HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-001 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2013-001
being a By-law to adopt Amendment No. 88 to the Clarington Official Plan
WHEREAS Section 17 (22) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, authorizes
the Municipality of Clarington to pass by-laws for the adopt or repeal of Official Plans
and Amendments thereto;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems
it advisable to amend the Clarington Official Plan to permit the development of a four
storey, 19 unit apartment building at 2640 Trulls Road, Courtice;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the
Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. That Amendment No. 88 to the Clarington Official Plan being the attached
Explanatory Text is hereby adopted.
2. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of the passing
hereof.
BY-LAW passed in open session this 14th day of January, 2013.
v
Patti L.'Barri, Municipal Clerk
AMENDMENT NO. 88
TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan is to provide for an increase in residential density to
accommodate the development of a four storey, 19-unit residential
apartment building on lands within the Emily Stowe Neighbourhood
of the Courtice Urban Area.
LOCATION: The subject site is municipally known as 2640 Trulls Road South,
Courtice, which is located on the west side of Trulls Road, south of
Strathallan Drive and north of Sandringham Drive. The site is
within Block 3, Plan 40M-1822 and is located within part of Lot 31,
Concession 2, in the Former Township of Darlington, Municipality of
Clarington.
BASIS: This amendment is based on the resolution of the General Purpose
and Administration Committee on January 7, 2013 with respect to
Official Plan Amendment application COPA 2011-0004.
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT: The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended by:
i) amending Map A2, as indicated on Exhibit "A "attached to
this amendment as follows,
a) adding an "H" High Density Residential Symbol;
amending Map H1, as indicated on Exhibit "B" attached to
this amendment as follows:
a) changing the population of the Emily Stowe
Neighbourthood from 6100 to 6150 and;
amending Table 9-2 as indicated by :
a) adjusting the housing targets for the Courtice, Emily
Stowe Neighbourhood (N8) Housing Targets as
follows:
i. High Density Units from 0 to 25
ii. Total Units from 2300 to 2325
iii. Amending all corresponding totals.
IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan, as amended regarding implementation of the
Plan shall apply to this Amendment.
INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the
Plan shall apply to this Amendment.
Exhibit "A"
Amendment No. 88 To the Munk,,Ipality of Clarington Official Plan,
Map A2, Land Use, Courtice Urban Area
%*■
■ ■o•
SPECIAL POLICY
AREA F MEMO
�■u ■ ir
O
NP
ADD HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL SYMBOL
t
@!J'
NASH ROAD
O
CP J
' � O
ON Ir*mph E
O � ■
M
4
D
�
Q
Q
O
O
N
J
w
V
J
�
H
H
�
O
V
Exhibit "B"
Amendment No. 88 To the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan,
Map 1-11, Neighbourhood Planning Units, Courtice Urban Area
3
WORDEN
(3900)
10
DARLINGTON
(2400)
9
PENFOUND
(3950)
11
BAYVIEW
(4500)
12
FAREWELL
HEIGHTS
4
HIGHLAND
(4100)
A
8
0
0
0
0
6
5 HANCOCK
GLENVIEW 1 (2900)
POPULATION FROM
(6100) TO (6150)
c
HIGHWAY 40}
0
I
MAP H1
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING UNITS
COURTICE URBAN AREA
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
JANUARY 1,2010
REFER TO SECTIONS 6 AND 9
N
• URBAN BOUNDARY
O NEIGHBOURHOOD BOUNDARY
(1000) POPULATION
(') SEE SECTION 17.6
0 260 520 1,040 1,560 2,080
iiiiiiQ Metres
LAKE ONTARIO
IZ
�r� A
rorI
0
0
0
1
TOWN
CENTR E
$
(600)
EMILY STOWE
(6150)
7
AVONDALE
(3600)
POPULATION FROM
(6100) TO (6150)
c
HIGHWAY 40}
0
I
MAP H1
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING UNITS
COURTICE URBAN AREA
OFFICIAL PLAN
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
JANUARY 1,2010
REFER TO SECTIONS 6 AND 9
N
• URBAN BOUNDARY
O NEIGHBOURHOOD BOUNDARY
(1000) POPULATION
(') SEE SECTION 17.6
0 260 520 1,040 1,560 2,080
iiiiiiQ Metres
LAKE ONTARIO
IZ
�r� A
rorI
0
0
0
ISSUE DATE:
October 30, 2013 1 1 PL130125
Ontario
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de I'Ontario
IN THE MATTER OF subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as
amended
Appellant: Donna Lanigan
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA# 88
Municipality: Town of Clarington
OMB Case No: PL130125
OMB File No: PL130125
IN THE MATTER OF subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as
amended
Appellant: Donna Lanigan
Subject: By-law No. 2013-002
Municipality: Town of Clarington
OMB Case No: PL130125
OMB File No: PL130126 r,-vic""' , ,,
1
i
CI C'1iG,:lI
APPEARANCES :
i•:Ir',1'i',; s s C, ,
Parties Counsel ,o (;( , , Fy
Donna Lanigan
Municipality of Clarington Andrew Allison
a
b
1351739 Ontario Limited Laura Bisset
DECISION DELIVERED BY J.E. SNIEZEK AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
[1] At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Municipality of Clarington
("Municipality") informed the Board that he would not be playing a role in the hearing
and that counsel for the applicant would be carrying the case forward. He also informed
the Board that the planner, Carlo Pellarin, who was subpoenaed by the appellant, was
- 2 - PL130125
not the correct person to run the simulation model requested by the appellant. Ruth
Porras would be proffered to run the model as requested by the appellant.
[2] 1351739 Ontario Limited applied to amend the Official Plan of the Municipality by
adding the High Density Residential symbol and making corresponding adjustments to
population to the Emily Stowe Neighbourhood as per Official Plan Amendment No. 88
("OPA") and also to amend the Zoning By-law 84-63 from C.2.5 Neighbourhood
Commercial Zone to R4-33 (Urban Residential Type 4 Zone) that will provide for a four-
storey, 19 unit apartment building. The amendments were approved by the Municipality
and this resulted in the approval of OPA No. 88 and Zoning By-law 2013-002.
[3] Donna Lanigan, an abutting homeowner, filed appeals to the OPA and the
Zoning By-law. She, along with two participants, Patricia Long and Jennifer Wooler-
Foster, appeared to present their concerns. The issues raised included the almost
unanimous opposition by the neighbouring property owners, and site specific concerns
related to traffic, parking, parkland, privacy, noise, lights from cars, impact upon
property values, and preferred option was the former medical office approved for the
site. They collectively feel that the development is over-development of the site — like
an elephant in a duck's pond. The adequacy of transit was also mentioned by Ms.
Lanigan. Ms. Lanigan also put forward the Board's decision in PL101293.
[4] The Board heard evidence from Glenn Genge, consulting planner retained by the
applicant; Seo-Woon Im, consulting traffic engineer retained by the applicant; Mr.
Pellarin; a planner from Clarington, who appeared in support of the application and was
responsible for the planning report on the application.
THE LAW
[5] Applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law must conform to the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, must be consistent with the Provincial
Policy Statement, and must represent "good planning".
- 3 - PL130125
FINDINGS OF THE BOARD
[6] The Board will deal with the OPA.
[7] The planners were of the opinion that "High Density Residential" would be
appropriate for the site which is located on an arterial road. It is located in the central
area which is exactly the kind of place where intensification is encouraged. It is
compatible with the abutting townhome development and meets the criteria for high
density. The scale and massing is appropriate; lighting and amenity areas are provided
and traffic impacts are minimal. There is transit available and shopping is close by.
There are no balconies proposed and the building will act as a shield for traffic noise for
existing residences to the rear.
[8] The Board must have regard to council's decision on the matter in accordance
with s. 2.1 of the Planning Act.
[9] The Board has carefully reviewed the documentation presented and notes the
following:
1) The Clarington Official Plan contains criteria for the location of high
density housing.
2) The Planning Report and Planning Justification Report indicate that the
criteria for the location of high density residential is a location on King
Street (the site is approximately 200 m from King Street) and in a "Village
Centre"; the site is across the street from the Courtice Village Centre.
3) The schedule on p. 143 of Exhibit 1, indicates that this would be the only
high density residential building in the area, all the higher density
designations are M (Medium Density). The Board notes that Exhibit 6
"Land Use and Precinct— Courtice Town Centre" only includes Residential
Medium Density with four and six storey height permissions.
4) The reasons for the high density include economic viability (Exhibit 1 p.
238d), the site can accommodate the building, and that the height of the
building is only four storeys. The rental nature of the occupancy is also
mentioned.
- 4 - PL130125
[10] The Board questions why the criteria are in the Plan if they are going to be
ignored. The Board finds that the high density development is not in keeping with the
context or the criteria set out in the Official Plan. Economic viability is not an adequate
"planning reason" for ignoring the criteria in the Official Plan. The density standards
replicated on p. 208 of Exhibit 1 refer to both density and height are to be applied to the
High Density Residential designation. The Board notes that medium density
development of a maximum height of four storeys and 60 units per hectare would be
acceptable (this would result in a three-storey 12 unit building). This would reduce the
impact upon the neighbours and would lower the building by one floor.
[11] The Board finds that the proposed high density proposal is unacceptable, given
the policy regime and criteria for high density residential development that must be
located in a "Village Centre" or be located on King Street.
[12] The Board allows the appeal and refuses the amendment. Given the decision to
allow the appeal and refuse the amendment, and given By-laws must conform to the
Official Plan, it is not necessary to address the zoning by-law component of this appeal;
it too must fail.
ORDER
[13] The Board orders that the appeal is allowed and Official Plan Amendment No. 88
to the Clarington Official Plan is not approved.
"J.E. Sniezek"
J.E. SNIEZEK
MEMBER