN BOUNDARY AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AREA Page 352 SCHEDULE C: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map B - Urban Structure (Clarington Urban Areas) LANDS TO BE ADDED WITHIN THE URBAN BOUNDARY AS GREENFIELD Page 353 SCHEDULE D: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map C - Secondary Plan Boundaries LANDS TO BE ADDED TO SETTLEMENT AREA AND IDENTIFIED AS 'NOT COMPLETED' SECONDARY PLAN BOUNDARY Page 354 SCHEDULE E: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map D3 - Natural Heritage System (Southeast Clarington) LANDS TO BE ADDED TO SETTLEMENT AREA Page 355 SCHEDULE F: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map F2 - Natural Hazards and Waste Disposal Assessment Areas LANDS TO BE ADDED TO SETTLEMENT AREA Page 356 SCHEDULE G: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map G - Potential Aggregate Resource Areas LANDS TO BE ADDED TO SETTLEMENT AREA Page 357 SCHEDULE H: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map H - Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine LANDS TO BE ADDED TO SETTLEMENT AREA Page 358 SCHEDULE I: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map J4 - Transportation Network Roads and Transit (Newcastle Village Urban Area) LANDS TO BE IDENTIFIED AS URBAN AREA Page 359 SCHEDULE J: Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Amendment No. ## Map K - Trails (Clarington) LANDS TO BE IDENTIFIED AS URBAN AREA Urban AreaPage 360 SWMP SWMP CONCESSION ROAD 3 HIGH SCHOOL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL HI G H W A Y 3 5 / 1 1 5 PROPOSED NORTH VILLAGE SECONDARY PLAN AREA POTENTIAL ACCESS NP 23 23 23 2320 23 2020 20 23PROPOSED RR17 REALIGNMENT * PARK AR T H U R S T R E E T E X T E N S I O N ST R E E T ' A ' ST R E E T ' A ' STREET 'B' STREET 'C' MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY MEDIUM DENSITY BOUSFIELDS inc. 24265 -- 66sk December, 2025 Newcastle Settlement Area Boundary Expansion Municipality of Clarington Low Density Residential (38.6 ha) Medium Density Residential (6.3 ha) Neighbourhood Park (2.9 ha) Highway Commercial (4.4 ha) Existing Institutional Uses (9.4 ha) Potential Stormwater Management Pond (3.8 ha) Existing Settlement Areas Proposed Settlement Area Boundary Expansion (±88 ha.) Collector Roads (20-23m) Bike Route Multi-Use Path Subject Property NP Preliminary Natural Heritage System (GeoProcess) (8.1 ha) LAND USE STRUCTURE PLAN Estimated Number of Units Low Density = 745 units Medium Density = 252 units Total = 997 units School Gateway Prominent Intersection Attachment 3 to Report PDS-040-26 Page 361 Agent/Owner: Malone Given Parsons Ltd. on behalf of Treeborough Limited Partnership and Schickedanz Developments Bowmanville Partnership Application Details: A Regional Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan Amendment to permit residential and mixed-use development on lands added to the Bowmanville Urban Area through the 2024 Durham Region Official Plan. Statutory Public Meeting ROPA2026-0003 and COPA2025-0009 Location: Lands generally located south of Concession Road 3, west of Providence Road, east of Soper Creek, and north of the local CPR Railway in Bowmanville. Meeting Date: May 11, 2026 Page 362 North-East Bowmanville Official Plan Amendment to the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan May 11th, 2026 Page 363 Project Consultant Team Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Planning Gemtec Geotechnical & Hydrogeology YCA Engineering Noise CIMA+ Transportation DG Biddle Servicing Colville Agricultural Parslow Heritage Consultancy Archaeological Geoprocess Environmental Stantec Subwatershed MBTW Urban Design KPEC Financial Page 364 Presentation Outline 1.Introduction 2.Planning Context 3.New Community Area Structure 4.Proposed Draft Official Plan Amendment 5.Vision & Guiding Principles 6.Proposed Concept 7.Question Period Page 365 Introduction Location: East side of the existing urban boundary of Bowmanville and bounded by Concession Road 3 to the north, Providence Road to the east, the Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway to the south, and Soper Creek to the west Area: 6 parcels totaling approximately 121 hectares and the NE Bowmanville Landowners Group (“NEBLOG”) owns approximately 92.1% (111.5 ha) Existing Uses: Agricultural and rural residential land uses Planning Context: Subject Lands were brought into the Urban Boundary through Envision Durham, Durham Region’s new Official Plan, 2023 (“DROP”) Proposed OPA: Amends the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, 1996, as amended, to bring it into conformity with the DROP and establish land use designations and policies that will result in a new residential neighbourhood Page 366 Planning Context – Region of Durham •Subject Lands are designated Community Areas with a 2051 Urban Expansion Areas overlay within the Urban System •Community Areas are intended to offer a complete living environment •2051 Urban Expansion Areas are intended to support and facilitate new development to the next planning horizon of 2051 •Regional OPA application has been submitted to amend Map 1 to remove the 2051 Urban Expansion Areas hatching Page 367 Context – Separate Servicing Solution •The necessary sanitary and water infrastructure is in place or available through connection to the Timber Trails development to the south owned by a member of the NEBLOG •Timber Trails infrastructure has been oversized, installed and financed by the landowners to adequately support connection to the proposed development within the Subject Lands Page 368 New Community Area Structure •Subject Lands are located within a larger area that has been collectively designated to accommodate residential growth and are expected to undergo a secondary plan exercise in the future •Broader comprehensive planning review has been undertaken to ensure the proposed OPA will be compatible for incorporation into a future secondary plan •This application provides all required information and studies for the Subject Lands to support future secondary plan exercises Page 369 •DROP forecasts Clarington to grow to a total population of 221,020 people and 80,160 households by 2051 •Clarington does not have adequate lands designated and available for residential development to accommodate residential growth for 15 years, consistent with Policy 2.1.4 of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 •The Subject Lands can be developed in the near-term to provide for housing to ensure the municipality can be consistent with the targets of the PPS, and should be planned now: o Other 2051 Lands in this area are currently not owned by developers and will not be developed in the near term o Timeline to initiate a secondary plan for the Other 2051 Lands is unclear o Servicing of the site can be accomplished through a logical extension of the existing system without the need to determine a new servicing approach. New Community Area Structure Page 370 Planning Context – Clarington Official Plan •Majority of the Subject Lands are currently designated as Prime Agricultural Area and Environmental Protection Area in the Clarington Official Plan (“COP”) •Official Plan Amendment is required to redesignate the Subject Lands from Prime Agricultural Area to Urban Area to conform with the DROP designation of the lands as Community Areas. Page 371 Vision & Guiding Principles Vision: North-East Bowmanville will be a community that embodies a unique identity where people can live, work, and play in a safe, vibrant, healthy and prosperous environment Guiding Principles: 1.Create a high-quality built form 2.Establish as safe, comfortable active transportation network 3.Implement sustainable building and landscape designs Page 372 Proposed Draft Official Plan Amendment Proposed OPA will redesignate the Subject Lands under the COP for urban uses (in conformity with the DROP) to include the following: Low-Rise Residential - predominantly grade-related dwellings to deliver a mix of housing types and tenures Medium Density Residential - predominantly mid-rise building forms to deliver a mix of housing types and tenures Mixed Use - allows for the greatest mix of uses including residential, office, retail, personal service, cultural, community, and institutional uses Environmental Protection Area – lands intended for protection, conservation, and restoration Infrastructure Corridor - 30-metre setback from the CPKC Railway Page 373 Proposed Concept Plan Major components include: •Primarily residential areas with permissions for a range of low to medium-density residential uses •Commercial or mixed-use space near eastern boundary to provide a local node for access to services and amenities •Re-alignment of approximately 8.5 ha of NHS lands bisecting the Subject Lands as a Restored Riparian Corridor •Range of parks co-located with natural heritage and/or proposed amenities Page 374 Proposed Concept - Residential Unit Type Distribution (%) Net Land Area (ha) # of Units % Unit Mix Population Single/Semi Detached 64%39.39 1,103 48%3,456 Secondary Units --110 5%157 Street Townhouse 36%21.92 1,096 47%2,815 Total 100%61.32 2,309 100%6,428 •Intended to accommodate a minimum population of approximately 6,400 people and 560 jobs •Minimum density of 64 people and jobs per hectare •Medium density uses are planned to be located in strategic locations such as near major intersections Page 375 Proposed Concept - Parks Parks are co-located throughout the Subject Lands with NHS, proposed Restored Riparian Corridor, or the CPKC Railway abutting the southern boundary of the site Proposed Parks: •One (1) Neighbourhood Park (2.8 hectares) near the centre of the Subject Lands •Two (2) parkettes (0.56 hectares and 0.19 hectares) •A linear park (1.6 hectares) along the CPKC Railway within the 30 m buffer required between residential buildings and the CPKC Railway Page 376 Proposed Development – Transportation and Mobility Network Integrates a range of arterial and collector roads on which potential transit, pedestrian and cycling connections will be developed. Includes the following components: 1.Arterial Road Network - Lambs Road, Concession Road 3, Providence Road and Longworth Avenue 2.Collector and Local Network - grid-like network providing internal circulation and direct connections to the arterial network 3.Arterial Road Crossing Proposed Riparian Corridor and NHS - two (2) significant proposed crossings along Lambs Road 4.Active Transportation - Map 3d of the DROP identifies a future cycling route running along Lambs Road and the proposed Longworth Avenue extension. Local roads are planned with a right-of-way width of 18 and 20 metres and will provide sidewalks on one side of the road where feasiblePage 377 Soper Creek Subwatershed Study •Subject Lands are within subcatchment SM-6 of the Soper Creek Subwatershed, however, they have not been included in the ongoing Soper Creek Subwatershed Study (SCSWS) area •NEBLOG and its consultants have been requesting to join for over a year and CLOCA is supportive of their inclusion •The SCSWS needs to acknowledge that these lands were identified for urban growth by the Region of Durham and should have been included in the Study Area •The findings produced by the SCSWS have been integrated to inform the Master Drainage Plan and the NHS of the Subject Lands, and as such, the work produced by the OPA process can and should be integrated into the SCSWS to ensure comprehensive assessment of the anticipated growth area •NEBLOG and its consultants are available and have provided input to the ongoing SCSWS process Page 378 Questions? Page 379 Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-041-26 Authored By: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner, Development Review Division Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO File Number: ROPA2026-0003 and COPA2025-0009 Resolution#: Report Subject: Privately initiated Planning Act applications proposing 121-hectares of land to be added to the Bowmanville Urban Settlement Boundary Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide information to the public and Council regarding a privately initiated applications that have been received under the Planning Act. It does not constitute, imply or request any degree of approval. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-041-26 and any related communication items, be received for information only; 2. That Staff receive and consider comments from the public review agencies, and Council with respect to the privately initiated Regional Official Plan Amendment and Clarington Official Plan Amendment applications and continue processing the applications including the preparation of a subsequent recommendation report; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-041-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 380 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-041-26 Report Overview The Municipality is seeking the public’s input on a proposed 1. Application Details Owner: Treeborough Limited Partnership and Schickedanz Developments Bowmanville Partnership Applicant: Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Proposal: Regional Official Plan Amendment Proposal to amend Map 1 of the Durham Region Official Plan (“DROP”) to remove the 2051 Urban Expansion Area hatching so that it is a contiguous part of the adjoining Community Area. Clarington Official Plan Amendment To amend the Clarington Official Plan to designate lands within North -East Bowmanville within the Urban Boundary and designate the lands for residential, infrastructure, municipal parks, environmental protection, and mixed-use areas. Area: 121 hectares (299 acres) Location: Lands generally located south of Concession Road 3, west of Providence Road, east of Soper Creek, and north of the local CPR Railway in Bowmanville. 2. Background 2.1 Malone Given Parsons Ltd. submitted applications on behalf of Treeborough Limited Partnership and Schickedanz Developments Bowmanville Partnership for a Regional Official Plan Amendment and Clarington Official Plan Amendment. 2.2 The proposal seeks to enable residential and mixed-use development on lands added to the Bowmanville Urban Area through the 2024 Durham Region Official Plan. The total site area is 121 hectares (299 acres) in size. 2.3 A pre-consultation meeting was held with internal depa rtments, agencies, and the property owner and their consultants on April 3, 2025. At this meeting Staff encouraged the property owner’s consultant to proceed with this urban settlement area boundary delineation to be submitted for consideration through the Official Plan Review process as that process will determine which, if any, of the ‘2051 Urban Expansion Area’ identified by Envision Durham are required to be brought into Clarington’s Urban Area boundary. Page 381 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-041-26 2.4 The Clarington Official Plan Amendment was submitted to the Municipality on May 9, 2025. Then, following discussions between the property owners, their legal representative and Municipal Staff, a Regional Official Plan Amendment was submitted on February 20, 2026. Figure 1 – Proposed Concept Plan 2.5 The Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS) establishes the policy framework for Settlement Area Boundary Expansions (SABE). Section 2.3 of the PPS permits privately initiated applications for expanding a settlement area boundary which is a change from previous provincial policy that required a municipal comprehensive review since 2005. It is noted that the subject lands are currently within the 2051 Urban Expansion Area as identified on Map 1 of Envision Durham, 2024. Page 382 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-041-26 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The subject site is 121- hectares in size and is generally located south of Concession Road 3, west of Providence Road, east of Soper Creek, and north of the local CPKC Railway in Bowmanville. 3.2 The subject site has frontages of approximately 1,300 metres along Providence Road, 807 metres along Concession Road 3, 975 metres along the east side of Lambs Road, 815 metres along the west side of Lambs Road, approximately 875 metres along the CPR Railway. 3.3 The subject lands are currently primarily used for agricultural uses, with a few rural or single detached dwellings and natural wooded areas. 4. Policy and Zoning Analysis 4.1 Staff are reviewing the applications and will prepare a policy analysis that will be included in a future recommendation report. 5. Summary of Background Studies 5.1 The applicant has submitted the required supporting plans and studies which have been circulated to departments and agencies for review and comment. The list of studies and drawings are on the development application webpage at www.clarington.net/NEBowmanvilleLands and are also available upon request. A summary and analysis of the submitted reports and studies will be provided in a future recommendation report. 6. Public Notice and Submissions 6.1 Public Meeting Notices were mailed to 71 landowners within 300 metres of the subject lands on April 20, 2026. Public Notice was also sent to relevant public agencies and members of Clarington Council. Three public meeting signs were installed on the subject lands, one along Concession Road 3, one along Providence Road, and one along Lambs Road. Details of the proposed application were also posted on the Municipality’s website, and in the Clarington Connected e-newsletter. 6.2 At the time of writing this report, staff have received one public submission. The individual raised concerns with bringing new lands into the Bowmanville Urban Boundary when there are still available lands to develop in Bowmanville. 6.3 Staff will continue to process any public inquiries received. Comments received at the Statutory Public Meeting will also be considered and included in the recommendation report. Page 383 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-041-26 7. Departmental and Agency Comments 7.1 The application was circulated to internal departments and external agencies for review and comments. A list and summary of the agency and internal department comments received, as well as all public comments received, will be included in a subsequent recommendation report. 8. Discussion 8.1 The proposed Regional Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan Amendment seek to permit residential and mixed-use development on lands added to the Bowmanville Urban Area through the 2024 Durham Region Official Plan. 8.2 The purpose of the Public Meeting is to present the privately initiated applications for Council and public input. Staff will continue to process the applications; work closely with the applicant to address comments; and provide a future recommendation report for consideration by Council. 9. Conclusion 9.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information and obtain comments on the submitted applications for a Regional Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan Amendment at the Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue to review and process these applications, including consideration of department, agency and public feedback and will prepare a subsequent recommendation report for Council’s consideration. Comments received at this public meeting will be considered and included in the final recommendation report. Staff Contact: Sarah Gattie, Principal Planner, sgattie@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Draft Regional Official Plan Amendment Submitted by Applicant Attachment 2 – Draft Clarington Official Plan Amendment Submitted by Applicant Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 384 Attachment 1 to Report PDS-041-26 February 2026 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Amendment Number XX To the Durham Region Official Plan Purpose: To amend the Durham Region Official Plan to remove the 2051 Urban Expansion Areas hatching from the Subject Lands. Location: The amendment to the Durham Region Official Plan applies to the lands bound by Concession Road 3, Providence Road, the Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway, and Soper Creek. Basis: The 2051 Urban Expansion Areas were added to the Urban Boundary through the latest Regional municipal comprehensive review in 2023. The Amendment updates Map 1 to remove the hatching of the 2051 Urban Expansion Area on the Subject Lands to reflect which areas within the new 2051 Urban Expansion Areas have been appropriately studied and can be integrated into the local official plans. The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, authorizes the Municipality of Clarington to pass by- laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and amendments thereto. The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, states that the portions of an official plan of an upper- tier municipality without planning responsibilities that are in effect immediately before the effective date and that apply in respect of any area in a lower-tier municipality are deemed to constitute an official plan of the lower-tier municipality. The amendment to the Durham Region Official Plan is exempt from approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs by Ontario Regulation 525/97, as amended by Ontario Regulation 344/98, made pursuant to Section 17(9) of the Planning Act. This amendment is based on applications by Treeborough Limited Partnership and Schickedanz Developments Bowmanville Partnership to facilitate urban development on the North-East Bowmanville lands to accommodate growth to 2051. Page 385 The amendment meets the review criteria for amendments to the Clarington Official Plan under section 23.2.6 of the Official Plan by: conforming to municipal goals and objectives of the Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan; contributing to the overall structure of the Municipality; being compatible with adjacent land uses; and being supported by infrastructure to service the development. Actual Amendment: The Durham Region Official Plan is hereby amended by removing the 2051 Urban Expansion Areas hatching from the Subject Lands on Map 1. The following Maps of the Durham Region Official Plan, as amended, are hereby amended as follows: i.Map 1 – Regional Structure – Urban & Rural Systems is amended as shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto. Implementation: The provisions set forth in Part V of the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and Chapter 11 of the Durham Region Official Plan regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in Part V of the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and Chapter 11 of the Durham Region Official Plan regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Page 386 Schedule “A” to By-law XX Page 387 May 2025 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Amendment Number XX To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan Purpose: To amend the Clarington Official Plan to designate lands within North-East Bowmanville within the Urban Boundary and designate the lands for residential, infrastructure, environmental protection, and mixed use areas. Location: The amendment to the Official Plan applies to the lands bound by Concession Road 3, Providence Road, the Canadian Pacific Kansas City Railway, and Soper Creek. Basis: This amendment is based on applications by Treeborough Limited Partnership and Schickedanz Developments Bowmanville Partnership to facilitate urban development on the North-East Bowmanville lands to accommodate growth to 2051. The amendment meets the review criteria for amendments to the Clarington Official Plan under section 23.2.6 of the Official Plan by: conforming to municipal goals and objectives of the Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan; contributing to the overall structure of the Municipality; being compatible with adjacent land uses; and being supported by infrastructure to service the development. Actual Amendment: The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended by adding a new Secondary Plan, North-East Bowmanville Secondary Plan, to Part Six, Secondary Plans. The following Maps of the Clarington Official Plan, as amended, are hereby amended as follows: i.Map A1 – Land Use, West Clarington Rural Area is amended as shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto; ii.Map A3 – Land Use, Bowmanville Urban Area is amended as shown on Schedule “B” attached hereto; Attachment 2 to Report PDS-041-26 Draf t Page 388 May 2025 iii. Map B – Urban Structure, Clarington Urban Areas is amended as shown on Schedule “C” attached hereto; iv. Map C – Secondary Plan Areas, Clarington Urban Areas is amended as shown on Schedule “D” attached hereto; v. Map D1 – Natural Environment, Natural Heritage System is amended as shown on Schedule “E” attached hereto; vi. Map F1 – Natural Environment, Natural Hazards and Waste Disposal Assessment Areas is amended as shown on Schedule “F” attached hereto; vii. Map G – Potential Aggregate Resource Areas, Municipality of Clarington is amended as shown on Schedule “G” attached hereto; viii. Map H – Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine is amended as shown on Schedule “H” attached hereto; ix. Map J3 – Transportation Network Road and Transit, Bowmanville Urban Area is amended as shown on Schedule “I” attached hereto; x. Map K – Trails, Clarington is amended as shown on Schedule “J” attached hereto. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Draf t Page 389 May 2025 Schedule “A” to By-law XX Draf t Page 390 May 2025 Schedule “B” to By-law XX Draf t Page 391 May 2025 Schedule “C” to By-law XX Draf t Page 392 May 2025 Schedule “D” to By-law XX Draf t Page 393 May 2025 Schedule “E” to By-law XX Draf t Page 394 May 2025 Schedule “F” to By-law XX Draf t Page 395 May 2025 Schedule “G” to By-law XX Draf t Page 396 May 2025 Schedule “H” to By-law XX Draf t Page 397 May 2025 Schedule “I” to By-law XX Draf t Page 398 May 2025 Schedule “J” to By-law XX Draf t Page 399 Agent/Owner: Batory Planning + Management c/o. Mearns Avenue Limited Partnership Application Details: •The proposal includes plans to develop 458 residential units within a proposed plan of subdivision. Statutory Public Meeting ROPA2025-0001, COPA2025-0001, ZBA2025-0001, S-C-2025-0001, SPA2025-0001 and SPA2025-0002 Location: 933 Mearns Ave, Bowmanville Meeting Date: May 11, 2026 Page 400 9 3 3 M e a r n s A v e n u e , C l a r i n g t o n P u b l i c M e e t i n g M a y 1 1 , 2 0 2 6 Page 401 SITE CONTEXT William Gr a h a m D r i v e Holl a d a y D r i v e Page 402 EXISTING & AREA CONTEXT Page 403 EXISTING & AREA CONTEXT Page 404 OFFICIAL PLAN Page 405 OFFICIAL PLAN Page 406 OFFICIAL PLAN Page 407 ZONING Page 408 P R O P O S E D D E V E L O P M E N T Page 409 3 Storey Low Rise Typologies and 7 Storey Apartment 236 Bicycle Parking Spaces 458 Units 348 Townhouse Units 20 Semi-Detached Units 90 Apartment Units Private & Shared Amenity Areas & New Trail Systems 788 Parking Spaces PROJECT OVERVIEW Page 410 SITE CONSTRAINTS & DRAFT PLAN Page 411 OVERALL SITE PLAN Page 412 SITE PLAN - SITE A Page 413 SITE PLAN - SITE B Page 414 SITE PLAN - SITE C Page 415 A R C H I T E C T U R A L D E S I G N Page 416 RENDERING Page 417 RENDERING Page 418 RENDERING Page 419 RENDERING Page 420 S U M M A R Y Page 421 The subject site is located within an evolving context. Urban Boundary Expansions are permitted under Section 2.3.2 of PPS, 2024 The applications seek the approval of a residential development consisting of a total of 458 residential units, and includes 348 townhouse units, 20 semi-detached units, and 90 apartment units. The proposal contributes to increasing the variety of family-sized housing units within the local context and makes efficient use of area infrastructure. A network of open spaces are proposed as part of the proposed development, as well as trails and trail connections throughout Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivision & a Site Plan Application have been submitted to facilitate the proposed residential development. IN SUMMARY Page 422 T H A N K Y O U Page 423 Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-044-26 Authored By: Jacob Circo, Senior Planner, Development Review Division Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO File Number: ROPA-2025-0001, COPA-2025-0001, ZBA-2025-0001, S-C-2025-0001, SPA-2025-0001 and SPA-2025-0002 Resolution#: Report Subject: Applications to amend the Durham Region and Clarington Official Plans, Zoning By-law and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate 458 residential units on lands added to the Bowmanville Urban Area through the 2024 Durham Region Official Plan. Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide information to the public and Council regarding privately initiated applications that have been received under the Planning Act. It does not constitute, imply or request any degree of approval. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-044-26 and any related communication items, be received for information only; 2. That Staff receive and consider comments from the public review agencies, and Council with respect to the privately initiated Regional Official Plan Amendment, Clarington Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications and continue processing the applications including the preparation of a subsequent recommendation report; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-044-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 424 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-044-26 Report Overview The Municipality is seeking the public’s input on privately initiated privately initiated Durham Region Official Plan Amendment, Clarington Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications at 933 Mearns Avenue in Bowmanville. The proposal seeks to facilitate the development of 458 residential units, which will be separated into three sites (See ). 1. Application Details Owner: Mearns Avenue Limited Partnership Applicant: Batory Planning + Management Proposal: Regional Official Plan Amendment To amend the Official Plan Schedules to remove “2051 Urban Expansion Area” to add the subject lands to the Bowmanville Urban Boundary which includes amendments Maps 1, 2a, 3a, 3e, and 4, and to re -designate the “2051 Urban Expansion Area” lands to “Community Areas” to support the development proposal. Clarington Official Plan Amendment To amend the Official Plan schedules to add the regional Bowmanville 2051 Urban Expansion Area to Bowmanville Urban Boundary. Additionally, to redesignate the subject lands within the regional Bowmanville 2051 Urban Expansion Area from “Prime Agricult ure Area” to “Urban Residential”. Moreover, to amend Map B to extend the “Local Corridor” east along Concession Road 3 to where it intersects with Lambs Road. Zoning By-law Amendment For Site A: • To rezone the subject lands from “Agriculture (A)” to an exception zone within the “Urban Residential Type Three (R3) Zone” to permit street and link townhouses and to an appropriate exception zone to permit semi-detached dwellings. Page 425 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-044-26 For Site B: • To rezone the subject lands from “Agricultural Exception (A-1)” to an exception zone within the “Urban Residential Type Four (R3) Zone” to permit an apartment building. For Site C: • To rezone the subject lands from “Agricultural Exception (A-1) to an exception zone within the “Urban Residential Type Three (R3) Zone” to permit street, stacked and link townhouses and to an appropriate exception zone to permit semi-detached dwellings. Area: 34.5 hectares Location: 933 Mearns Avenue, Bowmanville. 2. Background 2.1 Pre-consultation meetings were held with internal departments, agencies, and the property owner and their consultants on March 27, 2023, and May 30, 2024. 2.2 Batory Planning + Management, submitted a Clarington Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and two Site Plan applications on behalf of Mearns Avenue Limited Partnership Inc on January 10, 2025. The applications were deemed complete on February 11, 2025. A Durham Region Official Plan Amendment was submitted on April 10, 2025, and deemed complete on April 10, 2025. 2.3 The proposal seeks to facilitate the development of 458 residential units, which will be separated into three sites, with Site A being within the Bowmanville Urban Boundary in the Clarington Official Plan and Sites B and C being within the Durham Region Official Plan new Bowmanville Urban Boundary that was approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 2024 (See Figures 1 and 2). Page 426 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-044-26 2.4 Upon deeming the Planning Act applications complete, three public notice signs were installed on the subject lands, one along each road frontage, and public notices were mailed to area residents on April 16, 2025. A project webpage was also established. 2.5 The Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS) establishes the policy framework for Settlement Area Boundary Expansions (SABE). Section 2.3 of the PPS permits privately initiated applications for expanding a settlement area boundary which is a change from previous provincial policy that required a municipal comprehensive review since 2005. 2.6 Following the issuance of public notice regarding the deeming complete of the submitted Planning Act applications on April 16, 2025, several members of the public provided feedback. Three inquiries requested additional information about the proposal, and four written submissions expressed opposition to the development. Written submissions in opposition expressed concerns in regard to increased traffic, loss of habitat, servicing capacity and damage to the environment. 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The subject area is located in Bowmanville and is bounded by Concession Road 3 to the north, Lambs Road to the west, and Mearns Avenue to the east, with portions extending beyond the current Bowmanville Urban Boundary identified in the Clarington Official Plan. Surrounding land uses include farmland and the Soper Creek Subwatershed to the north, agricultural lands to the east, a mix of existing urban residential development, agricultural lands, and the Soper Creek Subwatershed to the south, and existing urban residential subdivisions to the west. 4. Policy and Zoning Analysis 4.1 Staff are reviewing the applications and will prepare a policy analysis that will be included in a future recommendation report. 5. Summary of Background Studies 5.1 The applicant has submitted the required supporting plans and studies which have been circulated to departments and agencies for review and comment. The list of studies and drawings are on the development application webpage at http://www.clarington.net/933MearnsAve and are also available upon request. A summary and analysis of the submitted reports and studies will be provided in a future recommendation report. Page 427 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-044-26 Figure 1 – Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Page 428 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-044-26 Figure 2 – Subject property in red overlay illustrating lands within the Urban Boundary to the west and those added as part of the new Durham Region Official Plan in black hatch. 6. Public Notice and Submissions 6.1 Public Meeting Notices were mailed to 362 landowners within 300 metres of the subject lands on April 17, 2026. Public Notice was also sent to relevant public agencies and members of Clarington Council. Public meeting signs were installed on the subject lands. Details of the proposed application were also posted on the Municipality’s website, and in the Clarington Connected e-newsletter. 6.2 As of writing this report, Staff have received three public inquiries and requested to be added to the interested parties list. The inquiries primarily related to concerns about increased traffic, environmental impacts, public safety, and requests for copies of the submission materials. Page 429 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDS-044-26 6.3 Staff will continue to process any public inquiries received. Comments received at the Statutory Public Meeting will also be considered and included in the recommendation report. 7. Departmental and Agency Comments 7.1 The application was circulated to internal departments and external agencies for review and comments. A list and summary of the agency and internal department comments received, as well as all public comments received, will be included in a subsequent recommendation report. 8. Discussion 8.1 The purpose of the Public Meeting is to present the privately initiated applications for Council and public input. Staff will continue to process the applications; work closely with the applicant to address comments; and provide a future recommendation report for consideration by Council. 8.2 The proposal seeks to facilitate the development of a total of 458 residential units distributed across three distinct sites. Site A, located on the west side of the property and within the Bowmanville Urban Boundary, is p roposed to accommodate 215 link townhouses, 52 street townhouses, and 18 semi-detached dwelling units. A stormwater management pond (Block 61) is also proposed at the northeast corner of this site. Site's B and C are situated outside of the Bowmanville Urb an Boundary and are situated within the 2024 Durham Region Official Plan's 2051 Urban Expansion Area. Site B, situated on the northeastern portion of the property, is proposed to include a 90 -unit apartment building accessed via a private lane. Site C, located southeast of Site B, is proposed to contain 81 townhouses and 2 semi-detached dwelling units, along with a stormwater management pond (Block 60) at the southeast corner of the site. 8.3 The purpose of the Public Meeting is to present the proposed applications to Council and the public for feedback and to identify issues or opportunities that should be considered. Staff will continue to process the application, work closely with the applicant to address comments, and provide a future recommendation report for consideration by Council. 9. Conclusion 9.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information and obtain comments on the submitted applications for a Regional Official Plan Amendment, Clarington Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for the proposed development at the Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue to review and process the applications, including consideration of department, agency and public f eedback and will prepare a subsequent recommendation report for Council’s consideration. Comments received at this public meeting will be considered and included in the final recommendation report. Page 430 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PDS-044-26 Staff Contact: Jacob Circo, Senior Planner, Jcirco@clarington.net . Attachments: Attachment 1 – Draft Regional Official Plan Amendment and Clarington Official Plan Amendment Submitted by Applicant Attachment 2 – Draft Zoning By-law Amendment by Applicant Attachment 3 – Draft Plan of Subdivision Submitted by Applicant Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 431 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 1 AMENDMENT NUMBER XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Part of Lot 7 & 8, Concession 2 933 Mearns Avenue Municipality of Clarington (Town File: XXXX) Draft Prepared By: Batory Urban Planning and Project Management Attachment 1 to Report PDS-044-26 Page 432 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 2 AMENDMENT NUMBER XX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PART 1 THE PREAMBLE, does not constitute part of this Amendment PART 2 THE AMENDMENT, consisting of the following text constitutes Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington Page 433 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 3 PART 1: THE PREAMBLE THE TITLE This amendment, being an amendment to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington shall be known as: Amendment No. XX To the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington 933 Mearns Avenue (Part of Lot 7 & 8, Concession 2) (Municipality of Clarington) PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT The purpose of this amendment is to permit the development of the lands known municipally as 933 Mearns Avenue, with a residential development consisting of a total of 472 residential units, and includes 372 townhouse units, 10 semi-detached units, and 90 apartment units. LOCATION OF THE AMENDMENT The subject property is located on the east side of Mearns Avenue, south of Concession Road 3, with an area of approximately 107,307.45 square metres (26.5 acres). The lands are legally described as Part of Lot 7 & 8, Concession 2, Municipality of Clarington, Region of Durham and are municipally known as 933 Mearns Avenue. BASIS OF THE AMENDMENT Provincial Policy establishes the foundation for regulating the development and use of land to sustain healthy, liveable and safe communities, including accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment, institutional, recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long term needs. The focus of growth and development, including residential and employment intensification shall be directed to settlement areas where infrastructure and public amenities are available. Residential intensification includes infill development, the development of vacant or underutilized lots within previously developed areas, and the conversion and expansion of existing residential buildings to create new residential units for and/or employment uses. The type and scale of development, which should be more compact, and transition of built form to adjacent areas must also be considered. The subject lands are partially located within the Urban Area within the Town of Clarington Official Plan, and are to be included as a Settlement Expansion Area as per the policies of 2.3.2 of the PPS, 2024, as proposed by this Amendment. The proposed amendment to permit the development of an underutilized site with a residential townhouse and apartment development, containing a range of unit sizes, designed within its surrounding context and transition appropriately to adjacent areas. The proposed development is located in an area with good access to active transportation infrastructure and will contribute to the achieving both the overall housing targets, and the targeted form of growth, established in Provincial, Regional, and Local policy. Page 434 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 4 PART 2: THE AMENDMENT All of this document, entitled Part 2: THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text constitutes Amendment No. XX to the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended by Official Plan Amendment No. XX, pursuant to Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, as amended, as follows: (*Note: Bold text represents an addition and text with a strikethrough represents deleted text.) 1.0 Map Changes Region of Durham 1.1 Map 1, Regional Structure – To add the Subject Lands to the “Urban Area Boundary” and remove the “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” Overlay letting the base designation of “Community Areas” be unlocked. 1.2 Map 2a, Regional Natural Heritage System – To remove the “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” Overlay letting the base designation of “Urban Area” be unlocked. 1.3 Maps 3a to 3e, Transportation System – To remove the “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” Overlay letting the base designation of “Urban Area” be unlocked. 1.4 Map 4, Aggregate Resources - remove the “2051 Urban Expansion Areas” Overlay letting the base designation of “Urban Area” be unlocked. Clarington 1.5 Map A1 Land Use West Clarington Rural Area - To add the Subject Lands to the “Urban” Area and remove the Subject Lands from the “Prime Agricultural Area”. 1.6 Map A3 Land Use Bowmanville Urban Area - To add the Subject Lands to the “Urban Boundary” and redesignate the lands outside the “Environmental Protection Area” as “Urban Residential”. 1.7 Map B - To add the Subject Lands to the “Urban Boundary” and extend the “Local Corridor” east along Concession Road 3 to where it intersects with Lambs Road. 1.8 Map s C to K - To add the Subject Lands to the “Settlement Area Boundary” and/or “Urban Area”. 2.0 Text Changes Page 435 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 5 23.19.1 is amended by adding the following: xx. Notwithstanding any other map in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and Envision Durham Regional Official Plan, the Subject Lands shall be located within the “Urban Area”, “Settlement Area Boundary” and “Urban Boundary”. xx. Notwithstanding any other provision in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and Envision Durham Regional Official Plan, a maximum height of 7 storeys, and a minimum density of 19 units per hectare shall be permitted on the Subject Lands. Page 436 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 6 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO.XX.2025 BEING A BY-LAW OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON TO ADOPT AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 17 OF THE PLANNING ACT, AS AMENDED, IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS MUNICIPALLY IDENTIFIED AS 933 MEARNS AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PART OF LOT 7 & 8, CONCESSION 2, MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON IN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM (FILE NO. XXXXX) The Council of the corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 and 21 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, hereby enacts as follows: 1. Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington, to amend Schedules XXXX of the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan to provide for permission of a residential development consisting of a total of 472 residential units, and includes 372 townhouse units, 10 semi-detached units, and 90 apartment units. at lands located 933 Mearns Avenue and legally described as Part of Lot 13, Concession 2, Municipality of Clarington, consisting of the attached maps and explanatory text, is hereby adopted. 2. Pursuant to Subsection 17(27) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, this Official Plan Amendment comes into effect the day after the last day for filing a notice of appeal, if no appeal is filed pursuant to Subsections 17 (24) and (25). Where one or more appeals have been filed under Subsection 17 (24) or (25) of the said Act, as amended, this Official Plan Amendment comes into effect when all such appeals have been withdrawn or finally disposed of in accordance with the direction of the Ontario Land Tribunal. 3. The Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Approval Authority for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number XX to the Official Plan of the Municipality of Clarington. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME and FINALLY PASSED this ** day of ********, 2025 ____________________________________Mayor ________________________________Town Clerk Page 437 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 7 MAP CHANGES Page 438 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 8 Page 439 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 9 Page 440 DRA F T Official Plan Amendment for 933 Mearns Avenue File Number: OPA-XXXX 10 Page 441 DRA F T A by-law to amend By-law Number 83-63, as amended. WHEREAS pursuant to sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, the council of a local municipality may pass a zoning by-law; NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Clarington ENACTS as follows: 1. By-law Number 83-63, as amended, being a Town of Clarington Zoning By-law, is amended by adding the following Exceptions: SITE ‘A’: LINK TOWNHOMES Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.4, those lands zoned R3-XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following zone regulations: a.Lot Frontage (minimum)4.5m b. Yard Requirements (minimum) a) Interior Side Yard 1.5m b) Exterior Side Yard 3.0m c) Rear Yard 5.5m d) garage to dwelling unit nil e) setback to sight triangle / corner rounding 1.5m c.Lot Coverage (maximum)65 percent d.Landscaped Open Space (minimum)25 percent e.Building Height (maximum)12.75 metres STREET TOWNHOMES Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.3, those lands zoned R3-XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following zone regulations: a.Lot Area (minimum) a) Interior 140 square metres b) Exterior 190 square metres b.Lot Frontage (minimum)5.5m b. Yard Requirements (minimum) a) Front Yard (To Private Garage) nil Attachment 2 to Report PDS-044-26 Page 442 DRA F T b)Exterior Side Yard 3.0m c) Rear Yard 6.0m d) Garage to Dwelling Unit 1.5m e) Setback to Sight Triangle / Corner Rounding 1.5m c.Lot Coverage (maximum)70 percent d.Landscaped Open Space (minimum)19 percent e.Building Height (maximum)12.75 metres SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS Notwithstanding Sections 12.2, those lands zoned R3-XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for semi-detached dwellings, subject to the following: a.Semi-detached shall be permitted as follows (minimum): i)Lot Area 370 square metres ii)Lot Coverage (maximum)50% iii)Rear Yard Setback 5.0m minimum iv)Garage to Dwelling Unit Setback nil SITE ‘B’: APARTMENT BUILDING Notwithstanding Section 15.2, those lands zoned R4-XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following zone regulations: a.Dwelling Units (maximum)90 units b.Landscape Open Space (minimum)22% c.Density (maximum)95 Units Per Hectare d. Yard Requirements (minimum) a) Front Yard Setback 3.0m e.Dwelling Unit Area (minimum) i)One Bedroom Dwelling Unit 40 square metres ii)Two Bedroom Dwelling Unit 60 square metres SITE ‘C’: STREET TOWNHOMES Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.3, those lands zoned R3-XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following zone regulations: a.Lot Area (minimum) a) Interior 140 square metres b) Exterior 190 square metres b.Lot Frontage (minimum) Page 443 DRA F T i)Interior Lot 5.5m ii)Exterior Lot 9.0m b. Yard Requirements (minimum) a) Front Yard (To Private Garage) nil b) Rear Yard 6.0m c) Garage to Dwelling Unit 1.5m e) Setback to Sight Triangle / Corner Rounding 1.5m c.Lot Coverage (maximum)70 percent d.Landscaped Open Space (minimum)19 percent e.Building Height (maximum)12.75 metres LINK TOWNHOMES Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 14.4, those lands zoned R3-XX on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following zone regulations: a.Lot Frontage (minimum)6.0m b. Yard Requirements (minimum) a) Interior Side Yard 1.5m b) Exterior Side Yard 3.0m c) Rear Yard 6.0m d) garage to dwelling unit nil e) setback to sight triangle / corner rounding 1.5m c.Lot Coverage (maximum)60 percent d.Landscaped Open Space (minimum)25 percent e.Building Height (maximum)12.75 metres f.Building Separation (minimum) i)Separation between buildings or structures and any private driveway, road or lane 5.0 metres ii)Separation between buildings or structures and any public road nil SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS Notwithstanding Sections 12.2, those lands zoned R3-XX on the Schedules to this By-law, subject to the following: a.Semi-detached shall be permitted as follows (minimum): i)Lot Area 470 square metres Page 444 DRA F T ii) Lot Frontage 17.0 m iii) Rear Yard Setback 5.0m minimum iv) Garage to Dwelling Unit Setback nil b. Building Separation (minimum) i) Separation between buildings or structures and any private driveway, road or lane 5.0 metres ii) Separation between buildings or structures and any public road nil STACKED (BACK-TO-BACK) TOWNHOMES Notwithstanding Section 14.1 and 14.4, the lands zoned R3-XX on the attached Schedule “A” in addition to the other uses permitted in “Urban Residential Type Three (R3)” zone shall permit one or more stacked / Back-to-back townhouse dwelling units which shall be subject to the following zone regulations: a. Dwelling Units (maximum) 48 stacked townhouse units b. Lot Area (minimum) nil c. Lot Frontage (minimum) nil d. Lot Coverage (maximum) 71% e. Landscape Open Space 14% f. Front Yard (minimum) 5.0 metres g. Interior Side Yard (minimum) 1.5 metres h. Exterior Side Yard (minimum) 3.0 metres i. Rear Yard (minimum) nil j. Building Height (maximum) 15.0 metres k. Parking Space 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit l. Garage to dwelling unit setback nil m. Setback to sight triangle /corner rounding 1.5m n. Building Separation (minimum) i) Separation between buildings or structures and any private driveway, road or lane 5.0 metres ii) Separation between buildings or structures and any public road nil Page 445 DRA F T 2. Schedule 3 (Bowmanville) being Schedule “3I" to By-law Number 84-63, as amended, being a Town of Clarington Zoning By-law, is amended by changing thereon from "A" to “R3-XX” and “R4-XX”, the zoning of Part of Lot 7 & 8, Concession 2, in the Town of Clarington. 3. This By-law shall not come into force until Clarington Official Plan Amendment Number ____ is in full force and effect. ENACTED and PASSED this day of , 2025. MAYOR CLERK Page 446 DRA F T APPENDIX "A" TO BY-LAW NUMBER _______ Explanation of the Purpose and Effect of the By-law The purpose of this By-law is to permit a mix of townhouse uses and apartment units. The "RM3-XX" zone will permit three storey semi-detached dwelling uses, with site specific regulations. The "RM3-XX" zone will permit three storey street townhouse dwelling uses, with site specific regulations. The "RM3-XX" zone will permit three storey link townhouse dwelling uses, with site specific regulations. The "RM3-XX" zone will permit three storey back-to-back townhouse dwelling uses, with site specific regulations. The "RM4-XX" zone will permit a 7-storey apartment dwelling uses, with site specific regulations. Location of Lands Affected The lands are located at the east side of Mearns Avenue, south of Concession Road 3, in the Town of Clarington, as shown on the attached Map designated as Schedule "A". Page 447 DRA F T Schedule "A" Page 448 ;KW E^W Ϳ ;^tD>K<Ϳ ;ϯ͘ϬŵZKt/ E/E'Ϳ ;KDDhE/dz D/>Ky ^Ϳ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ ;dZ/> ^^Ϳ E d^/d Z ^^,KtE/Et,/d Z ^ y>h &ZKDd, E d ^/d Z ^^,KtE/E>/',d'Z z Z K h ' , ^ d ͘ ;,/', E^/dzͿ ;D /hD E^/dzͿ WWZKy/Dd ϭϬϬ͘Ϭŵ ^ d<&ZKDKE ^^/KE ZKϯ ^/d ͗ Z Yh/Z E^/dzсϰϬhW,;D/E͘Ϳ WZKWK^ E^/dzсϵϱ͘ϵϬhW, ^/d ;EKZd,Ϳ͗ Z Yh/Z E^/dzсϰϬhW,;D/E͘Ϳ WZKWK^ E^/dzсϰϭ͘ϭϮhW, ^/d ;^Khd,Ϳ͗ Z Yh/Z E^/dzсϭϵhW,;D/E͘Ϳ WZKWK^ E^/dzсϰϰ͘ϵϭhW, ^/d ;EKZd,Ϳ͗ Z Yh/Z E^/dzсϰϬhW,;D/E͘Ϳ WZKWK^ E^/dzсϰϬ͘ϯϭhW, ^/d ;^Khd,Ϳ͗ Z Yh/Z E^/dzсϭϵhW,;D/E͘Ϳ WZKWK^ E^/dzсϯϳ͘ϭϬhW, ;ϭϬϳͿ ;ϭϬϳͿ ;ϭϬϲͿ ;ϭϬϲͿ ;ϭϬϱͿ ;ϭϬϱͿ ;ϭϬϰͿ ;ϭϬϰͿ ;ϭϬϯͿ ;ϭϬϯͿ ;dZ/> ^^Ϳ , E E , Z ͘ ;^ Zs//E'Ϳ ;^tD>K<Ϳ ;^ Zs//E'Ϳ ;ϰ͘ϬŵZKt/ E/E'Ϳ ;ϱ͘ϬŵZKt/ E/E'Ϳ ;Wh>/Z͘K͘t͘Ϳ D Z E ^ s E h KE ^^/KEZKϯ , E E , Z ͘ Z K h ' , ^ d ͘ &Z >Es ͘ > D ^ Z K y/^d/E' >KtͲ E^/dz Z ^/ Ed/> ,K K W Z ^ Y h Z y/^d/E'>KtͲ E^/dz Z ^/ Ed/> sEd>E y/^d/E' >KtͲ E^/dz Z ^/ Ed/> y/^d/E' >KtͲ E^/dz Z ^/ Ed/> y/^d/E' >KtͲ E^/dz Z ^/ Ed/> ;dZ/> ^^Ϳ /'KE>,d,/E/d ^ ϯ͘Ϭŵt/ Dh>d/Ͳh^ Wd, &hdhZ h^^dKW>Kd/KE &hdhZ h^^dKW>Kd/KE ;D d^^ͲϭϮ ^/'E^dEZͿ dzW͘ &hdhZ h^^dKW>Kd/KE >K<ϱϮ >K<ϱϰ >K<ϭ >K<ϱ >K<ϲ >K<ϳ >K<ϴ >K<ϵ >K<ϭϬ >K<ϭϭ >K<ϭϮ >K<ϭϯ >K<ϭϱ >K<ϭϰ >K<ϭϲ >K<ϭϳ >K<ϭϴ >K<ϭϵ >K<ϮϬ >K<Ϯϭ >K<ϮϮ>K<Ϯϯ>K<Ϯϰ >K<Ϯϵ >K<Ϯϴ >K<Ϯϳ >K<Ϯϲ >K<Ϯϱ >K<ϱϮ >K<ϯϲ >K<ϯϵ >K<ϯϱ >K<ϰϬ >K<ϯϰ >K<ϰϭ >K<ϯϬ >K<ϯϭ >K<ϯϳ >K<ϯϴ >K<Ϯ >K<ϰϲ >K<ϰϴ>K<ϰϵ >K<ϰϱ >K<ϲϭ >K<ϰϳ >K<ϰϮ >K<ϰϯ >K<ϰϰ>K<ϱϯ >K<ϱϬ >K<ϱϲ >K<ϱϵ >K<ϱϳ >K<ϲϰ >KdϭϬϯ >KdϭϬϰ >KdϭϬϱ >KdϭϬϲ >KdϭϬϳ >K<ϱϴ >K<ϲϬ >K<ϲϱ >K<ϲϯ >K<ϱϱ >K<ϱϭ >K<ϯ>K<ϰ>KdϭϬϬ >KdϭϬϭ >KdϭϬϮ >KdϭϬϴ >K<ϯϯ >K<ϯϮ ;ϭϬϴͿ ;ϭϬϴͿ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ ;ϭϬϮͿ ;ϭϬϮͿ ;ϭϬϬͿ ;ϭϬϬͿ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ ;ϭϬϭͿ ;ϭϬϭͿ Wh > / ^ d Z d Ζ Ζ Wh>/^dZ dΖ Ζ Wh>/^dZ dΖΖ Wh > / ^ d Z d Ζ Ζ Wh>/^dZ dΖΖ Wh > / ^ d Z d Ζ Ζ Wh>/^dZ dΖΖ Wh>/^dZ dΖΖ Wh>/^dZ dΖ&Ζ ;^ D/Ͳ d, Ϳ DhW EZK, ^/EdKd, y/^d/E' Z͘K͘t͘zϯ͘ϱŵdKKDDKd h^^dKW>Kd/KE^;dzW͘Ϳ ϯ͘ϬŵZKt/ E/E' ϰ͘ϬŵZKt/ E/E' ϱ͘ϬŵZK t/ E/E' > '> ^Z/Wd/KE WZdK&>Kd^ϳEϴ KE ^^/KEϮ ;' K'ZW,/dKtE^,/WK&Z>/E'dKEͿ DhE//W>/dzK&>Z/E'dKE Z '/KE>DhE//W>/dzK&hZ,D >>WZKW ZdzKhEZz/E&KZDd/KE^W Z^hZs zWZ WZ zDhZK'ZKhW/E͘ d ϮϬϮϯ͘ KtE ZΖ^hd,KZ/d/KE /hd,KZ/ Z/Z/> Z,/d d^dKWZ WZ E^hD/dd,/^W>E&KZZ&d WWZKs>͘ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ^/'EdhZ d ^hZs zKZΖ^ Zd/&/d /, Z z Zd/&zd,dd, KhEZ/ ^K&d, >E^ /E'^h/s/ Ed, /Z Z >d/KE^,/WdKd, : Ed>E^Z KZZ d>z^,KtEKEd,/^W>E͘ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ^/'EdhZ d D ZE^s Eh >/D/d WZdE Z^,/W ϳϲϴϭ,tzϮϳ͕hE/dϭϲ tKKZ/' ͕KEdZ/K>ϰ>ϰDϱ DhZK'ZKhW/E͘ Ϯ,K>>EZ/s ͕hE/dϱ K>dKE͕KEdZ/K>ϳ ϭ ϭ /d/KE>/E&KZDd/KE ^ d/KEϱϭ;ϭϳͿK&d, W>EE/E'd͕ϭϵϵϬ ĂͿ͕ďͿ͕ĞͿ͕ŐͿ͕ĂŶĚũͿ͕Ͳ KEW>E ĐͿ Ͳ KE< zW>E ĚͿ Ͳ ^ ^dd/^d/^;ĨͿ ŚͿ Ͳ W/W td ZdK /E^d>> z s >KW Z ŝͿ Ͳ ^Eͬ^/>dz^Eͬ^EΘ'Zs > ŬͿ Ͳ >>DhE//W>^ Zs/ ^dK D s/>> ůͿ Ͳ E/> s >KWD Ed^dd/^d/^͗ dKd>ϯϰ͘ϱϯ ϰ͘ Es/ZKED Ed>WZKd d/KE WZKWK^ >Eh^ ϱ͘ZKt/ E/E' , dZ ^;ŚĂͿ ϳ͘ϴϴ ϰϱϴ Ϯϴϱϭ͘>Kt E^/dzZ ^/ Ed/>;^/d Ͳ dKtE,Kh^ Ϳ hE/d^ Ϯϯ͘ϬϬͲ Ϭ͘ϴϬͲ ϭͲ ϱϱ͕>KdϭϬϬͲ ϭϬϴ >Kdͬ>K<EK͘ ϲϯͲ ϲϱ Ϭ͘ϵϰϵϬϮ͘,/', E^/dzZ ^/ Ed/>;^/d Ͳ KEKͿ ϱϲ ϭ͘ϵϭϴϯϯ͘D /hD E^/dzZ ^/ Ed/>;^/d Ͳ dKtE,Kh^ Ϳ ϱϳ ϭϰdKtE,Kh^ ^ Ϯϭ^dZ ddKtE,Kh^ ^ Ϯ^ D/Ͳ d, ϮϭϱdKtE,Kh^ ^ ϱϮ^dZ ddKtE,Kh^ ^ ϭϴ^ D/Ͳ d, ϱͲ ϴ͕ϮϱͲ Ϯϵ >KdϭϬϬͲ ϭϬϴ ϭͲ ϰ͕ϵͲ Ϯϰ͕ϯϬͲ ϰϵ ϯ͘ϴϭ Ϭ͘ϴϯ Ϭ͘ϱϳ ͲKW E^W Ͳ^tD>K<ϲϬͲ ϲϭ ϱϵ Ϯϭ͘ϯϳ ϭ͘ϲϯ Ͳ^ Zs//E' ^ D Ed ϱϴ Ϭ͘Ϭϯ ϱϳͲ ϱϴ ϭ͘ϴϴ ͲKDDhE/dzD/>Ky ^ϱϯ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ͳ Ϯ͘ϲϯ ͲdZ/> ^^ϱϰ Ϭ͘Ϭϭ Ͳ^ Zs//E' ^ D Ed ϱϬͲ ϱϮ Ϭ͘ϬϮ ͲZK^ϱϱ ϱϵͲ ϲϭ ϰϲ<ͲdKͲ<dKtE,Kh^ ^ ' E Z>EKd ^͗ ϭ͘ Z ^W d/E'>>tKZ</Ed, DhE//W>Z/',dͲK&Ͳtz͕d, KEdZdKZ/^dK WZKs/ d> ^dϰϴ,KhZ^WZ/KZEKd/ dKd, Wh>/tKZ<^ WZdD Ed ^d&&d;ϵϬϱͿϮϲϯͲϮϮϵϭ͘ Ϯ͘ ZKKhWEzW ZD/dt/>> Z Yh/Z &KZEztKZ<KE /Ed, DhE//W>ZK>>KtE ͘ ysd/KEK&d, ZK^hZ& /^EKd W ZD/dd dt E D Zϭ^dEWZ/>ϯϬd,͘ ϯ͘ >>Z ^dKZd/KEKZtKZ<KE /Ed, ZK>>KtE Dh^d KDW> d ^ W ZDhE//W>&/ >^d&&/Z d/KE͘ ϰ͘ d, W Z&KZDE 'hZEd t/>>EKd Z &hE zd, DhE//W>/dzK& >Z/E'dKEhE> ^^d, tKZ<^,s E/E^W d zDhE//W> Z WZ ^ Edd/s ^E D dK KDW> d E^d/^&dKZz͘ DhE//W>ZKKhWEz͗ ϭ͘ Z ^W d/E'>>tKZ</Ed, DhE//W>Z/',dͲK&Ͳtz͕d, KEdZdKZ/^dK WZKs/ d> ^dϰϴ,KhZ^WZ/KZEKd/ dKd, Wh>/tKZ<^ WZdD Ed ^d&&d;ϵϬϱͿϮϲϯͲϮϮϵϭ͘ Ϯ͘ ZKKhWEzW ZD/dt/>> Z Yh/Z &KZEztKZ<KE /Ed, DhE//W>ZK>>KtE ͘ ysd/KEK&d, ZK^hZ& /^EKd W ZD/dd dt E D Zϭ^dEWZ/>ϯϬd,͘ ϯ͘ >>Z ^dKZd/KEKZtKZ<KE /Ed, ZK>>KtE Dh^d KDW> d ^ W ZDhE//W>&/ >^d&&/Z d/KE͘͟ ϰ͘ d, W Z&KZDE 'hZEd t/>>EKd Z &hE zd, DhE//W>/dzK& >Z/E'dKEhE> ^^d, tKZ<^,s E/E^W d zDhE//W> Z WZ ^ Edd/s ^E D dK KDW> d E^d/^&dKZz͘ ϯϬ͘Ϭŵ^ d<dK y/^d/E't d>E Z/W>/E ϭϱ͘Ϭŵ^ d<dKZ/W>/E dZ/>^ ^/d > ' E WZKWK^ >/D/dK& s >KWD Ed &hdhZ Z 'h>dKZz&>KK>/E ϲ͘Ϭŵ^ d<dK&hdhZ Z 'h>dKZz&>KK>/E >KE'Ͳd ZD^d> dKWK&^>KW dKWK&^>KW &hdhZ ϭϬϬzZ&>KK>/E dK K&^>KW ZK^/KE ^^>>KtE dK ZK^/KE>>KtE 1 6&$/( 352-(&712 '$7( '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< '5$:,1*12352-(&71$0( '5$:,1*7,7/( &2175$&725729(5,)<$//',0(16,216 217+(6,7($1'5(3257$1< ',&5(3$1&,(6727+($5&+,7(&7 %()25(352&((',1*:,7+7+(:25. $//'5$:,1*6$5(7+(3523(57<2) 7+($5&+,7(&7$1'0867%(5(7851(' $77+(&203/(7,212)7+(:25. 7+,6'5$:,1*,612772%(86(')25 &216758&7,21817,/&2817(56,*1(' 1257+ 3 M ira n d a Ave n u e Tor o n t o , ON M6B 3W8 t/ 4 1 6 9 6 2 9 670 f/ 41 6 9 6 2 967 1 e/ i n f o @ car i c a r i l e e . c o m ww w . c a r i c a r i l e e . c o m $VLQGLFDWHG $ 0 $ '5$)73/$1 9,//$621623(5&5((. )(% 01* -& 0($516$9(18(%2:0$19,//(217$5,2/&9 1R 'DWH ,VVXHG5HYLVLRQ %\ ,668(')25'5$)73/$12)68%',9,6,21 01* 5(63216(7267&200(176 01* '5$)73/$1 < zDW ^/d ^/d ^/d Attachment 3 to Report PDS-044-26 Page 449 Owner: Lifelong Group of Companies Inc. Applicant: The Biglieri Group Ltd. Application Details: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to permit multiple high-density, mixed-use blocks containing approximately 3,200 residential units and 9,890 square metres of non-residential space, with building heights ranging from four to 25 storeys. Two heritage buildings and the smokestack are proposed to be retained and adaptively reused.The total site area is approximately 15.87 hectares (39.21 acres) in size. Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA): To rezone the subject lands from “General Industrial Exception (M2-1) Zone” to appropriate Urban Centre Mixed Use Exception (MU3) Zones and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone to permit the development. Statutory Public Meeting ZBA-2025-0006 Location:45 Raynes Avenue in Bowmanville Meeting Date: May 11, 2026 Page 450 Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-045-26 Authored By: Ruth Porras, Senior Planner, Development Review Division Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO File Number: ZBA-2025-0006 and S-C-2025-0002 Resolution#: Report Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit multiple high-density, mixed-use blocks containing approximately 3,200 residential units and 9,890 square metres of non-residential space with building heights ranging from 4 to 25 storeys Purpose of Report: The purpose of this report is to provide information to the public and Council regarding privately initiated applications that have been received under the Planning Act. It does not constitute, imply or request any degree of approval. Recommendations: 1. That Report PDS-045-26 and any related communication items, be received for information only; 2. That Staff receive and consider comments from the public, review agencies, and Council with respect to the Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications submitted by The Biglieri Group Ltd. on behalf of Lifelong Group of Companies Inc., and continue processing the applications, including the preparation of a subsequent recommendations report; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-045-26 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Page 451 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDS-045-26 Report Overview The Municipality is seeking the public’s input on 1. Application Details Owner: Lifelong Group of Companies Inc. Applicant: The Biglieri Group Ltd. Proposal: Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) To rezone the subject lands from “General Industrial Exception (M2-1) Zone” to appropriate Urban Centre Mixed Use Exception (MU3) Zones and Environmental Protection (EP) Zone to permit the development (see Attachment 1). Delegated: Draft Plan of Subdivision The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision would permit 3,200 residential units and 9,890 square metres of non-residential uses, parks, stormwater management pond, and open space blocks. Area: 15.87 hectares (39.21 acres) Location: 45 Raynes Avenue, Bowmanville (see Figure 1) Page 452 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDS-045-26 Figure 1 – Proposed Plan Page 453 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDS-045-26 2. Background 2.1 The subject property is located within the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan area and is identified by the Secondary Plan as the Goodyear Lands. The proposal seeks to redevelop the Goodyear Lands with multiple high-density residential buildings, mixed- use buildings, amenity areas, and a stormwater management pond. Proposed heights range from 4 to 25 storeys (See Figure 1). 2.2 On March 31, 2025, applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision were received (See Attachment 1 and 2). Through preliminary review of the applications, Clarington Staff identified that several documents were outstanding, which were required before further processing of the above-referenced applications. 2.3 As this is a significant project, Staff encouraged the applicant to have a neighbourhood meeting to introduce their proposal to the community and receive feedback from them before the statutory public meeting. An applicant-led Neighbourhood Meeting was held on June 9, 2025, at the Bowmanville Older Adult Association, with 30 attendees signing in. The meeting presented preliminary plans and gathered community feedback, with discussion focusing on affordable housing, sustainability, environmental considerations, traffic and infrastructure, amenities, and urban design. Display boards and presentation materials were used to illustrate the proposed development and support the discussion (See Attachment 3). 2.4 Clarington Staff held several follow-up meetings with the applicant and property owner to discuss the progress of the outstanding items required to deem the applications complete. The applications were deemed complete on April 13, 2026. 2.5 Applications for Site Plan approval and Condominium for the proposed develop ment have not been submitted. 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The 15.87-hectare (39.21-acre) site is located south of downtown Bowmanville and contains the former Goodyear manufacturing plant, including several industrial buildings. Natural heritage features occupy the western portion of the property, where Bowmanville Creek runs north–south through associated valley lands, woodlands, a wetland, and the Goodyear Dam. The land slopes downward from the north toward the east and southwest, following the creek. Surrounding uses include single detached homes, a seniors’ apartment building, and Queen Street to the north and northwest; single and semi-detached dwellings to the east; Bowmanville Creek, valley lands, vacant land, existing homes, Durham Street, and two proposed residential developments to the south; and additional valley lands and low-density residential areas beyond to the west. 4. Policy and Zoning Analysis 4.1 Staff are reviewing the applications and will prepare a policy analysis that will be included in a future recommendation report. Page 454 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDS-045-26 5. Summary of Background Studies and Agency Comments 5.1 The applicant has submitted the required supporting plans and studies , which have been circulated to departments and agencies for review and comment. The list of studies and drawings are on the development application webpage at www.clarington.net/45RaynesAve and are also available upon request. A summary of the studies and reports will be provided in a future recommendation report. 5.2 Phase One and Two Environmental Site Assessments from 2018 and 2025 have been submitted but will require updates to comply with O. Reg. 153/04. A Modified Generic Risk Assessment has also been provided. The Municipality has retained a consultant to peer-review the environmental work. 6. Public Notice and Submissions 6.1 Public Notice was mailed to households within 120 metres of the subject lands on April 16, 2026, and four public meeting signs were installed on the subject lands along Queen Avenue, Queen Street at Devitt’s Lane, Argyle Street, and Durham Street. Details of the proposed application was also posted on the Municipality’s website, and in the Clarington Connected e-newsletter. 6.2 As of the writing this report, staff have received four submissions with the following concerns: Concerns regarding the proposed density, its location within the downtown heritage area, and the need for clarification on building heights and construction timing. Concerns related to the 2018 ESA report, the need for updated environmental assessments, public access to information, and unresolved contamination issues. Concerns that approval should be deferred until demolition and cleanup of the former Goodyear plant are complete. Opposition to buildings over 10 storeys in Bowmanville due to density and safety concerns and requested a height limit. 6.3 Staff will continue to process any public inquiries received. Comments received at the Statutory Public Meeting will also be considered and included in the recommendation report. 7. Departmental and Agency Comments 7.1 The applications were circulated to internal departments and external agencies for review and comments. A list and summary of the agency and internal department comments received, as well as all public comments received, will be included in a subsequent recommendation report. Page 455 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDS-045-26 8. Discussion 8.1 The proposed redevelopment of the Goodyear Lands envisions a major mixed -use, high-density community within a designated Regional Centre and Strategic Growth Area. The concept includes approximately 3,200 residential units and 9,890 square metres of non-residential space, including commercial uses and a public school. Building heights would range from 4 to 25 storeys, supported by about 3,378 above-grade and underground parking spaces. Two heritage buildings and the existing smokestack are proposed to be retained and adaptively reused. A phasing plan identifies initial development along the southeast portion of the site, with a stormwater management block to the southwest, and the applicant has indicated they are exploring affordable housing options for Phase 1. 8.2 The Update to the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan, now called the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan, was initiated to bring the Secondary Plan into conformity with the new Clarington Official Plan and Regional and Provincial policies. The subject property was previously outside the Secondary Plan area. The property and surrounding lands have been incorporated into the updated plan. The Secondary Plan was approved by Clarington Council on January 27, 2025. Although the secondary plan is currently under appeal, its policies guide the review of the property in conjunction with the parent plan. 8.3 The purpose of the Public Meeting is to present the proposed development to Council and the community, gather feedback, and identify issues or opportunities that should be considered as the applications advance. Staff will continue to work closely with the applicant to address comments, ensure all required studies and technical materials meet municipal and regional standards, and guide the project toward a future recommendation report. 9. Conclusion 9.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information and obtain comments on the submitted application for the Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision. Staff will continue to review and process the applications, including consideration of department, agency, and public feedback, and will prepare a subsequent recommendation report for Council’s consideration. Staff Contact: Ruth Porras, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2412 or rporras@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Proposed Architectural Package Attachment 2 – Draft Zoning By-law Attachment 3 – Summary of the public consultation (June 9, 2025) Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Page 456 % % % % % %#$% % % !%#$% % % "!%#$% % %$ %#$% % $% % % % % #% % % % % % % % %#$% %#$%% %#$%% -& /7Q 12@5&"#7Q £/öōĤę¦CëFōüŀ@ōqIJ sō<ËĚ{ķ±ģō@5 ĿōÖōùō/øzrōRZSō İbŃō ěō%;ĕB¸ı.ōďĝō$áOĴĸ.ōī =ō Ĭō<ļ; ń¹ō:Ķ&Ĝō÷ôýō çBõÞßÍ$ōĺō} ®É,ōâōGtÕòaō¥ 2ìuōéþh48ōÛ¯í3ō ÿ§ĻÏōŅºijĭ6Àōĉł\=ōLņxōnÜúTvi7j_ōĐąŇKōîÙæ3 ō ňÌ,Į¨Ãōfgō&ė9û³ ÎōDō©P ōÄ4%¶ħōyō 9ÅAå Ĩō ō kdeōïĀUōVopō~»càĩōJlmōÝō0 )HQōā(ō"ĆľōŁW!0"AEĖʼnō) Âō *ō¼-ĥŊĂ Mōª Y#ōŋĊċÆê|NōÊãō1óōĵČō#!C-Ĉ`ō *:]ō DzĽćØĪō+°ð5ō·ōwŌ´ĠġñăÐōōĞ¿Áō(ē1ō[Ñō đÓ7>«6ōµÔĔōĘX½Èä×ōI2+ōÒĄ>¬į8Ģō ¤ ō ō ō ō ō¡ ō '66: 6Q /JQ Q 65'48&1/Q &66: Q!15Q12AQ 9 Q >>?>Q ) @Q2*0Q 106:+8/96Q 6 +Q Q6NQFBEKQPCIOCQ=CLMQ7JKJINJQ 1/Q.<Q @Q / Q GDHQ QQ Q 251( 7Q 251( 7Q/1Q 5=/Q@Q $ ) Q@Q 251( 7Q."5Q 3451< Q@Q 6% 8Q8&9* Q 6, Q 8 Q 6% 8Q0;. 5Q '66: Q ō ^ $WWDFKPHQWWR5HSRUW3'6 Page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age 458 9P # 9 P# 9P# . /9& 9P # 9 P# 9 P# 9P# 9 P# 9P # 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9P# . /9& 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9P# 9P# 9P# 9 P# ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; (; (; (; """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ $ $ %/2&. &200(5&,$/+(5,7$*( KD %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 67250:$7(5 0$1$*(0(17 321' KD %/2&. %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 3$5. KD %/2&. 3$5. KD %/' 67 %/2&. %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 7+ %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 32',80 67 32',80 67 %/' 672 %/' 67 %/' 67 67 67 7+ 7+ 67 67 7+67 67 32',80 67 32',80 67 67 7+ 67 7+ 67 67 67 67 32',80 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 675$7$3$5. 0 %/2&. 5(6,'(17,$/5(6(59( KD %/2&. 3$5. KD %/2&. %/2&. 5(6,'(17,$/5(6(59( KD %$6(/, 1 ( 5 ' : .,1*67: /,% ( 5 7 < 6 7 6 :$ 9 ( 5 / ( < 5 ' ($ 6 ( 0 ( 1 7 %/2&. 67 9P # 9 P# 9P# . /9& 9P # 9 P# 9 P# 9P# 9 P# 9P # 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9P# . /9& 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9P# 9P# 9P# 9 P# ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; (; (; (; """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ 9P # 9 P# 9P# . /9& 9P # 9 P# 9 P# 9P# 9 P# 9P # 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9P# . /9& 9 P# 9 P# 9 P# 9P# 9P# 9P# 9 P# ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; (; (; (; """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ $ $ %/2&. &200(5&,$/+(5,7$*( KD %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 67250:$7(5 0$1$*(0(17 321' KD %/2&. %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 3$5. KD %/2&. 3$5. KD %/' 67 %/2&. %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 7+ %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 32',80 67 32',80 67 %/' 672 %/' 67 %/' 67 67 67 7+ 7+ 67 67 7+67 67 32',80 67 32',80 67 67 7+ 67 7+ 67 67 67 67 32',80 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 675$7$3$5. 0 %/2&. 5(6,'(17,$/5(6(59( KD %/2&. 3$5. KD %/2&. %/2&. 5(6,'(17,$/5(6(59( KD %$6(/, 1 ( 5 ' : .,1*67: /,% ( 5 7 < 6 7 6 :$ 9 ( 5 / ( < 5 ' ($ 6 ( 0 ( 1 7 %/2&. 67 1(/ 6 2 1 6 7 $/% ( 5 7 6 7 '85 + $ 0 6 7 48((167 ,668( 6+((77,7/( 352-(&7 $33529('%< 352-(&70*5 352-(&712 6+((7180%(5 &/,(17 ,668(6 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< &2168/7$176 6($/ 1R '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 6& $ / ( & + ( & . L Q P P 6&$/( '$7( ,668(')2523$=%$ ;;;; 6W&ODLU$YHQXH:HVW7RURQWR 2109<&$1$'$WHO 5$<1(6$9(%2:0$19,//( *RRG\HDU .(<3/$1 &23<5,*+7 7KLVGUDZLQJKDVEHHQSUHSDUHGVROHO\IRUWKHLQWHQGHGXVH WKXVDQ\UHSURGXFWLRQRUGLVWULEXWLRQIRUDQ\SXUSRVHRWKHUWKDQ DXWKRUL]HGE\$UFDGLVLVIRUELGGHQ:ULWWHQGLPHQVLRQVVKDOO KDYHSUHFHGHQFHRYHUVFDOHGGLPHQVLRQV&RQWUDFWRUVVKDOO YHULI\DQGEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDOOGLPHQVLRQVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRQ WKHMREDQG$UFDGLVVKDOOEHLQIRUPHGRIDQ\YDULDWLRQVIURP WKHGLPHQVLRQVDQGFRQGLWLRQVVKRZQRQWKHGUDZLQJ6KRS GUDZLQJVVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGWR$UFDGLVIRUJHQHUDO FRQIRUPDQFHEHIRUHSURFHHGLQJZLWKIDEULFDWLRQ $UFDGLV3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHV &DQDGD ,QF '5$:,1*6$5(12772%(6&$/(' 3URMHFW1RUWK7UXH1RUWK $ '%/2&.0$67(5 3/$1 Page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age 460 9 P # 9 P# 9P # . /9& 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # . /9& 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9P# 9P# 9 P# 9 P # ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; (; (; (; """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ %/'*DQG 6PRNHVWDFNWREH UHWDLQHG %/'*WREH UHWDLQHG 9 P # 9 P# 9P # . /9& 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # . /9& 9 P # 9 P # 9 P # 9P# 9P# 9 P# 9 P # ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; ( ; (; ( ; ( ; (; (; (; """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ """ $ $ %/2&. 1$785$/+(5,7$*( 6<67(0 KD %/2&. &200(5&,$/+(5,7$*( KD %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 67250:$7(5 0$1$*(0(17 321' KD %/2&. %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 3$5. KD %/2&. 3$5. KD %/' 67 %/2&. %/' 67 %/' 67 %/' 67 7+ %/' 67 %/' 67 %/2&. 32',80 67 32',80 67 %/' 672 %/' 67 %/' 67 67 67 7+ 7+ 67 67 7+67 67 32',80 67 32',80 67 67 7+ 67 7+ 67 67 67 67 32',80 67 %/'*DQG 6PRNHVWDFNWREH UHWDLQHG %/'*WREH UHWDLQHG 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 0 0 0 0 0 675$7$3$5. 0 %/2&. 5(6,'(17,$/5(6(59( KD %/2&. 3$5. KD %/2&. %/2&. 5(6,'(17,$/5(6(59( KD ($ 6 ( 0 ( 1 7 %/2&. 67 48((167 $5* < / ( 6 7 '85 + $ 0 6 7 $/% ( 5 7 6 7 +81 7 6 7 ,668( 6+((77,7/( 352-(&7 $33529('%< 352-(&70*5 352-(&712 6+((7180%(5 &/,(17 ,668(6 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< &2168/7$176 6($/ 1R '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 6& $ / ( & + ( & . L Q P P 6&$/( '$7( ,668(')2523$=%$ ;;;; 6W&ODLU$YHQXH:HVW7RURQWR 2109<&$1$'$WHO 5$<1(6$9(%2:0$19,//( *RRG\HDU .(<3/$1 &23<5,*+7 7KLVGUDZLQJKDVEHHQSUHSDUHGVROHO\IRUWKHLQWHQGHGXVH WKXVDQ\UHSURGXFWLRQRUGLVWULEXWLRQIRUDQ\SXUSRVHRWKHUWKDQ DXWKRUL]HGE\$UFDGLVLVIRUELGGHQ:ULWWHQGLPHQVLRQVVKDOO KDYHSUHFHGHQFHRYHUVFDOHGGLPHQVLRQV&RQWUDFWRUVVKDOO YHULI\DQGEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDOOGLPHQVLRQVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRQ WKHMREDQG$UFDGLVVKDOOEHLQIRUPHGRIDQ\YDULDWLRQVIURP WKHGLPHQVLRQVDQGFRQGLWLRQVVKRZQRQWKHGUDZLQJ6KRS GUDZLQJVVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGWR$UFDGLVIRUJHQHUDO FRQIRUPDQFHEHIRUHSURFHHGLQJZLWKIDEULFDWLRQ $UFDGLV3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHV &DQDGD ,QF '5$:,1*6$5(12772%(6&$/(' 3URMHFW1RUWK7UXH1RUWK $ 6,7(3/$1 Page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age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age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age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age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age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age 467 35 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 48((1$9(18( (;7(16,21 35 2 3 ( 5 7 < / , 1 ( 7+ /2:(5(/ ( 9 6 + $ ) 7 3$5.,1* 3$5.,1* 3$5.,1* 3$5.,1*3$5.,1* 3$5.,1*3$5.,1* 03+ 522)$0(1,7<7(55$&( 522)$0(1,7<7(55$&( &200(5&,$/ 03+ 5 2 : 5 2 : %/2&.%/2&.%/2&. 1$785$/ +(5,7$*( 6<67(0 %/'* %/'* %/'* 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 $0(1,7< $0(1,7<$0(1,7< %/2&. 3$5./$1' 833(5*) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 833(5*) ) ) ) ) ) 3 /2:(5*) ) ) ) ) ) ) 81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 0$,1(175$1&(/(9(/)520'5232))*) 3 33 %/'* %/'*72:(5%(+,1' %/'* 602.(67$&.72%(5(7$,1(' 03+ 03+) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 03+ 81,7 7+ 833(5 7+ /2:(5 7+ 833(5 $ $ ,668( 6+((77,7/( 352-(&7 $33529('%< 352-(&70*5 352-(&712 6+((7180%(5 &/,(17 ,668(6 &+(&.('%< '5$:1%< &2168/7$176 6($/ 1R '(6&5,37,21 '$7( 6& $ / ( & + ( & . L Q P P 3URMHFW1RUWK7UXH1RUWK 6&$/( '$7( ,668(')2523$=%$ ;;;; 6W&ODLU$YHQXH:HVW7RURQWR 2109<&$1$'$WHO 5$<1(6$9(%2:0$19,//( *RRG\HDU .(<3/$1 &23<5,*+7 7KLVGUDZLQJKDVEHHQSUHSDUHGVROHO\IRUWKHLQWHQGHGXVH WKXVDQ\UHSURGXFWLRQRUGLVWULEXWLRQIRUDQ\SXUSRVHRWKHUWKDQ DXWKRUL]HGE\$UFDGLVLVIRUELGGHQ:ULWWHQGLPHQVLRQVVKDOO KDYHSUHFHGHQFHRYHUVFDOHGGLPHQVLRQV&RQWUDFWRUVVKDOO YHULI\DQGEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDOOGLPHQVLRQVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRQ WKHMREDQG$UFDGLVVKDOOEHLQIRUPHGRIDQ\YDULDWLRQVIURP WKHGLPHQVLRQVDQGFRQGLWLRQVVKRZQRQWKHGUDZLQJ6KRS GUDZLQJVVKDOOEHVXEPLWWHGWR$UFDGLVIRUJHQHUDO FRQIRUPDQFHEHIRUHSURFHHGLQJZLWKIDEULFDWLRQ $UFDGLV3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHV &DQDGD ,QF '5$:,1*6$5(12772%(6&$/(' $ &52666(&7,21$$ Page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age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age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age 471 DRA F T If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 202X – XXX Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 202X-XX Now Therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1.Section 16A.7 “Site Specific Exceptions” is amended by introducing a new Subsection 16A.7.X as follows: “Section 16A.7.X “Urban Centre Mixed Use Exception (MU3-X) Zone” Notwithstanding the Sections 3.10,16A.2, 16A.4,16A.6 those lands zoned MU3-X on the Schedules to this By-law shall, in addition to all other uses and regulations of the MU3 zone,be subject to the following requirements: a.Permitted Residential Uses i)In addition to the other residential uses permitted in the Urban Centre Mixed- Use (MU3) Zone, the following use are permitted: a.Street townhouse dwelling b.Link townhouse dwelling b.Permitted Non-Residential Uses i)In addition to the other non-residential uses permitted in the Urban Centre Mixed-Use (MU3) Zone, a temporary sales office is permitted. ii)Only a temporary sales office is permitted prior to the removal of the (H) Holding symbol. c.Regulations i)Minimum number of storeys are: As shown on the Zoning Map Schedule “A”. ii)Maximum number of storeys are: As shown on the Zoning Map Schedule “A”. iii)Minimum rear yard abutting an Urban Residential Zone: 6.0m Attachment 2 to Report PDS-045-26 Page 472 DRA F T iv)In addition to the regulations of Section 3.10 with respect to the removal of the “Holding (H)” symbol, Council shall only enact a By -law to remove the Holding (H) symbol from the lands zoned (H)MU3-XX on Schedule 1 to this By-law, at such time as a Record of Site Condition has been submitted for said lands zoned (H)MU3-XX. The Holding (H) symbol may be removed on specific parts of the lands, as long as a Record of Site Condition has been submitted for those parts. 2.Schedule “3” to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: “General Industrial (M2-1) Exception Zone” to “Holding – Urban Centre Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU3-XX(S:1/3)) Zone”. “General Industrial (M2-1) Exception Zone” to “Holding – Urban Centre Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU3-XX(S:4)) Zone”. “General Industrial (M2-1) Exception Zone” to “Holding – Urban Centre Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU3-XX(S:4/6)) Zone”. “General Industrial (M2-1) Exception Zone” to “Holding – Urban Centre Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU3-XX(S:4/18)) Zone”. “General Industrial (M2-1) Exception Zone” to “Holding – Urban Centre Mixed-Use Exception ((H)MU3-XX(S:4/25)) Zone”. “General Industrial (M2-1) Exception Zone” to “Environmental Protection Zone (EP) Zone” as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto. 3.Schedule “A” attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 4.This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act. Passed in Open Council this _____ day of __________, 202X. __________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor __________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Page 473 DRA F T This is Schedule “A” to By-law 202X-XXX, passed this day of , 202X A.D. Bowmanville ● ZBA 202X-XXXX and S-C-202X-XXXX ● Schedule 3 Page 474 Summary of Public Consultation on June 9th, 2025 info@lifelongdevelopments.com www.treadstonedistrict.com (905)-831-9000 Attachment 3 to Report PDS-045-26 Page 475 1 Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................02 Consultation & Engagement Summary Affordable Housing ......................................................................................04 Environmental Sustainability .......................................................................0 6 Infrastructure & Traffic .................................................................................0 7 Amenities .....................................................................................................0 9 Urban Design ................................................................................................10 Conclusion & Proposed Actions Based on Feedback ....................................12 Public Consultation Documentation Report Consultation Strategy ...................................................................................15 Record of Notification ...................................................................................15 Record of Consultation .................................................................................1 7 Appendices Appendix A: Event photos .............................................................................19 Appendix B: Presentation Boards ..................................................................21 Appendix C: Invitation ...................................................................................23 Appendix D: Attendance Sheet ......................................................................24 Appendix E: Presentation ...............................................................................24 Appendix F: Comment Response Matrix ........................................................25 Page 476 2 Introduction On June 9 2025, a public consultation meeting was held to engage with residents and stakeholders regarding a proposed development for the Goodyear Lands at the Bowmanville Older Adults Association. The purpose of the meeting was to share preliminary plans, gather community feedback, and address any questions or concerns from neighbouring property owners. Hosted by Lifelong Developments and Biglieri Group, the session provided an opportunity for open dialogue and transparency early in the planning process. This report summarizes the key concerns raised by attendees, outlines the responses and commitments made by the development team and to inform the next steps to be taken ahead of an anticipated future meeting. Appendix A.1, Photos of Consultation Page 477 3 Consultation & Engagement Summary Page 478 4 Summary In preparation for the public consultation meeting, the development team engaged in preliminary conversations with local residents while extending invitations to the event. Through these early interactions, five key areas of interest consistently emerged. These themes— affordable housing, sustainability and the environment, traffic and infrastructure, amenities, and urban design —formed the basis of our presentation strategy to ensure the discussion would be relevant, focused, and responsive to community’s priorities. During the meeting, feedback and dialogue further confirmed that these five pillars reflect the core interests and concerns of the neighbourhood. 1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOUSING DIVERSITY Housing affordability was a central theme during both our pre-meeting outreach and the consultation itself. Several residents raised concerns about the rising cost of homeownership in Bowmanville, questioning whether the proposed development could realistically deliver attainable housing given current market conditions. There were also comments suggesting the site should remain reserved for single -family homes and concerns about whether seniors and lower-income residents would be adequately served. In response, our team emphasized that the Treadstone District is specifically designed to fill a housing gap by offering entry -level ownership opportunities for first -time buyers and downsizing options for seniors, two groups that are currently underserved in Bowmanville. We explained that single-family homes would not achieve minimum density targets prescribed for the Durham Regional Official Plan and for Mixed Use Areas in the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan. Additionally, we are exploring partnerships with non-profit organizations to deliver affordable rental housing and potential subsidized units. Page 479 5 Appendix B.1, Presentation Board, Housing Diversity Issue 1: Homeownership is not realistic for most Solution: We acknowledge the current high cost of housing and construction. Our proposal builds in flexibility to accommodate future market shifts and construction efficiencies by planning for a range of building heights and unit types. By doing so, we are able to achieve a lower cost per unit making homeownership more attainable. Issue 2: Concern that the development does not fit in with the surrounding single - family neighbourhood Solution: The site is located within a designated Urban Centre, which is intended to accommodate higher-density housing. This reduces the pressure for urban sprawl and allows us to use existing infrastructure more efficiently, aligning with provincial and municipal planning goals. This will allow us to achieve affordability and provide more entry - level priced units that aren’t currently available in the ar ea. Issue 3: A need for affordable rental housing or rent-geared-to-income (RGI) units Solution: We are engaging with local non-profit organizations to explore partnerships for Page 480 6 subsidized and affordable rental housing within the community, in line with CMHC affordability guidelines. Issue 4: Flooding the market with too much housing inventory Solution: While inventory exists, there is a lack of housing diversity in Bowmanville, especially smaller, more affordable units. Treadstone addresses this gap with a mix of unit sizes and price points not currently available in the area. Our intent is to strengthe n, not devalue, the local housing market through thoughtful design, integrated amenities, and strong infrastructure. 2. SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Feedback highlighted the importance of incorporating environmentally responsible design features and minimizing environmental disruption. This includes protecting nearby green spaces, ensuring the safety of local wildlife, and reducing the carbon footprint of the development. Health and safety both for people and animals were also recurring points of emphasis. Appendix B.2, Presentation Board, Building Green Page 481 7 Issue 1: Protection of the creek & dam Solution: We are working to get the valley lands (including dam) conveyed to the municipality ASAP so they can ensure it remains in the highest and best use , as well as ensuring its protection during construction. We will be using silt fencing and other safe construction measures to reduce any impact. Issue 2: Protection of wildlife such as salmon and birds in the area Solution: We have strict setbacks in place that limit how close construction can occur to the creek and natural areas, ensuring they remain protected and unaffected. Circulating our Environmental Impact Study might be helpful for concerned residents to confirm that we are not risking any wildlife or tree species. While discussing the environment and protecting wildlife, the topic of health and safety surrounding the construction came up, including health risks associated with the removal of soil from the site. Issue 3: Contamination of the soil and brick on site Solution: Since 2018, we have conducted deep soil testing and removed over 100 truckloads of contaminated material. Remediation has been reviewed by third -party engineers. We can share updates with the community so they are aware of the precautions we are taking as well as specific trucking companies contracted out to remove soils. Issue 4: Concerns around dust/debris in the air during construction Solution: We have advanced a request for permanent water on site for watering during demolition. Silt fencing and barriers will also be used. All demolition work will follow procedures designed to limit dust. Issue 5: What truck route will we use for construction? Solution: We are working to finalize our construction plan in order to use a route that is least disruptive. Additionally, with our recycling strategy and re-using materials already on site, we will be limiting construction trucking. 3. TRAFFIC AND INFRASTRUCTURE Traffic flow, road safety, and the ability of existing infrastructure to support future density were major concerns for attendees. Many residents cited congestion on key routes such as Liberty Street, questioned servicing capacity, and sought clarity on ro ad extensions, Page 482 8 construction access, and buildout timelines. Most of the residents seemed to prefer the Hunt St extension over Nelson. Appendix B.3, Presentation Board, Community Infrastructure Issue 1: Concern about increased congestion, especially on Liberty Street Solution: A comprehensive traffic study was conducted using current and projected traffic data. The development is designed to encourage active transportation and includes a n oversized local road (Queen Avenue extension) to support public transit in the future. Underground parking also reduces surface level traffic flow. Issue 2: When will key roads like Hunt Street and the collector road be completed? Solution: The Queen Avenue extension could be in place as early as 2026, depending on approvals. We support the extension of Hunt Street and believe it offers better integration and safety than extending Nelson Street. Issue 3: Concerns of existing infrastructure being able to support new residents . Solution: The site is served by existing industrial servicing for approximately 350 homes. Infrastructure upgrades are planned to coincide with later phases and will be coordinated with municipal engineering staff. We are incorporating additional land uses like schools & Page 483 9 a medical centre in order to support new and existing residents and create a complete community. 4. AMENITIES AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION Residents emphasized the importance of including meaningful community amenities that support health, wellness, and livability for all age groups. Specific feedback mentioned youth, seniors, daycare, medical services, and publicly accessible green space. Th ere was clear interest in ensuring the development adds value to the existing community and is also supportive of social groups. Appendix A.2, Photos of Consultation, Amenities Board Issue 1: The youth in Bowmanville are currently underserviced. Solution: Treadstone will include free, accessible gathering spaces such as sports courts, coworking lounges, and green areas. We will also engage with local non -profits to tailor programming and amenity access for youth. Page 484 10 Issue 2: How will seniors benefit from this development? Solution: The aging-in-place model at Treadstone Grove includes accessible and affordable units, wellness amenities and long-term care all within a walkable, integrated site plan. Issue 3: There aren’t enough community amenities for an influx of new residents to Bowmanville. Solution: Plans include a daycare, medical centre, pet amenities, and public park space. These features were shaped by community input and will continue to evolve with further engagement. We also have the option for a vertical school if needed. Issue 4: Will the medical centre be public or private? Solution: The medical centre will complement the local hospital and provide services the community needs, such as access to family physicians, off -site surgical suites, and specialty care. Issue 5: Developer only cares about profit and not community benefits. Solution: We are committed to meaningful social investment. Instead of simply paying fees per unit, we want to contribute to a broader social strategy and integrate tangible objectives into the design and delivery of the project. We are doing so by getting feedback from the community into what they are looking for and what is currently needed in Bowmanville. We will also be connecting and working with various social organizations to ensure that our efforts are in line with the social initiatives of the community. 5. URBAN DESIGN AND NEIGHBOURHOOD FIT Design elements such as building height, scale, architecture, and shadowing were widely discussed. Many residents wanted assurance that the proposed development would respect the existing community character while meeting new density targets in a thoughtful, well-planned manner. In response, Lifelong is committed to delivering a site plan that is respectful of its surroundings. Taller buildings are concentrated at the interior of the site and step down toward the edges to create appropriate transitions to adjacent low-rise homes. Architectural design is being led by Arcadis (formerly IBI Group), a leading Canadian firm known for sustainable and community-based design. Materials and building forms will reflect both modern design excellence and the tradit ional character of downtown Bowmanville. Page 485 11 Appendix B.4, Presentation Board, Urban Design Issue 1: Concern about building height and fit with surrounding homes Solution: Taller buildings are concentrated at the site’s core, stepping down toward edges. This maintains transitions to low -rise areas. Building heights reflect the vision outlined in the Secondary Plan and allow for more diverse housing types, better sustainabil ity, and underground parking. Issue 2: Concerns surrounding shadowing of nearby homes. Solution: A sun/shadow study has been completed and can be shared publicly. Minimal shadow impact is expected, particularly due to the site’s natural slope away from adjacent homes. CONCLUSION & PROPOSED ACTIONS BASED ON FEEDBACK As we have heard residents feedback, both appreciation and concerns, of our proposal, we have outlined some next key steps we will take to deliver action for each of the themes identified. Housing Diversity Page 486 12 • We will advance discussions with CMHC and non-profit housing managers to develop affordable housing options. • We will consult with Clarington’s Affordable Housing Taskforce to discuss our plans . • We will incorporate attainable ownership options into our marketing to start as early as Phase 1. Sustainability and Environment • We will continue to collaborate with the Municipality to determine what works, if any, are to be performed in the environmental protected lands. • We will circulate the Environment Impact Study. • We will aim to expedite our Environment filings so the information can become public domain. In the meantime, we will keep the residents informed to our best ability . Traffic and Infrastructure • We will discuss bus connectivity to the proposed Go Station. • We will evaluate the timing of our service upgrade and road connections. • We will ensure Treadstone District contributes to the infrastructure required for the incremental population. Urban Design • We will request our architect from Arcadis present to the public at some point to explain the height and sustainability objectives of our proposal. Amenities and Social Integration • We will emphasize the creation of inclusive, accessible spaces that serve all age groups. • We will actively engage with non-profit organizations and local service providers to ensure amenities are tailored to the real needs of the community. Page 487 13 Public Consultation Documentation Report Page 488 14 1. CONSULTATION STRATEGY The Treadstone District consultation was conducted through an in -person meeting at the Bowmanville Older Adults Association Centre, thoughtfully selected to maximize engagement. An in-person meeting allowed us to provide a direct, interactive environment for live questions and discussions. The location was chosen based on accessibility through its proximity to the proposed development as well as ease of access for community members. 2. RECORD OF NOTIFICATION We conducted a door-to-door campaign on May 20th through the immediate neighbourhood, distributing flyer invites to approximately 100 households and 12 businesses within 120m proximity. Appendix C, Invitation Page 489 15 During this process, we collected names and contact information to build a registration list of interested community members that were then emailed reminders the week before the meeting. We also gathered initial feedback and noted concerns to address durin g the presentation. The following week, we distributed the same flyer invite through Canada Post to ensure broader community outreach, reaching approximately 300 households in the area. Notices were posted on community bulletin boards at Chartwell and the Bowmanville Mosque on May 28th 2025. A notice was sent via email to the Bowmanville BIA to send out to its members on June 3rd, 2025. A photo of our invite was posted on the Town of Bowmanville community Facebook page by a neighbouring resident on June 5th 2025. The notification period spanned from May 20th to June 5 th, 2025. 3. RECORD OF CONSULTATION The neighbourhood meeting was attended by 36 residents. We circulated an attendance sheet with contact info for interested residents to be updated on any development progress. Page 490 16 Appendix D, Attendance Sheet 29 out of 36 attendees signed up. We noted the 7 attendees that did not sign the attendance sheet largely consisted of local business community leaders that had previous consultations in the past or family members that came in groups. Presentation boards were displayed throughout the event space, providing detailed information on important topics such as housing diversity, infrastructure improvements, environmental concerns, and community amenities (see Appendix B: Board Prints). Our Appendix B.2 Amenities Board included a section for neighbours to note down amenities that they would like to see implemented into the Treadstone District plans. During the meeting, we presented a detailed slide show that introduced our development plans and timelines (see Appendix E: Presentation). After our 30-minute presentation concluded, the session opened up to residents for an open round of questions directed to Absar Beg, Principal of Lifelong Developments and Mark Jacobs, Associate Planner at the Page 491 17 Biglieri Group. The questions were very interactive with most participants remaining until the end of the session. We received 29 questions in total that have been grouped into key topics raised, including traffic concerns, the preservation of the natural environment (particularly the nearby creek), and questions around social issues surrounding density. All specific questions, comments, and concerns were documented during the session for further review and follow-up (see Appendix F: Comment/Response Matrix). Photos and videos of the meeting were also taken (see Appendix A: Event Photos). We also handed out brochures for neighbours to take home, allowing them to review the information at their convenience. Page 492 18 Appendices Page 493 19 Appendix A: Event Photos Page 494 20 Page 495 21 Appendix B: Presentation Boards Page 496 22 Page 497 23 Appendix C: Invitation Page 498 24 Appendix D: Attendance Sheet Appendix E: Presentation View here: Appendix E - Presentation Page 499 Query Question Lifelong/Biglieri's Response Solution Housing Diversity 1 What is attainable housing? Attainable housing is affordable home ownership. Bowmanville is the most affordable ownership market in the GTA but with recent inflation, the cost of ownership is still beyond reach for many market segments such as first time home buyers or empty nesters looking to downsize. Treadstone will provide the housing options required to fulfill this demand. Expedite pre-marketing initiatives that can showcase attainable housing initiatives catered to both first-time buyers and empty nesters. Increase awareness of attainable housing and that Clarington has an opportunity be a solution provider in this space. Reconnect with Clarington's affordable housing task force to confirm Treadstone District's plans. 2 I don't mean to be negative, but I will be negative. Bowmanville is a town filled with single family residences, like mine, why don't you keep this site single family residences and go build a bunch more at Holt Road? Urban sprawl is changing existing agricultural lands, and in some instances Greenbelt areas, to use for housing. These developments require significant infrastructure. Our proposal is using existing infrastructure to build up. We are within the existing designated Urban Centre that has minimum density targets that support higher density housing that we are planning to provide. Increase education and awareness around Urban Centres and their importance for housing diversity and density. 3 With new townhomes reaching $950,000 in price and detached homes over $1M, attainable housing seems to be a pipe dream? The only way we can achieve true affordability and lower price per unit is through construction efficiencies, that are yielded with taller buildings. Building between 7 and 12 storeys is expensive, as they are required to meet high-rise construction standards without benefiting from the scale that come with taller structures. Need to be realistic that the missing middle of 7 to 12 storeys is more expensive and not achievable in the current inflationary climate. Our proposal is to put the necessary infrastructure in place to allow for flexibility in heights in the future, based on future market conditions. Our current proposal achieves this. 4 Why would we build ownership housing for 55+ at Treadstone, why not Wilmot Creek? The monthly fees at Wilmot Creek have more than doubled and are now over $1,000. Notwithstanding the purchase price for the leased property can be over $700,000. There are simply not enough feasible options and variety. If the variety is not provided locally, good quality downsizers will leave Durham Region and are going to places like Cobourg and Kawarthas and beyond. Treadstone provides a tremendous opportunity within an existing historic downtown fabric, one which other cities in Durham have not had. Invest in site planning of the aging in place campus of care community to showcase the lifestyle and amenities that can be provided with the built form. The community can add value in addition to Wilmot Creek, it's not that one is better than the other, but with the largest boomer population in Canada ever, we need both and more. 5 What is affordable rental housing? Will there be any RGI housing?Affordable housing is determined by the CMHC guides published annually by jurisdiction in Canada. We aim to provide this type of entry level rental affordable housing in addition to partnering with NPOs for potential subsidized housing. Engage with NPOs to determine specific rental housing initiatives. 6 There's currently a lot of housing inventory on the market. Why would we flood market with more homes? There is a lack of housing variety and starter home options at an affordable price point Offering units that aren't currently available in the market Appendix F: Comment Response Matrix Page 500 7 Will the new development decrease market value of homes in the neighbourhood? It's true that there is currently a lot of housing inventory on the market, but there is a lack in housing variety. By introducing more diverse and affordable housing options, we’re not flooding the market, we’re filling a gap hat isn’t being met by the current supply. Through thoughtful amenities & infrastructure, we aim to enhance neighbourhood appeal. Social Concerns 8 Has the indegenous community been consulted regarding the new development?No. This is not a new development, we are revitalizing a previously developed brownfield site into a higher and better use. Consult with Indigenous community to garner support for our development to protect against urban sprawl in greenfield areas. 9 What health model will the medical centre operate under? Private, public, specialty, etc. We are working to have our medical centre complement the hospital expansion with services that the community needs. Some current demands we are looking to address include: Family Physician shortage, off-site surgical suites for procedures, specialty care. Continue to work closely with the Bowmanville Hospital to evaluate any needs, for example, there is a current shortage of off-site medical centre space. Advancing site planning of the aging in place campus can help showcase the potential medical centre space. 10 The youth in Bowmanville are currently underserviced. How will we address this?We are providing ample free amenities and gathering spaces that youth can take advantage of i.e. new park with sports courts, coworking spaces, etc. Engage with NPOs that work with youth in the area. 11 How will 55+ community benefit from Aging in Place campus? Mention of Wilmot Creek Communities like Wilmot Creek are not considered affordable. There is a lack of long-term care options in Bowmanville plus a gap in affordable homes for 55+. Treadstone aims to provide an inclusive 55+ community with a range of housing types and tenures from subsidized such as long term care to luxury independent living and ownership. With the right people and volume, Treadstone will offer exceptional amenities that are not currently found in a low rise setting. Offer unique amenities and housing types such as accessible units, long- term care, on-site wellness services, and community programs that aren't currently available in the area. 12 Positive feedback on the inclusion of a daycare community use within Treadstone Village. Along with pet spa, co-working space, and other amenities that benefit the existing historic downtown. Appreciated feedback and we will continue to evaluate needs of the community. Include a daycare within the Phase 1 site plans. 13 As the Developer, we likely don't care about social housing and issues of the community. We do care. In fact, during consultation instead of paying the City a set $ amount per unit, we want to be included in the social strategy of the development and ensure that we can make appropriate financial contributions along the way. Include tangible social objectives within the Phase 1 lands of the development, with plans to continue into other phases. Traffic and Infrastructure 14 Which route will construction vehicles/dump trucks take during Phase I construction?We are still working on our construction management plan for Phase 1 construction. We should prepare our Construction Management Plan for Phase 1 construction as early as possible and keep residents informed on any route updates. Page 501 15 When will the collector rd be completed?We have existing services for around 350 homes using the previous industrial servicing capacity. After that we will have to do a service upgrade with a road. This can be as early as 2026, depending on the City Approvals timeframe. Plan timing for the servicing upgrade. This can be as early as with the demolition or after Phase 1 construction is complete. 16 When will Nelson Street cul de sac be extended? Or Hunt St extension be completed? Another development is extending the Nelson cul de sac. There is some uncertainty around Nelson Street extending through to our site. Our preference is to have Nelson Street terminate at our site as shown in our drawings and have Hunt Street extend through. Most neighbours support Hunt St extension vs Nelson. Municipal Engineering should engage with residents along Nelson Street as all were in favour of the Hunt Street extension and believed this to be the plan based on current approvals. 17 What is the time frame for the entire community to be built out?We are planning for the next 30 years and beyond in our proposal. At minimum the build out is over 10+ years. Emphasize the construction phasing of the site. 18 Bowmanville transit isn't optimized. How will 3,000 new residents affect it?We have included an oversized local road even though we did not have to given the amount of traffic. This is done in anticipation of public transit to the future Go Station. Discuss with Durham Transit to confirm last kilometre connectivity to the Go Station. 19 There are existing traffic issues, and adding this density will make it worse. For example, Liberty Street is very congested in the morning to get to the 401 and with ambulances during the day there are delays. The traffic study took into account the existing traffic and added in all future traffic data to ensure the traffic will be acceptable. We have designed Treadstone to be pedestrian friendly, with cycling lanes and public transit accessible. Cars are estimated at 1 per unit, which is far lower than single family residences. Summaries of the traffic studies should be shared with residents for greater understanding. Need to understand the difference in traffic between residential apartments and single family residences, especially now with ADUs. 20 How will we address current traffic/congestion issues at Chartwell? The Queen Avenue extension will provide additional connections to Argyle & Durham. Treadstone will offer underground parking which will help keep roadways open and reduce additional traffic. Also, the parking entrance is towards the south with the grading benefit, which is away from the Chartwell entrance. The Municipal Queen Ave. extension should be 23m to mirror the oversized local road we propose. Can consider no parking signs along entryway for safety measures. Page 502 21 In 2018, the plans were 4-8 storeys or so, what changed to taller heights? Bowmanville is a suburban town, 25 storeys is too tall. Since the launch of the Secondary Plan, it has evolved significantly. Lifelong and Biglieri participated on the steering committee, and once we saw it advancing in 2024 with support for heights up to 12 storeys and beyond, we brought on Arcadis (formerly IBI Group) as project architects. Their guidance helped shape the current site plan, which places taller buildings around the Collector Road to minimize shadow impact and improve feasibility. These heights support housing diversity, enable underground parking and take advantage of the natural slope from Queen Ave. down to the Creek. The shadow study needs to be circulated so residents understand the potential sun impact to their homes. A few residents specifically mentioned this as their main potential concern and wanted to know. We need to showcase the housing diversity objectives met with the taller buildings that are reflected in our Site Plan. We need to educate the public on our construction plans for sustainable taller buildings. Our architect, Marco Vandermass from Arcadis, who we have worked with since 2018 is a leader in this space, having built the first wood tall building in 2014 and has worked on several projects since. Environmental Engineering 22 How will the dam be protected? The dam is currently leased to the Municipality. We are working to get this land to the muncipality so they can ensure it remains in the highest and best use. Expedite conveyance of the dam and surrounding lands to the Municipality. 23 Will creek be affected by runoff rain water from the construction? We are using silt fencing and other sediment control measures to reduce the amount of runoff. Explore other 'safe construction' measures to ensure quality of creek is not impacted. Conveyance of the land can also evaluate the protection measures that will be taken during construction. 24 How do we plan to protect wildlife species such as salmon? We have strict setbacks in place that limit how close construction can occur to the creek and natural areas, ensuring they remain protected and unaffected. Our Environmental Impact Study has identified the development boundaries, so that we are not constructing within 30m from the creek. Protective zones and sediment controls will be used to minimize impact on wildlife like salmon 25 Have we considered any bird migrations and species at risk? One gentlemen mentioned that under the new bill this is no longer required. Given that our study was initiated in 2019, we have covered endangered species testing within our EIS study and confirmed that we are not risking any wildlife or tree species. Circulation of our Environmental Impact Study is helpful for some individuals. Health & Safety During Construction 26 Is soil being tested for contamination? How deep? I read the 2018 report and there is all sorts of contamination, have done anything about it? We have biweekly meeting with our engineers Cambium and peer reviewers Terrapex regarding soil testing. Since 2018 we have completed several rounds of testing that range in depth up to 18m boreholes. Remediation on Northeast lands of over 100 loads of soil was completed and we have a filing resubmitted to the Ministry, after it is accepted the Record of Site Conditions become public knowledge. Need to have some communication update to residents in between our work and Ministry finalization so they are aware that work was done. Page 503 27 Will the brick be tested for contamination? The entire building was tested for hazardous materials. The City's mention that we don't have a demolition permit has caused unwarranted queries by residents. We have had a Designated Substance Report that was sent to the City with our demolition request since 2023. 28 What will be done about dust/debris going into the air during construction? We have requested a permanent water connection to the Welcome Centre building. One reason to advance this is to ensure we have water on site to limit dust and debris from any demolition work. Silt fencing and barriers will be used and procedures directed by environmental engineers will be followed at all times.Advance servicing to get water set up as early as possible 29 What trucking company is moving the soil? They don't have any identification Over 100 trucks were contracted by GFL and York 1. All trucks carrying contaminated dirt are licensed to carry. Once our work is finalized, the reporting is made available to public through the Ministry of Environment. Obtain Record of Site Condition as soon as possible. Update residents about work activity to the extent possible. Page 504