The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-002 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2013-002 being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2011-0017; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1 2 Section 15.4 "SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS — URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE FOUR (R4) ZONE" is hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception 15.4.33 as follows: "15.4.33 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R4-33) ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 j. iv. and vi. 3.13, 3.16 a., 3.21 a., 15.2 a), b), c), g), h), i), those lands zoned R4-33 shall be subject to the following zone provisions: a) Density (maximum) b) Lot Frontage (minimum) C) Yard Requirements (minimum) i) Front Yard ii) Interior Side Yard (southerly) iii) Interior Side Yard (northerly) iv) Rear Yard d) Building Height (maximum) e) Balconies are not permitted in the R4-33 Zone. 19 units 65 metres 3.0 metres 2.5 metres 32.0 metres 7.0 metres 13.6 metres f) No structure, hedge or obstruction, including a parking space, that is more than 0.75 metres in height is permitted within 1 metre of any street line where such structure, hedge or obstruction will impede vision between a height of 0.75 metres and 2.5 metres above the centerline grade of an access from any improved street to any lot. g) No loading space is required. h) A minimum of 27 parking spaces shall be provided. Schedule "4" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Neighbourhood Commercial Exception (C2- 5) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R4-33) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto. 3. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34and 36 of the Planning Act. BY-LAW passed in open session this 14th day of January, 2013. FQ, F,,Mayor Path arr ,Municipal Clerk This is Schedule ' to By-law 2013- oo2 3 -passed this 14th day of January . 3 20.13 A.D. N N L co L 1 C_ M� W 49 47 45 43 49 39 2658 CU O IY LL I- I ® . Zoning Change From "C2-5"TO "(H)R4-33" Adrian e ter,Mayor PBaMunicipal Clerk 11111 logo _��1Ion' -1111111111111►P•_-- �... -.: -•11�� IIIIIIIIIIII •� �I�,��„ —11.11 •`IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII \II �� pp p /� ��__. �II�:�� _ �IIIIIIIIII =__ ___ 1!%— ■h_ =_ _ —� — —_= 1 IIIgIIIII11111I11 ==� ___:. X111111111 .� /�- � -- -- -- �ii� �um�,►� � .- - ��: ��_ 1 .11111 11111111 ��.� ��11111111 1111111,;. • -TICE V., `` � ` _ x:!!11INI 1111111!�i�IC :�I��I sa�.W` i��l��:� 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