HomeMy WebLinkAboutPDS-036-26Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: May 11, 2026 Report Number: PDS-036-26
Authored By: Emily Corsi, Principal Planner; Keith Marshall, Planner II
Submitted By: Darryl Lyons, Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure
Reviewed By: Mary-Anne Dempster, CAO
By-law Number: Resolution Number:
File Number: COPA2025-0008 (PLN 41.16)
Report Subject: Soper Hills Secondary Plan Recommendation Report
Recommendations:
1.That Report PDS-036-26, and any related delegations or communication items, be
received;
2.That Clarington Official Plan Amendment 150, attached to Report PDS-036-26, for
the Soper Hills Secondary Plan, be approved;
3.That the Soper Hills Secondary Plan be implemented by Staff as Council’s policy on
land use and planning matters and be implemented through the annual capital
budgeting process;
4.That the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines appended to the Secondary
Plan be approved and be used by Staff to guide development applications and
public projects;
5.That Council require the preparation and approval of a joint Master Drainage Plan
for the Soper Hills and the Soper Springs Secondary Plans, informed by the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study and approved by the Municipality and Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority, prior to approval of the first development application
within either the Soper Hills or Soper Springs Secondary Plan areas.
6.That the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services be authorized to finalize
the Transportation Assessment Report, Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report,
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and the joint Master Drainage Plan in support
of the Secondary Plan;
7.That the Deputy CAO, Planning and Infrastructure Services be authorized to execute
any agreements to implement the Secondary Plan once approved by Council; and
8.That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-026-26 and any delegations be
advised of Council’s decision
PDS-069-26
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PDS-036-26
Report Overview
This report recommends that Council approve an Official Plan Amendment to incorporate the
Soper Hills Secondary Plan into the Clarington Official Plan.
The Secondary Plan area is envisioned as a residential neighbourhood with opportunities for
mixed use development along key roads, parks, schools, trails, and protected natural
features like the Soper Creek valleylands. A centrally located neighbourhood centre is
planned and may include retail, service and office uses. The future population for the area
will be approximately 13,000 residents and approximately 5,900 residential units. The future
number of jobs will be approximately 155.
1.Purpose of the Report
1.1 The purpose of this staff report is to recommend that Council approve Clarington Official
Plan Amendment 150 (OPA 150) to include the Soper Hills Secondary Plan (Secondary
Plan) in the Clarington Official Plan. The recommendation follows an extensive public
engagement process. OPA 150 includes the Secondary Plan and the associated Urban
Design and Sustainability Guidelines (UDSG), provided as Attachment 1 to this report.
1.2 As of January 1, 2025, the Region of Durham became an upper tier municipality without
planning approvals and Envision Durham, the new Durham Region Official Plan
(Envision Durham), became part of the Clarington Official Plan. As a result, Clarington
Council is the approval authority for OPA 150.
1.3 This report includes an overview of the recommended Secondary Plan and summarizes
the process and feedback received since the release of the draft Official Plan
Amendment, draft Secondary Plan, and draft Urban Design and Sustainability
Guidelines (UDSG) as part of the Statutory Public Meeting in June 2025.
2.Background
2.1 The Secondary Plan is located north of Regional Highway 2, east of Lambs Road, west
of Providence Road and its unopened road allowance, and south of the Canadian
Pacific rail line as shown in Figure 1. The Secondary Plan area is approximately 1 93
hectares and currently consists of agricultural fields, residential dwellings, a church, and
the Soper Creek and other natural heritage features.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PDS-036-26
2.2 Following the initiation of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, the Municipality
received a request from the Soper Hills (Bowmanville East) Landowners Group to
initiate the Soper Hills Secondary Plan in accordance with the policies of the Clarington
Official Plan. In April 2018, Council authorized municipal staff to initiate the Soper Hills
Secondary Plan in co-ordination with the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
2.3 The Secondary Plan area is envisioned as a residential neighbourhood with
opportunities for mixed use development along key roads, parks, schools, trails, and
protected natural features like the Soper Creek valleylands. A centrally located
neighbourhood centre is planned to serve as a focal point for the community and may
include retail, service and office uses.
2.4 Soper Hills is planned to accommodate approximately 13,000 residents, 5,900
residential units, and approximately 155 jobs. The Secondary Plan promotes a complete
and inclusive community by supporting a range and mix of housing options and
encouraging affordable housing opportunities.
2.5 Future development will be shaped by the planned road network and a centrally located
neighbourhood centre, creating a well-connected community with access to parks,
schools, and the Soper Creek valleylands. The area will include three parkettes, two
neighbourhood parks, and three schools, with opportunities for mixed-use development
along key roads, including Regional Highway 2.
2.6 The Statutory Public Meeting Report (PDS-025-25) and presentation outlined the
Secondary Plan’s vision, framework, and key policy directions in detail.
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PDS-036-26
Figure 1: Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area
3.Secondary Plan Process
3.1 Development of the Secondary Plan was informed by an extensive public engagement
process and several technical background studies. A full sequence of events is provided
in Attachment 2.
3.2 The Secondary Plan process involved the four Phases as described below:
Phase 1 (Initial Engagement and Analysis) included technical analysis through
background studies and initial consultation with the community to determine the
vision for the new neighbourhood. An initial Public Information Centre was held on
March 6, 2019, and this phase concluded with completion of the Phase 1
Background and Analysis Summary Report in June 2020.
Phase 2 (Principles and Land Use Options) focused on establishing urban design
and sustainability principles and developing three land use options illustrating
different arrangements of land uses, parks and roads. On June 29, 2022, the land
use options were presented to the public and agencies for comment.
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PDS-036-26
Phase 3 (Preferred Land Use Plan) resulted in the development of a preferred land
use plan including environmental protection areas identified through Phase 1 of the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. The preferred land use plan was presented at a
joint Public Information Centre on December 6, 2023.
Phase 4 (Finalize Deliverables) centered on completing the draft and final
Secondary Plan and UDSG. The draft documents were presented at a Statutory
Public Meeting on June 19, 2025. In addition, technical studies were prepared and
circulated for review and feedback. Phase 4 will conclude with the approval of the
Secondary Plan by Council.
3.3 Public engagement included three Public Information Centres between March 6, 2019,
and December 6, 2023, a Statutory Public Meeting held on June 19, 2025, and
landowner meetings held throughout the process. Feedback received over the last
several years was used to inform the creation of this Secondary Plan. A more detailed
summary of the Secondary Plan process and community engagement program is
provided in the Statutory Public Meeting report (PDS-025-25).
Background Reports
3.4 The technical analysis and recommendations from several background and te chnical
reports informed the preparation of the Secondary Plan. A summary of the following
technical reports is provided in Attachment 3 to this report:
Phase 1 Background and Analysis Summary Report, 2020
Agricultural Analysis Summary Report, 2020
Landscape Analysis Summary Report, 2020
Sustainability and Green Principles Report, 2020
Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Study, 2020
Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, 2022
Alternative Land Use Plan Report, 2022
Phase 2 Summary Report, 2022
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study Phase 1 Report, May 2023
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study Phase 2/3 Report, draft October 2024 and Interim
Update Report April 2026
3.5 A draft Transportation Assessment Report (TAR) has assessed the recommended
transportation network and intersection operations within the study area and provided
recommendations to inform future areas of study. Revisions are being made to the T AR
to address comments from the Region, Soper Hills Landowners Group and the
Municipality. Revisions to this report will not impact the intent of the recommended
Secondary Plan.
3.6 A draft Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report (PMER) has been prepared as an
update to the Functional Servicing Report completed in May 2025. The Preliminary
Municipal Engineering Report demonstrates that the study area can be serviced in
terms of water supply and distribution, wastewater, and stormwater and provides
flexibility on the selection of infrastructure implementation strategies.
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PDS-036-26
The revised PMER will address comments from the Region, CLOCA, the Soper Hills
landowners’ group and Municipality. The revisions to this report will not impact the intent
of the recommended Secondary Plan.
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment
3.7 A Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA), which is required for all new or
realigned major roads needed to service the Secondary Plan, is being completed using
the ‘Integrated Approach’ which jointly satisfies the requirements of the Planning Act
and the Environmental Assessment Act. All public notices, communications and review
periods have been designed to ensure that they conform to the requirements of both the
Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act. The final MCEA report is being
prepared for submission to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
3.8 The Soper Creek Subwatershed Study (Subwatershed Study) was undertaken to inform
the preparation of the Soper Hills and Soper Springs Secondary Plans and assesses
the potential impacts of proposed land use changes on the natural features, outlines
mitigation of the impacts, and establish an implementation and monitoring plan. While
conducted as a separate study, the Subwatershed Study was coordinated with both
Secondary Plan processes.
3.9 Phase 1 of the Subwatershed Study, completed in May 2023, identified environmental
features, functions, and constraints to inform the development of the draft Secondary
Plans. The draft Phase 2/3 Subwatershed Study was completed in October 2024 and
presented at a Public Information Centre on April 10, 2025. The Phase 2/3 report
evaluated earlier versions of the Soper Hills and Soper Springs land use plans.
3.10 As refinements to the land use plans for the two Secondary Plans have only recently
concluded, there was insufficient time for revised land use plans to be fully reassessed
prior to Council recess. To address timing considerations and ensure continued
protection of the subwatershed, staff, in consultation with agencies and the Soper Hills
and Soper Springs landowners’ groups, advanced an alternative approach. The Soper
Creek Phase 2/3 Subwatershed Study will be finalized utilizing earlier versions of the
Secondary Plans and subsequently a Master Drainage Plan (MDP) will be p repared to
update and complete the assessment.
3.11 The MDP, guided by the Subwatershed Study, will be prepared for the two Secondary
Plans jointly, to assess land use changes, servicing strategies, and stormwater
management solutions to ensure development in the two Secondary Plan areas can
proceed without adverse downstream impacts. The Municipality and CLOCA, supported
by the Subwatershed Study consultant, Aquafor Beech, will approve the Terms of
Reference prior to the joint MDP being prepared by a consultant for the two landowner
groups. Approval of the Master Drainage Plan by the Municipality and CLOCA will be
required prior to the approval of the first development application in either Secondary
Plan.
3.12 Staff recommend that the Secondary Plans be implemented in a manner that is
consistent with the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, and the Master Drainage Plan.
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PDS-036-26
4. Public and Agency Submissions and Summaries
4.1 Comments on the draft Secondary Plan were received through oral and written
correspondence from agencies, landowners, and members of the public. This section
summarizes the comments provided since the release of the draft OPA, draft Secondary
Plan, and draft UDSG in May 2025.
4.2 All the comments on the draft Secondary Plan and UDSG, along with staff responses,
are documented in the Public and Agency Comment Summary Tables, included as
Attachments 4 and 5 to this report.
General Public Comments
4.3 Following the release of the draft OPA, draft Secondary Plan, and draft UDSG, and prior
to the Statutory Public Meeting, the Municipality received two comments through
Clarington Connected. One deputation was made at the Statutory Public Meeting the
Municipality held on June 19th, 2025. After the Public Meeting, the Municipality received
one additional comment via phone. A summary of the comments is provided below:
Questions regarding the timeline for servicing and the construction of the road
network;
Concerns that growth is proceeding without adequate infrastructure, including roads,
servicing, schools, and parking;
Questions regarding whether similar‑scale developments have been completed,
and concerns related to infrastructure, public parking, winter maintenance, and
access to services such as medical care and education.
Request for confirmation of the Secondary Plan boundary.
Landowner Comments
4.4 Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the Soper Hills Landowners Group has provided
site-specific and plan-wide comments addressing a range of topics, including land use,
urban design, transportation, schools, parkland, servicing, and implementation matters.
Staff have worked closely with the Landowners Group throughout the Secondary Plan
process and have incorporated revisions where appropriate.
4.5 The Landowners Group also provided comments on the Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines to suggest increased flexibility related to built-form controls,
including street townhouse unit limits, first storey height requirements for mixed -use
buildings, as well as clarifying the applicability of sun/shadow and wind study
requirements for high-rise buildings.
4.6 A landowner within the Secondary Plan area provided comments regarding parkland,
specifically the central Neighbourhood Park, and schools.
4.7 A complete breakdown of landowner comments and staff responses is provided in
Attachment 4.
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PDS-036-26
Agency Comments
4.8 The Region of Durham has provided comments regarding water and sanitary servicing,
including the need for further details to be provided regarding grading and servicing as
part of a future development application. Comments regarding transportation were
provided, including on matters related to the proposed road network and access
management, the connection of potential local roads to Lambs Road and Regional
Highway 2, and the need for an updated transportation assessment.
4.9 CLOCA is generally supportive of the Secondary Plan. CLOCA has also provided
comments related to stormwater management and the delineation of Environmental
Protection Area lands. Comments were provided regarding changes to mapping related
to trails and headwater drainage features.
4.10 Both the Region of Durham and CLOCA staff will continue to be engaged as the PMER
and TAR are finalized.
4.11 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board and Peterborough Victoria Northumberland
Clarington Catholic School Board have been involved throughout the secondary plan
process. In their comments to the Municipality, they have confirmed the need to have
three elementary schools in the Secondary Plan area.
Indigenous Consultation
4.12 The following Indigenous communities were provided Secondary Plan materials
throughout the process and were invited to provide comments or consult directly with
Municipal Staff:
Alderville First Nation
Beausoleil First Nation
Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Curve Lake First Nation
Georgina Island First Nation
Hiawatha First Nation
Kawartha Nishnawbe First Nation
Métis Nation of Ontario
Chippewas of Rama First Nation
Huron-Wendat First Nation
4.13 Since the Statutory Public Meeting, staff have received no requests for funding or to
engage on the matter. The Municipality of Clarington is currently collaborating with the
other lower-tier municipalities in Durham Region in the creation of an Indigenous
Engagement Guide for Durham Region area municipalities, informed by Durham
Region’s Braiding Pathways framework and upcoming engagement with First Nations.
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PDS-036-26
5. Key Revisions to the Secondary Plan
5.1 Following the Statutory Public Meeting, the draft Secondary Plan was revised to
address feedback from agencies and area landowners. In addition, edits were made to
policies and maps to improve clarity and correct typographical errors. Key revisions are
detailed below.
Land Use Policies
5.2 Several policies related to density, height, and permitted uses were revised including:
Increased overall minimum density target for the Secondary Plan Area to 60 people
and jobs per gross hectare to align with Envision Durham;
Reduced height requirements in the Medium Density Residential designation by
permitting 2-storey buildings for transition to Low Density Residential areas and for
street townhouses, increasing built-form flexibility while maintaining density targets;
and
Revised Neighbourhood Centre policies to permit stand-alone residential
development while maintaining requirements for retail, service and/or office uses.
Urban Design
5.3 Revisions were made to several urban design-related policies including;
Removed mid-rise step-back policy requirements, building step-backs will be guided
through the UDSG and the implementing zoning by-law; and
Clarified transition requirements to allow greater flexibility in how height and density
transitions are achieved.
Natural Heritage Policies
5.4 Revisions were made to natural heritage policies including;
Adjusted policies within Section 6 (Natural Environment) to clarify how the
recommendations of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study are to be implemented
through development applications; and
Revised policies to clarify the role of site-specific studies in determining
development limits and the extent of the Natural Heritage System.Parks and
Community Facilities
5.5 Several policies related to parks and community facilities were revised including;
Removed policies related to a Community Park;
Added policy to allow the Neighbourhood Park south of Concession Street to
exceed 3 hectares, recognizing the location on a knoll;
Added a policy to clarify school site requirements, including sites with a daycare
centre.
Municipality of Clarington Page 10
Report PDS-036-26
Transportation and Servicing Policies
5.6 Several policies related to transportation and servicing were revised including;
Added new policies to prioritize shared and consolidated access between parcels
along collector and arterial roads, including Regional Highway 2;
Added policy to allow removal of the east–west collector road south of Concession
Street without the need for an Official Plan Amendment, subject to a transportation
study; and
Revised policies to provide flexibility and clarity regarding interim transportation and
servicing solutions, including a collector road connection to Lambs Road.
Modifications to Schedule A – Land Use Plan
5.7 Changes made to Schedule A – Land Use Plan are summarized below and detailed in
Figure 2:
Relocated the central school site due to site-specific grading constraints related to the
existing knoll;
Replaced the western portion of a proposed collector road with Medium and Low
Density Residential designations;
Replaced a Neighbourhood Park with a Parkette, with neighbourhood-level park
needs accommodated through the expansion of parks in other areas of the
Secondary Plan;
Expanded the size of two Neighbourhood Parks and Parkettes;
Relocated southern school to the north to co-locate with Neighbourhood Park;
Removed the Community Park designation and replaced with Medium and Low
Density Residential designations; and
Redesignated lands in the central area of the Secondary Plan from Medium Density
Residential to Low Density Residential.
Municipality of Clarington Page 11
Report PDS-036-26
Figure 2: Changes to Schedule A – Land Use Plan
Municipality of Clarington Page 12
Report PDS-036-26
Modifications to Schedule B – Environmental Constraints and Transportation
5.8 Changes made to Schedule B – Environmental Constraints and Transportation are
summarized below and detailed in Figure 3:
Removed western portion of a proposed collector road due to topographic
constraints related to an existing knoll;
Revised the Vegetation Protection Zone north of Regional Highway 2; and
Removed a potential local road connection to Lambs Road and to Regional Highway
2 based on access management considerations.
Municipality of Clarington Page 13
Report PDS-036-26
Figure 3: Changes to Schedule B – Environmental Constraints and Transportation
Municipality of Clarington Page 14
Report PDS-036-26
6. Heritage Properties
6.1 As part of the preparation of the Secondary Plan several properties were identified as
Cultural Heritage Resources, including 2906 Regional Highway 2, 1717 Lambs Road,
and 2876 Concession Street East. The Secondary Plan requires a Heritage Impact
Assessment to be prepared as part of a development application for these properties,
as well as prior to development on adjacent properties determined to have cultural
heritage value or interest.
7. Policy Conformity
7.1 The recommended Secondary Plan is consistent with the Provincial Planning
Statement, 2024, and conforms to the policies of Envision Durham and the Clarington
Official Plan, as summarized below.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
7.2 The Secondary Plan is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS),
which directs growth to settlement areas and promotes compact urban forms that
efficiently use land and existing infrastructure. The PPS, 2024 supports the planning of
complete communities that provide a range and mix of land uses, housing options
including affordable housing, transportation options, and employment opportunities to
support accessibility for people of all ages, abilities, and incomes.
7.3 The PPS, 2024 also encourages the long-term preservation and protection of natural
features. The Secondary Plan establishes Environmental Protection Areas to protect
natural heritage features and includes trails and parkland to support a range of activities
for a diverse population. Soper Hills has been planned to support Clarington’s housing
target, with a variety of housing types and densities that promote walkability, transit use,
and access to local amenities, and proximity to employment opportunities.
Envision Durham, Durham Region Official Plan
7.4 The Secondary Plan conforms to Envision Durham. Lands in the Secondary Plan area
are designated Community Areas and Regional Corridor in Envision Durham. In
addition, portions of the Secondary Plan area are within the ‘Regional Natural Heritage
System’.
7.5 The Secondary Plan conforms with Community Areas and Regional Corridor policies of
Envision Durham. Soper Hills introduces a variety of land uses which foster a complete
community including residential, commercial, parks, schools, and open space, to serve
the needs of future residents. The Secondary Plan establishes a framework that
supports the role and function of the Regional Corridor, including higher density, more
compact, and transit-supportive built form. The Secondary Plan also designates the
natural heritage system as Environmental Protection Area as refined through the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study.
Municipality of Clarington Page 15
Report PDS-036-26
Clarington Official Plan
7.6 The Clarington Official Plan directs the development of compact, well-connected
communities that make efficient use of land, support a diversity of built forms and land
uses, encourage active transportation and protect the natural environment. The
Secondary Plan conforms to this direction by planning for a broad range of housing
types and community amenities, including elementary schools, supported by a
connected street network with sidewalks and cycling facilities to accommodate multi -
modal travel. The Secondary Plan also establishes a framework that directs high-
density and mixed-use built forms to the Regional Corridor in support of its intended
function. In addition, the Secondary Plan prioritizes the preservation and protection of
lands designated Environmental Protection and their ecological function while
supporting trail connections.
7.7 The Secondary Plan provides parkland to meet the recreation needs of residents,
including two Neighbourhood Parks and three parkettes, supported by a trail network
that connects to the broader trail system. The Community Wide Park is proposed to be
removed from the Secondary Plan, with parkland investment prioritized towards
expanded neighbourhood parks and parkettes, and indoor recreation or library facilities
to be considered at an alternative location through future secondary Plans subject to
funding availability.
7.8 Upon approval by Council, OPA 150 will add the Soper Hills Secondary Plan to the
Clarington Official Plan.
8. Financial Considerations
8.1 The Clarington Official Plan requires that a Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) be undertaken
for Secondary Plans to understand the long-term financial impacts of proposed
development. Accordingly, Hemson Consulting Ltd. (Hemson) have prepared a draft FIA
for the Secondary Plan, which is included as Attachment 6 to this report.
8.2 The draft FIA found that the Secondary Plan would have a net negative financial impact
to the Municipality once fully developed. The analysis estimated that there would a
deficit of approximately $32 per person and employee annually, or a total of $426,533
annually. Hemson has advised that the draft FIA results should not be viewed as
precise forecasts of what will occur at full build-out, given that there are many
assumptions built into their modelling.
8.3 The fiscal projections of development charge revenue assume the use of the
Municipality’s development charge rates as passed in December 2025 and does not
account for the anticipated passage of new DC by-laws during the build out period. The
draft FIA noted that the total DC revenue for this Secondary Plan is therefore likely to
exceed their estimates, resulting in a more positive financial impact overall.
Municipality of Clarington Page 16
Report PDS-036-26
8.4 The draft FIA concluded that the Soper Hills development will likely be neutral overall.
Additional revenues such as property taxes should generally cover the additional
municipal costs generated by the development.
9. Strategic Plan
9.1 The preparation of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan directly addresses the following
actions in the 2024-2027 Clarington Strategic Plan:
C.1.1.2: Update Secondary Plan policies to include connectivity considerations and
work to address gaps;
C.2.2.1 Identify the range of housing needed; and
G.2.1.3 Update and complete identified Secondary Plans.
10. Climate Change
10.1 The Soper Hills Secondary Plan has been planned with sustainability as a key priority.
The Secondary Plan supports a compact built form that facilitates transit use and active
transportation, promotes walkability to schools and local services, and makes efficient
use of land. The Secondary Plan also includes policies that encourage energy-efficient
development, renewable energy opportunities, and low-impact development practices.
11. Conclusion
11.1 It is respectfully recommended that Clarington Official Plan Amendment 150 be
approved.
11.2 Implementation of the Secondary Plan and develo pment will be phased to align with the
delivery of required infrastructure and community facilities, including necessary roads,
sanitary sewers, water services, stormwater management facilities, parks, schools and
other community facilities.
Staff Contact: Emily Corsi, Principal Planner ecorsi@clarington.net; Keith Marshall, Planner II
kmarshall@clarington.net; Lisa Backus, Manager of Community Planning
lbackus@clarington.net.
Attachments:
Attachment 1a – Recommended Clarington Official Plan Amendment 150
Attachment 1b – Soper Hills Secondary Plan
Attachment 1c – Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
Attachment 2 – Sequence of Events
Attachment 3 – Summary of Technical Reports
Attachment 4 – Public Comments Summary Table
Attachment 5 – Agency Comments Summary Table
Attachment 6 – Draft Fiscal Impact Analysis
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Attachment 1a to Report PDS-036-26
Amendment No. 150
to the Clarington Official Plan
Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to add the Soper Hills Secondary
Plan to the Clarington Official Plan. This Secondary Plan creates a
planning framework that will guide and facilitate the development of a
complete community in east Bowmanville. The Secondary Plan
includes Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines, which are not
an operative part of the Clarington Official Plan.
Location: This Amendment applies to a 193-hectare area located on the east
side of Bowmanville. The Secondary Plan Area is generally bounded
by Regional Highway 2 to the south, Lambs Road to the west, the
Canadian Pacific Railway to the north, and Providence Road, a s well
as its unopened road allowance to the east.
Basis: The Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) Landowners Group Inc.
(Landowners Group) is an incorporated body representing the
majority of the land within the Secondary Plan Area. Weston
Consulting, on behalf of the landowners’ group, requested the
initiation of the Secondary Plan process in early 2018.
Council authorized the commencement of the Soper Springs
Secondary Plan in April 2018.
This Secondary Plan is based on extensive technical study and public
engagement. It incorporates recommendations of the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study and has been informed by a Preferred Land Use
Alternative Report, a Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report, a
Transportation Assessment Report, and a Background and Analysis
Summary Report. Public and landowner input was received through
Public Information Centres held in March 2019, June 2022, December
2023, at the Public Meeting in June 2025, meetings with the
Bowmanville East Landowners Group, as well as through Steering
Committee Meetings.
Actual
Amendment: Unless otherwise indicated, in the Amendment, newly added text is
shown with underlining, and deleted text is shown with a strike-
through.
The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows:
“
”
‘’ as shown on Exhibit
Existing Part Six, Section 3 “General Policies for Secondary Plans”
“3. Secondary Plans have been prepared for the following
”
Attachment 1b
k
k
! !!!!!!! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!! !
!
!!!!!!!!! !
!!!! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!!!!!! !!!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !!!!!!!!!!
åå
å
å
SPECIAL
STUDY
AREA 3
SPECIAL
POLICY
AREA E
TRAN
S
-
N
O
R
T
H
E
R
N
P
I
P
E
L
I
N
E
HYDRO
C
O
R
R
I
D
O
R
SPECIAL
POLICY
AREA C
BE
N
N
E
T
T
R
O
A
D
SPECIAL
POLICY
AREA F
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
LONG
W
O
R
T
H
A
V
E
N
U
E
NORTHGLEN BOULEVARD
KING STREET
BOULEVARD
CONCESSION ROAD 3
SI
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
BROOK
H
I
L
L
C.N.R.
C.P.R
.
ASPE
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
D
R
I
V
E
CL
A
R
I
N
G
T
O
N
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
WA
V
E
R
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
OL
D
S
C
U
G
O
G
R
O
A
D
³
Lake Ontario
SECONDARY SCHOOL
REGIONAL CORRIDOR
URBAN CENTRE
å
URBAN BOUNDARY
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
SPECIAL POLICY AREA
SPECIAL STUDY AREA
UTILITY
URBAN RESIDENTIAL
LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL AREA
BUSINESS PARK
GENERAL
INDUSTRIAL AREA
PRESTIGE
EMPLOYMENT AREA
GATEWAY COMMERCIAL
AGGREGATE EXTRACTION AREA
NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE
k TOURISM NODE
WATERFRONT PLACE
MUNICIPAL WIDE PARK
WATERFRONT
GREENWAY
COMUNITY PARK!CP
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AREA
GREEN SPACE
TRANSPORTATION HUB
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
GO
BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOVEMBER, 2024
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
LAND USE
MAP A3
GO
!MP
CP
CP
CP
MP MP
MP
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
OL
D
S
C
U
G
O
G
R
O
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
SC
U
G
O
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
CONCESSION STREET
ME
A
R
N
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LA
M
B
S
R
O
A
D
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
BASELINE ROAD
BE
N
N
E
T
T
R
O
A
D
HIGHWAY 401
!MP
Community Park Removed
Exhibit 'A', Amendment No.150 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map A3.
Realigned Collector Road
Realigned North-South
Collector Road
Realigned Collector Road
Removed
Portion of
Collector
Road
Added Neighbourhood Centre
BUTTERY
RO
A
D
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
3
5
/
1
1
5
ENERGY DRIVE
CO
U
R
T
I
C
E
(B
O
W
M
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
ROAD
ST
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
ME
A
R
N
S
MA
P
L
E
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
(TAUNTON ROAD)
RO
A
D
CONCESSION
FI
C
E
S
R
O
A
D
TAUNUS CRT
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
1
7
RO
A
D
CRT
ROAD
BET
H
E
S
D
A
OL
D
S
C
U
G
O
G
R
O
A
D
CONCESSION
LA
M
B
S
CONCESSION
PO
L
L
A
R
D
BE
L
L
W
O
O
D
CRAGO ROAD
TO
O
L
E
Y
HA
N
C
O
C
K
DURHAM
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
(M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
BR
A
G
G
ROAD 4
RI
L
E
Y
GLENELGE ME
A
R
N
S
PR
E
S
T
O
N
V
A
L
E
NASH
RO
A
D
TR
U
L
L
S
ROAD 5
AV
E
N
U
E
ENERGY DRIVE
LO
C
K
H
A
R
T
R
O
A
D
CONCESSION ROAD 3
CONCESSION
RO
A
D
SQ
U
A
I
R
R
O
A
D
ROAD
HIGHWAY 40
1
RO
A
D
CRT
MI
D
D
L
E
GR
E
E
N
CONCESSION
ROAD 4
REGIONAL ROAD 4
RO
A
D
3
4
RO
A
D
GAUD
PEBBLESTONE
SO
L
I
N
A
RO
A
D
BU
C
K
L
E
Y
MI
L
L
STREET
DR
I
V
E
ANDELWOOD
TR
U
L
L
S
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
RO
A
D
GI
B
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
4
2
(TAUNTON ROAD)
RO
A
D
BLEWETT
RO
A
D
CRT
HO
L
T
RI
C
K
A
R
D
RO
A
D
CRT
AV
E
N
U
E
ROAD
LA
M
B
S
GR
O
V
E
RO
A
D
AR
T
H
U
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
MO
F
F
A
T
R
O
A
D
PR
O
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
BROWVIEW
ROAD
CRAIG CRT
RU
N
D
L
E
RO
A
D
OC
H
O
N
S
K
I
R
O
A
D
MARYLEAH
BASELINE
ROAD 4
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
CONCESSION
ROAD
GATE
RO
A
D
ST
R
E
E
T
DURHA
M
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
GA
M
S
B
Y
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
RO
A
D
STEPH
E
N
S
M
I
L
L
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
S
.
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
TO
W
N
L
I
N
E
R
O
A
D
N
O
R
T
H
(B
O
W
M
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
³Lake Ontario
Courtice
Newcastle Village
Bowmanville
NOTE:
ALL EXISTING SECONDARY PLANS NEED
TO BE UPDATED TO CONFORM TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAN EXCEPT FOR COURTICE
MAIN STREET SECONDARY PLAN.
Orono
CLARINGTON URBAN AREAS
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOVEMBER, 2024
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
SECONDARY PLAN AREAS
MAP C
SETTLEMENT AREA BOUNDARY
SECONDARY PLAN BOUNDARIES
NOT COMPLETED
COMPLETED
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
4
1
8
Change To Completed
Exhibit 'B', Amendment No.150 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map C.
!! !
!
!!!!! !
!
!
! !
!
XY XY
XY
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
XY
AVENUE
CONCESSION STREET
KING STREET
BASELINE ROAD
C. P
R
.
C. N. R.
HIGHWAY 4
0
1
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
CONCESSION ROAD 3
SC
U
G
O
G
S
T
R
E
E
T
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
R
E
E
T
AV
E
N
U
E
SI
M
P
S
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
PR
O
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
R
O
A
D
GR
E
E
N
R
O
A
D
LONG
W
O
R
T
H
ME
A
R
N
S
LA
M
B
S
R
O
A
D
NORTHGLEN BOULEVARD
NASH ROAD
MA
P
L
E
G
R
O
V
E
RO
A
D
MI
D
D
L
E
R
O
A
D
BE
N
N
E
T
T
R
O
A
D
³
Lake Ontario
GO
BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOVEMBER, 2024
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
ROADS AND TRANSIT
MAP J3
Proposed Grade
Separation!(
Existing Grade
Separation!(
Future Freeway
InterchangeXY
Existing Freeway
InterchangeXYUrban Area
Type C Arterial Road
Type B Arterial Road
Type A Arterial Road
Freeway
Railway
Collector Road
Regional Transit Spine
Rail Transit Line! !
GO Transportation Hub
Exhibit 'C', Amendment No.150 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map J3.
Realigned Collector Road
Realigned North-South
Collector Road
Realigned Collector Road
Removed
Portion of
Collector
Road
#
#
#
!(CP
!(CP
!(CP
!(CP
!(CP !(CP
!(CP
VI
C
K
E
R
S
R
O
A
D
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
MU
R
P
H
Y
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
LE
A
S
K
R
O
A
D
ROAD
WA
S
H
I
N
G
T
O
N
R
O
A
D
BUTTERY
ST
A
P
L
E
T
O
N
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
3
5
/
1
1
5
SC
U
G
O
G
R
O
A
D
ME
R
C
E
R
ST
E
P
H
E
N
S
O
N
CO
V
E
N
ENERGY DRIVE
CO
U
R
T
I
C
E
JA
N
E
S
RO
A
D
CONCESSION ROAD 7
(B
O
W
M
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
ROAD
ROAD
ST
R
E
E
T
N
O
R
T
H
ME
A
R
N
S
TO
W
N
L
I
N
E
R
O
A
D
N
O
R
T
H
MA
P
L
E
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
RO
A
D
(TAUNTON ROAD)
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
MO
R
G
A
N
S
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
NI
X
O
N
R
O
A
D
DURHAM HI
G
H
W
A
Y
2
ROAD 3
CONCESSION
RO
A
D
FI
C
E
S
R
O
A
D
WE
R
R
Y
R
O
A
D
REGIONAL ROAD 20
TAUNUS CRT
RO
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
1
7
RO
A
D
LA
W
R
E
N
C
E
R
O
A
D
ROAD
CO
L
D
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
C
A
M
P
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
RO
A
D
CONCESSION
BE
L
L
A
M
Y
R
O
A
D
GR
A
S
S
H
O
P
P
E
R
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
CRT
MO
R
G
A
N
S
GI
L
M
O
R
E
RO
A
D
ROAD
BOUNDARY ROAD
RO
A
D
BET
H
E
S
D
A
RO
A
D
OL
D
S
C
U
G
O
G
R
O
A
D
COLE ROAD
COWANVILLE
CONCESSION
WILLIAM
LA
M
B
S
CONCESSION
PO
L
L
A
R
D
BE
L
L
W
O
O
D
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
N
O
R
T
H
CONCESSION
RO
A
D
CRAGO ROAD
TO
O
L
E
Y
GO
L
F
C
O
U
R
S
E
RO
A
D
SKO
P
S
AL
L
I
N
R
O
A
D
CONCESSION ROAD 10
THERTELL ROAD
RO
A
D
HA
N
C
O
C
K
EA
S
T
LA
N
C
A
S
T
E
R
DURHAM
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
SO
P
E
R
(M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
BR
A
G
G
ROAD 4 RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
1
8
RI
L
E
Y
RO
A
D
WH
I
T
E
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
REGIONAL ROAD 3
WO
T
T
E
N
GLENELGE ME
A
R
N
S
LAKESHORE
GI
F
F
O
R
D
PR
E
S
T
O
N
V
A
L
E
NASH
RO
A
D
BE
S
T
BR
O
W
N
S
V
I
L
L
E
RO
A
D
ST
R
E
E
T
RO
A
D
MILL ROAD
AC
R
E
S
R
O
A
D
REGIONAL ROAD 20
TR
U
L
L
S
ROAD 5
RO
A
D
AV
E
N
U
E
ROAD 8
MO
S
P
O
R
T
ENERGY DRIVE
LO
C
K
H
A
R
T
R
O
A
D
GR
A
H
A
M
COU
R
T
CONCESSION ROAD 3
CONCESSION
ROAD 9
DA
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
-
C
L
A
R
K
E
T
O
W
N
L
I
N
E
R
O
A
D
ST
E
W
A
R
T
R
O
A
D
(E
N
F
I
E
L
D
R
O
A
D
)
ROAD 6
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
3
4
CONCESSION
CONCESSION
RO
A
D
SQ
U
A
I
R
R
O
A
D
ROAD
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
TH
E
D
E
L
L
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
EN
F
I
E
L
D
UN
I
O
N
S
C
H
O
O
L
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
TO
W
N
L
I
N
E
R
O
A
D
HIGHWAY 401
RO
A
D
REGIONAL ROAD 9
CRT
DA
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
-
C
L
A
R
K
E
OV
E
N
S
CA
R
S
C
A
D
D
E
N
BOUNDARY ROAD
MI
D
D
L
E
GR
E
E
N
CONCESSION
RO
A
D
BE
S
T
HO
L
T
R
O
A
D
AK
E
D
WI
L
L
I
A
M
A
L
L
I
N
ROAD 4
REGIONAL ROAD 4
RO
A
D
3
4
RO
A
D
EL
L
I
O
T
T
ROAD 3
RO
A
D
GAUD
PEBBLESTONE
SO
L
I
N
A
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
BU
C
K
L
E
Y
McMILLAN
MI
L
L
STREET
DR
I
V
E
NI
C
H
O
L
S
RO
A
D
ANDELWOOD
BA
K
E
R
S
C
H
O
O
L
ROAD 7
NE
W
T
O
N
V
I
L
L
E
CE
D
A
R
P
A
R
K
R
O
A
D
HE
N
R
Y
RO
A
D
AD
A
M
S
TR
U
L
L
S
SO
L
I
N
A
EA
S
T
BA
R
T
O
N
WO
O
D
L
E
Y
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
RO
A
D
OA
K
S
C
H
O
O
L
DA
W
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
TO
W
N
L
I
N
E
R
D
ROAD
HO
L
T
CO
C
H
R
A
N
E
GI
B
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
4
2
(TAUNTON ROAD)
AN
D
R
E
W
S
MI
D
D
L
E
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
3
5
/
1
1
5
LO
W
E
R
Y
RO
A
D
Mc
C
U
L
L
O
U
G
H
R
O
A
D
BLEWETT
JE
W
E
L
RO
A
D
SKELDING
CRT
RE
I
D
HO
L
T
RO
A
D
RI
C
K
A
R
D
HIGHWAY 401
SH
I
L
O
H
TH
O
M
P
S
O
N
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
CRT
AV
E
N
U
E
RO
A
D
SC
U
G
O
G
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
3
5
/
1
1
5
HIGH
W
A
Y
1
1
5
ROAD
CE
D
A
R
V
A
L
L
E
Y
CAMBRIAN
(GANARASKA ROAD)
LE
S
K
A
R
D
AC
R
E
S
R
O
A
D
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
PAR
K
LA
M
B
S
CONCESSION
GR
O
V
E
REGIONAL ROAD 4
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
BE
T
H
E
S
D
A
TO
W
N
L
I
N
E
AR
T
H
U
R
S
T
R
E
E
T
MO
F
F
A
T
R
O
A
D
LO
N
G
S
A
U
L
T
R
O
A
D
CONCESSION
PR
O
V
I
D
E
N
C
E
MO
R
T
O
N
(B
O
W
M
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
BROWVIEW
GI
B
B
S
ROAD
VA
N
N
E
S
T
R
O
A
D
LA
N
G
M
A
I
D
R
O
A
D
PA
T
T
E
R
S
O
N
CRAIG CRT
HI
L
L
E
N
NE
W
T
O
N
V
I
L
L
E
R
O
A
D
RU
N
D
L
E
RO
A
D
OC
H
O
N
S
K
I
R
O
A
D
EL
L
I
O
T
T
OL
D
WA
L
S
H
R
O
A
D
ROAD 9
CONCESSION ROAD 1
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
R
O
A
D
5
7
CO
O
N
E
Y
R
O
A
D
ROAD 8
RO
A
D
MARYLEAH
RO
A
D
ROAD
MA
Y
N
A
R
D
CONCESSION ROAD 6
BASELINE
RO
A
D
HIG
H
W
A
Y
3
5
ROAD 4
NO
R
T
H
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
CONCESSION ROAD 10
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
DURHAM HIGHWAY 2
CL
E
M
E
N
S
R
O
A
D
RE
G
I
O
N
A
L
CT
RU
N
D
L
E
CONCESSION
ROAD
(B
O
W
M
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
GI
L
M
O
R
E
LA
N
G
S
T
A
F
F
GATE
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
ST
R
E
E
T
DURHA
M
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
RO
A
D
GA
M
S
B
Y
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
BR
O
W
N
R
O
A
D
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
CONCESSION ROAD 5
OR
M
I
S
T
O
N
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
CONCESSION ROAD 4
NO
R
T
H
ROAD
OL
D
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
STEPH
E
N
S
M
I
L
L
RO
A
D
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
S
T
S
.
LE
T
N
E
R
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
HA
R
R
I
S
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
RO
A
D
LI
B
E
R
T
Y
RO
A
D
ROAD 7
RE
I
D
R
O
A
D
RO
A
D
WILCOX
TO
W
N
L
I
N
E
R
O
A
D
N
O
R
T
H
(B
O
W
M
A
N
V
I
L
L
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
Bowmanville
Courtice
Newcastle
Village
Orono
Solina
Newtonville
Burketon
Enniskillen
Hampton
Tyrone
Leskard
Kendal
Mitchell
Corners
Maple
Grove
Haydon
Kirby
Brownsville
Enfield
Lake Ontario
³
Streams
Primary Trails
Roads
Community Parks
Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Lands
Urban and Village Centres
Urban Trails
Waterfront Trail
Oak Ridges Moraine Trail
Potential Regional Trail Connections
Provincial Highway
CP
CLARINGTON
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
NOVEMBER, 2024
OFFICE CONSOLIDATION
TRAILS
MAP K
Exhibit 'D', Amendment No.150 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map K.
Remove ' Community Park'
Secondary Plans
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
Municipality of Clarington Official Plan
May 2026
Attachment 1b to Report PDS-036-26
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1
2 Vision and Principles ......................................................................................... 2
2.1 Vision .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Principles for the Soper Hills Secondary Plan ..................................................... 2
3 Community Structure ......................................................................................... 3
3.1 Regional Corridor ..................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Local Corridor ........................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Prominent Intersections .......................................................................................... 4
3.4 Urban Residential ..................................................................................................... 4
3.5 Parks and Open Space System ............................................................................. 5
4 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 7
4.2 General Policies ....................................................................................................... 7
4.3 High Density / Mixed Use Regional Corridor ....................................................... 8
4.4 Medium Density Residential ................................................................................... 9
4.5 Neighbourhood Centre .......................................................................................... 10
4.6 Low Density Residential ........................................................................................ 11
5 Urban Design .................................................................................................... 13
5.1 General Policies ..................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Placemaking ............................................................................................................ 13
5.3 Prominent Intersections ........................................................................................ 14
5.4 Building Siting and Design .................................................................................... 14
5.5 Mixed Use Buildings .............................................................................................. 15
5.6 Parking, Servicing and Loading ........................................................................... 15
6 Natural Heritage ................................................................................................ 17
6.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 17
6.2 General Policies ..................................................................................................... 17
6.3 Environmental Protection Area ............................................................................ 18
ii
6.4 Environmental Constraint Overlays ..................................................................... 19
7 Parks and Community Facilities ..................................................................... 21
7.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 21
7.2 Parks ........................................................................................................................ 21
7.3 Elementary Schools ............................................................................................... 22
8 Community Culture and Heritage .................................................................... 23
9 Transportation .................................................................................................. 24
9.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 24
9.2 Transportation Network ......................................................................................... 24
9.3 Road Network ......................................................................................................... 25
9.4 Public Transit........................................................................................................... 26
9.5 Active Transportation ............................................................................................. 27
10 Housing ............................................................................................................. 28
10.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 28
10.2 General Policies ..................................................................................................... 28
11 Infrastructure, Stormwater Management and Sustainability ........................ 30
11.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................ 30
11.2 Infrastructure and Utilities ..................................................................................... 30
11.3 Stormwater Management and Low Impact Development ................................ 30
11.4 Urban Forest and Native Plantings ..................................................................... 32
11.5 Sustainability ........................................................................................................... 32
12 Implementation and Interpretation .................................................................. 34
12.1 Implementation ....................................................................................................... 34
12.2 Interpretation ........................................................................................................... 36
SCHEDULES AND APPENDICES
Schedule A – Land Use
Schedule B – Environmental Constraint and Transportation
Appendix A – Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
1
1 Introduction
The Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area (the “Secondary Plan Area”) is
approximately 193 hectares in size and is located on the east side of
Bowmanville. The Secondary Plan Area 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.
Prominent features within and around the Secondary Plan Area include Soper
Creek and the Bowmanville community to the west, Highway 401 to the south,
and agricultural fields and natural areas to the north and east.
The area’s topography is relatively flat; however, three knolls and a tributary of
Soper Creek are located within the Secondary Plan Area. One knoll is located
on the west side of the Secondary Plan Area, just south of Concession Street
East, the second knoll is at the southeast corner of the Secondary Plan Area,
and the third knoll is at the northeast corner. The Soper Creek tributary runs
through the southern portion of the Secondary Plan Area, creating a gentle
valley feature.
The Secondary Plan Area is antic ipated to undergo significant growth and
development with an estimated population of 13,000 residents and 5,900
dwelling units. The purpose of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan (the “Secondary
Plan” is to establish objectives and policies to guide development within the
Secondary Plan Area, as it i s implemented through subdivision, zoning and
site plan control.
2
2 Vision and Principles
2.1 Vision
The Soper Hills Secondary Plan will reflect and enrich the history and character
of both the Municipality of Clarington and the Secondary Plan Area creating a
sense of place for residents and visitors and leading to a sustainable built form
that protects the natural environment, promotes alternative modes of
transportation, and supports a healthy lifestyle for current and future
generations.
2.2 Principles for the Soper Hills Secondary Plan
The following principles have been developed to achieve the vision of the
Secondary Plan:
2.2.1 Provide for the efficient use of land with the creation of a compact, complete,
connected, age-friendly and walkable community.
2.2.2 Reduce dependence on personal vehicles and prioritize active transportation
modes of travel by creating an active transportation network that encourages
walking and cycling and improve overall health for the residents and community.
2.2.3 Protect and, where possible, enhance significant natural features within
Environmental Protection Areas (EPA) based on recommendations from the
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study.
2.2.4 Design parks and open spaces that are highly visible, accessible and usable.
2.2.5 Respect cultural heritage through conservation and appropriate incorporation
into the community.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
3
3 Community Structure
The Community Structure for the Soper Hills Secondary Plan establishes a
distribution of uses and intensities of development to achieve the principles
identified in Section 2 of this Secondary Plan. The components of the Soper
Hills Secondary Plan that define its Community Structure are identified below.
3.1 Regional Corridor
3.1.1 Lands along Regional Highway 2 are identified as Regional Corridors on Map B
of the Clarington Official Plan (the “Official Plan”). Regional Corridors are
Priority Intensification Areas and the intended routes for future transit service
and shall be subject to Section 10.6 of the Official Plan except where greater
detail is provided in this Secondary Plan.
3.1.2 Regional Corridors align with the High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor
designation shown on Schedule A.
3.1.3 Regional Corridors shall be the location of the highest densities, tallest buildings
and greatest mixing of uses in the Secondary Plan, in order to concentrate
population in areas with good access to transit and amenities.
3.1.4 Regional Corridors shall be the location of commercial, retail uses and service
uses to serve the community. Commercial, retail uses and service uses shall be
concentrated to reinforce community focal points, while ensuring a good level of
amenity within walking distance of all residential areas.
3.1.5 The Highway 2 Regional Corridor is the principal transportation route in
Secondary Plan Area. It will feature the highest frequency and most direct
transit connecting the area to the rest of Clarington and Durham Region.
3.1.6 Consolidation of small parcels is encouraged as well as shared access from
side streets where available and feasible. As development occurs, access
management shall prioritize shared access and cross-access easements.
3.1.7 Due to the close location of the Soper Creek tributary, continued individual
access from Regional Highway 2 may be required.
3.1.8 Given volumes of vehicular traffic, particular care shall be given to creating an
environment that is safe, comfortable, attractive and efficient for users of active
transportation.
3.1.9 Within Regional Corridors, the public right-of-way and private built form shall be
designed to create important and inviting public spaces which contribute
significantly to the identity of the area and serve as community focal points as
described in the Soper Hills Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
(“UDSG”).
4
3.2 Local Corridor
3.2.1 Lands along Lambs Road, Concession Street East and Providence Road are
shown as Local Corridors on Map B of the Official Plan. Local Corridors provide
for intensification, mixed use development and pedestrian and transit-supportive
development as set out in Section 10.6 of the Official Plan except where greater
detail is provided in this Secondary Plan.
3.2.2 Local Corridors are generally designated Medium Density Residential as shown
on Schedule A.
3.3 Prominent Intersections
3.3.1 Prominent Intersections are located at:
• Lambs Road and Concession Street East;
• Concession Street East and the new north-south collector road;
• Providence Road and Concession Street East;
• Lambs Road and Regional Highway 2; and
• Providence Road and Regional Highway 2.
3.3.2 Prominent Intersections serve as community focal points, both visually in terms
of building height, massing and orientation; architectural treatment and
materials; and landscaping, and functionally in terms of destination uses and
public spaces and amenities. These amenities can include street furniture,
public art, or similar features in accordance with the Official Plan.
3.3.3 Mixed use developments at the intersection of Concession Street East and the
new north-south Collector Road, if provided, shall also contribute to the
Prominent Intersection.
3.4 Urban Residential
3.4.1 Urban Residential areas are the residential areas outside of the Regional and
Local Corridors, which will feature a built form of lower density and height in
ground-related units. Urban Residential areas correspond with the Low Density
Residential and Medium Density Residential designation shown on Schedule A.
3.4.2 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.
3.4.3 Urban Residential areas shall combine with other elements of the Community
Structure to create neighbourhoods at a walkable scale which contain a mix of
land uses and housing types, provide access to local retail uses and service
uses, and are within a 5 minute walking distance to a Neighbourhood Park
and/or a Parkette.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
5
3.5 Parks and Open Space System
3.5.1 The parks and open space system is comprised of Environmental Protection
Areas, parks, and stormwater management ponds. Together, they provide
spaces that support the ecological and hydrological functions of the area, serve
as venues for outdoor community and recreational life, and through trails,
contribute to pedestrian and cycling networks.
Environmental Protection Areas and Associated Areas
3.5.2 Environmental Protection Areas are the primary component of the parks and
open space system. The conservation and enhancement of Environmental
Protection Areas will bring the imprint of the area’s natural features and original
geography into the development of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area in a
way that defines Community Structure and identity.
3.5.3 The features of the Soper Creek systems contribute strongly to Community
Structure and connect to a broader natural heritage system beyond the
Secondary Plan Area boundaries.
3.5.4 Access to Environmental Protection Areas through the development of public
trails will be undertaken in a manner which conserves their ecological integrity.
Parks
3.5.5 Parks are vital public spaces connecting to a broader public realm network. A
quantity and quality of park space shall be provided that meets the needs of
residents and enables a variety of opportunities for passive and active
recreation to the satisfaction of the Municipality.
3.5.6 Parks shall be located to achieve a number of objectives:
a)create larger open spaces and realize co-benefits in terms of amenities by
locating adjacent to other outdoor civic uses like school sites and stormwater
management ponds provided they are central to the neighbourhoods being
served by the park;
b)ensure that the entire community has good access to parks within a 5 minute
walking distance of their homes; and
c) ensure good visibility from public streets.
Stormwater Management Ponds
3.5.7 Where appropriate, stormwater management ponds will be treated as public
assets and part of the parks and open space system. Their amenity and
ecological value will be realized as:
a)areas of passive recreation through the inclusion of trails where appropriate;
6
b)areas of ecological value as enhanced wildlife habitat through appropriate
planting; and
c)visual extensions of other components of the parks and open space system.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
7
4 Land Use
4.1 Objectives
4.1.1 Realize efficient and transit-supportive urban densities by achieving a minimum
density target of 60 people and jobs per gross hectare.
4.1.2 Feature a mix and range of uses and a variety of locations that enable residents
to access services and needs within walking distance.
4.1.3 Locate the highest intensity of development and greatest mix of uses along the
Highway 2 Regional Corridor to foster access to transit.
4.1.4 To create a central Neighbourhood Centre providing a range of commercial
uses to support the residents of the Secondary Plan Area.
4.2 General Policies
4.2.1 The following land use designations apply within the Secondary Plan Area as
shown on Schedule A:
a)High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor;
b)Medium Density Residential;
c)Neighbourhood Centre;
d)Low Density Residential;
e)Parks (See Section 7); and
f)Environmental Protection Areas (See Section 6).
4.2.2 Schedule B identifies three overlays that establish areas where further study is
required before development, as per the underlying designation, may be
permitted:
a) Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Area Overlay;
b) Environmental Constraint: Vegetation Protection Zone Overlay; and
c)Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study Overlay.
4.2.3 New development shall provide a range of residential unit sizes, in terms of
number of bedrooms, within multiple-unit buildings.
4.2.4 Drive-through facilities are not a permitted use in any land use designation.
4.2.5 Service stations are not a permitted use in any land use designation.
8
4.3 High Density / Mixed Use Regional Corridor
4.3.1 Lands designated as High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor are located
within the Regional Corridor.
4.3.2 The High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor designation allows for the
greatest concentration of density and mix of uses in the Secondary Plan Area
along the Highway 2 Regional Corridor.
Permitted Uses
4.3.3 The predominant use of lands within the High Density/Mixed Use Regional
Corridor designation is residential combined with concentrations of retail uses,
service uses and office uses.
4.3.4 Permitted built form shall include:
a)Apartment buildings;
b)Dwelling units within a mixed use building; and
c)Townhouses and stacked townhouses and other ground-related multiple unit
buildings in association with non-ground related apartment buildings and
mixed use buildings on the same site provided:
i)a minimum of 75% of the dwelling units are located in non-ground-related
buildings; and
ii)the non-ground-related buildings are built prior to or at the same time as
the ground related multiple unit buildings;
iii) the non-ground-related buildings front onto Regional Highway 2 with the
ground-related, multiple-unit buildings constructed to the rear; and
iv) ground-related buildings are defined as buildings up to 3 storeys in height
4.3.5 The High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor designation supports mixed use
buildings with commercial uses located within a building podium base and/or at-
grade.
4.3.6 No restrictions on the amount of non-residential floor space shall apply in a
mixed use building.
4.3.7 Stand-alone retail uses, service uses or office uses are not permitted within this
designation.
4.3.8 All buildings located adjacent to the intersection of two arterial roads, or the
intersection of a collector and arterial road shall provide for ground floor
commercial uses.
4.3.9 A compatibility study may be required for any residential development within
this designation to address potential noise and air quality nuisances from the
employment area to the south of Regional Highway 2 and recommend
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
9
mitigation measures to be incorporated in the design of the residential
development to ensure compatibility with the employment area and any
established individual industries.
Height and Density
4.3.10 Building heights shall be a minimum of 7 storeys and a maximum of 12 storeys,
except that townhouses or stacked townhouses secondary to a non-ground-
related building on the same lot shall be a minimum height of 3 storeys.
4.3.11 Development on lands designated High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor
shall have a minimum site density of 150 units per net hectare.
4.3.12 Notwithstanding Policy 4.3.10, an additional two storeys are permitted if
affordable housing units are provided.
4.3.13 The highest and most dense forms of development shall be located fronting the
Regional Corridor. Development shall provide a transition, locating less dense
and lower-scale buildings in locations adjacent to lower density designations.
4.4 Medium Density Residential
4.4.1 Lands designated as Medium Density Residential are generally located along
the Local Corridors as well as adjacent to the railway and adjacent to High
Density/ Mixed Use Regional Corridor.
Permitted Uses
4.4.2 The predominant use of lands within the Medium Density Residential
designation is residential in a mix of housing types and tenures.
4.4.3 Retail uses, service uses and office uses shall be permitted at the intersections
of collector and arterial roads to provide access to local amenities within walking
distance for residents of the surrounding areas.
4.4.4 Permitted built forms shall include:
a)Apartment buildings;
b)All forms of townhouses;
c) Mixed use building; and
d)Other built forms that provide housing at the same or higher densities as
those above.
4.4.5 Within mixed use buildings, only retail uses, service uses and office uses, as
well as residential lobbies and building services shall be permitted on the
ground floor of a mixed use building with an entrance and frontage onto an
arterial road.
10
4.4.6 The implementing Zoning By-law shall identify sites adjacent to the intersections
of collector and arterial roads where mixed use buildings are permitted.
Height and Density
4.4.7 Building heights shall 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.
4.4.8 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 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.
4.4.9 Development within the Medium Density Residential designation shall have a
minimum site density of 60 units per net hectare.
4.4.10 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.
4.4.11 The highest and most dense forms of development shall be located fronting the
Local Corridor. Development shall provide a transition, locating less dense and
lower-scale buildings in locations adjacent to the Low Density Residential
designation within the Urban Residential area.
4.5 Neighbourhood Centre
4.5.1 Lands designated as Neighbourhood Centre are located on Concession Street
East at the intersection with the north-south collector road.
4.5.2 The Neighbourhood Centre shall be developed in accordance with the policies
of Section 10.5 of the Official Plan and the additional policies of this Secondary
Plan.
4.5.3 The Neighbourhood 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
Residential uses.
4.5.4 On street parking adjacent to the Neighbourhood Centre is encouraged.
Permitted Uses
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
11
4.5.5 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.
4.5.6 The permitted retail uses, service uses and office uses may be developed as a
stand-alone commercial development or in a mixed use format with residential
uses above the commercial uses or in live-work units.
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 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.
4.5.9 Notwithstanding Section 10.5 of the Official Plan, no individual store maximum
area shall apply.
4.5.10 Buildings will generally be located close to the lot line to frame the street. Retail
uses, service uses and office uses will have active frontages along Concession
Street East and the north-south collector road.
Height and Density
4.5.11 Residential and mixed use building heights shall be a minimum of 3 storeys and
a maximum of 6 storeys.
4.5.12 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.
4.5.13 Taller buildings up to the maximum permitted in Policy 4.5.11 are encouraged to
frame the intersections as part of the Prominent Intersection.
4.6 Low Density Residential
Permitted Uses
12
4.6.1 The predominant use of lands within the Low Density Residential designation is
residential with a mix of housing types and tenures in low-rise building forms.
4.6.2 The following residential built form are permitted:
a) Detached dwellings;
b) Semi-detached dwellings;
c) All forms of townhouses; and
d) Low-rise apartments;
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 townhouses and apartments accounting for the remainder.
4.6.4 Permitted townhouses and low-rise apartments shall generally be located
adjacent to collector roads, with higher-density townhouse forms and
apartments clustered near intersections of collector roads, adjacent to
Neighbourhood Parks, and adjacent to the Medium Density Residential
designation.
4.6.5 Other uses, including small-scale service uses, neighbourhood retail uses, and
community amenities, which are supportive of and compatible with residential
uses, are also permitted in accordance with Section 9 and 18 of the Official
Plan.
Height and Density
4.6.6 Buildings within the Low Density Residential designation shall not exceed 3
storeys in height.
4.6.7 Development on lands designated Low Density Residential shall have a
minimum density of 20 units per net hectare.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
13
5 Urban Design
5.1 General Policies
5.1.1 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.
5.1.2 The Secondary Plan Area shall be developed based on a modified grid pattern
of streets and complemented by multi-use paths and trails. This is to establish a
well-connected pedestrian network throughout all parts of the Secondary Plan
Area and, where appropriate, to surrounding areas.
5.1.3 The network of streets may be supplemented by mid-block pedestrian
connections to break up long blocks (generally blocks longer than 250 metres)
and to further enhance the pedestrian permeability of the area and access to
transit.
5.1.4 Views to key landmarks such as parks, schools, Prominent Intersections, and
natural heritage features shall be maintained through the location of open space
and the layout of the street network wherever feasible.
5.1.5 Development shall have appropriate regard for the Municipality’s General
Architectural Design Guidelines, where applicable.
5.1.6 The Soper Hills UDSG, appended to this Secondary Plan as Appendix A,
provide specific guidelines for the public and private realms. These Guidelines
clarify the Municipality’s expectations with respect to the form, character and
qualities of development in the Secondary Plan Area. If there is conflict between
a Secondary Plan policy and the UDSG, the Secondary Plan policy prevails.
5.1.7 The Soper Hills UDSG contains a Demonstration Plan which illustrates the
planning principles that are inherent to the Secondary Plan. This Demonstration
Plan is one example of how the Secondary Plan might be implemented within
the Secondary Plan Area.
5.1.8 Development may be required to undertake technical studies including a wind
study and/or sun/shadow study which demonstrate mitigation of potential
shadow or wind impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian routes, public
spaces and adjacent development to the satisfaction of the Municipality.
5.2 Placemaking
5.2.1 Public art should be incorporated into the public realm, especially at Prominent
Intersections, to contribute to the neighbourhood’s sense of identity.
14
5.2.2 Tree canopy coverage in the road allowance should be extensive enough to
create a comfortable walking environment for pedestrians and to enhance the
pedestrian experience of the community.
5.2.3 Streets and the adjacent built form should be designed to animate the street
through retail use being located close to the front lot line and with transparent
ground floor glazing, where retail uses are proposed, and through outdoor
amenity areas and street furniture within the public right of way.
5.2.4 Buildings should animate the frontage and flankage of streets through the
location of building entrances, outdoor amenity areas and street facing
windows.
5.2.5 In order to maximize the amount of tree planting and to minimize the removal of
in-situ trees, the co-location of utilities is encouraged.
5.3 Prominent Intersections
5.3.1 For Prominent Intersections, buildings should respond to their prominent
location, framing and orienting views towards adjacent streets to signify points
of entry and exit. Streetscape design elements within the public right-of-way
should be coordinated with and enhance private development sites adjacent to
the gateway location, to create a distinctive identity.
5.3.2 Built form policies in Section 5.4 of the Official Plan transparent glass and
location of public entrances shall only apply where commercial or mixed use
buildings are proposed adjacent to the Prominent Intersection.
5.3.3 Privately owned, publicly accessible open spaces shall be located at Prominent
Intersections to contribute to their visual prominence, reinforce their role as
community focal points, improve the relationship of built form to the public right-
of-way, and contribute to the area’s identity. Alternative locations that provide a
similar level of amenity may be considered to satisfy this requirement.
5.3.4 Land conveyances will not be required to achieve the Prominent Intersection
policies although urban squares or privately owned publicly accessible open
spaces are encouraged at Prominent Intersections.
5.4 Building Siting and Design
5.4.1 Built form shall be massed and sited to frame streets and public spaces in a
consistent manner.
5.4.2 High-rise buildings should have a clear base, middle and top to provide
articulation and high quality design.
5.4.3 The Soper Hills UDSG and the implementing zoning by-law shall provide
direction on building stepbacks for mid-rise and high-rise buildings.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
15
5.4.4 Development shall provide a transition between areas of different heights and
density within the Secondary Plan Area through separation, step-backs and
intervening land uses, intervening local roads or other similar means.
5.4.5 Site buildings to avoid front-to-back and/or overlook conditions. Where this
cannot be achieved, impacts should be minimized with appropriate screening
through architectural or landscape treatment.
5.4.6 Reverse frontage development generally shall not be permitted within the
Secondary Plan Area.
5.4.7 Street townhouses shall generally not comprise more than 6 attached units.
5.4.8 Corner lots should have a high level of design with equal and prominent design
for both building elevations which face the street.
5.4.9 Porches are encouraged for all ground-oriented dwellings.
5.4.10 Air conditioning units, utility metres and similar features should not be visible
from the public realm (street/sidewalk) and should be well integrated into a
building massing, recessed or screened.
5.4.11 Rooftop mechanical structures and fixtures shall be screened including, without
limitation satellite dishes and communications antenna, and where feasible
integrate within the design of the building. Parapets may be utilized to
accommodate such screening.
5.5 Mixed Use Buildings
5.5.1 Development will have a consistent street wall and active street frontages.
5.5.2 The public realm adjacent to mixed use buildings will support a high level of
pedestrian activity and may include wider sidewalks and street furniture.
5.5.3 The Soper Hills UDSG and the implementing zoning by-law shall provide
direction on minimum ground floor height for non-residential uses in support of
larger display windows and signage area as well as direction on awnings,
lighting, and other facade enhancements.
5.5.4 Direct access from at-grade retail uses and service uses to the street shall be
provided.
5.6 Parking, Servicing and Loading
5.6.1 Outdoor parking and loading facilities should be located at the side or rear of
commercial, mixed use and apartment buildings to promote an attractive public
realm and encourage pedestrian activity.
16
5.6.2 On-street parking should be provided along collector roads.
5.6.3 The visual impact of garages in Low Density Residential areas should be
reduced by:
a) Encouraging parking via laneways;
b) Recessing garages located at the front of the building facing a street;
c) Limiting driveways widths so that they do not exceed the width of the
garage;
d) Minimizing the garages’ appearance and area on a building façade so that
windows, doors, and active elements of a residential building’s façade take
visual primacy; and
e) Other similar means to reduce the visual impact of garages to the
satisfaction of the municipality.
5.6.4 The visual impact of off-street parking areas should be reduced by:
a) Screening parking lots from view of the public realm where possible;
b) Encouraging joint access to parking lots on adjoining properties; and
c) Using hard and soft landscaping within the parking area; and
d) Where appropriate, providing a visual buffer between parking areas and
adjacent residential properties.
5.6.5 Loading, servicing and other functional elements are encouraged to be
integrated within the building envelope. Where this is not possible, these
elements shall not be located adjacent to public spaces and shall be screened
from view to avoid visual impact to the public realm or surrounding residential
areas.
5.6.6 Garbage and recycling facilities shall be integrated within the building envelope
where possible.
5.6.7 The visual impact of garage doors that lead to below-grade structured parking
should be minimized by such design actions as locating them discreetly away
from main pedestrian entrances and primary frontages, where feasible,
accessed from a lane, and / or screening from view.
5.6.8 Above-grade structured parking adjacent to a public street(s) should be lined
with residential and/ or non-residential uses.
5.6.9 The Municipality may consider in the Zoning By-law reduced parking standards
where the land use density and built form supports active transportation and
public transit.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
17
6 Natural Heritage
6.1 Objectives
6.1.1 Protect, maintain and enhance the natural heritage system, including its
ecological integrity and function.
6.1.2 Protect natural heritage features and functions from incompatible development.
6.1.3 Incorporate the natural heritage system into the parks and open space system.
6.1.4 Use the landscape to contribute to a sense of place and integrate the natural
heritage system in a manner which defines community identity.
6.1.5 Where appropriate, provide access to the natural heritage system through low-
intensity recreation and pedestrian permeability through trails and linkages.
6.1.6 Maintain ecological functions while integrating the natural heritage system with
the stormwater management system.
6.1.7 Protect public health and safety and property from natural hazards.
6.2 General Policies
6.2.1 All development within and adjacent to the Environmental Protection Area
designation shall adhere to the policies of the Clarington Official Plan, as it
pertains to the policy areas of the Natural Heritage System in Section 3.4, the
Watershed and Subwatershed Plans policies in Section 3.5, the Hazards
policies in Section 3.7 and the Environmental Protection Areas policies in
Section 14.4 and the policies of this Section and shall have appropriate regard
for the recommendations of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. A more
detailed study shall prevail over the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study provided
the more detailed study is to the satisfaction of the Municipality.
6.2.2 In addition to these policies, the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study shall form
the basis for any study undertaken regarding the natural heritage system and
natural hazards. Site-specific studies may refine and/or confirm development
limits as well as the presence of features on a site by site basis based on the
recommendations from the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. These site
specific studies must adhere to the recommendations outline in the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study and address all issues identified within.
6.2.3 For those properties not assessed for Headwater Drainage Features in the
Subwatershed Study or where agricultural fields have gone fallow, Headwater
Drainage Feature Assessments may be required prior to any development in
order to accurately assess hydrologic functions of these features.
18
6.2.4 Revegetation of riparian corridors that are less than 30 metres wide is
encouraged using native plantings.
6.3 Environmental Protection Area
6.3.1 Lands designated Environmental Protection Area are shown on Schedule A.
6.3.2 Environmental Protection Areas include natural heritage features, hydrologically
sensitive features, lands within the regulatory flood plain of a watercourse,
headwater drainage features with a “Protection” classification and hazard lands
associated with valley systems, including slope and erosion hazards. Areas
associated with Environmental Protection Areas support their ecological
integrity and include Vegetation Protection Zones and other natural heritage
areas.
6.3.3 The Vegetation Protection Zone is currently not designated as part of the
Environmental Protection Area on Schedule A. However, once the Vegetation
Protection Zone is determined through site specific study, it will be considered
part of the Environmental Protection Area and zoned accordingly.
6.3.4 Stormwater management ponds except for the outfall, shall not be permitted to
be developed in lands designated Environmental Protection Area or within the
Vegetation Protection Zones to an Environmental Protection Area.
6.3.5 Low Impact Development features may be permitted in the outer 5 metres of the
Vegetation Protection Zone provided:
a) the Vegetation Protection Zone has not been reduced below that required in
Table 3-1 of the Official Plan;
b) filling and/or grading to facilitate construction of the Low Impact
Development feature does not extend more than 5 metres into the
Vegetation Protection Zone; and
c) it is supported by the findings of the appropriate studies including the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study.
6.3.6 The boundary of lands designated as Environmental Protection Area on
Schedule A is approximate and shall be detailed through site-specific studies
prepared as part of the review of development applications in accordance with
the policies of this Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan.
6.3.7 The Municipality may require Environmental Protection Areas to be conveyed to
a public authority, where appropriate, as part of the development approval
process at minimal or no cost to the receiving public authority. Conveyance of
lands designated Environmental Protection Area and associated Vegetation
Protection Zones shall not be considered as contributions towards the parkland
dedication requirements under the Planning Act.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
19
6.3.8 Access to Environmental Protection Areas through the development of public
trails will be undertaken in a manner which conserves their ecological integrity
as determined through an Environmental Impact Study.
6.3.9 The Soper Creek Subwatershed Study identified and assessed a number of
Headwater Drainage Features. Those identified in the Subwatershed Study as
“protection” are included in the Environmental Protection Area designation and
are to be protected in situ unless demonstrated otherwise by further site-specific
environmental studies.
6.3.10 For those Headwater Drainage Features identified in the Subwatershed Study
as “conservation” and located outside of an Environmental Protection Area
designation, applications for development shall:
a) Maintain and enhance or relocate and enhance drainage features and its
riparian corridor;
b) If catchment drainage has been previously removed or will be removed due
to diversion of stormwater flows, restore lost functions through enhanced lot
level controls (i.e., restore original catchment using clean roof drainage), as
feasible;
c) Maintain or replace on-site flows using mitigation measures and/or wetland
creation, if necessary;
d) Maintain or replace external flows;
e) Use natural channel design techniques to maintain or enhance the overall
productivity of the reach;
f) Ensure that the drainage feature is connected to downstream; and
g) Apply an appropriate Vegetation Protection Zone to either side of the
drainage feature.
6.3.11 Headwater Drainage Features that have been relocated and the associated
riparian corridors established by permissions in Policy 6.3.9 shall be designated
Environmental Protection Area and shall be zoned appropriately to prohibit
development.
6.4 Environmental Constraint Overlays
6.4.1 Environmental Constraints shown as an overlay on Schedule B Environmental
Constraint Overlays are not land use designations, they identify lands identified
in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study as requiring additional levels of study
prior to development.
6.4.2 The three types of Environment Constraint Overlays shown on Schedule B
include Vegetation Protection Zone, Additional Area of Further Study, and Low
Constraint Area.
20
6.4.3 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.
6.4.4 Environmental Constraint: Additional Area of Further Study Overlay represents
areas providing candidate and / or unconfirmed significant wildlife habitat or
potential wildlife linkages identified in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study. An
Environmental Impact Study prepared in support of development applications
shall confirm the presence or absence of the habitat and /or linkage and the
extent of sensitivity of the habitat, in accordance with the policies of the Official
Plan to the satisfaction of the municipality.
6.4.5 Environmental Constraint: Low Constraint Area Overlay identified in the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study comprise features in which removal or development
intrusion is not restricted by existing policies and regulations. It is encouraged
that these features be incorporated into site level plans where possible to avoid
net loss of natural cover. Should net loss of natural cover not be avoidable, in
certain circumstances, appropriate compensation opportunities within other
areas of the Secondary Plan Area may be considered where appropriate.
6.4.6 Until the Environmental impact studies required in this Section 6.4 have been
completed, land uses within the Environmental Constraint Overlays shall be
limited to existing lawfully permitted uses.
6.4.7 Following the completion of the required studies to the satisfaction of the
Municipality, development may be permitted in the Environmental Constraint
Overlays as deemed appropriate by the study, without amendment to this Plan,
and the underlying land use designation in Schedule A will apply. Where
development in an Environmental Constraint Overlay is determined not to be
appropriate, or the limits of the Vegetation Protection Zone is confirmed, the
Environmental Constraint Overlay will be deemed to part of the Environmental
Protection Area designation.
6.4.8 The Zoning By-law shall be amended as appropriate following the completion of
the required studies to implement new land use permissions for the
environmental constraint overlay area.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
21
7 Parks and Community Facilities
7.1 Objectives
7.1.1 Provide a quantity and quality of park space that meets the needs of residents
and enables a variety of opportunities for passive and active recreation.
7.1.2 Use the design of parks and open spaces to create unique places that
contribute to the area’s sense of identity.
7.1.3 Integrate parks into a broader open space and public realm networks.
7.1.4 Provide appropriate levels of service in terms of schools and community
facilities.
7.1.5 Locate schools, parks and other community amenities to promote safe and
convenient access by walking and cycling.
7.2 Parks
7.2.1 Parks are symbolically illustrated in Schedule A. The final location and size of
parks shall be determined at the draft plan of subdivision stage.
7.2.2 Parks within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan shall provide a variety of
opportunities for passive and active recreation and be comprised of well-
designed spaces that contribute to the area’s sense of identity.
7.2.3 The following types of parks are included in the Parks designation:
a) Neighbourhood Park; and
b) Parkettes.
7.2.4 The functions and sizes for the parks listed in Policy 7.2.3 are set out in Section
18.3 of the Official Plan except that the Neighbourhood Park south of
Concession Street East shall be larger than 3 hectares.
7.2.5 The locations of the 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.
7.2.6 Parks shall be designed to be accessible and shall have street frontage on not
less than 30% of the park perimeter. Backing of residential and commercial
uses onto parks shall be minimized with flankage of lots preferred. The
22
municipality may consider a lesser percentage, at its sole discretion, where the
park is flanked by other public lands which ensures public access and visibility.
7.2.7 Areas conveyed for parkland purposes will be programmable lands. However,
to protect the views from the knoll east of Lambs Road and south of Concession
Street East, portions of this Neighbourhood Park may not be programmable.
7.2.8 Environmental Protection Areas, associated Vegetation Protection Zones and
stormwater management ponds shall not be conveyed to satisfy parkland
dedication requirements under the Planning Act.
7.2.9 Privately owned and publicly accessible open spaces shall be encouraged
within the Secondary Plan Area but shall not contribute to required parkland
dedication.
7.3 Elementary Schools
7.3.1 School sites are shown symbolically on Schedule A and shall be further
delineated through the development review process. In the event an Elementary
School is not required, the land use surrounding the symbol will be the
applicable land use designation.
7.3.2 School sites will be developed in accordance with the relevant policies of
Section 18.5 of the Clarington Official Plan.
7.3.3 Elementary school sites shall be located to promote accessibility by walking
and, where feasible, adjacent to planned Neighbourhood Park sites.
7.3.4 Where a school site adjoins a Neighbourhood Park, the respective School
Board will consider opportunities for joint use with the Municipality, and the site
will be designed accordingly.
7.3.5 When selecting school sites, consideration will be given to locating schools in
joint-use facilities shared with co-terminus boards, the Municipality, local
community organizations and/or other third party partners.
7.3.6 The size and configuration of each school site shall be to the satisfaction of the
School Board and the Municipality. If a school site includes a child care centre,
the site shall be appropriately sized and configured to address the needs of the
school and the child care centre.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
23
8 Community Culture and Heritage
8.1.1 The conservation and enhancement of significant cultural heritage resources
shall be consistent with the provisions of Section 8 of the Clarington Official
Plan and all relevant Provincial legislation and policy directives.
8.1.2 The following properties of cultural heritage value or interest have been
identified within the Secondary Plan Area and are shown on Schedule A:
a) 2906 Regional Highway 2;
b) 1717 Lambs Road; and
c) 2876 Concession Street East.
8.1.3 A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report will be required for each property listed in
Policy 8.1.2 as part of a development application.
8.1.4 A Heritage Impact Assessment that includes measures to avoid direct impacts,
and actions to avoid or reduce indirect impacts to the heritage attributes of a
cultural heritage resource shall be conducted prior to development on or
adjacent to properties for which a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report has been
conducted and determined that the properties meet the criteria for cultural
heritage value or interest as prescribed in O. Reg. 9/06.
8.1.5 The naming and design of parks and public spaces and the naming of public
streets shall have regard for local heritage or natural influences including
historic names, interpretive features, vernacular building elements, and
plantings.
24
9 Transportation
9.1 Objectives
9.1.1 Foster a community where walking, cycling and transit are viable and attractive
alternatives to travel by automobile.
9.1.2 Establish a street and block pattern that creates fine-grained connectivity
throughout the community.
9.1.3 Create routes for active transportation that are direct and efficient and offer high
levels of connectivity with multiple choice of routes.
9.1.4 Establish a network that connects the interior lower density neighbourhoods and
the higher density along Local and Regional Corridors where transit will be most
frequent and direct.
9.1.5 Use mid-block connections and trails to augment the network established by
streets to improve permeability for users of active transportation where
appropriate.
9.1.6 Design streets as complete streets to ensure that all kinds of traffic can use
them in a safe and comfortable manner: motorists, transit users, cyclists,
pedestrians and people with accessibility challenges. Prioritize active modes of
transportation and the needs of the most vulnerable users.
9.1.7 Design streets as important public places. Create environments which are safe,
inviting, comfortable and visually pleasing for pedestrians and other forms of
active transportation.
9.2 Transportation Network
9.2.1 The transportation network in the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area facilitates
the movement of people and goods through an integrated, efficient,
comfortable, safe, and accessible transportation system.
9.2.2 The transportation network in the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area shall be
developed in accordance with Schedule B Environmental Constraint and
Transportation and the policies of this Secondary Plan, with further guidance
provided in the UDSG and the Soper Hills Transportation Report.
9.2.3 New roads shall be designed to create a rectilinear grid pattern of roads that
defines development blocks and establishes a highly interconnected and
permeable network that supports active transportation and maximizes
accessibility and support for transit. The rectilinear grid pattern may be modified
to accommodate natural heritage areas and other constraints. Connectivity by
active transportation throughout the Secondary Plan Area and to surrounding
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
25
areas may be further enhanced by mid-block connections and trails through and
across Environmental Protection Areas where appropriate and feasible
9.2.4 Where the road network includes a stream crossing in the Environmental
Protection Area, the stream crossing shall be designed to allow for appropriate
wildlife crossing where feasible.
9.2.5 Residential buildings shall be set back 30 metres from any adjacent railway
corridor.
9.3 Road Network
9.3.1 The road network set out on Schedule B serves as the primary framework for all
forms of mobility and connectivity in the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area. The
road network includes a hierarchy of road types which is consistent with the
hierarchy and road classifications in the Official Plan and the road classification
criteria in Appendix C, Table C-2 of the Official Plan.
9.3.2 The collector road network shown in Schedule B 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.
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.
9.3.3 The Municipality may consider development on private roads outside of the Low
Density Residential designation.
9.3.4 Jogs in the arterial road network at Lambs Road and Concession Street East,
Providence Road and Concession Street East and future Providence Road and
Regional Highway 2 shall be eliminated when adjacent development occurs.
9.3.5 On-street parking shall be permitted on all local roads and collector roads.
9.3.6 Cul-de-sacs are generally discouraged but may be permitted when
demonstrated that an alternative alignment is not available.
9.3.7 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
26
Assessment are satisfied; and that protection is provided for an ultimate
connection to Highway 2.
9.3.8 Notwithstanding Policies 9.2.2, 9.3.1 and 9.3.2, the east-west collector road
south of Concession Road connecting to Providence Road may be considered
for removal without amendment to this Secondary Plan 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 and active
transportation and future transit connections to Providence Road and the future
development to the east can be provided through other road network
connections.
9.3.9 As development occurs along arterial and collector road corridors, access
management shall prioritize consolidated and shared access, cross-access
easements, and, where appropriate, rear lane access.
9.3.10 Local Roads generally shall not be permitted to intersect with Arterial Roads,
unless the Municipality and/or Region are satisfied such intersections will not
cause an undue safety risk to drivers, pedestrians and cyclists and will not
unduly compromise arterial road operations.
9.4 Public Transit
9.4.1 The Municipality should encourage that transit facilities are integrated early and
appropriately within and adjacent to the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area and
ensure that transit requirements are addressed through municipal capital works
and private development applications.
9.4.2 The design of transit stops shall incorporate appropriate amenities and shall
consider transit shelters, seating, bike racks and appropriate lighting.
9.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a transit-supportive urban structure, in addition to
Section 19.4 of the Official Plan, the following measures shall be reflected in
development proposals, including the subdivision of land:
a)Transit-supportive densities provided on lands within the Local and Regional
Corridors in keeping with municipal density targets;
b)An active transportation network that promotes direct pedestrian access to
transit routes and stops;
c)Transit stops located in close proximity to activity nodes and building
entrances;
d)Provision for transit stops and incorporation of bus-bays where appropriate
into road design requirements; and
e)Where feasible, the integration of transit waiting areas in buildings located
adjacent to transit stops.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
27
9.5 Active Transportation
9.5.1 The policies of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan are an extension of the Active
Transportation policies of Section 19.5 of the Official Plan and are intended to
ensure the local provision and ongoing development of an active transportation
network within the Secondary Plan Area.
9.5.2 The active transportation network within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area
includes off-street facilities including trails and multi-use paths for pedestrians
and cyclists. Some elements of the Active Transportation System are shown on
Schedule B of this plan.
9.5.3 Collector roads shall incorporate a multi-use path on one side and a sidewalk
on the other. Local roads shall incorporate a sidewalk on one side.
9.5.4 Active transportation connections across barriers (natural and related to
infrastructure) shall be planned to occur at signalized intersections,
roundabouts, or controlled mid-block locations wherever feasible and at
appropriate walking/cycling intervals to reduce barriers between areas and
increase accessibility for all ages and abilities.
9.5.5 To support increased network connectivity, mid-block connections may be
established throughout the Secondary Plan Area and in particular through high
and medium density blocks within the Regional Corridor.
9.5.6 Destinations such as the Environmental Protection Area, parks, schools, and
stores and connections to surrounding neighbourhoods will be integrated
through the off-street active transportation network including off-street bike
lanes and multi-use trails.
9.5.7 All collector and local roads shall also be planned to include a vibrant and
healthy tree canopy, consisting of primarily native plantings. The tree canopy
will provide shade and enhance and establish a vibrant urban environment. A
tree canopy plan shall be prepared for each plan of subdivision as part of the
required landscape architectural plans.
28
10 Housing
10.1 Objectives
10.1.1 Encourage a variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures, that allow households
of various sizes and incomes to find a home within the Soper Hills Secondary
Plan Area.
10.1.2 Encourage the provision of affordable housing and rental housing.
10.1.3 Foster aging in place by encouraging a range of housing that can meet the
needs of residents during all phases of life.
10.2 General Policies
10.2.1 A variety of housing forms, sizes and tenures shall be provided in the Soper
Hills Secondary Plan Area to meet the needs of a diverse population and
households of various sizes, incomes and age compositions. This housing mix
is encouraged to include purpose built rental and seniors housing.
10.2.2 Additional dwelling units are encouraged in all new single, semi-detached and
townhouse dwellings.
10.2.3 Affordable housing, including community housing, supportive housing and other
types of subsidized non-market housing units, are encouraged to be integrated
within neighbourhoods and combined in developments that also provide market
housing to provide opportunities for a range of housing tenures and prices that
support diversity.
10.2.4 Affordable housing is encouraged within the Local and Regional Corridors to
provide residents with close access to public transit.
10.2.5 Collaboration with the Region of Durham and public and non-profit community
housing providers is encouraged to support a supply of subsidized non-market
housing units to be included within the housing mix in the Secondary Plan Area.
10.2.6 To support the provision of affordable housing units, the Municipality will explore
potential incentives such as reduced or deferred development charges, reduced
application fees, grants and loans, to encourage the development of affordable
housing units. The Municipality will also encourage Durham Region, the
Provincial government and the Federal government (as applicable) to consider
further increasing financial incentives for affordable housing.
10.2.7 As an incentive for the provision of affordable housing, reductions in the
minimum parking requirement under the Zoning By-law may be considered by
the Municipality on a site-by-site basis where affordable housing or purpose-
built rental housing is provided as part of a development proposal.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
29
10.2.8 The Municipality will give priority to development applications that include
affordable housing units and purpose-built rental units that are being funded by
federal and provincial government programs, community housing providers
other non-profit groups, the Region of Durham and the private sector.
10.2.9 A range of unit sizes are encouraged within apartment and multi-unit buildings,
including those suitable for single people and larger households and families.
30
11 Infrastructure, Stormwater Management and
Sustainability
11.1 Objectives
11.1.1 Reduce the impact of development on hydrologic and ecological systems
through the use of the principles of Low Impact Development and Green
Infrastructure.
11.1.2 Encourage native plantings, which include a diversity of tree species that
contribute to the urban forest and a vibrant and healthy tree canopy.
11.1.3 Promote the use of technologies and methods which improve the environmental
performance of development.
11.2 Infrastructure and Utilities
11.2.1 Infrastructure and utilities should be developed in accordance with the policies
of Section 21 of the Official Plan.
11.2.2 In addition, super mailboxes shall not be located in a municipally owned park
but may be located adjacent to the park.
11.3 Stormwater Management and Low Impact Development
11.3.1 Stormwater management facilities, such as ponds and Low Impact
Development features, shall be incorporated in the Secondary Plan Area to
mitigate the impacts of development on water quality and quantity consistent
with the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, the policies of Section 20 of the
Official Plan, and the policies of this Section. Wherever feasible stormwater
management ponds should be located in Low Density Residential designations.
11.3.2 Stormwater management facilities shown on Schedule A are illustrative and
final location and sizing shall be determined through the development
application process. An amendment to the Secondary Plan is not required for
changes to the location of stormwater management facilities.
11.3.3 Proposed stormwater management quality, quantity, erosion control and water
balance for ground water and natural systems shall be assessed during the
development approval process to determine the impact on the natural heritage
system and environmental features.
11.3.4 A Master Drainage Plan shall be completed for the Secondary Plan Area to the
satisfaction of the Municipality prior to approval of the first development
application within the Secondary Plan Area.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
31
11.3.5 Stormwater Management Reports shall be prepared for each draft plan of
subdivision application building on the recommendations of the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study and the Master Drainage Plan/ Master Environmental
Servicing Plan. As recommended by the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, the
required Stormwater Management Report and Plan shall incorporate:
a) Infiltration-based Low Impact Development (“LID”) practices located on
private property and municipal property;
b) Evaluation of erosion risks to receiving watercourses; and
c) A site-specific water budget.
11.3.6 The submission of the additional plans and reports shall be required to
determine the impact of stormwater quality/quantity, erosion and water balance
of the proposed development. A Master Drainage Plan shall first be prepared in
accordance with the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and further studies shall
be required where not addressed in the Master Drainage Plan at the draft plan
of subdivision stage including:
a) Functional Servicing Report;
b) Stormwater Management Report;
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.
11.3.7 The Stormwater Management Report identified in Policy 11.3.6 shall apply a
range of stormwater management practices including LID techniques to ensure
water quality control, baseflow management, water temperature control and the
protection of aquatic habitat consistent with municipal guidance and Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (“CLOCA”) guidelines.
11.3.8 Stormwater management plans shall demonstrate how the water balance target
set in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study is achieved.
11.3.9 The establishment of new flood control facilities to accommodate development
within this Secondary Plan are not encouraged and will only be considered once
all other reasonable alternatives have been fully exhausted in accordance with
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study or an update or addenda to that study to
the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington and CLOCA. Other alternatives
to flood control facilities could include infrastructure improvements such as relief
culverts, road crossings or land acquisition
11.3.10 Stormwater management for all development shall be undertaken on a volume
control basis and shall demonstrate the maintenance of recharge rates, flow
32
paths and water quality to the greatest extent possible. Peak flow control and
the maintenance of pre-development water balance and prevention of erosion
shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington in
consultation with CLOCA.
11.3.11 Development of all detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings shall
demonstrate the use of an adequate volume of amended topsoil or equivalent
system to improve surface porosity and permeability over all turf and
landscaped areas beyond 3 metres of a building foundation and beyond tree
protection areas.
11.4 Urban Forest and Native Plantings
11.4.1 Together, new development and public realm improvements shall establish an
urban tree canopy throughout the Secondary Plan Area to minimize the heat
island effect, provide for shade and wind cover and contribute to a green and
attractive environment.
11.4.2 New development and public realm improvements are required to use native
plant species wherever feasible, particularly along rights-of-way and pedestrian
trails.
11.4.3 New development and public realm improvements shall only use native
plantings within 30 metres of Environmental Protection Areas.
11.4.4 Draft plans of subdivision and site plan applications shall as a condition of
approval be supported by landscape plans which demonstrate how the
development will contribute to the urban forest.
11.4.5 A diversity of tree species shall be planted in parks and along rights-of-way to
provide a healthy and more robust tree inventory that is less prone to insects
and diseases.
11.4.6 Selection of tree species within the Secondary Plan Area will contribute to the
Municipality’s species diversity objectives.
11.4.7 Where trees, shrubs and other natural heritage features are destroyed or
harvested prematurely prior to proper study and approval, compensation should
occur on site and shall be calculated at a 3:1 ratio and be subject to a
restoration / compensation plan to create an overall net benefit to the natural
heritage system.
11.5 Sustainability
11.5.1 Development is strongly encouraged to consider incorporating energy and
water conservation measures, including consideration for renewable and/or
alternative energy systems, such as solar panels.
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
33
11.5.2 Development is strongly encouraged to consider the use of technologies such
as green roofs and reflective roof surface materials with high thermal reflectivity.
11.5.3 Development is encouraged to meet high standards for energy efficiency and
sustainability in building design and construction, exceeding the energy
performance criteria of the Ontario Building Code.
11.5.4 Development is encouraged to meet high standards for the use of LID
strategies and minimize impermeable surfaces, to aid in stormwater infiltration.
11.5.5 Water-efficient building design and practices are encouraged to be utilized in all
new buildings, including measures such as ultra-low flow fixtures, dual flush
toilets and rainwater harvesting.
11.5.6 Development is encouraged to apply designs, methods and materials that
reduce embodied carbon emissions, such as using lower-carbon methods and
materials such as mass timber, low-carbon concrete and biogenic insulation
and repurposing on-site materials.
34
12 Implementation and Interpretation
12.1 Implementation
12.1.1 Detailed studies prepared, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, in support of a
development application may refine and confirm the natural heritage features
identified in the recommendations of the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study on a
site by site basis however the study must address the issues raised by the
Subwatershed Study.
12.1.2 As part of a development application for residential developments the following
information is required for the subject application:
i.Net residential density by land use designation;
ii.Identification of total square metres 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.
12.1.3 All new development within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area shall proceed
based on the sequential extension of full municipal services. This can be
achieved either by servicing through adjacent plans of subdivision, including
servicing through provisions, or through the Regional and Municipal capital
works programs and plans of subdivision. This may also be advanced by
landowners/proponents with appropriate agreements with the Region and/or
Municipality.
12.1.4 The Municipality encourages utility providers such as hydroelectric power,
communications/telecommunications facilities, broadband fiber optics, and
natural gas to ensure that sufficient infrastructure is or will be in place to serve
growth in the Secondary Plan Area.
12.1.5 Development applications for lands abutting the arterial road and collector roads
shown in Schedule B shall dedicate lands for road widenings as determined by
the Municipality or Region of Durham.
12.1.6 Approval of development applications shall be conditional upon commitments
from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of development to the
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
35
timing and funding of the required road and transportation facilities, parks and
community facilities which may include interim transportation facilities. These
works shall be provided for in the subdivision and / or site plan agreements.
12.1.7 Approval of development applications shall also be conditional upon
commitments from the appropriate authorities and the proponents of
development to the timing and funding of required stormwater management,
sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which may include temporary and/or
interim works. These works shall be provided for in subdivision and / or site plan
agreements.
12.1.8 Phasing of the development, due to partial construction of internal collector
roads or the partial completion of internal and external sewer, water and
stormwater works as a result of non-participating landowners, participating
landowners with different timelines or the timelines for completion of the
external road works, may be required by the Municipality of Clarington. Phasing
may include temporary and / or interim road and infrastructure solutions prior to
full build-out.
12.1.9 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 provis ion 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 the landowner has met its obligations
under the relevant cost sharing agreement(s) prior to registration of a plan of
subdivision.
12.1.10 Landowners are encouraged to enter into a Master Parkland Agreement with
the Municipality prior to the approval of any draft plan of subdivision. The
Master Parkland Agreement shall identify the minimum size and general
location of parks that shall be provided and dedicated in accordance with
Schedule A.
12.1.11 The Municipality will require, as a condition of draft approval, that proof be
provided to the Municipality that landowners have satisfied all their parkland
obligations with respect to the Master Parkland Agreement prior to registration
of a plan of subdivision.
36
12.2 Interpretation
12.2.1 The Soper Hills Secondary Plan has been prepared to align with the policies of
the Official Plan. The policies, maps and appendices of this Secondary Plan
shall be read and interpreted in conjunction with the applicable policies of the
Official Plan.
12.2.2 In the event of a conflict between the Official Plan and this Secondary Plan, the
policies of the Secondary Plan shall prevail inclusive of density and
intensification policies of the Official Plan.
12.2.3 The pattern of land use is identified in Schedule A of the Secondary Plan. Minor
alterations to the boundaries of land use designations and location of symbols,
which maintain the general intent of the policies of this Secondary Plan, may
occur without amendment to this Secondary Plan through the development
approval process in accordance with Section 24.1 of the Official Plan.
12.2.4 Where examples of permitted uses are listed under any specific land use
designation, they are intended to provide examples of possible uses. Other
similar uses may be permitted provided they conform to the intent and all
applicable provisions of this Secondary Plan.
NP
NP
P
P
P
Schedule A -
Land Use
Legend
High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor Neighbourhood 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 2026 Low Density Residential
Concession Street East
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
R
o
a
d
La
m
b
s
R
o
a
d
Regional Highway 2
a
o
d
e
Regional Highway 2
Concession Street East
d
oa
bs
R
m
L
Ro
a
d
vi
n
c
e
Pr
Legend
Arterial B Additional Area of Further Study
Multi-Use Path (MUP)Arterial C
Trail / MUP
Headwater Drainage Features Collector Roads
Protection Potential Local
Schedule B - Environmental
Constraint and Transportation
- Soper Hills Secondary Plan -
MAY 2026
Conservation Road Connection
SHSP Boundary
Environmental Protection Areas (EPA)
Environmental Constraint: Vegetation
Protection Zone (VPZ) Overlay
Environmental Constraint:
Low Constraint Area Overlay Watercourse
Municipality of Clarington
Soper Hills Secondary Plan
Urban Design and
Sustainability Guidelines
May 2026
Attachment 1c to Report PDS-036-26
1547 BLOOR STREET WESTTORONTO, ONM6P 1A5
*info@sglplanning.ca
T (416) 923-6630
Planning& Design Inc.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Soper Hills
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
9
Figure 2: Key themes for design principles in Soper Hills
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Soper Hills
Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines
28
Figure 23: Example of built form transition for a mixed use building
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Attachment 2 to Report PDS-036-26
Sequence of Events
April 23, 2018 Public Meeting Report and Council authorization to initiate
Public Information Centre #1
Steering Committee Meeting #1
Public Information Centre #2
Public Information Centre #3
June 16, 2025 Statutory Public Meeting
May 11, 2026 Planning and Development Committee meeting and
Recommendation Report to Council
Attachment 3 to Report PDS-036-26
Summary of Technical Reports - Soper Hills Secondary Plan
Report Key Findings and Next Steps
Phase 1 Background
and Analysis
Summary Report
June 2020
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
This report provides an overview of the Phase 1
background work completed to date, including analysis of
the planning policy framework, existing landscape and
environmental conditions, agricultural context, land budget
and servicing considerations, identification of key
opportunities and constraints, and the establishment of
preliminary guiding principles to inform the Secondary
Plan.
Agricultural Analysis
Summary Report
September 2020
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
The report assessed livestock farming in relation to the
Soper Hills Secondary Plan area and concluded that the
proposed Secondary Plan is not expected to impact or
restrict the operation or expansion of existing livestock
operations.
Landscape Analysis
Report
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
September 2020
The report evaluates, describes, and interprets the existing
context, topography, natural features, and built form to help
to identify the opportunities and constraints for the
development of the Secondary Plan. The area includes
agricultural uses, natural areas, private residential
properties, and institutional uses.
Opportunities to capitalize on the unique natural heritage of
the area as identified in the report are as follows:
1.Views from elevated knolls
2.Integration of Natural Features
3.Public Access to Nature
4.Canadian Pacific Railway
Constraints are identified as limits to the provision of
additional continual north-south and east-west collector
roads due to the creek corridor.
Draft Sustainability
and Green Principles
Report
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
November 2020
This report establishes a sustainability framework that has
been used to inform the Soper Hills Secondary Plan and
the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines. It reviews
applicable provincial, regional, and municipal policy
directions and aligns them with Clarington’s sustainability
objectives. Four key themes: built environment, mobility,
natural environment and open space, and infrastructure
and sustainability. These principles are intended to support
environmentally responsible community and to guide land
use planning, urban design, and infrastructure throughout
the Secondary Plan.
Draft Cultural Heritage
Resource Assessment
Study
Prepared by SGL
Planning & Design Inc.
February 2020
The study provides an overview of the legislative and
policy framework for cultural heritage conservation in
Ontario, outlines the methodology used to identify and
evaluate cultural heritage resources, and summarizes the
historical development and existing conditions of the study
area. Background research and field review were used to
document properties and assess potential cultural heritage
value or interest in accordance with the criteria set out in
Ontario Regulation 9/06.
The assessment identified twelve existing and potential
cultural heritage resources within or adjacent to the study
area, including four potential resources within the study
area, two potential resources on adjacent lands, five
properties included in the Heritage Inventory, and Camp 30
–which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act and is recognized as a National Historic Site.
The study’s recommendations include incorporating
conservation policies and potential heritage resource
policies into the Secondary Plan and to require Heritage
Impact Assessments to avoid or mitigate potential adverse
impacts to identified cultural heritage resources are
provided in the report.
Stage 1
Archaeological
Assessment
Prepared by ASI
Heritage
June 2022
The objective of the Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment
was to compile available information about known and
potential archaeological resources within the study area, to
review the extent of previous archaeological assessments
conducted in the study area, and to determine if future
developments require a Stage 2 archaeological
assessment.
The study determined that approximately 70%, or 135 ha
of the study area, was identified as exhibiting
archaeological potential and that there is potential for the
presence of significant Indigenous and Euro-Canadian
archaeological resources throughout the vast majority of
the study area.
A review of registered archaeological sites identified seven
sites within a 1 km radius of the study area, seven of which
are located within the study area. No archaeological
assessment is known to have been conducted within the
conducted within 50 metres of the study area as part of the
Camp 30 subdivision development.
Alternative Land Use
Plan Report
Prepared by Prepared
by SGL Planning &
Design Inc.
October 2022
Phase 1 studies to achieve a compact, walkable, and
sustainable community that integrates housing, parks,
trails, and mixed-use development while protecting
Environmental Protection Areas and cultural heritage
resources.
Phase 2 Summary
Report
Prepared by Prepared
by SGL Planning &
Design Inc.
December 2022
the best combination of preferred elements that should be
considered as part of the engagement process. provided in
the report. The assessment concludes that a preferred plan
should draw from the best elements of all three alternatives
to balance density, access to amenities, environmental
protection, and mobility.
Summary of key policy directions:
•Concentrate higher-density and mixed-use
development along the Regional and Local
Corridors to support transit use and active
transportation.
•Provide a diverse mix of housing types and
densities to accommodate a range of ages, abilities,
household types, and incomes.
•Create a compact, complete, connected, and
walkable community.
•Design a connected, walkable street and trail
network that is designed for pedestrians, cyclists,
transit users, and motorists.
•Collector roads should be designed in accordance
with road classification policy.
•Locate parks, open spaces, and neighbourhood
amenities so they are centrally accessible and within
walkable distances for residents.
•Protect Environmental Protection Areas (EPA)
identified by the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
from further development though trails are
permitted.
•Implement stormwater management, sustainable
servicing, and low-impact development measures in
•Conserve and appropriately integrate identified
cultural heritage and archaeological resources
through Secondary Plan policies.
Draft Preliminary
Municipal Engineering
Report
Prepared by T.Y. Lin
International Canada
Inc.
April 2026
An analysis of servicing needs has been completed
through a Preliminary Municipal Engineering Report
(PMER). The PMER is informed by earlier findings from a
draft Functional Servicing Report prepared in October
2024.
The PMER provides flexibility in servicing strategies that
may be identified during the draft plan of subdivision
process. This approach supports the development of
servicing policies for the Secondary Plan while offering a
more streamlined alternative to a full Functional Servicing
Report.
Existing conditions were examined, and recommendations
were provided related to stormwater management, site
grading, water, and wastewater services.
The findings and recommendations of the PMER are
expected to be refined through additional, more detailed
site-specific studies, including a future Master Drainage
Plan for the entire Secondary Plan area and Servicing
Reports submitted in support of development applications.
Draft Transportation
Assessment Report
Prepared by T.Y. Lin
International Canada
Inc.
October 2024, Update
April 2026
A draft Transportation Assessment Report was completed
to support the development of a preferred road network for
the Secondary Plan by utilizing the August 2024 land use
plan. The report informed the understanding of how
buildout of the Secondary Plan area affects future traffic
trends.
The report recommended the internal road network is
designed with a two-lane cross-section, consisting of one
lane in each direction. The existing intersection at Highway
2 and Lambs Road is expected to be upgraded from a
stop-controlled to signalized intersection.
The community is expected to be designed with
accessible, separated, and connected pedestrian and
cycling facilities to support and promote active
transportation.
An update to the report will examine the impact the
approved land use plan is expected to have on future traffic
trends. The updated report will also examine the possibility
Plan and an interim connection being provided on the
north-south collector road towards Lambs Road until the
ultimate connection to Durham Highway 2 can be made.
Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study
Phase 1 Report
Prepared by Aquafor
Beech
May 2023
establishes the environmental baseline for areas affected
by future development, including the Soper Hills Secondary
Plan. It identifies and maps natural heritage features,
hydrologic systems, ecological linkages, and environmental
constraints, and confirms that these features will play a
significant role in shaping land use planning and
infrastructure design. The findings provide the foundational
environmental information needed to guide Secondary
Plan policies, land use concepts, and future mitigation and
management strategies.
The results of Phase 1 informed the preparation and
evaluation of land use concepts for the Soper Hills
Secondary Plan and established the baseline existing
Draft Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study
Phase 2/3 Report
Prepared by Aquafor
Beech
October 2024
Study built on the environmental baseline established in
Phase 1 by evaluating development impacts and
identifying strategies to protect, enhance, and restore
watershed functions as growth occurs.
Phase 2 assessed alternative stormwater management
and subwatershed management approaches, including low
impact development measures, natural channel design,
and restoration opportunities, to mitigate impacts
associated with future land use changes.
Phase 3 established an implementation and monitoring
framework, including performance targets and adaptive
management measures, to ensure long-term watershed
health.
The report informed the development of Secondary Plan
policies by identifying stormwater management
approaches, environmental protection measures, and
implementation considerations to be addressed through
future site-specific studies.
An update to the report is being prepared that will include a
chapter and accompanying appendix (including an
This updated report will include next steps associated with
the Master Drainage Plan.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
DRAFT REPORT
PREPARED BY HEMSON FOR THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
SOPER HILLS SECONDARY PLAN FISCAL
IMPACT ANALYSIS
April 23rd, 2026
1000 -
Attachment 6 to Report PDS-036-26
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1
A. Growth Forecasts for Build-Out of Soper Hills 1
B. Key Data and Assumptions 5
2. CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS 6
A. Developer Funded Capital (Local Service Capital) 7
B. DC-Funded Capital 7
3. OPERATING COST ANALYSIS 11
4. REVENUE ANALYSIS 14
A. Assessment 14
B. Municipal Property Tax Revenue 14
C. Development Charge Revenue 16
5. SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT 18
Introduction and Background | 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
As part of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan presented by the Municipality of Clarington,
Hemson Consulting Ltd. has been retained to complete a fiscal impact analysis. This report
summarizes Hemson’s evaluation of the capital costs, operating costs, and revenue sources
associated with the secondary plan area.
A. GROWTH FORECASTS FOR BUILD-OUT OF SOPER HILLS
The total area of the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area (SHSP Area) is 158.1-hectares, of
which approximately 128 hectares are developable (See Figure 1 and Figure 2). The focus
of this analysis is the residential and commercial development in the SHSP Area, which
includes low-to high – density mixed use areas, with an anticipated gross density of 83.1
people and jobs per hectare. The remaining area which includes a Neighbourhood Park,
Parkette, Public School, and Stormwater Management facilities will not be subject to any
residential or non-residential development (See Table 1).
Introduction and Background | 2
Figure 1. Map of Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area within the Municipality
Source: Municipality of Clarington
Introduction and Background | 3
Figure 2. Breakdown of Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area
Source: Municipality of Clarington
Introduction and Background | 4
Densities across the SHSP Area are expected to range as follows, based on projections of
units, population, and jobs:
Residential unit densities: from 24 units per gross hectare in the Low-Density
Residential Area to 148 units per gross hectare in the High-Density Residential
Area.
Population and employment densities: from 74 persons and jobs per gross
hectare for Low Density Residential Area development to 227 persons and jobs per
gross hectare for High-Density Mixed-Use Area development.
As shown in Table 1, the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area is anticipated to add 5,861
residential units to accommodate a population of 12,990. The addition of approximately 154
new jobs within the SHSP Area are projected to generate approximately 5,300 square
metres of new non-residential floor space at build-out, based on an estimated floor space
per worker of 47 square metres.
Table 1. Summary of SHSP Area Growth to Build Out (Target)1
Land Use Gross
Area (ha)
Residential
Units Population Employment
Persons
Per Unit
(PPU)
Non-Res.
Floor
Space
(m2)2
Low Density 61.7 1,461 4,587 40 3.14 -
Medium
Density/Neighbourhood
Centre
46.7 2,049 4,877 78 2.43 3,650
Medium Density
Intersection 13.5 1,450 2,174 - 1.50 -
High Density/Mixed Use 6.1 901 1,352 36 1.50 1,690
Additional Lands 30.1
Total 158.1 5,861 12,990 154 5,340
1 Forecast provided by Municipality of Clarington
2 At 47m2 per worker.
Introduction and Background | 5
B. KEY DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS
The results of the analysis are advanced in nature and are intended to illustrate the
potential fiscal impact of new development on municipal budgets at full build-out of the
SHSP Area, based on the projected development. Actual impacts will be influenced by
several factors, including the cost and timing of infrastructure projects and the rate of
development.
The analysis is based on the following key inputs:
Municipality of Clarington Financial Data: actual expenditures and non-tax revenues
for 2024, as reported in the Financial Information Returns (FIRs) and municipal budget
documents, were used to establish current municipal expenditures per capita and
employment;
Current value assessments (CVAs): derived from the current assessment roll to
estimate future property tax revenues, using data from recently constructed (last ten
years) units and buildings; and
Development assumptions: derived from the Soper Hills Land Budget to estimate
future total costs and revenues.
Unless otherwise stated, all values are expressed in constant 2026 dollars.
This report is organized as follows:
Section 2 provides the analysis of the capital costs associated with the anticipated
servicing needs of the SHSP Area to build-out. Developer-funded, DC-funded, and
Municipality-funded costs are examined, as well as the long-term lifecycle costs associated
with the new infrastructure.
Section 3 examines the additional annual operating costs arising from the new
infrastructure, as well as the associated population and employment growth in the SHSP
Area.
Section 4 provides a forecast of the assessment growth and Municipality property tax
revenue potential of the SHSP Area at full build-out and compares this potential with
Municipality-wide averages.
Section 5 summarizes the long-term annual tax-supported costs and revenues associated
with the SHSP Area and provides concluding observations on the fiscal impact analysis.
Capital Cost Analysis | 6
2. CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS
The fiscal impact analysis examines growth-related capital costs to be funded through
direct developer contributions and development charges (DCs) on new development; no
non-growth shares of the project to be funded by the Municipality have been identified. The
potential long-term lifecycle costs associated with the new infrastructure is also examined.
Given that the Soper Hills Secondary Plan is a primarily greenfield development and
therefore will require net new infrastructure during the build-out, no existing infrastructure
is being replaced or upgraded during development, and therefore none of the capital costs
are allocated as replacement shares; all costs are fully development-related.
Anticipated capital costs to support growth within the SHSP Area are summarized in Table
2 and total approximately $165.0 million to full build-out of the area. These capital costs will
be paid for through a combination of development charges and local services, without the
need of property tax funding.
The Average Annual Cost values shown on Table 2 are the amounts necessary to replace
the assets at the end of useful life, providing monies to maintain assets in a state of good
repair (SOGR). To estimate the Municipality’s incremental increase in capital replacement
contributions, useful life assumptions were applied. Assumptions for long-term inflation
(2.0%) and borrowing (3.5%) were also used. The costs have been assigned against the
development as part of this fiscal impact analysis.
Table 2. Capital Cost Summary
Asset Type Gross Cost Average Annual Cost Source
Stormwater $14,490,000 $137,936 Hemson DCBS
Transportation
Services $74,906,968 $1,487,052 SHSP Area Infrastructure
Details
Recreation & Parks
Services $12,381,810 $245,803 Draft SHSP Secondary
Plan
Fire Protection
Services $6,588,949 $366,290 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Indoor Recreation
Services $45,142,697 $896,172 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Public Works $4,569,494 $219,616 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Library Services $6,964,408 $266,812 Hemson DCBS + Capital
Provision
Total $165,044,326 $3,619,682
Note: DC Study costs have been indexed to current $.
Capital Cost Analysis | 7
A. DEVELOPER FUNDED CAPITAL (LOCAL SERVICE CAPITAL)
This analysis estimates the amount of additional funding for the future lifecycle
replacement capital cost (or state of good repair costs) required as a result of the
installation of local services capital by developers. Local services capital typically includes
local roads, streetlights, and sidewalks, as well as any water, sanitary, and storm sewer
infrastructure that is internal to a development. For the purposes of this analysis, any
sanitary sewers, storm sewers and associated infrastructure along local roads are
considered to be local services capital. In addition, parkland improvements provided by
developers through Section 42 of the Planning Act is considered to be local services capital.
To estimate the Municipality’s incremental increase in capital replacement contributions,
useful life assumptions were applied. Assumptions for long-term inflation (2.0%) and
borrowing (3.5%) were also used.
This information was used to estimate an annual replacement contribution that would be
required by the end of each asset’s useful life. As shown in Table 3, the anticipated
replacement costs are estimated at approximately $1.2 million per year, which translates to
$90.42 per capita and employment when allocated across the SHSP Area development
forecast.
Table 3. Summary of Replacement Costs and Annual Tax-Supported Replacement Contribution
for Local Services Capital
Asset Type Replacement
Cost Useful Life Annual Provision Per Capita +
Employment
Municipality
Stormwater $86,115,999 90 Years $137,936 $10.49
Municipality
Transportation
Services
$142,438,826 50 Years $1,050,567 $79.93
Total $228,554,825 $1,188,503 $90.42
B. DC-FUNDED CAPITAL
For the purposes of this analysis, DC-eligible capital costs include collector and arterial
roads and related infrastructure to be developed in the SHSP Area. DC-eligible general
services capital costs have also been estimated based on service levels set out in the
Municipality’s 2025 DC Background Study.
Capital Cost Analysis | 8
Table 4 compares the total anticipated DC-eligible costs with anticipated revenues
associated with the build-out of the SHSP Area under the recently updated (2026) DC rates
imposed by the Municipality. Overall, DC revenues exceed DC costs by approximately $77.4
million.
This notional DC revenue “surplus” is primarily associated with the Municipal Road
infrastructure. As Roads and Related Infrastructure account for 59% of current Municipal
DC rates, it is the primary source of revenue from DCs in the SHSP Area during it’s build-
out. It is important to stress that development of the subject lands will generate additional
road activity which will necessitate improvements to roads across the Municipality; these
needs are reflected in Clarington’s DC Background Study.
The difference may also be due to the categorization of costs as local vs. DC-eligible
services in the analysis (it is noted that municipalities are granted some flexibility in the
determination of local services).
The development-related infrastructure needs for general services are based on the level of
service standards and capital program costs set out in the respective DC Background
Studies.
DC revenue calculations incorporate the inability of the Municipality to impose DCs for
social housing and public health as of November 28, 2022. The calculations also do not
account for DC revenue losses arising from other Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act
changes: rental housing discounts, exemptions for affordable housing, attainable housing,
non-profit housing, and inclusionary zoning, changes to historical service level calculations,
fixed interest rates on frozen DCs, and potential ineligibility of certain capital costs (e.g.
land acquisition). Any such revenue loss is assumed to be minor or indeterminable for the
SHSP Area at the present time.
Capital Cost Analysis | 9
Table 4. DC-Eligible Costs and Revenues Under Current (2026) DC Rates
DC Service Category Total Cost DC Revenues Under
Current Rates Net Revenue
Library Service $6,964,408 $6,068,024 ($896,384)
Emergency & Fire
Services $6,588,949 $3,333,841 ($3,255,108)
Parks & Indoor
Recreation $57,524,507 $59,837,552 $2,313,045
General Government $0 $2,014,619 $2,014,619
Land Acquisition $0 $223,899 $223,899
Transportation & Public
Works $26,556,467 $103,541,851 $76,985,385
Total $97,634,331 $175,019,786 $77,385,455
i. Lifecycle Costs
Once again, useful life assumptions were used to estimate the Municipal long-term
incremental increase in capital replacement contributions associated with the new DC-
funded infrastructure. As shown in Table 5, at full build-out these replacement costs are
estimated at approximately $2.4 million per year, which translates to $184.97 per capita and
employment when allocated across the SHSP Area development forecast.
Capital Cost Analysis | 10
Table 5. Summary of Replacement Costs and Annual Tax-Supported Replacement Contribution
for DC-Funded Capital
Asset Type Replacement
Cost Useful Life Annual Provision Per Capita +
Employment
Transportation
Services $59,179,873 50 Years $436,485 $33.21
Recreation &
Parks Services $33,326,732 50 Years $245,803 $18.70
Fire Protection
Services $13,429,253 10-50 Years $366,290 $27.87
Indoor Recreation
Services $121,505,544 50 Years $896,172 $68.18
Public Works $8,650,264 15-50 Years $219,616 $16.71
Library Services $16,394,915 10-50 Years $266,812 $20.30
Total $252,486,582 $2,431,179 $184.97
Operating Cost Analysis | 11
3. OPERATING COST ANALYSIS
Tax-supported operating costs arising from the construction of new developer-and DC-
funded capital, and the addition of households, people and jobs in the SHSP Area, were
estimated based on data from the Municipality and Region’s 2024 FIR, SHSP Draft Land
Budget, and projected development. Utility-supported Water and Wastewater services are
not included in this analysis.
Table 6 summarizes the gross operating costs anticipated to be associated with
development in the SHSP Area. Cost drivers were applied to FIR operating cost data net of
any amortization and interest on long-term debt. Where appropriate, costs are driven by the
planned infrastructure investments (e.g. Roads and Related, Parks), whereas many services
are considered to be driven by population growth, population and employment growth, or
household growth. For all services, incremental cost savings are common and factors of
50% and 75% were applied accordingly. The total additional annual operating cost
associated with development of the SHSP Area is calculated at approximately $9.2 million.
Table 7 summarizes the anticipated non-tax revenues and resulting net operating costs.
These non-tax revenues include grants, user fees, and service charges as per the FIR. It is
assumed that these revenues will remain consistent on a per-capita basis in the SHSP
Area. Annual non-tax revenues associated with the SHSP Area at build-out are calculated
at approximately $1.9 million.
The total net annual operating cost associated with the SHSP is approximately $7.3 million.
This translates to about $558.61 per capita and employee in the SHSP Area.
Operating Cost Analysis | 12
Table 6. Anticipated Additional Operating Costs Based on 2024 Financial Information Return
Service
Operating
Unit of Measure SHSP Area
Quantity
SHSP Area
Total Operating
Cost Cost / Unit
General
Government $35.65 Population +
Employment (50%) 13,144 $468,528
Fire $399.89 Households (75%) 5,861 $2,343,739
Protective
Inspection and
Control
$11.71 Population +
Employment (75%) 13,144 $153,963
Building Permit and
Inspection Services $60.68 Households (75%) 5,861 $355,662
Emergency
Measures $0.11 Population +
Employment (75%) 13,144 $1,390
Roads and Related $142.57 Population +
Employment (75%) 13,144 $1,873,868
Parking $4.68 Population +
Employment (75%) 13,144 $61,507
Storm - Urban $17.83 Households (75%) 5,861 $104,512
Storm - Rural $34.11 Households (75%) 5,861 $199,921
Other (Port Granby) $0.00 Households (75%) 5,861 $0
Erosion Control &
Region services $1.37 Households (75%) 5,861 $8,002
Cemeteries $8.17 Population (75%) 12,990 $106,064
Social Services $0.00 Population (75%) 12,990 $0
Parks $53.86 Population (75%) 12,990 $699,642
Recreation $144.96 Population (75%) 12,990 $1,882,978
Libraries $36.62 Population (75%) 12,990 $475,689
Museums &
Cultural Services $5.20 Population (50%) 12,990 $67,542
Planning and
Development $32.56 Population +
Employment (50%) 13,144 $427,894
Total $9,230,900
Notes: Unit costs based on 2024 FIR operating expenditures, Census estimates of population (109,379),
Households (38,265), and Draft 2025 DC Background Study estimate of employment (33,376)
Operating Cost Analysis | 13
Table 7. Anticipated Grant, User Fees, and Service Charges and Resulting Net Operating Costs
Service
SHSP
Area
Unit of Measure
SHSP
Area Total
Non-Tax
Revenues
SHSP Area
Total Net
Operating
Costs
Per Pop +
Employment Non-Tax
Revenues
Per Unit
General Government $5.40 Population +
Employment (13,144) $70,924 $397,604 $30.25
Fire $11.66 Households (5,861) $68,350 $2,275,389 $173.12
Protective
Inspection and
Control
$0.46 Population +
Employment (13,144) $6,009 $147,954 $11.26
Building Permit and
Inspection Services $0.15 Households (5,861) $883 $354,779 $26.99
Emergency
Measures $0.00 Population +
Employment (13,144) $0 $1,390 $0.11
Roads and Related $31.63 Population +
Employment (13,144) $415,732 $1,458,136 $110.94
Parking $1.44 Population +
Employment (13,144) $18,982 $42,525 $3.24
Storm - Urban $2.15 Households (5,861) $12,616 $91,896 $6.99
Storm - Rural $0.00 Households (5,861) $0 $199,921 $15.21
Other (Port Granby) $0.00 Households (5,861) $0 $0 $0.00
Erosion Control &
Region services $0.00 Households (5,861) $0 $8,002 $0.61
Cemeteries $3.16 Population (12,990) $41,078 $64,986 $4.94
Social Services $0.00 Population (12,990) $0 $0 $0.00
Parks $6.14 Population (12,990) $79,761 $619,881 $47.16
Recreation $64.86 Population (12,990) $842,583 $1,040,395 $79.16
Libraries $1.64 Population (12,990) $21,302 $454,387 $34.57
Museums & Cultural
Services $1.63 Population (12,990) $21,139 $46,403 $3.53
Planning and
Development $22.02 Population +
Employment (13,144) $289,399 $138,495 $10.54
Total $1,888,756 $7,342,144 $558.61
Revenue Analysis | 14
4. REVENUE ANALYSIS
This section describes the analysis of the future assessment, property tax revenues, and
development charge revenues in the SHSP Area.
A. ASSESSMENT
The major source of new revenue generated by new development in the SHSP Area will be
annual property taxes. To estimate future property taxes, forecasts of new residential and
non-residential assessments were prepared.
Assessed values for residential units were determined with reference to the current value
assessment (CVA) of homes constructed in Clarington between 2014 - 2024 that are of
similar quality and size to those that are likely to be constructed in the SHSP Area. Three
categories of CVAs are used to calculate residential property tax revenues: Low Density
Residential, Medium Density/Neighbourhood Centre, Medium Density Intersection, and
High Density/Mixed Use (corresponding to all Mixed-Use Area Units in the SHSP Area).
Similarly, the non-residential assessment forecasts were based on values per square metre
of gross floor area of recently constructed buildings in Clarington.
The CVAs used in the analysis are as follows:
Low Density Residential Units $500,000 per unit
Medium Density / Neighbourhood Centre $375,000 per unit
Medium Density Intersection $250,000 per unit
High Density Residential Units $250,000 per unit
Non-Residential Buildings $3,200 per sq.m.
B. MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
The property tax revenue forecasts at build out of the SHSP Area were developed by
applying the current (2026) Municipal tax rates for the applicable land classes to the
projected assessments. The projected total of non-residential floor area in the SHSP Area
is estimated based on an assumed average space requirement of 47 square metres per
worker. Based on the projection of 154 new jobs within the SHSP Area, total non-residential
floor area is estimated at 5,340 square metres at full build-out.
Revenue Analysis | 15
As shown in Table 8, the total CVA of new buildings within the SHSP Area is forecast at
approximately $2.1 billion, primarily associated with Medium Density / Neighbourhood
Centre Residential Development (~$768.4 million) and Low Density Residential
Development (~$730.5 million). After applying the Municipality’s 2026 tax rates to each
property class, total annual Municipal property tax revenue is calculated at approximately
$10.5 million, or an average of $801.55 per person or employment in the area (see Table 9).
Table 8. Summary of Annual Municipal Tax Revenues at Build Out
Land Use Forecast Assessment
(2026)
Total
Assessment
Municipal
Tax Rate
(2026)
Annual
Municipal
Tax
Revenue
Per Unit
/ m2
Residential Units Per Unit
Low Density 1461 $500,000 $730,500,000 0.00485458 $3,546,271 $2,427.29
Medium
Density/
Neighbourhood
Centre
2,049 $375,000 $768,375,000 0.00485458 $3,730,138 $1,820
Medium
Density
Intersection
1,450 $250,000 $362,500,000 0.00534004 $1,935,765 $1,335
High
Density/Mixed
Use
901 $250,000 $225,250,000 0.00534004 $1,202,844 $1,335
Non-
Residential m2 Per m2
Population-
Related 5,340 3,200 $17,086,635 0.00703914 $120,275 $22.53
Total $2,103,711,635 $10,535,292
Generally, development of the SHSP Area is anticipated to generate higher taxation
revenues per capita and employment than the most recent (2024) Municipality-wide
averages (see Table 9). This reflects the higher assessed values of newer homes, which are
typically larger and constructed with more modern materials and amenities. The
significantly higher non-residential assessment per employee reflects the anticipated high
quality of non-residential building and jobs planned for SHSP.
Revenue Analysis | 16
Table 9. Municipal Property Tax Revenue Comparison with Municipality Average
SHSP Area Municipal Average (2024)
Annual
Revenue
Per
Capita/Job Annual Revenue Per Capita/Job
Residential $10,415,017 $801.77 $65,623,144.00 $603.37
Non-Residential $120,275 $783.00 $10,435,421.00 $321.32
Total $10,535,292 $801.55 $76,058,565.00 $538.51
C. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVENUE
Table 10 summarizes the development charge revenue that would be generated up to full
build-out of the SHSP Area, using current (2026) development charge rates.
The development charge revenue calculations assume 50% of High-Density Residential
development will be in two-bedroom or larger apartments with the remaining 50% of
developed units being one-bedroom or smaller apartments. The applied calculations also
account for the inability of the Municipality to impose DCs for social housing and public
health.
The calculations do not account for DC revenue loss arising from the following changes
arising from the More Homes Built Faster Act 2022: rental housing discounts, exemptions
for affordable housing, attainable housing, non-profit housing, and inclusionary zoning,
changes to historical service level calculations, fixed interest rates on frozen DCs, and
potential ineligibility of certain capital costs (e.g. land acquisition). Any such revenue loss is
assumed to be minor or indeterminable for the SHSP Area at the present time.
Revenue Analysis | 17
Table 10. Development Charge Revenue Generated in SHSP (Current Rates)
Residential Non-Residential
Low
Density
Medium
Density/Neighbourhood
Centre
Medium Density
Intersection
High
Density/Mixed
Use
Medium
Density/Neighbourhood
Centre
High
Density/Mixed
Use
Total
Municipal DCs
Library Service $2,159,358 $2,487,486 $876,525 $544,655 $0 $0 $6,068,024
Emergency & Fire
Services $1,176,105 $1,352,340 $477,050 $296,429 $15,959 $15,959 $3,333,841
Parks & Indoor
Recreation $21,298,458 $24,522,432 $8,644,900 $5,371,762 $0 $0 $59,837,552
Operations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
General
Government $710,046 $817,551 $287,825 $178,849 $10,174 $10,174 $2,014,619
Land Acquisition $78,894 $90,156 $31,900 $19,822 $1,563 $1,563 $223,899
Services Related to
a Highway $36,332,148 $41,830,335 $14,746,500 $9,163,170 $734,849 $734,849 $103,541,851
Total SHSP Area
DC Revenue $61,755,009 $71,100,300 $25,064,700 $15,574,686 $762,545 $762,545 $175,019,786
.
Summary of Fiscal Impact | 18
5. SUMMARY OF FISCAL IMPACT
Table 11 provides an overall summary of the estimated fiscal impacts associated with the
full build-out of the SHSP Area. Revenues are projected at $802 per capita and employment
per year, while expenditures are estimated at $834, resulting in an annual deficit of
approximately $32 per capita and employment, or a -4.0% difference. This result indicates
that the SHSP development will likely be fiscally neutral, and thus additional revenues
(largely property taxes and development charges) should generally cover the additional
municipal costs generated by the development, especially if the development exceeds the
targets used in this analysis.
Table 11. Overall Findings
Revenue or Expenses Total Amount $/Person &
Employee
Revenue
Assessment $10,535,292 $802
Sub-Total Revenue $10,535,292 $802
Expenses
Developer Constructed Assets - AMP
Contribution $1,188,503 $90
DC Funded Assets - AMP Contribution $2,431,179 $185
Municipal-Funded Assets - AMP
Contribution $0 $0
Net Operating Impacts $7,342,144 $559
Sub-Total Expenses $10,961,825 $834
Net Difference ($) ($426,533) ($32)
Net Difference (%) -4.05% -3.99%
Before reviewing the key implications, it is important to reiterate that the main purpose of
the analysis is to inform decisions regarding the Soper Hills Secondary Plan as it relates to
the Soper Hills Area. The fiscal impact analysis results should not be viewed as precise
forecasts of what will occur at full build-out of the SHSP Area.
The results point to incremental operating cost efficiencies within the SHSP Area. Due to
economies of scale arising from the high density and localized nature of development, the
cost to service new residents and employees is expected to be lower on a per capita basis
than the cost to services existing populations. As well, the relatively high assessed values of
Summary of Fiscal Impact | 19
new apartment units, commercial, and institutional developments in the SHSP Area are
expected to generate higher property taxes per capita/employee than existing development
in the Municipality. Overall, the SHSP Area is anticipated to be fiscally sustainable over the
long-term.
That said, several areas of caution must be noted:
First, the analysis assumes full municipal funding of new infrastructure lifecycle costs.
In reality, contributions toward lifecycle funding for existing infrastructure may not
currently meet 100% of calculated needs. Moreover, infrastructure renewal
requirements are expected to grow as existing infrastructure ages and is adapted to
address climate change.
Second, the fiscal projections of development charge revenue assume the use of the
Municipality’s recently-passed development charge rates, but do not account for the
anticipated passage of new DC by-laws during the build-out period. Therefore, the total
SHSP Area DC revenue is likely to exceed estimates when new rates are inevitably
implemented. In addition, any future legislative changes that restrict the ability to levy
development charges could materially affect the financial outlook set out in this report
negatively.
Finally, the fiscal impact analysis evaluates the fiscal impact at full build-out of the SHSP
Area. However, costs associated with financing SHSP Area infrastructure—such as debt
costs incurred to cover servicing expenditures prior to development—are not included in the
analysis.
Attachment 5 to Report PDS-036-26
Page 1 of 12
Agency Comment Summary Table
Hydro One
June 18, 2025
Thank you for sending us notification regarding Soper Hills
Secondary Plan and Integrated EA. In our assessment, we
confirm there are no existing Hydro One Transmission assets in
the subject
area.
If plans for the undertaking change or the study area expands
beyond that shown, please contact Hydro One to assess impacts
of existing or future planned electricity infrastructure.
Any future communications are sent to
Secondarylanduse@hydroone.com.
Be advised that any changes to lot grading and/or drainage within
proximity to Hydro One transmission corridor lands must be
Ontario
Conservation
Authority
July 30, 2025
General Comments - Secondary Plan
“In addition to these policies, the Soper Creek Subwatershed
Study shall form the basis for all studies related to the natural
heritage system. While more detailed studies may be conducted
to refine and/or confirm the presence of specific features on a
site-by-site basis, they must adhere to the recommendations
outlined in the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study and address all
issues identified within.”
addition to these policies, the Soper
Creek Subwatershed Study shall form the
basis for any study undertaken regarding
the natural heritage system and natural
hazards. While more detailed studies and
staking of natural features and natural
hazards including flooding and erosion
may refine and/or confirm development
limits as well as the presence of features
on a site by site basis based on the
recommendations from the Soper Creek
Subwatershed Study, these studies must
Page 2 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
and address all issues identified within".
Subsections under section 6.4 are wrongly numbered. They are
numbered as 6.5.1, 6.5.2 and so on within the current draft.
flood control facilities, has been removed from the current draft.
Given that the Soper Creek Subwatershed Study
recommendations have not been finalized, staff recommend
previous condition 11.3.10 continue to be included as a
Secondary Plan policy at this time. Staff also recommend the
addition of the “to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington
11.3.10) to reference flood control
facilities and “to the satisfaction of the
Municipality of Clarington and CLOCA”.
Please add “to create an overall net benefit to the Natural
Schedule Comments
not shown consistently. The conceptual trail crosses through
several environmentally sensitive areas which will need further
study through a Master Trails Plan. As such, all trails should be
labelled as ‘conceptual’ at this time, and subject to further study.
the Schedule is intended to illustrate
general connectivity rather than precise
locations. Trail routes, especially near
environmental features, may be adjusted
in the future as additional information is
reviewed during the development review
environmental constraints along Highway 2. If the intent is to
create a consolidated Regional Mixed Use Corridor and consider
these ‘fingers’ of EPA areas to be potentially removed, then all
areas that may be removed should be outlined as an “Additional
Area of Further Study” to appropriately delineate the extent of the
EPA. Future compensation areas within the Soper Creek
as Additional Areas of Further Study to
address the fingers and existing land
uses. The Vegetation Protection Zone
shown within this area was an error and
has been removed.
Page 3 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
Schedule B: Headwater Drainage features to be retained for
‘protection’ or conservation’ should be added to Schedule A
accordingly.
Features (HDF's), including those
identified for protection or conservation,
are intentially shown on Schedule B as
part of the Environmental Constraints
overlays. Schedule A illustrates land use
drainage plans. The following comment, made on the previous
circulation of the Conceptual Site Grading Figure (TYLin,
September 2024) and the Conceptual Storm Drainage Area
Figure (TYLin, May 2024), should be considered when preparing
Regional Floodplain Limits appear to coincide in an area where a
future SWM pond is proposed on the Conceptual Site Grading
Figure SG01. The location of the proposed pond does not
conform to policy item 6.3.3, which states: Stormwater
management ponds, except for the outfall, shall not be permitted
to be developed on lands designated as Environmental Protection
Area or within the vegetation protection zones of an
presents only general SWM Pond
locations and sizing criteria reflecting the
SP Policies and SWS study
recommendations. The PMER is not
intended to establish the footprint of the
potential SWM facilities.
June 6, 2025 however, we reserve the right to amend or remove development
conditions. This response does not signify an approval for the
site/development.
Please continue to forward all municipal circulations and
clearance letter requests electronically to
Ridge District
School Board
Draft Schedule A – Land Use Plan
location of the school sites identified on Schedule A to the Soper
Page 4 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan
7.3.1 - KPR and PVNC are satisfied with the number and general
location of the school sites identified on Schedule A to the Soper
7.3.2 School sites will be developed in accordance with the
relevant policies of Section 18.5 of the Clarington Official Plan.
Section 18.5.1 indicates that the minimum elementary school site
area should be approximately 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres). This site
area would support a school with 500 to 600 pupil spaces;
however, it should be noted that modern schools include
integrated childcare centres, and as such, additional space is
required to accommodate larger buildings, play spaces, parking,
and traffic movements. Therefore, the location of the school sites
adjacent to neighbourhood parks will be critical in ensuring that
there is enough land to accommodate the elements of the school
noted above. Section 18.5.2 outlines several design parameters
that should be considered when schools are sited, which appear
to be consistent with the secondary plan, and would meet the
of Education capital funding for new school builds and additions
typically includes funding for child care spaces. Therefore, KPR
and PVNC suggest that child care centres be included in this
section. However, if child care centres are to be considered as
part of Section 8, the Boards suggest that wording be included to
indicate that school sites must be appropriately sized and
configured to address the needs of the school(s) and child care
and configuration of each school site shall
be to the satisfaction of the School Board
and the Municipality. If a school site
includes a child care centre, the site shall
be appropriately sized and configured to
address the needs of the school and the
child care centre.”
Page 5 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
Draft Urban Design & Sustainability Guidelines, May 2025
4.6.1 Item 1 indicates that “three storey buildings located close to
the street are encouraged to minimize land required and provide a
more compact building site”.
KPR and PVNC have concerns that this language may place
unnecessary and costly restrictions on the development of the
site. Further, the Ministry of Education requires Boards to build
“repeat design” schools from a predetermined catalogue of
designs. Without understanding the site configuration and size
together with the design of the school, KPR and PVNC are
concerned that this language will restrict our ability to design safe
and efficient sites. We would therefore suggest that the section be
re-worded as follows:
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
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.
4.6.2 Item 2 indicates that elementary schools are encouraged to
be co-located with parks to facilitate the sharing of play facilities
and parking.
4.6.3 Item 3 indicates that schools should be located close to the
street to help define the street and create prominence.
KPR and PVNC supports this item in principle. However, due to
the Ministry of Education’s requirement to build repeat designs,
together with unknown site size and configuration, student safety,
etc. it may not always be possible to locate schools close to the
4.6.4 Item 4 indicates that schools should be designed with high
quality finishes, and architectural details.
Page 6 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
While KPR and PVNC believe this objective has merit, funding for
the construction of new schools is provided by the Ministry of
Education through the Capital Priorities Program. The funding is
based on square footage formulation, which does not consider
costs associated with “high quality finishes and architectural
designs”. While the Boards would endeavor to ensure that the
school building is consistent with the architectural design of the
4.6.5 Item 5 indicates that the front door should face the main
street and be directly accessible from the public sidewalk.
4.6.6 Item 6 indicates that 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.
In reference to Items 5 and 6, the Boards agree in principle –
however, due to the Ministry of Education’s requirement to build
repeat designs, together with unknown site size and configuration,
4.6.7 Item 7 indicates that rooftop mechanical equipment should
be screen from view through a parapet wall or complementary
materials.
Similar to item 4, KPR and PVNC believe this objective has merit;
however, funding for the construction of new schools is provided
by the Ministry of Education through the Capital Priorities
Program. The funding is based on square footage formulation,
which does not consider costs associated with these type of
design elements. While the Boards would endeavor to meet this
4.6.8 Item 8 indicates that schools should be designed to ensure
safe cycling and pedestrian access and crossing. Students should
Noted.
Page 7 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
parking and drop off areas.
KPR and PVNC support Item 8.
Region of
Durham
August 1, 2025
Draft Soper Hills Secondary Plan
per gross hectare. Please consider reviewing this minimum with
regard to the overall minimum density target for designated
greenfield areas of 53 people and jobs per hectare (see ROP
5.4.5.1). A higher minimum density target may be expected, given
the land use policies and market conditions.
-Based on the land budget included on page 17 of the Soper Hills
Secondary Plan Preferred Land Use Alternative Report, it appears
that a density of approximately 60 people and jobs per gross
developable hectare (see ROP 5.4.7 for density methodology) is
anticipated.
-If there is an updated land budget available, this could be helpful
for tracking how future development applications align with
persons and jobs per hectare.
will be required along Regional Highway 2 to protect its role as
the principal transportation route through Soper Hills (as per
Policy 3.1.5). Minimizing the number of entrances along Regional
Highway 2 is essential to allow for safe and attractive active
transportation circulation (as per Policy 3.1.7), ensure that transit
stops can be placed in the most appropriate locations, and reduce
the potential for access related collisions. We are concerned that
the fragmented property ownership and generally small lot depths
along Regional Highway 2 will result in multiple accesses
remaining even after the existing properties redevelop, particularly
given the planned mix of land uses. Consideration should be
given to strengthening Policy 3.1.6 to require (rather than
encourage) parcel consolidation and shared access.
and there will be limited opportunities to
provide access via sideroads given
existing development patterns and
constraints. Typo has been corrected.
Policy 3.1.6 revised to include “As
development occurs, access
management shall prioritize shared
access and cross-access easements.”
Page 8 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
easements should also be considered to allow multiple properties
along Regional Highway 2 to have access via the sideroads
and/or consolidated access points. (There is also a typo in this
require or encourage consolidated/shared access or rear lane
access for development along arterial and collector road
corridors. These measures would help to minimize the number of
direct vehicular access points to these roads to improve safety
and comfort for active transportation users and to enhance road
occurs along arterial and collector road
corridors, access management shall
prioritize consolidated and shared access,
cross-access easements, and, where
appropriate, rear lane access.”
comments on the Soper Hills Draft Secondary Plan and the
Transportation Assessment by TYLin (November 2024), we
questioned why all cycling facilities within the collector road rights-
of-way are identified as in-boulevard multi-use paths. Selection of
the appropriate cycling facility type in each corridor is key to safe
operations. Given the number of residential driveways that would
exist in low density and potentially medium density land uses
along the collector roads, plus unsignalized intersections, an on-
street bicycle lane may be more appropriate for these roads and
better meet the OTM Book 18 guidelines for cycling facility
design. While we recognize these planned cycling facilities are
not components of the Regional Cycling Plan’s Primary Cycling
Network and are on roads under Clarington jurisdiction, it is
suggested that the cycling facility type for the collector roads be
reviewed in the Soper Hills Secondary Plan and Urban Design
Guideline cross-sections given the adjacent land uses and
number of driveways planned, or the symbology for Multi-Use
Path be changed to a more generic description (e.g., planned
cycling facility). By comparison, the collector roads in the Soper
the Municipality’s preferred facility type for
collector roads within this secondary plan
area. It is noted that the specific cycling
facility treatment along individual collector
roads will be further reviewed and refined
through future development applications.
Page 9 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
as sections with Medium Density (fewer driveways) or limited
direct low density frontage, thereby making an in-boulevard MUP
the primary consideration for the location and design of road
crossings. Active transportation route crossings of arterial roads
should be planned to occur at signalized intersections,
roundabouts, or controlled mid-block locations wherever feasible.
Active
transportation connections across barriers
(natural and related to infrastructure) shall
be planned to occur at signalized
intersections, roundabouts, or controlled
mid-block locations wherever feasible and
at appropriate walking/cycling intervals to
reduce barriers between areas and
increase accessibility for all ages and
abilities.”
Highway 2 indicated by the small black arrow west of Providence
Road. As per the Arterial Road Criteria in Table 5 of the Regional
Official Plan (and Appendix C of the Clarington Official Plan), the
Region does not support direct local road access to our Type B
Arterials. We are concerned that including this potential
connection in the Secondary Plan creates the impression that it
would acceptable when there has been no assessment to
demonstrate a need for the connection or determine whether it
could be accommodated without creating safety or traffic
operations issues.
-We recommend that all of the “potential local road connections”
shown along Lambs Road, which is also a Type B Arterial, should
local road connection to Regional
Highway 2.
Policy 9.3.10 added: “Local Roads
generally shall not be permitted to
intersect with Arterial Roads, unless the
Municipality and/or Region are satisfied
such intersections will not cause an
undue safety risk to drivers, pedestrians
and cyclists and will not unduly
compromise arterial road operations.”.
for adequate sight distances as noted in our comments on the
Transportation Assessment Report. Some intersection locations
shown on Schedule B may require adjustment to ensure that sight
“Arterial Road intersection locations
shown on Schedule B may be refined
through draft plan of subdivision and
Page 10 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
distance criteria, without amendment to
this Secondary Plan.”
As noted in the above comment on Policy 9.5.3, multi-use paths
may not be the most appropriate cycling facility along every road
corridor. Consider changing the symbology for Multi-Use Path to a
lands along the north side of Regional Highway 2 west of the
north-south collector road, while Schedule A shows this whole
area as “High Density/Mixed Use Regional Corridor”. The two
schedules should be consistent with each other. If Schedule B is
accurate, the relatively small and disconnected parcels available
for development in this area may not support the intended land
study.
Urban Design Guidelines (SGL, May 2025)
Secondary Plan above, direct local road connections to Type B
Arterial roads should be avoided. The Demonstration Plan should
be revised to show access to development blocks along Type B
Arterials via Collector roads. The local road connection to
Regional Highway 2 west of Providence Road is to be removed
and replaced with additional internal, local roads that provide
Draft Secondary Plan
Soper Creek Subwatershed Study, and the Clarington Official Subwatershed Study”.
added to the current draft. Given CLOCA’s authority within the satisfaction of the Municipality of
Page 11 of 12
Agency Details of Submissions Staff Response
addition of the “to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington
and CLOCA” to the policy text.
Region of
Durham
February 6, 2026
(repeated from
previously received letters, including comments on Functional
Servicing Report and Transportation Assessment Report)
Technical report comments have been
addressed in Preliminary Municipal
Engineering Report, which indicates that
the Secondary Plan can be serviced. The
Transportation Assessment Report will be
Ridge District
School Board and
Peterborough
Victoria
Northumberland
and Clarington
Catholic District
School Board
March 11, 2026
and the Ministry of Education requirement for “repeat design”
schools with a capacity of approximately 500 pupil places, a total
of three (3) school sites are required within the Soper Hills
Secondary Plan area. The Boards note that they were previously
satisfied with the number and general location of the school sites,
but have since reviewed refinements to land uses, housing form,
and densities, as well as the alternative location proposed by the
landowners. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 20/98
(Education Development Charges – General) and the
Municipality’s Official Plan, the Boards confirm that elementary
school sites should be approximately 5–6 acres (2.5 hectares) in
size.
The Boards do not support the alternative school site location, as
it may be subject to grading concerns and does not meet the
criteria outlined in KPR Administrative Regulation BA-6.5.3
(Purchase of Real Estate). Further, the Boards do not agree that
three schools would represent an over-supply of institutional land,
noting that area schools are at or above capacity and are
projected to remain so over the long term. While this represents
the Boards’ best analysis based on available information, they
acknowledge that accommodation needs may change as
development proceeds and more detailed information becomes
available. Accordingly, the Boards request that the three school