HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-88-95DN: OP. GPA THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: Council File #
Date: September 14 & 15, 1995
Res. #
Report #:
PD -88 -95 File #: By -law #
Subject: RESPONSES TO PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
ON THE CLARINGTON DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -88 -95 be received;
2. THAT the appended Public Consultation Report No. 7, and the
recommendations contained therein, be approved for inclusion
into the Recommended Clarington Official Plan to be brought
forward to Council for consideration and approval; and
3. THAT all delegations be acknowledged and thanked for their
inputs and be notified of Council's decision.
1. INTRODUCTION:
1.1 The preparation of a new Clarington Official Plan commenced in
February of 1992. One key objective of the Municipality was to
encourage broad participation in preparing a new official plan.
A variety of mechanisms have been employed to encourage the
participation of residents, landowners and community groups. A
series of newsletters have been released throughout the process.
In the first phase, the Municipality undertook a public
attitudes survey which was sent to each home in the
Municipality. Most importantly, there has been a series of open
houses and public meetings at each stage of the preparation of
a new official plan. In total, the Municipality received 241
verbal and written submissions for the first two phases of the
Official Plan preparation process.
...2
REPORT PD-88-95
1.2 In May of 1994, a draft Official Plan was RELEASED by the
Municipality for review and discussion. A series of open houses
was held at four centres in mid -June of 1994. In late June,
there was a series of Public Meetings at which 38 verbal
submissions were made. Subsequently, 119 written submissions
have been made on the Draft Official Plan. All written
submissions are reproduced in a three volume Public Consultation
Report No. 5 which were forwarded to members of Council earlier.
Agency's comments are contained in Consultation Report No. 6.
2. PURPOSE:
The purpose of the appended Public Consultation Report No. 7 is
to present staff responses and recommendations to the
submissions made on the Draft Clarington Official Plan.
3. THE PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS:
3.1 Of the 119 submissions made to
majority of the submissions ar
locations are identified on the
purposes. (Attachment No. 1)
the Draft Official Plan, a
e property- related. Their
attached maps for reference
3.2 During the course of reviewing all the submissions, several
things became obvious:
a) Many submissions touched on the same subject matters with
either divergent or similar viewpoints.
b) Some submissions are in excess of several typed pages and
touched on the many issues contained in the Draft Official
Plan.
C) Some submissions are ambiguous.
d) In some instances, the submitters made several submissions
on the same issues or property.
...3
REPORT NO.: PD -88 -95 PAGE 3
3.3 As a result of the above, it became necessary to do the
following:
a) Meet with the submitters where necessary to seek
clarification. In total, about 100 meetings have been
held;
b) Group those submissions that deal with common issues.
4. PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT NO. 7:
4.1 In consideration of the large volume of submissions; the
complexity of the issues raised; as well as the varying nature
of the submissions, it is not possible to arrive at
recommendations that would address each and every issue raised
by the submitter. Notwithstanding, every submission has been
reviewed in detail. For each submission, the issues were
summarized with brief comments and recommendations. These are
found in tabular chart form in the appendix of the Report.
4.2 With regard to common issues that were raised in two or more
submissions, the issues are grouped under the following sections
with more detailed comments and recommendations:
• Growth Management Issues
• Environmental Issues
0 Urban Issues
0 Waterfront Issues
• Rural Issues
• Transportation Issues
• Implementation and Interpretation Issues
The recommendations are highlighted throughout the Report and
are grouped together for quick reference at the beginning of the
Report.
5. PUBLIC NOTICE:
5.1 To ensure the public will have the opportunity to address
Council with respect to the staff comments and recommendations
on their submissions, it is necessary to afford the public the
opportunity to address Council through a public meeting process.
...4
REPORT NO.: PD -88 -95 PAGE 4
In this regard, notices of the public meeting (Attachment No. 2)
were placed in the following newspapers for the week of August
9th and 16th.
• Canadian Statesman /Clarington Independent
• Clarington This Week
• Courtice News
• Orono Times
In addition, all submitters and all those who requested to be
notified were sent personal notices.
5.2 Several submissions are related to development applications for
which the Municipality has held public meetings but yet to
render any decision. In these instances, staff extended the
public notice requirement by sending a personal notice to those
individuals that have previously expressed concerns to the
development applications. We feel this extra step will provide
the opportunity for the concerned individuals to address Council
on the submissions.
6. CONCLUSION:
Upon Council rendering its decision on the Report
recommendations, staff will be able to proceed to finalize a
Recommended Clarington Official Plan to be presented to Council
for consideration and approval. Barring an unforeseen
circumstance, staff is working towards scheduling a public
meeting for the Recommended Official Plan sometime in early
December of this year.
Res lly submitted, Reviewed b ,
'x r. , .
DaxridUJ. Crome, Manager W. H. Stockwell
Str,tegi.c Planning Branch Chief Administrative
�..
Officer
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
FW *jip
August 8, 1995
Du h';c onsui a io Report 7
Phase Four
REVIEW OF
PUBLIC
ON DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
LARINGTO
OFFICIAL PLAN RE-VIEW
Department of Planning and Development e Municipality, of Glarington August 1995
DN: OP.GPA THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: council
File #
Date: September 14 & 15, 1995
Res. #
PD -88 -95
Report #: File #: By -law #
Subject: RESPONSES TO PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
ON THE CLARINGTON DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -88 -95 be received;
2. THAT the appended Public Consultation Report No. 7, and the
recommendations contained therein, be approved for. inclusion
into the Recommended Clarington Official Plan to be brought
forward to Council for consideration and approval; and
3. THAT all delegations be acknowledged and thanked for their
inputs and be notified of Council's decision.
1. INTRODUCTION:
1.1 The preparation of a new Clarington Official Plan commenced in
February of 1992. One key objective of the Municipality was to
encourage broad participation in preparing a new official plan.
A variety. of mechanisms have been employed to encourage the
participation of residents, landowners and community groups. A
series of newsletters have been released throughout the process.
In the first phase, the Municipality undertook a public
attitudes survey which was sent to each home in the
Municipality. Most importantly, there has been a series of open
houses and public meetings at each stage of the preparation of
a new official plan. In total, the Municipality received 241
verbal and written submissions for the first two phases of the
Official Plan preparation process.
...2
REPORT NO.: PD- 88 -•95 PAGE 2
1.2 In May of 1994, a draft Official Plan was RELEASED by the
Municipality for review and discussion. A series of open houses
was held at four centres in mid -June of 1994. In late June,
there was a series of Public Meetings at which 38 verbal
submissions were made. Subsequently, 119 written submissions
have been made on the Draft Official Plan. All written
submissions are reproduced in a three volume Public Consultation
Report No. 5 which were forwarded to members of Council earlier.
Agency's comments are contained in Consultation Report No. 6.
2. PURPOSE:
The purpose of the appended Public Consultation Report No. 7 is
to present staff responses and recommendations to the
submissions made on the Draft Clarington Official Plan.
3. THE PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS:
3.1 Of the 119 submissions made to
majority of the submissions ar
locations are identified on the
purposes. (Attachment No. 1)
the Draft Official. Plan, a
e property - related. Their
attached maps for reference
3.2 During the course of reviewing all the submissions, several
things became obvious:
a) Many submissions touched on the same subject matters with
either divergent or similar viewpoints.
b) Some submissions are in excess of several typed pages and
touched on the many issues contained in the Draft Official
Plan.
C) Some submissions are ambiguous.
d) In some instances, the submitters made several submissions
on the same issues or property.
...3
REPORT NO.: PD -88 -95 PAGE 3
3.3 As a result of the above, it became necessary to do the
following:
a) Meet with the submitters where necessary to seek
clarification. In total, about 100 meetings have been
held;
b) Group those submissions that deal with common issues.
4. PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT NO. 7:
4.1 In consideration of the large volume of submissions; the
complexity of the issues raised; as well as the varying nature
of the submissions, it is not possible to arrive at
recommendations that would address each and every issue raised
by the submitter. Notwithstanding, every submission has been
reviewed in detail. For each submission, the issues were
summarized with.brief comments and recommendations. These are
found in tabular chart form in the appendix of the'Report.
4.2 With regard to common issues that were raised in two or more
submissions, the issues are grouped under the following sections
with more detailed comments and recommendations:
Growth Management Issues
• Environmental Issues
• Urban Issues
• Waterfront Issues
• Rural Issues
• Transportation Issues
• Implementation and.Interpretation Issues
The recommendations are highlighted throughout the Report and
are grouped together for quick reference at the beginning of the
Report.
5. PUBLIC NOTICE:
5.1 To ensure the public will have the opportunity to address
Council with respect to the staff comments and recommendations
on their submissions, it is necessary to afford the public the
opportunity to address Council through a public meeting process.
...4
REPORT NO.: PD -88 -95 PAGE 4
In this regard, notices of the public meeting (Attachment No. 2)
were placed in the following newspapers for the week of August
9th and 16th.
• Canadian Statesman /Clarington Independent
• Clarington This Week
• Courtice News
• Orono Times
In addition, all submitters and all those who requested to be
notified were sent personal notices.
5.2 Several submissions are related to development applications for
which the Municipality has held public meetings but yet to
render any decision. In these instances, staff extended the
public notice requirement by sending a personal notice to those
individuals that have previously expressed concerns to the
development applications. We feel this extra step will provide
the opportunity for the concerned individuals to address Council
on the submissions.
6. CONCLUSION:
Upon Council rendering its decision on the Report
recommendations, staff will be able to proceed to finalize a
Recommended Clarington Official Plan to be presented to Council
for consideration and approval. Barring an unforeseen
circumstance, staff is working towards scheduling a public
meeting for the Recommended Official Plan sometime in early
December of this year.
Res lly submitted, Reviewed b ,
i
Da i J. Crome, Manager W. H. Stockwell
Str tegic Planning Branch Chief Administrative
Officer
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
FW *jip
August 8, 1995
Attachment #�
35 134 33132 111}O
rL -00 -7J 1.
29128 27 126 25121 21122 2112 19118 it 116 1511, 13112 I!IIO 918 716 514 312 LOT 11
U
U
1
BURKETON
o
u
ENn
II II
v
II '�
I 1
I
-
m
o
H
�I
I 11
20
a
YDON II
iI
a lI
(U�I
0
1
ENNISKIL
0
II 1 %•,
1
v I i W1 9
1
If TYRONE L
I
e
i•
II
9
V
SOUND
(
G
II
I!
I
—
wle
�yyyp�I'�77
1'34V�1
o
2
i
1PTON
�)
—
�-
-
MR M
CORNERS
`
!
I
II
1
o
s•
'I
�
�
U
V
li
I\
W98
a
O
wail I
Ii
I Il�
o
= 3
a
I
Ll
A
8
OU CE g MAPLE
GROVE
ARE
( E AP )
I
�-
—
Bow
URBAN kVRI
0
— °
m
1
1
wtwu i
w127w1u
W199 i
LAKE ONTAR /O
SUBMISSIONS
t�IG^JP G^Q9 QDG^QG3dOG�C�4�� N
UND USE
DGQWI MVIOON QUML 6^QHE1%
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN 0 500 low MO m
MAY 1994 500 m
L0: 3513, 33132 31130 29128 22126 ,512.
mom
500 m
M SUMSSIONS
Attachment #1
1- 0 1 21120 191 17116 15114 13112 11110 918 216 si. 312 Lot 1
z
W158
z
• o
u
0
m
o_
U
O
V
2
O
II ncnuv�
ie o
l�
� V
0
0
1 U
I—
_O
1e
0
u
r —
n
o
1 I I
U
N LLE u
d 2 I
I '
S- OWN SVIU.E
I z
I
u
u I _
62
1 m^
6, �I �) o
LAKE ONTAR /O 55
o
m
a
o
N Q✓alw al (CLARKE)
� ��(1RANDo USE
//,���..
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
MAY 1994
Attachment #1
Attachment #1
to Report PD -88 -95
r
MA
SUBMISSIONS
1AF A3
LAND USE
BOO A VILLE UREA AREA
Attachment #1
to Report PD-88-95
z z
Q
-
m
d
oo
71
< tz
CL
Lor-
o
8
OEM
V) LO 00 LO
D P, co
1130nv
LQ
41
1
to
y�
3
`
pE
Attachment #.2
to report PD 88 -95
PUBLIC MEETING
.- _ �0.�
CLARINGTON
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
Council will hold public meetings to consider a report dealing with the recommendations
on the public submissions regarding the Draft Official Plan released in May 1994,
Public Meetings will be held in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Administrative
Centre, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville. Due to the large volume of public
submissions, the public meetings will be divided into several topical sessions which will
be held at the following times:
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1995
Morning Session 9 :00 - 12:00 p.m. Urban boundary issues
Afternoon Session 1 :00 - 4:30 p.m. Bowmanville and Orono issues
Evening Session 7:00 - 10 :00 p.m. Other Issues
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
Morning Session 9:00 - 12:00 p.m. Courtice issues
Afternoon Sessions 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. Newcastle Village and rural issues
2:30 - 4:30 p.m: Council debate and decision
* Please note that these times are approximate and may vary as required to
accommodate speakers.
Anyone, and particularly those who have made a verbal or written submission at an
earlier date may speak at the Public Meetings. if you wish to address Council, you are
encouraged to register ahead of time by contacting Ms. Teresa Houben or Ms. Cynthia
Strike at 623 -3379.
Staff's recommendations concerning individual submissions on the Draft Official Plan
released in May 1994, will be mailed to each submitter. Individuals may also *purchase
a complete submission document and accompanying Staff Report from the Planning
Department. The domplete set of documents will be available by August 18, 1995 at a
cost of $20.00 (G.S.T. included).
Copies of the documents will be available for public viewing in all branches of the Library
and the Municipal Administrative Centre.
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
MUNICIPALITY OF Director of Planning and Development
Arington Municipality of Clarington
�..._.,�,.� 40 Temperance Street
ONTARIO Bowmanville, Ontario
Li C 3A6
Public Consultation Report 7
Department of Planning and Development a Municipality of�Clarington August 1995
PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT #7
STAFF RESPONSE TO PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
Table of Contents
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION ............ ............................... 1
2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT .... ............................... 2
2.1 ' Provincial and Regional Policy ............. 2
2.2 Rate and Balance of Growth 3
2.3 Interim Urban Area Boundary for Residential Areas 6
2.4 Phasing and Prematurity Policies ........................... 19
3. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ... ............................... 21
3.1 Provincial and Regional Policy ........ . ................... 21
3.2 Watershed Planning ..... ........... 22
3.3 Natural Heritage System ............ 26
3.4 Woodlot Policies ...... 29
3.5 Lake Iroquois Beach ..... ............................... 37
4. URBAN ISSUES ............ ............................... 40
4.1 Provincial and Regional Policies ......... 40
4.2 Residential Neighbourhoods 41
4.3 Main Central Areas .................. 44
4.4 Parks ........................... 48
4.5 Schools ............... ............................... 55
5. WATERFRONT ISSUES ...... ............................... 61
5.1 Provincial and Regional Policy ......... 61
5.2 Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition of Waterfront Lands . 61
5.3 Existing Residential Communities ...... 65
5.4 St. Marys Cement and Westside Creek Marsh .................. 68
i
6. RURAL ISSUES
71
............ ...............................
6.1
Provincial and Regional Policy ........................
71
6.2
Oak Ridges Moraine ..... ...............................
72
6.3
Golf Courses
75
.......... ...............................
7. TRANSPORTATION
78
......... ...............................
7.1
Provincial and Regional Policy .............................
78
7.2
Highway 407 and Connecting Freeway Link ...................
78
7.3
Transportation Network for Courtice ........................
80
8. IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION ISSUES ............
83
8.1
Transitionat Policies
83
..... ...............................
APPENDIX A
Written Submissions
Phase 3: Draft Official Plan
APPENDIX B
Verbal Submissions
Phase 3: Draft Official Plan
APPENDIX C
Written Submissions
Phase 2: Planning Issues and Options
APPENDIX D
Written Submissions
Phase 1: Background
APPENDIX E
Verbal Submissions
Phase 1: Background
ii
LIST OF MAPS
1.
Requested Changes to Interim Urban Area Boundary - Courtice ...............
12
2.
Requested Changes to Interim Urban Area Boundary - Bowmanville ............
13
3.
Requested Changes to Interim Urban Area Boundary - Newcastle Village ........
14
4.
Recommended 2016 Urban Area Boundary - Courtice .......................
16
5.
Recommended 2016 Urban Area Boundary - Bowmanville ....................
17
6.
Recommended 2016 Urban Area Boundary - Newcastle Village ................
18
7.
Submissions on Woodlots - Courtice ...... ...............................
33
8.
Submissions on Woodlots - Bowmanville ... ...............................
34
9.
Community Park Sites - Courtice ......... ...............................
51
10.
Community Park Sites - Bowmanville ..... ...............................
52
11.
Community Park Sites - Newcastle Village . ...............................
53
12.
Submissions on School Sites - Courtice .... ...............................
59
13.
Submissions on School Sites - Bowmanville . ...............................
60
iii
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
A comprehensive review of all submissions on the Draft Official Plan was undertaken by Municipal
staff. The detailed response to each submission is contained in Appendix 1 to this report. For key
issues or common issues raised by at least two or more submissions, there is more detailed discussion
contained in the body of this report.
A summary of the recommendations is as follows:
Growth Management
2 -1 That the policies of the Official Plan indicate that Council may require the preparation of
a financial impact analysis of a major residential development proposal.
2 -2 That the Official Plan be prepared on the basis of the following assumptions:
• a 20 year timeframe;
• Bowmanville being the dominant growth centre;
• a population target of 130,000 and a household target of 47,600 at 2016;
• a rural growth target of 900 additional dwelling units by 2016; and
• an intensification target of approximately 5000 dwelling units by 2016.
2 -3 That the recommended 2016 urban area boundaries as shown on Maps 4 to 6 be utilized for
the Recommended Official Plan.
2 -4 That the policies contained in Section 5.3.6 of the Draft Official Plan be modified to be
consistent with Amendment No. 59.
Environmental
3 -1 That the Official Plan require the preparation of subwatershed plans rather than Master
Drainage Plans prior to the approval of plans of subdivision or other urban development
applications.
3 -2 That a watershed plan for the Farewell Creek be prepared prior to the designation of land
uses in the Courtice North neighbourhood (Deferral Area 6) in the Durham Regional
Official Plan.
3 -3 That the Official Plan indicate the Municipality's support for participation in multi -
stakeholder watershed planning studies.
3 -4 That the Official Plan clearly identify that the Municipality will undertake subwatershed
studies, in co- operation with the Region, the Conservation Authority and the Ministry of
Natural Resources, for urbanizing sub - watersheds subject to satisfactory cost- sharing
arrangements.
IV
3 -5 That the Implementation policies of the Official Plan indicate that, among other matters, the
Municipality will in consultation with all interested parties, develop a monitoring system to
evaluate cumulative impacts on the natural environment.
3 -6 That a new land use designation known as "Environmental Protection Areas" be introduced
covering the most significant natural heritage features and areas.
3 -7 That the Official Plan recognize a variable setback zone requirements for stream valleys
based on environmental or slope stability concerns. In no case, however, would the setback
be less than a minimum 5 metres standard.
3 -8 That the draft policies be modified to clarify that only hazard lands, valleyland and wetlands
would be requested for gratuitous dedication to the Municipality as a condition of
development approval.
3 -9 That the Official Plan designate the most significant woodlots in both the rural and urban
areas as "Environmental Protection Areas ".
3 -10 That the less significant woodlots in Urban Areas be designated for Residential or
Employment Area uses but be subject to an environmental impact analysis.
3 -11 That the designation for woodlots be retained save and except for the following:
a) That the designation of the Curtis - Nekkers - Dalidowicz woodlots be adjusted to
remove the lands south of the future Springfield Drive extension.
b) That the designation of the Kemp woodlot be adjusted to reflect the actual limits of
the woodlot.
3 -12 That the Official Plan recognize a variety of mechanisms to achieve the preservation of
woodlots with municipal ownership pursued for only the most significant woodlots.
3 -13 That the Municipality enact a tree preservation by -law under the Municipal Act.
3 -14 That the use of alternative storm water management measures to facilitate the maintenance
of groundwater functions be required for any development within the Lake Iroquois Beach
area.
3 -15 That the relationship between the natural feature policies for the Lake Iroquois Beach and
the land use designation be clarified.
Urban
4 -1 That the Official Plan should provide for a variety of housing forms but allow greater
flexibility to account for specific circumstances which may limit one subdivision proposal
from providing a full array of housing forms.
v
4 -2 That the Official Plan provide for the integration of assisted (rent - geared -to- income) housing
and social housing into residential neighbourhoods without reference to "concentration" of
such housing types.
4 -3 That the Low Density II range be increased from 15 -25 to 15 -30 units per net hectare and
that limited street - townhouse forms be permitted in the Low Density Area.
4 -4 That Section 10.3.6 be clarified to require the rezoning of lands for all commercial proposals
greater than 2,500 square metres or for the designation of new Central Areas.
4 -5 That Section 17.3 be clarified as to the scope of the secondary plan and urban design study
for the Courtice Main Central Area including specifically that the allocation of commercial
floorspace to the Valiant site would not be reduced through such study.
4 -6 That the boundary of the Newcastle Village Main Central Area be extended southerly to
Emily Street and a secondary plan be prepared to be incorporated in the Recommended
Official Plan.
4 -7 That the Bowmanville East Community Park be relocated southerly to the northwest corner
of Lambs Road and Concession Street.
4 -8 That the configuration of the Newcastle Village Community Park be revised to reduce the
frontage on Highway #2.
4 -9 That section 18.3.4 be clarified to indicate that it is a service standard objective of the
Municipality.
4 -10 That the public secondary school site in Liberty Rills Neighbourhood in Bowmanville be
relocated southerly to front on Concession Road 3.
4 -11 That the separate elementary school site within Avondale Neighbourhood in Courtice be
relocated from the west side to the east side of Avondale Drive.
Waterfront
5 -1 That a Shoreline Hazard Zone be defined to encompass the lands subject to flooding and
erosion and the dynamic beaches of the Lake Ontario Shoreline.
5 -2 That new building or structures of any type within the Shoreline Hazard Zone not be
permitted.
5 -3 That existing residences within the Shoreline Hazard Zone be permitted a one -time
expansion, up to a maximum of 20 % of the ground floor area or 30 square metres,
whichever is less, provided that:
a) the structure is not located in the floodplain of a stream;
b) the structure is not located on a dynamic beach or within an identified damage
centre;
vi
c) new or existing hazards or adverse environmental impacts are not created or
aggravated; and
d) the relevant conservation authority and the Municipality have approved a
floodproofing and /or erosion control plan.
e) vehicles and people have a way of safe entering and exiting the area during times of
flooding and erosion emergencies.
5 -4 That the Official Plan increase the period allowed for the reconstruction of a destroyed or
demolished building in the Shoreline Hazard Zone from 12 months to 24 months.
5 -5 That the draft policy be clarified that it is not the intent of the Municipality to necessarily
acquire lands designated Waterfront Greenway.
5 -6 That the Cove Road area be identified as a Special Study Area inclusive of the St. Marys
Cement land.
5 -7 That the lands owned by St. Marys Cement Company between the west side of Waverly
Road and West Beach Road be identified as a Special Study Area inclusive of the Cove
Road Area (see previous recommendation).
Rural
6 -1 That the Official Plan define limits for the Major Tourist and Recreation Nodes in the Oak
Ridges Moraine at the Kirby Ski Area and Mosport Park on the basis of their existing
property boundaries;
6 -2 That the Draft Plan be clarified to specifically exclude residential uses in Major Tourist and
Recreational Node.
6 -3 That the draft policies be amended to permit existing uses only on the Mosport Park land.
6 -4 That the Official Plan clarify that the prohibition of aggregate activity applies to the
establishment of new aggregate extraction operations or the expansion of existing aggregate
expansion operations and identifies the specific area to which the policy will apply, being the
upper Ganaraska River watershed.
6 -5 That the Official Plan permit golf courses by site specific amendment within Prime
Agricultural Areas provided such lands do not have an agricultural soil capability rating of
1 to 4.
Transportation
None
vii
Implementation & Interpretation
8 -1 That the text of the Plan be clarified to indicate that the policies of the new Official Plan
would only be applied to a previously draft - approved plan of subdivision in the event of
significant revisions proposed by the applicant.
8 -2 That policy 24.13 be revised to indicate only that Council will "review" and not necessarily
"void" privately- initiated amendments which have not been built prior to the time of the next
Official Plan Review.
viii
1,
In May of 1994, a draft Official Plan was published by the Municipality for review and
discussion. A series of open houses was held at four centres in mid -June of 1994. In late
June, there was a series of Public Meetings at which 38 verbal submissions were made.
Subsequently, 119 written submissions have been made on the proposals contained in the
draft Official Plan.
The purpose of this report is to respond to the submissions made on the draft Official Plan
as well as to establish the principles to be contained in the Recommended Official Plan.
This report contains recommendations related to each submission. This has been prepared
in tabular form on the Chart which forms Appendix 1 to this report.
The main report reviews the common issues that have been raised in at least two or more
of the submissions. These issues are discussed under the following sections:
• Growth Management Issues
• Environment Issues
• Urban Issues
• Waterfront Issues
• Rural Issues
• Transportation Issues
• Implementation Issues
For each area of discussion, the relevant submissions are identified, the issues summarized,
the relevant provincial policies and the agency comments are reviewed and staff comments
and recommendations are provided.
It should be noted that where submissions have concerns about the precise wording of a
policy, it is not staff's intent to propose revised wording at this time. The recommendation
deals only with the principle to be imbedded in the policy. The actual wording of a policy
will be part of the Recommended Official Plan that will subsequently be prepared for
Council's consideration.
Discussions and recommendations contained in this Report are limited to those required to
address the submissions made to the Draft Official Plan and should not be construed as the
only basis of a Recommended Official Plan.
2.1 Provincial and Regional Policy
Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements
Section B of the Policy Statements (Economic, Community Development, and Infrastructure
Policies) address growth management issues. Communities are to be planned to use land
efficiently, and promote the efficient use of infrastructure and public service facilities.
Opportunities for a diversified economic base which integrates economic, social and
environmental considerations, are to be provided. Land use planning decisions should also
recognize the linkages between social and human service needs and land use planning.
Expansions to settlement areas will be permitted only if several conditions are met. These
conditions include:
• the amount of land included within the expansion has been justified for a planning
horizon of 15 to 20 years, based on population projections and employment targets,
and land availability within the settlement area;
• new development would be a logical extension of settlement areas;
• a strategy for the staging, financing and construction of infrastructure has been
formulated;
• the extension will have a compact form and densities and uses which efficiently use
land infrastructure and facilities;
• specialty crop land will be avoided and prime agricultural land used only if there is
no reasonable alternative.
Durham Regional Official Plan
Section 5.3.9 of the Regional Plan requires urban areas to be developed "based on the
principles of sequential development; progressive extension, improvement, rehabilitation and
economical utilization of the Regional water supply and sanitary sewerage systems; and
minimization of the financial impacts on the Region ".
Section 5.3.16 further states that "area municipal official plans shall contain detailed phasing
policies which set out short-term implementation strategies to provide for adequate land,
infrastructure and public facilities over a minimum of five years and which encourage
maximum utilization of existing infrastructure and development opportunities prior to
extending development into the undeveloped areas of the municipality."
2
2.2 Rate and Balance of Growth
Overview
Since the mid - eighties, the Municipality of Clarington experienced unprecedented residential
growth. This has led to concerns that the Municipality is growing too fast, that rural land
resources are being diminished and that employment growth remains slow. The social,
environmental and fiscal impacts of this growth pattern are seen as problematic. Without
stronger employment growth, Clarington will become largely a dormitory community. Sound
growth management practices are required to ensure orderly, balanced growth.
Submissions
Doug Hately
W15
John Brudek
W17
Fleurette
W18
David Metcalf
W21
Esther Allin
W22
Caroline Charman
W29
Mr. & Mrs. John Huber
W32
Anonymous
W34
June Clark
W36
Tom Varley
W40
Viola Ashton
W41
Janis Tomkinson
W43
Save the Ganaraska Again (SAGA)
W64
N. Mitchell
W103
Diana Grandfield
W106, V32
Dwayne Tapp
W115
Courtice Heights Development
W131
Oshawa - Durham Home Builders
W154
Kiddicorp Investments Ltd.
W157
Roy Forrester
V35
Summary of Issues Identified in Submissions
• Rate of growth.
• Growth versus the protection of rural and environmental resources.
• Achieving a better balance between population and employment growth.
3
Agency Comments
The Reizion of Durham
The Regional Official Plan emphasizes that the population and employment targets within
the Regional Plan are to be detailed in the area municipal official plan.
Staff Comments
Rate of _growth
A number of residents expressed concerns about the rate of growth and, in particular, the
impact on taxes and the ability of municipal services and schools to keep pace with this
growth. Public attitudes were surveyed on this issue in November 1992, at the beginning of
the Official Plan Review process. At that time, the Municipality was growing by
approximately 2,500 persons (or 830 units) per annum. In response to the question on how
the Municipality should handle future growth, residents responded as follows:
32% Restrict Growth
40% Grow at Current Rate (2,500 residents annually)
12% Encourage growth beyond current
9% Other - (Link residential growth to industrial growth)
While this would indicate that very few residents would like to see the rate of growth
increase, most residents were not opposed to continued growth. The survey found that
longer term residents favoured a more restrictive growth environment. Interestingly, 9
percent of the respondents chose the "other" category on the survey and usually commented
that residential growth should be linked to employment growth.
The Official Plan does not propose to restrict residential growth but to respond to
anticipated strong market forces. However, the Plan aims to manage growth better by clearly
defining growth areas, by providing better phasing policies, by encouraging infill and
intensification and by promoting compact urban form at higher densities. On the other
hand, the Official Plan seeks to promote employment growth by providing a positive policy
environment.
The growth target to be utilized in the Clarington Official Plan is to achieve a population
of 130,000 persons at 2016. This is considered an optimistic growth target averaging 1300
new households annually.
The key concerns with higher growth rates are the impact on taxes and the ability of the
Municipality and others to provide services to keep up with demands. To assist in assessing
this problem, there needs to be better understanding of financial impacts at the time of the
approval of a major residential development. Instead of arbitrarily limiting growth, it would
be more appropriate for the Municipality to have the ability to'request a financial impact
analysis as a result of major residential development proposal. It is prudent that "major" not
4
to be defined to enable Council the flexibility to exercise such option depending on
circumstances and future economic conditions of the Municipality.
Recommendation
24 That the policies of the Official Plan indicate that Council may require the preparation
of a financial impact analysis of a major residential development proposal.
Growth versus the protection of rural and environmental resources
Clarington has a strong agricultural sector and a vast rural land base. In the Public
Attitudes Survey, residents stated that the protection of agricultural lands was one
of the top three planning objectives to be reflected in the new Official Plan.
Inevitably there will be the loss of good agricultural land due to the amount of
planned growth over the planning period. The major decision on this issue was
made through the Regional Official Plan Review at which time approximately 5,400
acres of agricultural and rural lands were added to the urban areas.
Within the constraint of these previous decisions, the draft Official Plan has
attempted to protect agricultural and environmental resources in the following ways:
• promotion of compact urban form and higher densities for urban areas
0 more restrictive rural residential policies than those contained in the
Regional Official Plan
• more restrictive non - agricultural use policies (eg. golf courses) than
those contained in the Regional Official Plan
• strong environmental policies
The draft Official Plan addresses the desire to protect agricultural lands but only
does this within pre- defined parameters established in the Regional Official Plan.
Recommendation
None
Achieving a better balance between population and employment growth
This is one of the most difficult growth management issues to effectively address. The
Official Plan encourages economic growth, designates large areas of land as employment
areas and Central Areas and provide strategic policies to foster economic growth with special
emphasis on tourism. Ultimately, however, the ability of Clarington to regulate or link
M
growth from two different market sectors is difficult. The Draft Official Plan establishes
employment and assessment ratio targets. It also encourages residential developers to
develop employment area lands. With some directions from the Municipality, the residential
land developers should take some responsibility to promote a diversified economic base and
a positive assessment ratio.
Current trends indicate that the Municipality's declining non - residential assessment ratio is
problematic in light of the demands on the Municipality from residential growth. The
Official Plan contains one policy which links residential development and employment
growth. This would permit Council to consider a plan of subdivision premature if the non-
residential assessment ratio declines below 15 %. This matter is review further in Section
2.4 of this Report.
2.3 Interim Urban Area. Boundary for Residential Areas
Overview
The Durham Regional Official Plan only allows Municipality's to identify a 15 -20 year supply
of land for urban development purposes. The Draft Official Plan proposed an Interim
Urban Area Boundary to 2011. Many submissions have been received proposing expansions
to the interim urban area boundary shown on the Draft Official Plan and questioning the
assumptions and criteria to determine these boundaries.
Submissions Received
Northbrook Developers Group
W7
Trianka Developments
Wg
Bramalea Ltd
W88 A & B
289143 Ontario Ltd.
W101, W104
Stolp Homes & 289143 Ontario Ltd
W104 , W165
Walter Fracz
W114
Courtice Heights Developments
W117 W131
W.M. Tonno Construction Ltd
W118, W183, V53
Kingsberry Properties
W119
The Kaitlin Group
W132
W.M. Tonno Construction, E. & H. Witzke,
and 687120 Ontario Ltd. /S. Devesceri Ltd.
W134, W189
Oshawa- Durham Homebuilders Assoc.
W154
Eric and Geri Cornish
W137
Amberglen Developments Inc & Selby Family
W159, W179
Schickedanz Bros. Ltd.
W166
Joseph Luchka
W172
Garthwood Homes Ltd.
W174
Robert Sherman
W185
Steven Carruthers
W176
Halminen Homes & 3D Development Corp.
V15
j Kirk Kemp
V18
Mario Veltri
V19
no
Robert Carruthers V25
Josephine Vooys V49
Ken Shaw V54
Summary of Issues Identified by Submission
• The assumptions used for the land budget in the Draft Official Plan.
• Expansion of the interim urban area boundaries.
Agency Comments
The Region of.Durham provided comments requesting a rationale for the population target
of 110,000 to the year 2011. Justification for the density targets of each urban area was also
requested. Similar clarification was requested on the calculation and distribution of the
intensification target. Lastly a rationale was to be provided for the household occupancy
rates used in the preparation of the land budget.
Staff Comments
The assumptions used for the land budget in the Draft Official Plan
In response to the revised Regional population and household forecast and the submissions,
Staff have undertaken a thorough review of the assumptions and criteria used in preparing
the land budget for the Official Plan. Discussion on the various assumptions used in
formulating the land budget are discussed below.
i) Timeframe
Section 5.3.14 of the Durham Regional Official Plan allows municipalities to designate a 15 -
20 year supply of land. The Draft Official Plan was prepared on the basis of a 2011
timeframe, 15 years from the anticipated .1996 approval. It has been argued on various
submissions that the 2016 timeframe is more appropriate than the 2011. The Municipality
has. the option of either 2011 or 2016 timeframe. Upon review, staff are prepared to use the
full 20 year timeframe to 2016.
Population Forecast
The Draft Official Plan was prepared utilizing the Regional population forecast prepared
in 1990. Since the preparation of the Draft Official Plan, the Regional Planning Department
prepared a revised regional population and household forecast. There are several key
differences in the updated forecast:
7
• the revised forecast provides four alternate scenarios; Low, Reference, High and
Alternate. The alternate forecast is a hybrid utilizing the assumptions of the Low
forecast for the earlier period and shifting to the Reference and High for the later
periods.
• the revised projection applies only to the Region as a whole; the municipal
projections are referred to as "targets" based on the Regional Official Plan objectives
Regional staff are utilizing the Alternate Scenario for regional planning purposes but
recognize that there is a range of alternatives. Submissions were received requesting the
Municipality to utilize the Region's Alternate Target for the purposes of the Clarington
Official plan. Staff have reviewed this matter at length. It is felt that the Region's Alternate
Targets are overly optimistic for the Municipality, are not supported by historic trends in
Durham, are contrary to the opinions expressed in the Public Attitudes Survey and would
generate tremendous financial impacts on the Municipality.
As an alternate, staff have prepared a Median target for use in the land budgetprocess for
the Official Plan. The Median target is the median between the Region's Low and Alternate
targets for Clarington at 2016. This would establish a population target of 130,000 and a
household target of 47,600 at 2016. This Median target has been reviewed with Regional
staff who concur with using these targets in the Clarington Official Plan.
iii) Population Distribution
Population allocations were assigned in the Durham Regional Official Plan for the ultimate
urban area boundary. The figures contained within the Municipality's draft Official Plan are
reflective of the population targets and policies of the Regional Plan. The population
increase for each urban area is proposed to essentially remain proportionate to existing
population figures. The draft Plan is consistent with the Durham Plan policies maintaining
Bowmanville as the dominant urban centre in the Municipality. Submissions argue that
Courtice is growing faster than Bowmanville and therefore, should get a higher percentage
of the population distribution. However, historic growth trends and projected growth based
on units contained within draft approved plans of subdivision, clearly favour Bowmanville
over Courtice. This growth scenario, of proportionate growth to the urban areas, was
recently presented before the O.M.B. at the Bowmanville West Main Central Area hearing,
and accepted by the Board as an appropriate assumption for development in the
Municipality.
iv) Household Size
The household size assumptions used in the Draft Official Plan were adopted from the 1991
Development Charges Report initially prepared by C.N. Watson & Associates. A number of
submissions suggested that a declining household size should be used for the planning period.
The Region's updated Population and Household Forecast projects that Clarington's average
household size will decline from 10 to 2.73 by 2016. While the Municipality has been
attracting younger families in recent years and while the average household size actually
increased between 1986 to 1991, most demographers project that household sizes will decline
over time. In revising the Land Budget for the Official Plan, the Region's forecast of a
declining household size has been accepted. The net result is a significant increase in
housing units required as a result of smaller household sizes.
v) High Density Development
Submissions considered the 10% assumption for future high density development too high
for the Municipality of Ciarington. The target of 10% of all growth being high density is
reflective of the Municipality's Municipal Housing Statement as approved by the Ministry
of Housing in April of 1993. While the majority of the high density development may not
occur until the later part of the Plan's timeframe the market is readily subject to change
including such factors as rent controls, non - profit housing programs or the condominium
market. The designation of high density development is appropriate and in conformity with
various policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan and provincial initiatives. It is
essential to provide for higher density dwelling to meet the goal of providing a variety of
housing types. Furthermore, it is appropriate to provide high density designations to support
Central Area uses and future public transit opportunities.
vi) Density within Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Various areas within both north Courtice and north Bowmanville have been identified as
having significant environmentally sensitive features including the Lake Iroquois Beach.
These are locally significant recharge and discharge areas with high water tables and
contribute significantly to the baseflow of streams. One strategy to preserve the
hydrogeological function of the area is to develop at lower densities to minimize the
impervious surface. This needs to be accounted for in the land budget process.
vii) Fragmented Land in Courtice
One submission suggested that as a result of the unusually high number of fragmented lots
in Courtice, future land requirements for the Courtice urban area should be given a higher
land supply. To date most residential plans of subdivision, have developed on larger land
parcels. This has resulted in pockets of residentially designated land remaining undeveloped
due to the difficulty of assembling fragmented parcels. This occurs in most urban areas but
is most apparent in Courtice due to the existing land ownership pattern. Within a shorter
timeframe, the problems of fragmented land ownership may affect land supply for
development. However, given the extension of the timeframe to the year 2016, it is not
anticipated that this will be a problem. Furthermore, in promoting compact urban form and
sequential development it is desirable to encourage these lands to develop sooner than later.
viii) Rural Growth
In addition to the assumptions questions by the submissions, provincial policy and the
Durham Regional Official Plan require consideration of rural population growth. Upon
reviewing recent trends in rural lot creation, the stricter policy environment and the key
objectives of the Plan, staff are proposing a moderate rate of rural growth, totalling 900
additional units between 1994 and 2016. On the basis of an average lot size of 0.6 ha (1.5
acres), rural residential development would consume approximately 550 ha (1,350 acres).
ix) Intensification
Provincial policy and the Durham Regional Official Plan also require consideration of
intensification potential. Although submissions did not question the intensification target,
the Region raised a number of questions; including the fulfilment of the Regional Plan's
intensification target and the impact of Bill 120. Staff have reviewed this matter further
including the potential for apartments -in- houses, garden suites and conversion of non-
residential lands which had previously not been considered in the land budget analysis. The
various forms of intensification include:
• committed redevelopment
• potential redevelopment
• apartments in houses
• mixed use development
• garden suites
• redesignation of non - residential land
• infilling
A summary of the intensification analysis is shown in Figure 1 below:
FIGURE 1
DWELLING UNITS INTENSIFICATION SUMMARY
DESIGNATION
COURTICE
BOWMANVILLE
NEWCASTLE
ORONO
TOTAL
Central Areas
280
290
30
0
600
Residential Areas
1200
1240
420
30
2890
Total
1480
1530
450
30
3490
In consideration of the issues raised in the submissions, comments received from agencies,
and provincial and regional policy requirements, staff have reviewed the assumptions
contained in the land budget analysis which formed the basis for the determination of the
interim urban area boundary. The net result of the analysis is the need for additional urban
residential lands. The key changes in the assumptions are the more optimistic growth target,
the extension of the Plan's timeframe to 2016, and the anticipation of a declining household
size.
10
Recommendation
2 -2 That the Official Plan be prepared on the basis of the following assumptions:
• a 20 year timeframe;
• Bowmanville being the dominant growth centre;
• a population target of 130,000 and a household target of 47,600 at 2016;
• a rural growth target of 900 additional dwelling units by 2016; and
• an intensification target of approximately 5000 dwelling units by 2016.
Additional lands within the Interim Urban Area Boundary
Twelve submissions were received requesting extensions to the Interim Urban Boundary for
Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle Village. These are identified as Areas "A" to "M" on
Maps 1 to 3 respectively. The total areas requested to be included in the urban area
boundary for each of the urban communities are as follows:
Courtice
299 ha
(739 ac.)
Bowmanville
266 ha
(657 ac.)
Newcastle Village
119 ha
_(294 ac.
Total
684 ha
(1,690 ac.)
On the basis of the assumptions reviewed previously, a revised -land budget analysis for the
urban areas has been prepared. (Figure 2)
The land budget analysis indicates additional lands are required to accommodate urban
growth to year 2016. However, the amount of lands to be added within the interim
boundaries are generally less than the amount of lands requested by the submissions. In this
regard, these land parcels were evaluated and prioritized having regard to the following
criteria:
Urban Form
• within 1976 Regional Official Plan urban area boundary
• sequential development /rounding out existing development
Servicing
• ease of sanitary sewer and water supply servicing
• status of master drainage /sub- watershed. plan
• 10 year capital works program
11
d
0
r`
W
Z
J
Z
O
F-
4605
a
REGIONAL URBAN
AREA BOUNDARY
.. INTERIM URBAN
AREA BOUNDARY
NEIGHBOURHOOD
BOUNDARY
REQUESTED ADDITIONS
OROWLI
VRER m,,
EET
C �
L Y
� U
O
C U
Z
2
N
0 200 400 600 800 m
200 m
I II
�il&p �I
REQUESTED CH&HOM.
To owEnoom URBAN &�/���EA OUND &Rv.
\yQI�MCE VWI�h111V A of2A
I) A
A: N
NEWCASTLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIPS 1 & 2
II 2
289143 ONTARIO LTD.
B: J
JOSEPH LUCHKA
�G C
C: 2
289143 ONTARIO LTD.
a D
D: W
WALTER FRACZ
JOSEPH VOOYS
E: W
W.M. TONNO
CONSTRUCTION LTD.
C
F: K
KINGSBERRY PROPERTIES
G: C
COURTICE HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENTS
KEN SHAW
L Q
Q
N
0 200 400 600 800 m
200 m
I II
�il&p �I
REQUESTED CH&HOM.
To owEnoom URBAN &�/���EA OUND &Rv.
\yQI�MCE VWI�h111V A of2A
mr"c^ aVVIVU/AKT
Map tQ9 INTERIM URBAN
RIEQV ESte ED AREA BOUNDARY
NEIGHBOURHOOD
To OMVERom URBAN A° N Me% moo umDLaRV BOUNDARY
DOY1Q[1` VOLLLLE NJG°�DG^QM QG°3 1 /H� REQUESTED ADDITIONS
13
3ROUP
ISH
UTHERS
I"
CONCESSION ROAD
M: ROBERT SHERMAN
REGIONAL URBAN
AREA BOUNDARY
INTERIM URBAN
AREA BOUNDARY
NEIGHBOURHOOD
BOUNDARY
REQUESTED ADDITIONS
MAP 3
REQUESTED CHANGES
TOO INTERIM URBAN AREA BOUNDARY
NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA
FIGURE 2
ALLOCATION OF ROUSING TARGET TO 2016
COURTICE
BOWMANVILLE
NEWCASTLE
WILMOT CR.
ORONO
12800
22900
4650
(1) 868
730
Total Households 2016
Existing Households 1994
4600
7100
1480
619
640
8200
15800
3170
249
90
Housing Units Required
Central Areas
- Committed Intensification
110
210
- Potential Intensification
170
80
30
- Committed New Units
- Potential New Units
130
980
410
1270
30
0
0
Sub - Total:
Residential Areas
- Committed Intensification
330
120
- Potential Intensification
870
1120
420
0
30
- Committed New Units
870
4700
30
249
0
2070
5940
450
249
30
Sub - Total:
Additional New Units Required
5720
8590
2690
0
60
Units within Interim
Urban Area Boundary
4000
5590
2020
1720
3000
670
0
60
Net Additional Units Required
Additional and Required (ha)
Gross Density (uph) (2)
17.3
17.3
13.6
Residential Land (ha) 0)
99
174
49
0
0
Notes:
(1) Actual units approved in current site plan.
(2) Gross density assumptions for Bowmanville and Courtice do not account for certain areas which have been
identified as developing at a lower gross density due to environmental constraints.
(3) Land area requirements are for developable residential land only.
Access to Services/Employment
• proximity to Main or Sub Central Area
• proximity to existing transit service
• proximity to developed Employment Areas
As a result of the above analysis, revision to the interim urban area boundaries to 2016 have
been prepared and are reflected on Maps 4 to 6.
Recommendation
2 -3 That the recommended 2016 urban area boundaries as shown on Maps 4 to 6 be utilized
for the Recommended Q,(j`icial Plan.
15
URBAN AREA BOUNDARY
NEIGHBOURHOOD
BOUNDARY
RECOMMENDED
ON URBAN ARFA boulmoARV
COVII'U U OV' LS UR MQWF
col
MAP 5
RECOMMENDED
C DD
2016 URBAN AREA BOUNDAIRV
17
RECOMMENDED 2016
URBAN AREA BOUNDARY
NEIGHBOURHOOD
BOUNDARY
® ADDITIONAL LANDS
CONCESSION ROAD 3
0 200 400 600 800 m
200 m
REGIONAL URBAN
AREA BOUNDARY
RECOMMENDED 2016
URBAN AREA BOUNDARY
NEIGHBOURHOOD
BOUNDARY
® ADDITIONAL LANDS
MAP 6
RECOMMENDED
2016 URBAN AREA BOUNDARY
NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA
2.4 Phasing and Prematurity Policies
Overview
The draft Official Plan contains various policies to guide Council's consideration of the
phasing of urban residential areas and considerations for premature draft plans of subdivision
applications. Submissions were received from the development industry expressing concern
with the policies, suggesting some of the criteria were either too restrictive or too arbitrary.
Submissions Received
Courtice Heights Development W131
The Kaitlin Group W132
Oshawa.- Durham Home Builders Association W154
Kiddicorp Investment Ltd. W157
Issues Identified
• Planning policies of Section 5.3.6 and 5.3.9.
• Prematurity policies of Section 5.3.7.
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
The Region of Durham Planning Department requested clarification on how the non-
residential assessment ratio of a minimum 15 %, is to be monitored.
Staff Comments
Phasing Policies in Section 5.3.6 and 5.3.9
Section 5.3.6 list seven policies (a) to (g) for the phasing or development of
residential lands in the various urban areas. Section 5.3.9 indicates that Council shall
impose conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision to implement the
phasing policies in Section 5.3.6.
Oshawa - Durham Homebuilders Association, Courtice Heights Developments and the Kaitlin
Group were concerned about the requirement for sequential development, noting fragmented
ownership and development reluctance as possible reasons for non- sequential development
and leapfrogging. While this may be of concern relative to the several smaller parcels held
by residents, the larger parcels are generally owned by development interests. This policy
would not be contravened if development were to occur around the smaller resident -owned
parcels. The policy is to prevent clearly non - sequential development (such as the Melody
Home Subdivision) and ensure the logical extension of municipal services in a financially
responsible manner.
19
Courtice Heights Developments and Kiddicorp Investments Ltd. suggested that both section
5.3.6 and 5.3.9 should provide for flexibility by using alternate wordings such as replacing
"shall be based on" to "shall give consideration to ". This would seriously weaken the policy
to the extent that if would be difficult to enforce if challenged.
It is noted that Newcastle Limited Partnerships I and II raised concerns with respect to
similar phasing policies which were proposed as part of Official Plan Amendment #59. As
a result of the reconsideration of their concerns, staff have eliminated some of the principles
and revised the text of others. In particular, there was concern with the reference to
indicating "preference" for development in certain areas. Since "preference" was seen as
possibly being applied in an arbitrary manner, staff propose revised wording of "priority" for
intensification and infilling and "priority" for development adjacent to Main Central Areas.
In addition, staff are proposing to eliminate the policy regarding preference for development
of previously designated urban lands in the 1976 Durham Regional Official Plan.
Recommendation
2-4 That the policies contained in Section 5.3.6 of the Drat Official Plan be modifred to be
consistent with Amendment No. 59.
Prematurity Policies of Section 5.3.7
Section 5.3.7 contains five conditions by which the Municipality may deem a residential
subdivision application premature. Several submissions considered that these policies are
rigid and arbitrary. These conditions relate to the Municipality's ability to finance
infrastructure and services through either development charges or tax assessment, and they
are designed to ensure that the most fundamental growth management goals of the Official
Plan are achieved.
By defining the conditions which the Municipality can consider a plan of subdivision
premature, there is actually greater assurance that the Municipality will not act in an
arbitrary manner. It is noted that the basic principles of this Plan and the development
charges which contained the Municipality's 10 year capital works forecast can be appealed.
In this sense, there is no possibility of the Municipality acting in an arbitrary manner.
Moreover, the policy is not rigid but relatively flexible since Council still has discretion in the
matter (ie. "may declare" not necessarily "shall declare ").
Recommendation
None
pill
3.1 Provincial and Regional Policy
Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements
Section A (Natural Heritage, Environmental Protection and Hazard Policies) and Section
G (Interpretation and Implementation) of the Policy. Statements are relevant to the
discussion on the natural environment.
In decisions regarding development, reasonable opportunity is to be taken to maintain and
enhance the quality of air, land, water and biota, maintain biodiversity and protect natural
links and corridors.
Development that will negatively impact ground water recharge areas, head waters, and
aquifers which have been identified as sensitive areas is not permitted. The Implementation
Guidelines for the Policy Statements further state that the identification of areas associated
with sensitive water systems, and the recognition of their inherent connectivity and sensitivity
to development, must be considered in official plan preparation and the approval of site -
specific development applications in order to protect water quality and quantity.
The level of protection afforded natural heritage features and areas is to be based on their
"significance ". The determination of "significance" is to be based on criteria and guidelines
established by the province or on comparable municipal evaluations. Natural heritage
features and areas are to be classified into areas where either no development is permitted,
or development is permitted provided it does not negatively impact the features or the
ecological functions for which the area is identified. Development on adjacent lands is also
not permitted to negatively impact these natural heritage features or areas. All development
proposals in or adjacent to an identified natural heritage feature or area require the
submission of a Environmental Impact Study.
Wetlands are to be identified and adequately protected, with no loss of provincially
significant wetlands. The protection of wetlands which are not provincially significant is also
encouraged. Development within 120 metres of an individual wetland area or a wetland
complex (adjacent. lands) may be considered with the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Study.
The Implementation Guidelines prescribe a system of determining woodland significance that
is largely based on assessing the size of individual woodland areas within the context of the
overall percentage of forest cover in the Municipality. For the majority of the G.T.A.
municipalities, all wooded areas generally larger than 4 ha will be deemed significant.
21
Durham Regional Official Plan
Area municipal official plans are to include policies to address cumulative impacts by
promoting comprehensive planning for natural areas and watersheds, and to require storm
water management, erosion and sedimentation control plans be prepared in the context of
subwatershed plans.
Development applications on or in proximity to environmentally sensitive' areas require the
preparation of an environmental impact study to examine the degree of sensitivity and the
assessment of potential cumulative impacts.
The Region, in conjunction with the Provincial government and the respective area
municipality, is.to identify significant wooded areas to be protected, and examine the ways
and means to maintain them as wildlife habitats. Local official plans are to include
provisions for the protection of forest edges and hedge rows. Studies on the impact of
development on significant forests and woodlots are required.
Region of Durham Tree Preservation By -law
Regional By -law 148 -91, which was approved under the authority of the Trees Act, restricts
and regulates the destruction of trees by cutting, burning or other means. The By -law
applies to all woodlots of 0.5 acre or more in area and sets out the conditions by which trees
specified by the by -law and located in woodlots may be removed. The destruction of any
tree located in a Sensitive Natural Area is not permitted. Exemptions from the by -law must
be approved by Regional Council.
3.2 Watershed Planning
Overview
All natural environment functions and features are linked by the continuous and interactive
movement of ground water and surface water within distinct ecosystems known as
watersheds. Watershed planning identifies how a watershed ecosystem functions, the role
of various natural features in the maintenance of these and other natural functions, and how
these functions and features can be maintained in the context of land use change.
Submissions Received
SAGA
Pam Callus
Racansky Family
Durham Wetlands and Watersheds
Roy Forrester
Ann Cowman
Tonno Construction Ltd.
W1, W64, V30
W84
W97, W138, W171, V40
W155
V35
V41
W118, W134, W183, V7, V44, V53
22
Summary of Issues Identified by Submissions
• Incorporating watershed planning in the land use planning process.
• The Municipality's involvement in watershed planning.
• Environmental monitoring and cumulative effects assessment be implemented.
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
The Clarington Official Plan should contain policies in accordance with the Regional Plan,
including further details on when watershed plans should be undertaken, what they will
contain or be limited to. A broader definition of 'watershed plans' should also be provided.
The Region should be added as a parry to any watershed planning study. Given the costs
involved, the proponents of development should be required to fund watershed planning
studies.
Ministry of Natural Resources
The Official Plan should indicate that watershed plans will be prepared in partnership with
the Ministry of Natural Resources, Conservation Authorities and other agencies. The
Official Plan should encourage the preparation of subwatershed plans, not Master Drainage
Plans. The information requirements should be revised to be consistent with the Province's
guidelines for subwatershed plans.
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Watershed studies should be prepared early in the planning process. Secondary Plans must
have sufficient flexibility to incorporate the detailed findings of watershed studies. The
Official Plan should indicate the willingness of -the Municipality to participate in watershed
studies, and require the preparation of a subwatershed and /or Master Drainage Plan of the
affected subwatershed prior to the approval of a plan of subdivision. Conservation
Authorities should be recognized as the agency responsible for the preparation of watershed
management plans.
A process to monitor the natural environment needs to be established so that sustainable
development concepts can be evaluated. Hydrogeological assessments should address broad
cumulative effects.
If alternative storm water management measures such as surface drains, ditches and
infiltration areas are not used in ground water recharge /discharge areas, then development
23
in these areas must be questioned. Higher urban densities may require existing storm water .
management facilities and plans to be re- evaluated. Storm water management options must
be developed which will be able to implement the ultimate Master Drainage Plans.
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
The Authority is supportive of the need to assess cumulative impacts of future development,
as well as the development of watershed plans. The Municipality's active involvement in
watershed planning studies, in particular the watershed study for the Ganaraska River
watershed, is encouraged.
The draft Plan's policies on storm water management should specifically address watershed
planning, and should refer to sub - watershed plans rather than Master Drainage Plans.
Staff Comments
Incorporating watershed planning in the land use planning process
The preparation of comprehensive watershed plans as part of-the Official Plan Review would
not have been practical given the enormous costs and time required. Watershed studies
should be undertaken by the conservation authorities and relevant municipalities on a
priority basis. However, each major watershed is divided into several smaller sub - watersheds.
Much of the benefit that would have been derived from large -scale watershed plans can still
be achieved through planning studies based on these smaller sub - watersheds.
In most cases,. subwatershed plans can be prepared subsequent to the Official Plan process
and prior to the detailed evaluation stage associated with a plan of subdivision. In such case,
it is necessary to have flexibility in the Official Plan to incorporate the detailed findings of
watershed or subwatershed studies.
In certain instances, where groundwater recharge /discharge areas are significant features and
critical to the health of streams, it is important to have the results of the subwatershed
studies to establish either the principle of development and/or the amount of development
that can be accommodated without undue impact. This approach should be used in the
northerly portions of Courtice. In order to provide for an orderly transition, however, this
approa&should not be utilized in areas subject to approved Master Drainage Plans.
Recommendations
3 -1 That the Official Plan require the preparation of subwatershed plans rather than Master
Drainage Plans prior to the approval of plans of subdivision or other urban development
applications.
3-2 That a watershed plan for the Farewell Creek be prepared prior to the designation of land
uses in the Courtice North neighbourhood (Deferral Area -6) in the Durham Regional
Official.
24 .
The MuniciL�ality's involvement in watershed ulannin
Watershed /subwatershed planning studies are intended to be co- operative exercises among
a number of parties, including the Regional and local governments, the Conservation
Authorities, the Ministry of Natural Resources and property owners. As the agency primarily
responsible for local land use decisions and the management of storm water runoff, local
municipal involvement is particularly important.
In the past in this Municipality, master drainage plans have been prepared by development
proponents. In light of the evolution from master drainage plans (how to dispose of
stormwater) to watershed or watershed plans (how to address environmental impacts of
development on surface and groundwater systems), it is increasingly important for the
Municipality to take on an active role in ensuring the integrity of such plans for the public
benefit.
There are a number of significant watersheds contained completely or partially within
Clarington's municipal boundaries, such as the Black/Farewell Creek system, Bowmanville
Creek, Soper Creek, Wilmot Creek and the Ganaraska River. The costs and benefits of
municipal participation in watershed planning exercises for these and other watercourses
should be assessed on a priority basis.
While the larger studies for an entire watershed are more expensive and have a wider
number of benefiting parties without a direct financial interest, the costs of sub - watershed
studies for urbanizing watersheds are readily affordable to benefiting parties. This process
is currently used for master drainage plans and can be readily adapted by the Municipality
to raise the necessary funds for smaller sub - watershed studies. Complete watershed studies
could possibly be done on a multi - stakeholder cost- shared basis.
Recommendations
3 -3 That the Official Plan indicate the Municipality's support for participation in multi -
stakeholder watershed planning studies.
34 That the Official Plan clearly identify that the Municipality will undertake subwatershed
studies, in co- operation with the Region, the Conservation Authority and the Ministry of
Natural Resources, for urbanizing sub - watersheds subject to, saWactory cost - sharing
arrangements.
Environmental monitoring and cumulative impacts assessment
Environmental monitoring measures how various conditions of the natural environment
change over time, such as the amount of forest cover, stream depth during low flow
conditions, and the presence and /or absence of certain species of birds, animals and fish.
Watershed plans are an effective tool in determining the cumulative effects of development.
25
3.3
Many issues have to be addressed in order for environmental monitoring and cumulative
effects assessment to be effectively implemented including sources of funding to establish and
maintain an on -going monitoring program, appropriate thresholds for each environmental
condition monitored, and the ultimate effect on land use decisions should monitoring
indicate that development is having a significant negative impact.
The details of how to implement such a monitoring process would be identified later in
consultation with other levels of government and the development industry. In light of the
basic directions of the Plan and the provincial and regional policies; it would be appropriate
at this time to clearly state the Municipality's intentions to monitor cumulative impacts on
the natural environment.
Recommendations
3-5 That the Implementation policies of the Official Plan indicate that, among other matters,
the Municipality will in consultation with all interested parties, develop a monitoring
system to evaluate cumulative impacts on the natural environment.
Natural Heritage System
Overview
Regional and provincial policy require local official plans to identify and protect
environmentally sensitive and significant features and areas, and a connected natural heritage
system. This concept was elaborated in the Phase 2 "Issues and Options" report..
Submissions Received
E. Allin
W22
R. Cameron
W27
Hans Knecht
W31
Durham Region Field Naturalists
W48
SAGA
W64
Kingsberry Properties
W89
Stan Racansky
W97
Martha and S. Penfound
W123
Dr. T.H. Holmes
W125
Courtice Heights Developments
W131
Kaitlan Group
W132
Haas Shoychet Waisglass Properties
W140
Oshawa Durham Home Builders Assoc.
W154
Durham Wetlands and Watersheds
W155
Bowmanville Mall
W156
Kiddicorp Investments
W157
Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario
W164
26
Summary of Issues Identified by Submissions
• The appropriate designation for natural heritage features and areas.
• Development setbacks from streams and valleys be determined.
• Protecting natural heritage features and areas.
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
The Plan's policies regarding environmentally sensitive areas and natural features need to
be clarified.
Ministry of Natural Resources
The draft Official Plan is an extremely forward thinking, environmentally and ecologically
based plan. The policy requiring the gratuitous dedication of environmentally sensitive areas
as a condition of development is supported.
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
The Green Space designation and policies gives natural areas the same status as other
planning designations. A comprehensive data base of the municipality's natural systems and
features should be obtained at the start of the planning process.
The setback policy for streams and valleylands should be based on both fixed buffers zones
and flexible performance standards. The requirement for an environmental impact study
should apply to any development activity which could potentially impact on a wetland, even
if located more than 120 metres away.
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authori
The setback where a defined top -of -bank for a stream valley exists should be 10 metres, and
should form the rear lot line in subdivisions. As well, the Plan should state that development
will not be considered. where an Environmental Impact Assessment identifies impacts
unacceptable to the municipality or other review agencies.
The appropriate designation for natural heritage features and areas
The draft Official Plan identifies all natural heritage features and areas on Map C, with the
most sensitive being designated "Green Space" on Map A. However, within the "Green
27
Space" designation, no special protection is provided to those natural features and areas
identified as being significant, as required by the Provincial Policy Statements. The definition
of 'Environmentally Sensitive Areas" provided in the draft Plan has also been criticized as
being too broad.
The Official Plan should provide different levels of protection for natural heritage features
and areas based on their significance and sensitivity on the basis of the information currently
available. Therefore, it is proposed to establish new land use designation of "Environmental
Protection Area ", to recognize the most significant components of the natural heritage system
including:
• all permanent streams and associated valleylands;
• most significant woodlots;
• all wetlands and wetland complexes;
• all areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) excluding the
Bowmanville /St. Marys Quarry.
No development would be permitted within the "Environmental Protection Area ", except uses
such as passive recreation and structures related to erosion control and storm water
management.
Less significant natural features, including smaller woodlots would continue to be shown on
Map C but would receive a lower level of protection. Development may be permitted
subject to an environmental impact study.
Recommendation
3 -6 That a new land use designation known as "Environmental Protection Areas" be
introduced covering the most signdficant natund heritage features and areas.
Development setbacks from streams and valleys.
There are varied opinions on the most appropriate approach to determining development
setbacks along stream valleys. The draft Official Plan currently reflects Ministry of Natural
Resources policy by requiring a development setback of 30 metres and 15 metres, as
measured from the edge of channel, for cold water streams and warm water streams
respectively. These rigid guidelines are easy to administer, but may not protect the valley
system below the top of bank, nor provide an appropriate development setback above the
top of bank. However, flexible standards are only practical where detailed environmental
information is available.
It is proposed that a combination of a fixed standard and a performance standard be
established to define the development setback areas around stream valleys. The fixed
standard would be the top -of -bank plus five metres to accommodate maintenance access.
The performance standard would require an increased setback if slope stability or the
sensitivity of natural features warrant such an increase. In no case would the setback be less
than the standard established by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Recommendation
3 -7 That the Oricial Plan recognize variable setback zone requirements for stream valleys
based on environmental or slope stability concerns. In no case, however, would the setback
be less than a minimum 5 metres standard.
Protection of natural heritage features and areas
The Draft Official Plan requires the gratuitous dedication of all or part of an
environmentally sensitive area located within the limits of a. proposed development. This
policy has been criticized because of the broad definition of environmentally sensitive areas
contained in the Draft Plan, including recharge and discharge areas.
Current Council's policy under By -law 95 -104 is to request the gratuitous dedication of
wetlands, creek valley lands, and shoreline hazard lands as a condition of development
approval. It would be appropriate to modify the draft policy to be consistent with current
policy. The protection of other natural heritage areas and features could be accomplished
through public land acquisition, conservation easements, parkland -dedication or other
available regulatory mechanisms.
Recommendation
3-8 Thai the draft policies be modified to clarify that only hazard lands, valleylands and
wetlands would be requested for gratuitous dedication to the Municipality as a condition
of development approval.
3.4 Woodlot Policies
Overview
Woodlots are vital elements of the natural environment. They are important as habitat and
movement corridors for wildlife, and for the maintenance of groundwater and surface water
resources. They also form a significant part of the visual landscape of the municipality and
are integral to the quality of life of Clarington residents. For these reasons, woodlot
protection warrants specific consideration in the Official Plan.
P41
Submissions Received
SAGA
W64
Jo -Anne Mehring
W73
Pam Callus
W84
Mark Foley
W89
Cliff Curtis
W121
John Nekkers
W122
Courtice Heights Developments
W131
Kaitlan Group
W132
Eric and Geri Cornish
W137
Stan Racansky
W138
Messrs. Schleiss and Holland
W151
Oshawa - Durham Home Builders Assoc.
W154
Durham Wetlands and Watersheds
W155
Kiddicorp Investments
W157
Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario
W164
Peggy Dalidowicz
W177
George Leaver
V36
Elena Racansky
V40
Summary of Issues Identified by Submissions
• The appropriate designation for woodlots in the Official Plan.
• The woodlots shown are excessive.
• Gratuitous dedication of woodlots.
Agency Comments
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
The draft Official Plan should permit woodlot clearing for agricultural use on Class 1 -3 lands
when the woodlot is part of a farming operation and productivity or yield will be increased.
The Plan should also indicate that commercial logging may occur in the rural areas when
undertaken as part of a Forest Management Plan prepared by a qualified forester.
The presence of "Green Space" areas to reflect rural woodlots intermixed with agriculturally
designated lands is of concern. The Plan should provide large areas of predominantly high
priority agricultural lands which are not interrupted by non - agricultural designations.
30
Ministry of Natural Resources
The use of criteria to determine significant woodlots is a very progressive approach to
identifying woodlots for protection. The criteria used are very comprehensive and cover
most of the components that the Ministry would normally recommend. Specific
modifications to the woodlot criteria are suggested. The Plan should indicate that a more
complete and up -to -date inventory of woodlands and natural areas is required. The Plan
should also indicate a desired level of future forest cover for municipality (preferably 25%
to 30 %).
The policy restricting development within woodlots is supported. However, commercial
logging should be permitted under an approved forest management plan provided by the
Ministry of Natural Resources, the Conservation Authorities or a Registered Professional
Forester.
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
Woodlots should be designated "Green Space" rather than just being indicated on Map C.
Ecological function should be considered when assessing the quality of a woodlot. Woodlots
larger than 30 ha and 300 m deep should be protected, and development setbacks should be
provided for smaller woodlots to promote the regeneration of the forest core.
In the Authority's experience, the incorporation of wooded areas into residential lots has not
proven to be an. effective method of woodlot protection and is no longer recommended.
To ensure that expanded agricultural uses do not impact upon the sensitivity of a woodlot,
there must be a mechanism to trigger the need for an environmental impact analysis.
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authoritv
Commercial logging should be permitted on private woodlots provided it is undertaken in
accordance with a management plan prepared by a Registered Professional Forester.
Staff Comments
The appropriate designation for woodlots
In the Draft Official Plan, tableland woodlots were identified on the Natural Features Map
C. In addition, the more significant woodlots were designated "Green Space" on the Land
Use Map A. Such woodlots were designated for preservation and development was
prohibited.
Upon review of the submissions and having regard for provincial and regional policy, it is
proposed that some revisions be made to this framework. Firstly, tableland woodlots would
31
continue to be shown on the Natural Features Map C and will be accurately defined through
the use of digitized Ontario Base Mapping. The indication of the tableland woodlots on
Map C would trigger the requirement for an environmental impact analysis and /or a woodlot
preservation plan in the event of a development application.
It is recognized that the preservation of woodlots in urban areas is difficult to achieve
particularly where isolated wooded areas are involved. However, larger significant woodlots
which are associated with valleys or wetland system are worthy of protection in order to
maintain ecological systems. Therefore, it is proposed that the Official Plan would designate
the most significant woodlots as Environmental Protection Areas, similar to wetlands and
valleylands. The exact boundaries would be the subject of detailed studies submitted with
development applications on adjacent lands.
The less significant woodlots in Urban Area would be designated for Residential but subject
to the constraints imposed by the policies for natural features outlined above. In this case,.
the environmental impact analysis could result in smaller pockets of trees being retained in
certain areas or possibly groups of trees retained on residential lots.
In rural areas, woodlots would only be shown on the Natural Features Map C but retain the
predominant land use designation of adjacent lands. This would mean that smaller, isolated
woodlots could have an Agricultural or Green Space designation.
Recommendations
3 -9 That the Official Plan designate the most significant woodlots as "Environmental
Protection Areas ".
3 -10 That the less significant woodtots in Urban Areas be designated for Residential or
Employment Area uses but be subject to an environmental impact analysis.
The woodlots shown are excessive
The Draft Official Plan designates urban woodlots as "Green Space ". A total of nine
objections were received to the designation of four woodlots in Courtice and two woodlots
in Bowmanville, as indicated on Maps 7 and 8 to this Report.
Courtice Woodlots
An environmental study of Courtice north of Nash Road was recently undertaken for the
Region by the consulting firm Ecological Services for Planning Ltd. This study, entitled
'Environmental Impact Study of the Courtice Major Urban Area', was released in 1994.
01
33
�'?)vuuwuIOIPJuvuVJ�pj vuv lS?)U- 1s%�-9UIrR=9 Vjvvvv16v u
DOOW ML%MVOLLC MG3MH AREA
34
a) Schleiss and Holland Woodlot (Submission W151)
The 1994 Courtice Environmental Study indicates that this woodlot is a largely undisturbed
mature mixed woodlot with potential for high wildlife species diversity. The woodlot serves
as a source area for a tributary to the Harmony Creek. The Study identifies this woodlot as
having high sensitivity to impacts from development.. It is currently designated Minor Open
Space in the Neighbourhood Plan and it is recommended that this woodlot be protected.
b) Curtis - Nekkers- Dalidowicz Woodlot (Submission W121, W122, W177)
This woodlot is the eastward continuation of the Schleiss and Holland woodlot. The 1994
Environmental Study indicates that this is a disturbed mature mixed woodlot with moderate
sensitivity to impacts from development. The northerly portions contiguous to the highly
sensitive Schleiss and Holland woodlot to the west and the wooded area in the Farewell
Creek valley to the east, which is rated as having very high sensitivity. However, the portion
south of the future extension of Springfield Drive would be isolated from the main woodlot.
It is appropriate to release these lands because of commitments• through previous
development approvals for the extension of roads and services to this area. However, tree
preservation plans should be utilized in the design of the plan of subdivision to retain as
many trees as practical.
C) Mehring Woodlot (Submission W73)
This woodlot is located on a property which is part of a larger land assembly for a proposed
plan of subdivision. The woodlot lies immediately adjacent to the Harmony Creek Valley.
The 1994 Environmental Study indicates this is an immature to undisturbed mature woodlot
which provides mature wildlife habitat and a corridor for wildlife movement. The Study
identifies the woodlot as having moderate sensitivity to impacts from development. However,
staff note that this woodlot is significant in the Courtice context, containing mature
hardwoods and being located adjacent to the Harmony Creek valley system and therefore,
should be protected. The precise boundaries of the woodlots could be determined in the
context of a development application of the adjacent lands.
d) Kiddicorp Woodlot (Submission W157)
According to the 1994 Environmental Study, this woodlot is part of a much larger
undisturbed mature woodlot which possesses a high water table and acts as a potential
groundwater recharge area. It provides mature habitat for wildlife, in particular for interior
species. The entire woodlot is rated as having very high sensitivity to impacts from
development.
Kiddicorp Investments has submitted a draft plan of subdivision which covers that portion
of the woodlot subject to the submission. Instead of high rise apartments, which could
conserve large open space areas, the proponent seeks to construct a traditional plan of
35
subdivision. A more detailed environmental study of the entire woodlot is required to
provide a more in -depth evaluation of the woodlot and enable the boundaries of the woodlot
to be more precisely defined.
Bowmanville Woodlots
a) Cornish Woodlot (Submission W137, V36)
This "Green Space" designation reflects a large woodlot which was cleared in late 1994 and
early 1995. The owners are currently subject to prosecution under the Region of Durham
Tree Preservation By -law. Staff note that the Tree Preservation By -law provides for the
restoration of all or part of a cleared woodlot. The "Green Space" designation should
therefore be maintained.
b) Kemp Woodlot (Submission V18)
A review of aerial photography and source maps and a site visit by Staff in February 1995
confirmed that the "Green Space" designation inadvertently incorporated additional lands
that were clearly not part of the woodlot. An appropriate adjustment to the boundary has
been reviewed with Mr. Kemp.
Recommendation
3 -11 That the designation for woodlots be retained save and except for the following:
a) That the designation of the Curtis Nekkers Dakdowicz woodlots be
adjusted to remove the lands south of the future Spring- -veld Drive
extension.
b) That the designation of the hemp woodlot be adjusted to re, sect the actual
limits of the woodlot.
Gratuitous dedication of woodlots.
The public acquisition of woodlots would provide a number of benefits, including the
perpetual protection of the woodlot and the provision of natural areas for public use.
However, the Municipality does not have the financial resources to pursue a blanket policy
of purchasing woodlots, nor does it have the legal authority to require the gratuitous
dedication of a woodlot except as parkland dedication.
While developers have traditionally been willing to dedicate valleylands gratuitously due to
flood and erosion hazards, the submissions indicate that this is not acceptable for woodlots
unless considered as parkland dedication.
36
3.5
Under the planning reforms .established through Bill 163, the Municipality now has new
powers to enact a tree preservation by -law to regulate the destruction of trees on private
property. If the Municipality were to enact such a by -law, the question of ownership of the
lands would be less important to achieving the same objective.
Another option for tree preservation is to allow for density transfers or bonusing. Thus
while the Draft Official Plan has focussed primarily on one mechanism to achieve the
preservation of woodlots, it would be more appropriate to recognize the variety of
mechanisms which could be utilized, including:
• municipal acquisition;
• gratuitous dedication;
• parkland dedication;
• regulation of private lands (tree preservation by -law); and
• density transfers or bonusing.
Recommendation
312 That the Official Plan recognize a variety of mechanisms to achieve the preservation of
woodlots with municipal ownership pursued for only the most significant woodlots.
313 That the Municipality enact a tree preservation by-law under the Municipal Act.
Lake Iroquois Beach
Overview
The beach (also referred to as the shoreline) of glacial Lake Iroquois is characterized by a
shallow water table, wetlands and extensive forested areas. It functions as a band of local
ground water recharge and discharge. The Beach and its features and functions are sensitive
to disturbances associated with changes in land use, such as the clearing of forests for
urbanization or agriculture. The northern portions of the Courtice and Bowmanville Urban
Area, as well as south Orono and the hamlet of Newtonville, are located on the Lake
Iroquois Beach.
Submissions Received
Valiant Property Management W96, V45, V46
Racansky Family W97, W138, W171, W184
Allan Vaillancourt W149
Durham Wetlands and Watersheds W155
Ann Cowman V41
37
Summary of Issues Identified By Submissions
Maintaining the ecological functions of the Lake Iroquois Beach.
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
The interpretation of the whole of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline as an environmentally
sensitive area may be unduly restrictive. Why is the expansion of Newtonville specifically
prohibited, and not that of other hamlets and urban areas also adjacent to or within the Lake
Iroquois Shoreline?
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
The preservation of recharge /discharge functions in Courtice and north Bowmanville is
critical to cold water fish species/habitat in adjacent streams. Radically different methods
of storm water management are required in Courtice and north Bowmanville to protect
groundwater functions. The policies in the draft Official Plan relating to the Lake Iroquois
Shoreline are supported. The requirement for the preparation of environmental impact
studies for urban development on the Shoreline provides the opportunity to ensure that its
complex environmental functions, such as ground water recharge and discharge, will be
addressed.
Neighbourhoods 8 and 9 in north Bowmanville should be placed in a Special Study Area so
that the level of development can be influenced by environmental studies.
Staff Comments
Maintaining the ecological functions of the Lake Iroquois Beach
One of the objectives of the draft Official Plan is the preservation and protection of the
functions Lake Iroquois Beach (Shoreline) with its forests, wildlife habitat and its significant
functions of ground water recharge. It is the source of many smaller streams and a major
contributor to baseflow for larger streams which originate in the Oak Ridges Moraine. Thus
the protection of this natural feature is a key environmental objective of the Official Plan.
The Beach is identified on Map C (Natural Features) of the draft Plan, but is not specifically
designated on Map A (Land Use). Uses permitted on the Beach are in accordance with land
use designations. It is recognized that the provisions of the Draft Official Plan are not clear
on this issue. This matter will be addressed in the recommended- version of the Official Plan.
Many of the issues related to the protection of the Lake Iroquois Beach are closely
associated with other specific issues being addressed through the Official Plan Review - the
W
protection of ground and surface water resources through watershed planning, and the
protection of woodlots and wetlands.
Those portions of the Lake Iroquois Beach designated for urban development in northerly
portions of Courtice and Bowmanville are under the greatest pressure. Therefore, the
preparation of watershed or subwatershed plans for the Black/Farewell Creeks system and
the Bowmanville /Soper Creeks system should be considered as municipal priorities. As well,
approaches to protect the Beach's ground water recharge functions, including alternative
storm water management techniques, should be utilized.
Protection of the Lake Iroquois Beach in the rural area requires a limitation on
development. Development applications, including aggregate extraction activities, will be
required to submit an environmental analysis to address the impact on the Beach's ecological
functions and possible mitigative measures.
Recommendations
344 That the use of alternative storm water management measures to facilitate the
maintenance of ground water functions be required for any development within the Lake
Iroquois Beach area.
3 -15 That the relationship between the natural feature policiesfor the Lake Iroquois Beach and
the land use designation be clarified.
39
4.1 Provincial and Regional Policies
Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy Statements
Policies in Section B (Economic, Community Development, and Infrastructure-Policies),
Section C (Housing Policies) and E of the Policy Statements have implications for the
planning of urban areas.
The linkages between social and human service needs and land use planning should be
recognized in land use planning decisions. Public streets and places and facilities used by
the public should be planned to meet the needs of pedestrians and be safe, lively and
accessible to all. The well -being of main streets and downtowns should be fostered.
Communities should be planned to use land efficiently, and promote the efficient use of
infrastructure and public service facilities.
Municipalities are to provide opportunities for at least 30 percent of new dwelling units,
including redevelopment and intensification, to be affordable. Intensification is to be
permitted in all areas of residential use, except where infrastructure is inadequate or there
are physical constraints. Municipalities are to maintain a sufficient supply of land for
development and redevelopment, specifically:
• 10 year supply of designated land; and
0 3 year supply of draft approved and registered plans of subdivision.
Municipalities should be planned to provide opportunities for energy and water conservation
through such means as siting and building design.
Durham Regional Official Plan
The development of urban areas shall be based on compact form, mixed uses, intensification
and urban design. Each community shall be developed to incorporate the widest possible
variety of housing.
A goal of the Plan is to restore the historic integration of the shopping function with other
traditional Central Area functions, such as housing, employment, recreation, social activities
and cultural facilities. Applications to increase the floor space allocation for designated
Main Central Areas and Sub - Central Areas shall be accompanied by a retail impact study,
prepared by the Region at the expense of the proponent, to ensure the application does not
unduly affect the viability of any other Central Area designated in the Regional or local
official plan.
40
4.2 Residential Neighbourhoods
Overview
Section 9 of the Draft Official Plan contains policies related to the future development of
residential neighbourhoods. Residential neighbourhoods comprise the basic building blocks
for community land use planning. They comprise not just housing but the entire variety of
land uses such as schools, parks and convenience commercial facilities which support a
residential area. In reviewing the submissions, the Housing policies contained in Section 6
of the Draft Official Plan were also reviewed.
Submissions Received
D. Davidson
W16, W77
R. Cameron
W27
John Huber
W32
June Clark
W35
William Stewart
W72
Bramalea Ltd.
W88
Valiant Property Management
W110
Courtice Heights Developments Ltd.
W131
Kaitlin Group
W132
Durham Non - Profit Housing
W133
Haas Shoychet Waisglass
W140
Oshawa - Durham Home Builders Association
W154
Kiddicorp Investments
W157
Hugh Neill
V43
Ross Miller
V52
Summaries of Issues Identified Through Submissions
• Providing a variety and mix of housing stock.
• Integrating assisted (rent - geared -to- income) housing be into neighbourhoods.
• Appropriateness of density ranges and prescribed building forms.
• Flexibility in housing targets, locational criteria and urban design criteria.
Agency Comments
Ministry of Housing
The promotion of affordable housing by the Municipality is very encouraging. However, the
Draft Official Plan contains criteria for group homes which is restrictive and criteria for
accessory apartments which does not comply with Bill 120, The Resident's Rights Act. There
are concerns that the restriction of non -profit housing to "small scale housing projects" would
41
be viewed as exclusionary and restrictive. Furthermore, phrases such as "the concentration
of non - profit housing" could be rewritten in a more positive manner. The Municipality needs
to clarify how the urban design criteria would be applied.
The Region of Durham
The difference between the Municipal Housing Statement intensification targets and those
contained in the Draft Official Plan needs explanation. Additional background information
should be provided on the criteria for group homes. Accessory apartments policy does not
comply with Bill 120. More detailed policies are required on affordable housing.
Staff Comments
Providing a variety and mix of housing stock
Section 9.4.8 of the draft Official Plan states that all plans of subdivision should have a
variety of housing forms. Concerns have been raised that this may be difficult to implement
in smaller plans of subdivision. In certain instances, only one housing form may be suitable
due to adjacent estate housing or environmental constraints. Staff concur with this
suggestion that the Official Plan should provide greater flexibility for subdivision and not
routinely require the full array housing forms in every subdivision.
Recommendation
44 That the Official Plan should provide for a variety of housing forms but allow greater
axibility to account for specific circumstances which may limit one subdivision proposal
from providing a full array of housing forms.
Integrating assisted (rent - geared -to- income) housing and special needs housing into
neighbourhoods
The draft Official Plan encourages the integration of assisted housing in residential
neighbourhoods but provides policies to discourage "the concentration of non -profit housing
in any one area of the Municipality". Some residents expressed concern about allowing any
assisted housing. . Government agencies and non -profit housing providers raised concerns
that this type of policy can be interpreted very broadly and should be rewritten in a more
positive manner. Similar concerns were expressed about the possible interpretation of "small
scale non -profit housing ". Staff concur that these policies should be rewritten in a more
positive tone which requires that a variety of housing be provided in neighbourhoods.
42
Recommendation
4-2 That the Official Plan provide for the integration of assisted (rent-geared -to- income)
housing and social housing into residential neighbourhoods without reference to
"concentration" of such housing types.
Appropriateness of net density ranges and prescribed building_forms
The Draft Official Plan provides a density range, predominant housing form and a height
limit for four density categories. While the density range (units per hectare) is a convenient
calculation for planners and developers, residents are largely concerned with the question
of housing form and height. The purpose of incorporating both measures is to provide a
common understanding of the anticipated form of development.
A number of residents expressed concern with the amount of higher density development but
not necessarily with the definitions provided in the Draft Official Plan. With one exception,
there were no concerns with the height limitation. This is encouraging since staff have taken
an approach to increasing density through a more ground- oriented building mass and a
prohibition of high -rise towers.
Some development proponents suggested that the upper limit of the low density housing
should be increased from 25 to 30 units per net hectare to allow for limited street
townhouses in these areas. After reviewing the broader objectives of the Plan which
encourage a variety of housing types, and noting some of the problems with larger blocks of
medium density housing, staff concur with this suggestion.
Recommendation
4-3 That the Low Density H range be increased from 15-25 to Y5 -30 units per net hectare and
that limited street- townhouse forms be permitted in the Low Density Area.
Flexibility in housing targets, locational criteria and urban design criteria.
A number of submissions raised concerns that the various standards contained in the Draft
Official Plan were too prescriptive for an official plan and did not allow for enough
flexibility. Specific concerns were:
• allocation of dwelling units by density type on Map E
• maximum number of units for block townhouses (50) and street townhouses
(6)
• requirement for on -site amenity areas for medium and high density
developments
i urban design criteria
43
A number of submissions suggested that these policies should be less rigid by substituting the
word "shall" with phrases such as "shall have regard for ", "shall generally" or "shall
encourage ". This type of language would allow for a more flexible interpretation and
exceptions. While staff recognize the need for some flexibility, there is also a need to give
the Official Plan sufficient strength so that it establishes a definitive direction. Each of the
policies will be reviewed further in light of these two needs and revised if necessary in the
Recommended Official Plan.
Recommendation
None
4.3 Main Central Areas
Overview
Section 10 of the draft Official Plan deals with Central Areas and commercial uses. Main
Central Areas are the central focal points of community activity containing an integrated
array of housing, shopping facilities and services, offices, institutions. recreational and
cultural facilities. The draft Official Plan promotes Bowmanville as a regional centre, the
creation of people- oriented environments, the integration of various activities and the
preservation of the vitality of historic downtowns.
Submissions
Fleurette
W18
Bowmanville Memorial Hospital
W57, W61, W69
Bill Stewart
W72
Carol Noble
W74
Otto Provenzano
W91
Valiant Property Management
W96, W110
Richard Gay Holdings Ltd.
W109
Kaitlin Group
W132
Bowmanville Mall
W156
Edmond VanHaverbeke/Murray Patterson
Verbal
Summaries of Issues Identified Through Submissions
• The mix and integration of uses.
• The use of retail impact studies.
• The boundary of the Courtice Main Central Area.
44
The nature and scale of the study to be undertaken for the Courtice Main Central
Area.
• The boundary of the Newcastle Village Main Central Area.
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
Regional planning staff noted that the Bowmanville Main Central Area will have to be
refined in light of the OMB decision to establish two Main Central Areas in Bowmanville.
It was also noted that Orono did not have a Main.Central Area in the Regional Plan and
therefore an amendment would be required or it could be designated as a Local or
Community Central Area, which does not require a Regional Plan designation.
Staff Comments
The mix and integration of uses in Main Central Areas
The Durham Regional Official Plan establishes the mixture of uses as perhaps the key
element of Central Areas. The positive benefits of mixing and integrating land uses include
compact urban form, efficient transportation, improved livetwork relationship and an active
pedestrian environment. There have been, however, long standing concerns about the
effective implementation of mixed -uses in Central Areas. Bowmanville Mali suggested that
mixed -use could occur in a horizontal relationship (ie. an on -site apartment building).
Valiant Property Management suggested that shopping centres have difficulty incorporating
garbage pick -up, loading, site safety, functionality of retail space and site layout in a mixed -
use format.
While the draft Official Plan did not specifically require mixed -use buildings, it strongly
encourages this form of development. Mixed -use development were defined either
commercial, community or institutional uses incorporating residential dwellings in the same
building or in separate buildings. All central areas must provide residential or mixed -use
developments. For this reason, it is critical to have an urban design plan which ensures the
mix and integration of all land uses.
It should be noted most Main and Sub - Central Areas in Clarington are located on Highway
2 which is also recognized as a transit spine in the Regional Official Plan. The mix of uses
is important to develop the environment that is supportive of transit and pedestrian activity.
Thus, while the Official Plan should not strictly enforce vertical mixed -use buildings, the mix
and integration of a variety of land uses needs to remain a cornerstone of the Official Plan.
45
Recommendation
None
The use of retail impact studies
The submissions did not object to the use of retail impact studies or that the municipality
would retain the consultant. However, several different views were expressed on the
application of retail impact studies. Bowmanville Mall felt that the requirement for retail
impact studies should be increased for proposal greater than 3,500 sq.m. rather than 2,500
sq.m. as proposed in the Draft Official Plan. They also noted that there appeared to be an
oversight in not requiring studies for areas outside of Main Central Areas. Valiant Property
Management felt that their site had an approved zoning and there was no need for a retail
impact study.
There is a need to clarify the policies of the Draft Official Plan on the use of retail impact
studies. The intent was that such studies would be required at the time of an official plan
amendment or rezoning. As such, staff concur with Valiant's submission that such a study
would not be required for a site plan application. As to the threshold above which retail
impact studies would be required, staff are satisfied with that 2,500 sq. m is appropriate.
This would include proposals for new format retail warehouse stores including those that
may be located in Highway Commercial Areas as required under Section 10.8.2 of the Draft
Official Plan.
Recommendation
44 That Section 10.3.6 be clarified to require the rezoning of lands for all commercial
proposals greater than 2,500 square metres or for the designation of new Central Areas.
The boundary of the Courtice Main Central Area
Two submissions by Provenzano (W 91) and Gay Construction (W 109) request the extension
of the Courtice Main Central Area to incorporate additional lands to the north and east.
The draft Plan designates approximately 18 ha (45 acres) for the Courtice Main Central
Area. Within the timeframe of this Plan, these lands are more than sufficient to
accommodate the anticipated mix of uses to develop in the Main Central Area. In addition,
the sites of the proposed additions would contribute to strip commercial development along
Highway 2 rather than being focused so as to contribute to establishing a downtown for
Courtice. There will be no recommended changes to the boundary of the Courtice Main
Central Area.
i,
The nature and scale of the study to be uudert<ake►► for the Courtice Main Central Area
Valiant Property Management owns a 6.4 ha (15.8 acre) site within the Courtice Main
Central Area with an existing C1 zoning which permits 13,935 sq.m (150,000 sq.ft.) of
commercial floorspace. The draft Official Plan designates the Courtice Main Central Area
as a Special Study Area and requires a comprehensive land use study for the Main Central
Area including an urban design plan. The concern of Valiant Property Management is that
a secondary plan process would require public consultation and could jeopardize their
existing zoning.
The Courtice Main Central Area will be a critical area for the success of Courtice in
becoming a distinct community. It must be planned with care and consideration for good
urban design. It is not staffs intention, however, to affect the existing commercial floorspace
permitted on the Valiant site. In this regard, it would be appropriate to specify the details
of the Study and to clarify that the existing amount of commercial floorspace on the Valiant
lands would not be diminished by the secondary plan study.
Recommendation
¢S Diat Section 17.3 be clarified as to the scope of the secondary plan and urban design
study for the Courtice Main Central Area including speci, fcally that the allocation of
commercial,floorspace to the Valiant site would not be reduced through such study.
The boundary of the Newcastle Village Main Central Area
Edmond VanHaverbeke and Murray Patterson requested clarification of the Newcastle
Village Main Central Area boundary. The Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle
contains a secondary plan for the Main Central Area. However, the Draft Official Plan does
not contain a secondary plan for the Main Central Area and there is some confusion as to
the location of the Main Central Area boundaries.
In addition, the above parties requested that the boundary of the Newcastle Village Main
Central Area be extended southerly to Emily Street and easterly along the south side of King
Street (Highway 2) to Arthur Street. Staff support the southerly extension to Emily Street
to enable parking areas to be developed to support King Street commercial buildings.
Recommendations
¢6 That the boundary of the Newcastle ITllage Main Central Area be extended southerly to
Emily Street and a secondary plan be prepared to be incorporated in the Recommended
Official Plan.
47
4.4 Parks
Overview
In 1991 Hough Stansbury Woodland completed a Recreation/Leisure Services Master Plan
which provided a parks hierarchy and standards for parkland dedication. Based on these
recommendations and the proposed expansions to the urban areas neighbourhood,
community and district park sites were selected within the urban areas. A number of
submissions object to these designations for apparent economic reasons.
Submissions Received
Edmond VanHaverbeke
W105
Courtice Heights Developments
W131
Kaitlin Group Limited
W132
Anglo York Industries Limited
W142
Oshawa - Durham Home Builders Association
W154
289143 Ontario Limited
W165, V42
Schickedanz Brothers Ltd.
W166
Summaries of Issues Identified Through Submissions
• The designation of community parks at the following locations:
Courtice South -West at Prestonvale Road and Bloor Street);
Bowmanville North (Liberty Street and Concession Road #3);
- Bowmanville East (Lambs Road and the C.P. railway tracks); and,
Newcastle Village (Highway #2 and Rudell Road).
• Minimum street frontage requirement for parks.
• The park service standard versus the parkland dedication standard.
Agency Comments
Community Services Department
Community Services Department has indicated that it supports the locations of the future
parks, save and except for the Bowmanville East Community Park.
Staff Comments
The designation of the Community Parks at the locations shown
The Recreation/Leisure Services Master Plan recommended that community parks be
provided at the rate of 0.8 hectares /1,000 population. It also recommended a distinction
between Major and Minor Community Parks. Major community parks would be the site of
major facilities like arenas, swimming pools and illuminated sports fields. Minor community
parks would be used for non - illuminated sports fields.
The Draft Official Plan has provided for community park locations to serve the requirements
for only a portion of the ultimate need required by the Regional population targets for three
lakeshore urban areas. On the basis of the 20 year targets to be utilized in the
Recommended Official Plan, the community parkland requirements are as follows:
F_ COMMUNITY PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS, 2016
Urban Area
2016
Total Community
. Existing
Additional
Population Target
Parkland
Community
Community
Required
Parkland
Parkland
(lia)
(ha)
Required
(ha)
Bowmanville
63,000
50
11 *
39
Courtice
35,000
28
11 *
17
Newcastle Village
15,000
12
0
12
Total
113,000
90
22
68
* Note: Darlington Soccer Fields are divided equally between the Bowmanville and Courtice Urban Area.
In consideration of the additional amount of community parkland required to serve the
population at year 2016, staff revisited the Draft Official Plan in terms of the adequacy and
location of future community parks having regard to the following criteria:
• community parks are to provide a mixture of active and passive recreational
opportunities;
• facilities should be located to serve approximately 20,000 - 25,000 people within a 1.5
- 2.5 km radius;
• park sizes should range between 8 -12 ha in size or larger depending on the intended
facility mix;
• sites should be located along arterial or collector roads with approximately 25% of
the park perimeter having direct road frontage;
49
the site should provide suitable tableland for the location of active facilities enclosed
in buildings, baseball and soccer fields, parking areas and park access;
• the site should be adjacent to valleylands which link the park to future trail systems
and natural areas. This permits an alternate means of facility access through walking
or cycling; and
• the locations should have regard for the future availability of (future) servicing.
As a result of our review, additional community parks are required. As to the location of
all proposed Community Parks in the Draft Official Plan, we are satisfied that they also meet
the above -noted criteria. However, in response to the concerns raised, the adjustments to
some park locations are recommended as indicated below as well as indicated on Maps 9 to
11.
(a) Bowmanville East
A 12 -16 ha (30 - 40 acre) park serving the eastern portion of Bowmanville has been
designated adjacent to the C.P.R. tracks between Lambs Road and Soper Creek.
Development of the site would be contingent on services being extended to this area.
The park is adjacent to the Soper Creek valleyland and generally consists of tableland with
some relatively deep gullies are apparent. A planned population of 16,900 is within a 1.8 km
radius of the park site.
A portion of the property is owned by Schickedanz Brothers Limited who object to the
Community Park designation. The applicant had submitted a concept plan for the area in
1990 which proposed low density residential development on the site. They wish to have the
property designated for residential uses.
The Community Services Department has indicated that development costs for this location
would be high because of the slopes and the need for a bridge for access purposes. An
alternative site offering additional tableland would be preferable. In response to the
submission and the concerns of the Community Services Department, it is recommended that
this site be moved to the northwest corner of Concession Street and Lambs Road. This
location would provide suitable tableland as required.
(b) Newcastle Village
A 12 -16 ha (30 - 40 ac) park at the southwest corner of Highway #2 and Rudell Road has
been designated to serve all of Newcastle Village. The site is comprised primarily of
tableland which gently slopes towards Wilmot Creek. The property can be easily serviced
from development to the east. The planned population for Newcastle Village, being 18,500,
is within a 3.2 km radius of the park site.
50
PE88LESTONE ROAD
PROPOSED IN
DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN '
REGIONAL URBAN
~' AREA BOUNDARY
51
�1d1 A P 9
COMMUNITY PARKS
COO URTICE URBAN AREA
MAP 10
Dommumo7v PARKS
BOO WN&MYOLLE URBAN AREA
PROPOSED OFFICIAL OFFICIAL PLAN
PROPOSED
REVISED LOCATION
REGIONAL URBAN
AREA BOUNDARY
MAP 10
Dommumo7v PARKS
BOO WN&MYOLLE URBAN AREA
CONCESSION ROAD 3
PROPOSED IN
DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
PROPOSED
REVISED LOCATION
REGIONAL URBAN
AREA BOUNDARY
MAP 11
COMMUNITY I I .
NEWCASTLE VI1101
53
An objection has been received from Edmond VanHaverbeke who requests that his lands
be excluded from the designation. The property had been designated to obtain accessibility
and visibility along Highway #2. It is proposed that only the western half of the property
be designated as Community Park, allowing Mr. VanHaverbeke to retain his residence.
Sufficient frontage for park visibility and entrance purposes will still be available.
Recommendations
¢7 Th at the Bowmanville Fast Community Park be relocated southerly to the northwest corner
of Lambs Road and Concession Street.
4-8 T hat the configuration. of the Newcastle pillage Community Park be revised to reduce the
frontage on Highway #2.
Minimum street frontage requirement for parks
The minimum of 25% street frontage requirement for parks was recommended by the
Recreation /Leisure Services Master Plan. The purpose of this policy is to provide parks with
more prominence and visibility instead of concealing them behind residential development.
They become more accessible and provide a greater community focus. Greater frontage also
contributes to community safety by allowing easy visual access from the surrounding areas.
Development proponents expressed concerns that such a policy may impact their return by
reducing the saleable frontage in a plan of subdivision. It should be noted, however, that this
general guideline has been used for several years in reviewing plans of subdivision. No
change is recommended to this policy.
The nark service standard versus the parkland _dedication standard
The Official Plan provides a service standard for each type of park. This service standard
is expressed in the terms of hectares per thousand persons. For example, the neighbourhood
park service standard is 0.8 ha /1000 persons. The service standard for all types of parkland
totals 2.0 ha /1000 persons as indicated in Section 18.3.4 of the Draft Official Plan.
On the other hand, there is a park dedication requirement permitted under the Planning Act
where a municipality can require the dedication of 2 % of industrial /commercial lands and
5 % of residential and other lands or alternatively 1 hectare per 300 dwelling units.
Concerns were expressed by the development industry that the service standard contained
in Section 18.3.4 could not be fulfilled on the basis of parkland dedications under the
Planning Act. Specifically, municipal purchases over and above the parkland dedication
would be required. The Draft Official Plan acknowledges the need for municipal purchases
and the possibility of donations or bequests from individuals or coTporations. These policies
are contained in Section 23.9 of the Plan.
54
4.5
Recommendation
4-9 That section 18.3.4 be clarified to indicate that it is a service standard objective of the
Municipality.
Schools
Overview
Through the Official Plan review process, the planning of future and existing neighbourhoods
must take in account evolving service needs of residents including educational facilities. In
this regard, schools have been designated within the urban areas to accommodate the
educational requirements of future residents.
Submissions Received
Hugh & Carol Ann Neill
W 90
N. Mitchell
W 103
Cliff Curtis
W 121
John Nekkers
W 122
Schleiss and Holland
W 151
Marchetti & De Minico
W 175
Kiddicorp Investments
Verbal
Kirk Kemp
V18
Summary of Issues Identified Through Submissions
0 Objections to six proposed school sites at the following locations:
Courtice public secondary school in Penfound Neighbourhood on Prestonvale
Road (Neill W90);
public elementary school designation in northern limits of Worden
Neighbourhood, (Schleiss & Holland W151);
- separate elementary school designation in the Worden Neighbourhood
Courtice; (Curtis W121; Nekkers W122);
separate elementary school in Avondale Neighbourhood ( Kiddicorp
Investments);
Bowmanville separate elementary school designation in Apple Blossom
Neighbourhood (Marchetti & DeMinico W175); and
public secondary school in Liberty Rills Neighbourhood (Kemp V18).
• Flexibility in the actual siting of school sites
55
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
The Region is concerned that siting schools adjacent to or along Type "A" arterial roads
causes a conflict between the function of the road as a high volume arterial and the desire
for reduced speed limits in school zones. The criteria for locating schools should include
that they not be fronting or adjacent to Type "A" arterial roads.
School Boards
Both school boards requested flexibility to extend services and develop sites outside the
Interim Urban Boundary. They also requested flexibility in siting secondary school sites in
conjunction with the review of plans of subdivision.
The Separate School Board requested that minimum site requirements be increased. Both
School Boards requested that several school sites be relocated. Many of the requested
changes in location are to provide more sites within or immediately adjacent to the Interim
urban Boundary to allow them access to sanitary sewer and water supply services to provide
flexibility in accommodating future growth needs. The changes requested by the School
Boards are as follows:
Courtice
• Relocate the separate elementary school site in the Worden Neighbourhood to
Highland Gardens Neighbourhood.
• There are concerns that the designated public secondary school site in Courtice can
be serviced and constructed when required.
Bowmanville
• Relocate the proposed north Bowmanville public secondary school to a site
immediately north of Concession Road #3 adjacent to the Interim Urban Boundary.
• Relocate the proposed public secondary school site away from the railway tracks.
Newcastle Village
• Relocation the proposed separate elementary school site in Foster Neighbourhood
Newcastle Village to a location inside the Interim Urban Boundary on the east side
of Rudell Road.
• Relocate the proposed public elementary school site away from the railway tracks.
56
Stag Comments
Obiections to specific scbool sites
A number of landowners have objected to specific school sites designated in the draft Official
Plan. Each of these are dealt with in the Appendix to this report but there are some
common issues addressed in this section.
Secondary schools consume larger parcels of land, generally 6 to 8 ha (15 to 20 acres) while
elementary schools consume between 2.2 to 2.8 ha (5.5 to 7.0 acres). As such, these facilities
can have a significant impact on the design of a plan of subdivision and the expectations of
the development proponent. However, school boards are supposed to provide fair market
value for the acquisition of such lands.
Most of the objections to elementary school sites are situations where a school site has been
designated on lands previously designated for residential purposes. In essence, the site is
being "retrofitted" into a partially developed neighbourhood. This includes some smaller
parcels or involve a combination of several landowners. There are concerns about equity
when some of the larger parcels have developed without necessarily providing school sites.
One of the reasons for the official plan review is to adjust to new circumstances which may
affect previously designated -lands. There have been demographic and school program
changes which have affected student generation rates. Some of the new circumstances
include the addition of day care and junior kindergarten classes to elementary schools and
a greater proportion of separate school students. Elementary school sites have been selected
on the basis of the following criteria:
- on a collector road
- for public schools a location generally central to a neighbourhood (400 metre
optimal radius)
- for separate schools, a location generally central to several neighbourhoods
(800 metre optimal radius)
- adjacent to park wherever possible.
In instances where schools have been "retrofitted" into partially developed neighbourhoods,
school sites are not necessarily optimally located but attempt to meet the need of the existing
and future student population. The location of all school sites have been reviewed and staff
are generally satisfied that they are appropriately located and necessary to meet the future
need, save and except for the school sites adjacent to railways and the separate elementary
school site in Worden Neighbourhood. These will be reviewed further with the relevant
school board. In addition, the following changes are recommended:
Recommendations
4-10 That the public secondary school site in Liberty Riffs Neighbourhood in Bowmanvilk be
relocated southerly to front on Concession Road 3.
57
¢II That the separate elementary school site within Avondale Neighbourhood in courtice be
relocated from the west side to the east side of Avondale Drive.
Flexibility in the actual siting of school sites
Both the school boards and landowners wanted to ensure that there was some flexibility in
the siting of the schools at the time of approval of a plan of subdivision. As with all land
use designations in the Official Plan, there is some flexibility and the actual boundaries are
determined in the development application review process. The text specifically states that
the locations shown are approximate. However, while the school symbols can "float" to a
limited extent, the objectives of the Plan, the general location within a neighbourhood and
the siting criteria of the school boards must be adhered to.
Recommendation
None.
1 SCHLEISS
4 211
WORDEN CURTIS
1 NEKKM
'ASH ROAD
m
o-
5 &
HIGHLAND
GARDENS WESTMORE HANCOCK zi
__
EA HIGHWAY No. 2 0
ai
Mm
1
DARLINGTON
1 EMILY
o
S71 OWE AVONDALE "1
Ell
W KIDDICORP
f'ENFOUND
12
W NEILLg 11 EBENEZER
z OKE FARM
0 1 BLOOR STREET
13
1 BAYVIEM
LAKE ONTAR /O
59
401
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
A PUBLIC
(l SEPARATE
N
0 200 400 600 800 m
200 m
BASELINE ROAD
MAP 12 \
SUMMON -8 (DIM SCHOOL OO L SO4LS
COO URMCC URBAN GQG3EA
NEIGHBOURHOOD
BOUNDARY
SECONDARY SCHOOLS
COURTiCE CORNERS
PUBLIC
SEPARATE
401
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
A PUBLIC
(l SEPARATE
N
0 200 400 600 800 m
200 m
BASELINE ROAD
MAP 12 \
SUMMON -8 (DIM SCHOOL OO L SO4LS
COO URMCC URBAN GQG3EA
9
� o
0 200 400 600 B00 m {
200 m
�CONC
r�
{ °a
0
K
f:
{ tt OOD s NASH a
Z
0
� w
TON CREEK
�r
y
SOPER {
SECONDARY SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
J-- p
� PUBLIC P PUBLIC
SEPARATE cl SEPARATE
LAKE ONTAR /O HALM 3
NEIGHBOURHOOD BOUNDARY (fin n H 8 M N SCHOOL V
L
5.1 Provincial and Regional Policy
Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements
Section A of the Policy Statements addresses the issues of fish habitat and the shoreline
hazard zone along the Great Lakes. Section B addresses the issue of access to the
waterfront.
The regulatory shoreline for lands adjacent to the Great Lakes is defined by the furthest
landward limit of the area subject to lake flooding, within the 100 year erosion limit or a
dynamic beach. Development is to be generally directed to areas outside of the regulatory
shoreline. For the purposes of the regulatory shoreline, provincial policy defines
development to include new construction of a building or structure, an addition or alteration
to a building or structure that has the effect of increasing the size or usability thereof; site
grading and the placing or dumping of fill.
Provincial policy does not permits development within a dynamic beach area. However,
development may be permitted in certain circumstances within the areas subject to lake
flooding or erosion subject to a .number of conditions. These conditions include:
floodproofing and protection works to address the flooding and erosion hazards; no new or
existing hazards are created or aggravated; safe entry and exit for people and vehicles during
emergencies.
Municipal planning should ensure that reasonable public access to water bodies is maintained
or provided.
Durham Regional Official Plan
The Regional Official Plan seeks to sustain and enhance the waterfront as a vital component
of the Region's natural, built and cultural environment. The waterfront will generally be
developed as "people places ", with the exception of significant natural areas, connecting and
linking urban and rural areas. The Regional Plan requires development to make provision
for public access to the waterfront. Municipal official plans shall contain policies and
designations for flood - susceptible areas and hazard lands.
5.2 Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition of Waterfront Lands
Overview
The Lake Ontario shoreline in Clarington, which stretches for 31 kilometres, is subject to
continuous change due to the actions of wind and water. This dynamic environment is
61
appealing as a place to live, as evidenced by the number of both long- standing and new
residences along the shoreline. The Official Plan must protect both persons and property
from the hazards associated with the shoreline, while recognizing the concerns of existing
lakeshore residents.
Submissions Received
David Ashcroft
W92, V22
Norman LeBlanc
W93
Mavis Carlton
W94
Gordon White
W95, V20
Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association
W144
Mars Barrick
W146
William Lake
W161
Paul Riley
W162
Summary of Issues Identified by Submissions
• Expansion of existing homes within the Lake Ontario shoreline hazard zone
• Public acquisition of the lands designated Waterfront Greenway
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
The Regional Official Plan requires local official plans to designate hazard lands.
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
The flood and erosion limits on the waterfront are regulated by CLOCA generally only in
the vicinity of stream mouths on the basis of Fill and Construction regulations.
The Official Plan should indicate that the extent and exact location of the shoreline setback
shall be identified in the Zoning By -law in accordance with the detailed Lake Ontario Flood
and Erosion mapping of the relevant Conservation Authority.
The policy regarding shoreline development (Section 14.6.4) is appropriate for shoreline
flood /uprush hazard areas. Under certain circumstances, buildings within flood hazard areas
can be constructed /renovated to be flood- protected.
However, buildings within the erosion hazard areas can only be protected by erosion control
works, carried out on the eroding shoreline itself. Therefore, the policy should specifically
prohibit the expansion or enlargement of any structure within the erosion setback area,
62
including second storey additions, unless an acceptable shoreline erosion control project to
be undertaken prior to any expansion/ enlargement of the existing structures has been
approved by the Municipality, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Conservation
Authority.
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
The Municipality might wish to restrict erosion control and lake filling only where necessary
to protect existing development. However, there are areas along the shoreline, such as the
Bond Head Bluffs, where erosion control works are not appropriate due to their significance
in providing sediment for beach areas and rubble for fish habitat.
The policy regarding the Shoreline Erosion Limit should refer to the Lake Ontario Shoreline
Management Plan of the appropriate Conservation Authority with regard to the
identification of the hazardous condition. This policy should restrict all development within
the Shoreline Hazard Zone, not just residential development.
Conservation Authority policy permits additions to existing residential uses within the
shoreline erosion setback up to 20% of the first floor or 30 square metres, whichever is less.
This addition is allowed only once during th'e life of the structure and should occur as a first
or second floor expansion.
Waterfront Regeneration Trust
The boundaries of the Shoreline Erosion Limit shown on Map C should be re- examined and
possibly moved inland based on the continual erosion of the Lake Ontario Shoreline.
Staff Continents
Expansion of existing homes within the Lake Ontario shoreline hazard zone
New development, including the creation of a new building lot through land severance, is not
permitted within the Shoreline Erosion Limited as identified on Map C of the Draft Official
Plan. Existing residential uses are permitted to continue provided there is no expansion or
enlargement of the existing foundation footprint, including accessory structures, or no
conversions of any existing seasonal dwelling into a year -round dwelling. As well, once a
dwelling is destroyed or demolished and reconstruction is not commenced within twelve
months, the residential use is deemed to cease. These restrictions are intended to apply to
only those lands within the Shoreline Erosion Limit, and not the Waterfront Greenway as
indicated by Section 14.6.4 of the Draft Plan.
Provincial policy refers to "regulatory shoreline" as the further landward limit of the lands
affected by erosion, flooding or the dynamic beach constraints. In recognitions that there
are multiple potential hazards in this area, it is recommended that the Official Plan refer to
the "Shoreline Hazard Zone" rather than the "Shoreline Erosion Limit ".
63
Provincial policy and the comments of the Conservation Authorities indicate an oversight in
the Draft Official Plan which addresses only restrictions on residential development.
Accordingly, they recommended that all types of development be subject to the restrictions
within the Shoreline Hazard Zone, save and except for minor recreation- related structures
(ie. gazebos).
A number of. residents expressed concern about the restrictions on renovations and
expansions of existing residences within the shoreline hazard zone: It must be recognized
that restrictions placed on development in the shoreline hazard zone are to address concerns
about public safety potential property damage and potential liability of various levels of
government if development is permitted. While no new dwellings or structures are
permitted, the resident's concerns are that the restrictions on existing residents are too harsh
preventing renovations and upgrading of existing residences.
In this regard, it should be noted that type of upgrading which includes the renovation and
cosmetic improvement to dwellings and which do not require a building permit are not
prohibited by the Official Plan. The intent is to restrict the type of upgrading which would
increase the size or usability of a dwelling.
Staff agree with the suggestion of the Conservation Authorities that the upgrading or
expansion of residences within the Shoreline Hazard Zone should be discouraged, but limited
expansion may be possible subject to undertaking floodproofing and erosion control works.
In order to limit potential damage and liability, the expansion should be limited to one time
and limited in size.
Staff also agree with the suggestion of residents that in the event of building being destroyed
or demolished, it may take some time to settle the insurance claims. Accordingly, the time
permitted for reconstruction should be extended from 12 months to 24 months.
Recommendations
S-I That a Shoreline Hazard Zone be defined to encompass the landr subject to flooding and
erosion and the dynamic beaches of the Lake Ontario Shoreline.
5-2 That new building or structures of any type within the Shoreline Hazard Zone not be
permitted.
5 -3 That existing residences within the Shoreline Hazard Zone be permitted a one -time
expansion, up to a maximum of 20 % of the ground floor area or 30 square metres,
whichever is less, provided that:
a) the structure is not located in the floodplain of a stream;
b) the structure is not located on a dynamic beach or within an identified damage
centre;
•�
C) new or existing hazards or adverse environmental impacts are not created or
aggravated; and
d) the relevant conservation authority and the Municipality have approved a
floodproofing and/or erosion control plan.
e) vehicles and people have a way of safe entering and exiting the area during times
of flooding and erosion emergencies.
54 That the Official Plan increase the period allowed for the reconstruction of a destroyed or
demolished building in the Shoreline Hazard Zone from 12 months to 24 months.
Public acquisition of the lands designated Waterfront Greenwav
Some residents were concerned that the Waterfront Greenway designation indicated lands
which were intended for public acquisition. Concerns were expressed that the restriction of
permitted land uses was to enable government acquisition at reduced values.
The Waterfront Greenway designation in the Draft Official Plan parallels the Waterfront
Major Open Space designation in the Durham Regional Official Plan. While the
Municipality has intentions to acquire specific lands, predominantly in urban waterfront
areas, rural waterfront lands would remain largely, in private ownership. It is noted that
Section 14.6.3 requires new development to facilitate "physical and visual access" to the
waterfront. This policy is targeted primarily at new development in Port Darlington and Port
of Newcastle where development proponents would be required to dedicate parkland and
Shoreline Hazard Zone areas.
Recommendation
5 -5 That the draft policy be clarified that it is not the intent of the Municipality to necessarily
acquire lands designated Waterfront Greenway.
5.3 Existing Residential Communities
Overview
There are a number of residential communities along the Lake Ontario shoreline which have
developed through various periods of the Municipality's history. As the Municipality begins
to recognize a new strategic direction which restores the waterfront as a "people place ", there
are concerns about how these existing communities will exist, improve and potentially
expand.
65
Submissions Received
Ridge Pine Park Inc. W65, W127, W169, W178
Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association W4, W144, V4,
Mavis Carlton W94
Gordon White W95, V20
Summary of Issues Identified by Submissions
• Expansion of Wilmot Creek Retirement Community to expand to 1100 housing units
• Identification of Cove Road Area as a special community
Agency Comments
None
Staff Comments
Expansion of Wilmot Creek Retirement Community
Ridge Pine Park has made four (4) submissions between May 8, 1994 to April 7, 1995.
There are discrepancies within these submissions. As a result, staff have met with the
Company representative and the staff comments are therefore primarily based on the latest
submission.
Under previous approvals, Ridge Pine Park Inc. is permitted to develop a mobile home park
for 867 units. The project approvals equate to a gross density of 10.2 units per hectare (4.1
units per acre). To date, 619 units have been constructed within Phase 1 and 5 lands. The
remaining units will be built on the vacant lands in Phase 5 and in Phase 6.
The Draft Official Plan recognized the Wilmot Creek Retirement Community as an existing,
distinct community in the Municipality due to its land lease arrangements, private roads and
services and its traditional marketing emphasis towards retirees. The Draft Official Plan
further recognized the desire of the operator, Ridge Pine Park Inc., to develop accessory uses
including a nursing home provided they were located within the designated lands south of
the CNR railway line. At the time of the release of the Draft Official Plan, Ridge Pine Park
submitted an application for an additional 85 modular homes in Phase 6 which would bring
the total housing units of the Retirement Community to 952 units. In January 1995, Phase
6 application was revised to increase the number of units to 164 for the Phase 6 land. If
approved, this would bring the total unit count for the Retirement Community to 1011. The
application was also revised to request semi - detached, townhouse and quadruplex housing
units to be built on the Phase 6 land. If approved, Phase 6 would be built at a gross density
of 18.2 units per hectare (7.4 units per acre) which is substantially higher then the 10.2 units
density within the existing development.
Go
On the issue of persons per unit, the Draft Official Plan uses a factor of 2 ppu for the
purpose of calculating population and housing units. Ridge Pine Park, in its earlier
submission, agreed that 2 ppu is appropriate. However, in its latest submission, it requested
a factor of 1.68 ppu be used to reflect the survey result conducted by the Company.
Subsequent to our review, we are prepared to use 1.7 ppu.
Map E Table of the Draft Official Plan assigned Wilmot Creek Retirement Community 850
units or a population of 1,700 at 2 persons per unit. In using 1.7 ppu, the population should
be adjusted to 1,476 persons. It should be noted that the 850 was a rounding figure. Staff
will adjust this to 867 to reflect what was previously approved.
Staff are opposed to the expansion of the Wilmot Creek Retirement Community beyond 867
units on the following basis:
• Any expansion should implement waterfront planning principles established through
the Waterfront Regeneration Trust and the Municipality's Official Plan. The further
development of private residential enclave is contrary to the principles of an "open ",
"accessible" and "connected" waterfront.
• The inclusion of permanent low and medium density housing forms (semi- detached,
townhouses and quadruplexes) at higher gross densities in its Phase 6 proposal
should be done in an environment where there is a public street system and all
services and utilities are built to municipal standards.
• As a distinct retirement community, the density proposed in Phase 6 is substantially
higher than the existing built area.
• The proposed development is contrary to the Comprehensive Set of Provincial
Policies specifically B.12 which states that: "Reasonable public access to ... water bodies
should be maintained or provided;"
Recommendation
None
Recognition of Cove Road Community as a Residential Area
There were requests to recognize the residential area commonly known as the "Cove" as a
residential area within Bowmanville. This was a cottage area dated back prior to World War
1 and over the years the homes have become permanent. There are approximately 35
homes and 14 vacant parcels in this area. The lands were designated as Waterfront
Greenway in the Draft Official Plan. Residents requested this area be recognized as a valid
residential community and the Official Plan should provide for logical and efficient
development and redevelopment of these lands.
67
5.4
The homes on the south side of Cove Road are affected by Shoreline Hazard Zone, however,
all of the. lands to the north are outside of this constraint. Some of these lands were affected
by the By -law 77 -47 which deemed certain registered plans not to be registered, thereby
requiring new lots to be created under current planning regulations.
The new Regional Official Plan incorporated these lands into the Bowmanville Urban Area
but designated these lands Major Open Space. While this area is adjacent to the lands
licensed for extraction by St. Marys Cement, these are existing residences or vacant lots
which could be developed today. The recognition of this area as a residential area would
allow for only limited infilling (approximately 5 additional lots).
However, the area is adjacent to the licensed aggregate extraction area owned by St. Marys
Cement. In view of the ongoing work by the Regeneration Trust to resolve the many issues
in the area, it is prudent that this area be identified as a Special Study Area.
Recommendation
5-6 That the Cove Road area be identhi, fled as a Special Study Area inclusive of the St. Marys
Cement laid.
St. Marys Cement and Westside Creek Marsh
Overview
St. Marys Cement Company has operated a quarry and cement plant on the Bowmanville
waterfront since the mid 1970's. St. Marys holds a licence to quarry 182 hectares of its 252
hectare site in Bowmanville. Over the years, St. Marys has made many improvements to its
operation. It is currently seeking approval from various government agencies to expand the
docking facility. The first of four phases of extraction is near completion.
The Westside Creek Marsh is designated as a provincially significant wetland and is also
licensed for extraction by St. Marys Cement. However, in order to proceed with its licence,
St. Marys Cement must obtain approvals to relocate Westside Creek in the Lakes and Rivers
Improvement Act. It must also meet the requirements of the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans due to the proposed destruction of fish habitat.
Submission
R. Cameron
W27
Robert Morrison
W28
Petition - Local Schools
W76
St. Stephen's Secondary School - Students
W87
David Ashcroft
W92, V22
Norman LeBlanc
W93
101.01
Mavis Carlton
W94
Gordon White
W95, V20
Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association
W144
Mars Barrick
W146
St. Marys Cement Company
W153
Durham Wetlands and Watersheds
W155
Leah Houston - "Youth In Action"
V23
Denis Kavanaugh
V24
Ronni Zolumoff
V33
Summary of Issues Identified
• The extent of Aggregate Extraction Area designation.
• The preservation of the Westside Creek Marsh.
Agency Comments
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
The Ministry requested that the Whitby formation which lies within 50 feet of the surface
be identified as a potential Aggregate Resource Area. This includes the lands within the St.
Marys lands and much of the Bowmanville and Newcastle Village urban areas. (check
DROP)
Region of Durham
St. Marys Cement is designated as Special Policy Area B in the Regional Official Plan. The
Plan recognizes the existing licensed area in accordance with the Comprehensive Provincial
Policy Statements. The Plan also recognizes those lands not under licence within Special
Policy Area B. The aggregate extraction operation and uses ancillary thereto including an
asphalt batching plant are permitted. Expansions to the docking facility requires approval
from Federal and Provincial agencies in consultation with the municipality and the Region.
However, it is noted that Special Policy Area B in the Regional Official Plan has been
deferred for future consideration by the Minister.
Staff Comments
The extent of the Aggregate Extraction Area designation
The Draft Official Plan designates all of the licensed lands owned by St. Marys Cement Co.
as an Aggregate Extraction Area, save and except for the buffer areas required by their
licence along Waverly Road and north of the Cedarcrest beach residences. The Official Plan
NO
proposes that these buffer areas, in association with road allowances would be part of the
Waterfront Greenway providing a vital link in a connected greenway. The ultimate
waterfront trail alignment approved by Council is intended to follow Waverly and Cedarcrest
road allowances. The intent of the Greenway designation of adjacent lands was to recognize
that the St. Marys Cement Company buffer lands could contribute to the greenway.
Under provincial policy, the Municipality is required to identify licensed pits and quarries
and protect them from incompatible land uses. While the intent of this policy was contained
in the Draft Official Plan, the Plan did not "identify" the full extent of the licensed lands.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the lands have to be designated as an
Aggregate Extraction Area. For example, the Regional Official Plan designates the St.
Marys Cement Co. lands as a Special Policy Area.
In light of process underway through the Waterfront Regeneration Trust with regard to the
Westside -Creek Marsh, the specific resolution of the land use designations will have to
account for the two alternatives as follows:
a) if the process is successful, the greenway link will be north through the Ontario
Hydro corridor and the realigned Westside Creek; or
b) if the process is not successful, the greenway link will follow the southerly route along
Waverly Road, Cedarcrest Beach Road and Cove Road.
Any recommendation on this issue would, therefore, have to be closely tied to the resolution
of the issue discussed below.
The preservation of the Westside Creek Marsh
This was the most controversial issue identified through the Official Plan review. As noted
above, the Municipality of Clarington and St. Marys Cement Co. have requested the
assistance of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust to undertake a community mediation
process that can achieve the objectives of preserving he Westside Creek Marsh without
affecting the long term viability of the St. Marys Cement Co. operation. The Waterfront
Regeneration Trust issued an interim report on the Westside Creek Marsh in June 1995
which outlined a tentative solution which has been agreed to in principle by the Municipality,
St. Marys Cement Co. and the Port Darlington Community. Association.. Technical
committee's are now investigating the feasibility and costs of such a solution.
In light of this process currently underway, it is recommended that the Official Plan provide
for this undertaking by identifying the affected lands as a Special Study Area.
Recommendation
5 -7 That the Carols owned by St. Marys Cement Company between the west side of Waverly
Road and West Beach Road be identified as a Special Study -Area inclusive of the Cove
Road area (see previous recommendation).
70
6.1 Provincial and Regional Policy
Applicable Comprehensive Provincial Policy Statements
Section A (Natural Environment, Environmental Protection and Hazard Policies), Section
B (Economic, Community Development, and Infrastructure Policies), Section D (Agricultural
Land Policies) and Section F (Mineral Aggregate, Mineral and Petroleum Resources
Policies) are all relevant to the discussion on the rural issues.
Development that will negatively impact on ground water recharge areas, headwaters and
aquifers which have been identified as sensitive areas is not permitted. Significant woodlands
and significant wildlife habitat will be classified into areas where either no development is
permitted or development is permitted provided it does not negatively impact the natural
features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified.
In rural areas, residential development and recreational and tourism development that is not
an extension of a settlement area will only be permitted subject to a number of conditions,
including a demonstrated need for the type and scale of development and the anticipated
effects on the rural area.
Prime agricultural areas are to be protected for agricultural use. Non - agricultural uses are
not permitted within prime agricultural areas. Lot creation within prime agricultural areas
is generally discouraged.
Municipalities are to identify and protect as much of its mineral aggregate as is practical, in
the context of other land use planning objectives. Non - aggregate land uses may be permitted
if it serves the greater long term interest of the general public or would not preclude or
hinder future extraction.
Oak Ridges Moraine Strategy
This Strategy, which is currently in draft form, was prepared under the direction of the
provincial government. It sets out a long term strategy for the protection, maintenance, and
where possible the enhancement of the ecological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The
Strategy defines three interconnected and interdependent natural systems on the Moraine
to be protected and managed: the Natural Heritage System, the Water Resources System,
and -the Landform Conservation system. The Ganaraska Forest was identified as a Natural
Core Area within the Natural Heritage System, which indicates that it is critical to ecological
processes, attributes and functions needed to maintain native plant and animal species.
71
6.2
Durham Regional Official Plan
The Oak Ridges Moraine is designated as part of. the Major Open Space System, and is to
be protected for its special natural and scenic features. The predominant use of land shall
be conservation, recreation, reforestation and agriculture. The establishment of recreational
uses within the Moraine requires an amendment. The Plan specifically recognizes the Kirby
Ski Area and the existing uses at Mosport Park as Regional Nodes, which are intended to
function as centres of tourist activity and specialized recreation. A substantial portion of the
Moraine is also identified as a high potential aggregate resource areas.
Golf courses and country residential subdivisions are permitted by amendment to the
Regional Plan in the General Agricultural Area and the Major Open Space System, subject
to a number of conditions. Golf courses are also permitted by amendment in.the Permanent
Agricultural Reserve, however, country residential subdivisions are specifically prohibited in
this designation.
Oak Ridges Moraine
Overview
The Oak Ridges Moraine is valued for its extensive forests and natural areas, scenic vistas
and extensive deposits of sand and gravel. These deposits act as headwater source areas for
a number of streams and are also attractive to the aggregate extraction industry.
Existing land uses on the Moraine include agriculture, aggregate extraction, hamlets,
scattered residential development, hiking trails and active recreational uses such as the
Oshawa Ski Club and Mosport Park.
Submissions Received
SAGA
Wl, W64, V1, V30
Susan Finlay
W24
Pat Irwin Lycett
W26
Esther Allin
W51
Mosport Park
W66, W147
Durham Wetlands and Watersheds
W155
Wimpey Minerals Canada
W158
Aggregate Producers Association of Ontario
W164
Oshawa Ski Club
V37
Issues Identified
• Permitted uses in the Oak Ridges Moraine
• Special policies for the upper Ganaraska River watershed
72
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
It is not clear if the Oak Ridges Moraine is to be considered an Environmentally Sensitive
Feature in its entirety. Such an interpretation may be unduly restrictive.
Minisyy of Natural Resources
The Official Plan is required by the Mineral Aggregate Resource Policy Statement to identify
and protect as much of the mineral aggregate deposits as is realistically possible. The
Ganaraska headwaters area has been identified as an area of primary and secondary
significance for aggregate extraction. Sections 14.5.3 and 15.3.4 of the draft Official Plan,
which prohibit aggregate extraction within the headwaters of the Ganaraska River, should
either be removed or modified to permit aggregate extraction by amendment to the Official
Plan.
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
The Authority questioned whether the limits of the Oak Ridges Moraine should be shown
on Map C.
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
Forest management should be identified as a permitted use within the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Staff Comments
Permitted uses on the Oak Ridges Moraine
The draft Official Plan recognizes the Oak Ridges Moraine as a significant groundwater
discharge and recharge area, and as a unique and sensitive landform comprising a major
component of the Green Space System. A significant portion of the Moraine is also
identified on Map D as an Aggregate Resource Area. Uses permitted uses on the Moraine
are conservation, reforestation, agriculture and passive recreational uses. New aggregate
extraction operations are permitted by amendment. The establishment of new country
residential subdivisions, rural residential clusters and golf courses on the Moraine is
specifically prohibited.
Staff continue to support the permitted uses for the Moraine outlined in the Draft Official
Plan, in particular, the prohibition on golf courses and country residential subdivisions. Staff
feel that this is important to maintaining the ecological integrity of the Moraine, given that
73
no effective mechanism exists to effectively monitor the cumulative effects of development
of the Moraine on its significant habitat and groundwater functions.
The Draft Official Plan identifies the Kirby Ski Area and Mosport Park as Major Tourist and
Recreation Nodes in the text and by symbol on Map A. The Plan indicates that the Node
symbol includes adjacent lands and that the expansion of existing uses at these Nodes, as well
as the introduction of related uses, is permitted, provided such do not adversely impact the
environment. However, it is noted that the Regional Official Plan restricts Mosport to
existing uses only.
The policies on Tourism Nodes should be clarified to more specifically define the uses
permitted at the Nodes. For example, residential uses should be specifically excluded. The
Official Plan should also identify if certain studies are required to permit the expansion of
uses or the establishment of new uses. As well, there is merit in specifically defining the
limits of the two Nodes located on the Moraine.
Recommendations
64 Thai the Official Plan define limits for the Major Tourist and Recreation Nodes in the
Oak Ridges Moraine at the Kirby Ski Area and Mosport Park on the basis of their existing
Property boundaries.
6 -2 That the Draft Plan be clarified to specifically exclude residential uses in Major Tourist
and Recreational Node:
6 -3 That the draft policies be amended to permit existing uses only on the Mosport Park laid.
Special policies for the upper Ganaraska River watershed
Aggregate Resource Areas are identified on Map D of the Draft Official Plan. The policies
of the Draft Official Plan states that these areas shall be protected for extraction purposes.
However, the text further indicates that, notwithstanding this policy, aggregate extraction will
not be permitted within the headwaters of the Ganaraska River.
It is noted that provincial policy allows for the balancing of planning objectives, including
natural heritage and environmental protection goals. Mineral aggregate resources are to be
protected from incompatible land uses but in the context of other planning objectives.
Moreover, non - aggregate uses are permitted if it serves the greater long term public interest
or does not significantly preclude or hinder future extraction.
Much of the upper portion of the Ganaraska River watershed in Clarington is covered by
the Ganaraska Forest, which was originally planted to address water management concerns
on the Ganaraska River. Much of the Clarington portion of the Forest is owned by the
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority or other public agencies. The draft Oak Ridges
.Moraine Strategy has identified most of the Ganaraska Forest as a Natural Core Area.
74
Protection of the Forest is important, not only for the maintenance of the groundwater
regime for the Ganaraska River, but also to provide large tracts of relatively undisturbed
wildlife habitat. It is Staff's opinion that the Ganaraska Forest in Clarington is a unique and
valuable resource deserving of the protection from development provided for by the
Provincial Policy Statements.
The upper Ganaraska River watershed is also recognized as a unique landscape with
significant vistas. Some work on this was undertaken through the Oak Ridges Moraine
Studies. Given the large public land holdings, the limited areas of existing extraction activity
and limited rural settlement, the landscape offers a unique natural setting that is appreciated
by many residents.
In light of all provincial policies, the large public ownership, the natural heritage and
hydrogeological features of the area, and the unique landscape of the upper Ganaraska River
watershed, staff believe it should be protected from aggregate activity. There is a need,
however, to clarify some matters, particulary that this policy only applies to new aggregate
extraction operations or expansion to aggregate extraction operation and the area to which
this policy applies.
Recommendations
64 That the Official Plan clarify that the prohibition of aggregate activity applies to the
establishment of new aggregate extraction operations or the expansion of existing aggregate
expansion operations and identifies the specific area to which the policy will apply, being
the upper Ganaraska River watershed.
6.3 Golf Courses
Overview
The rural areas of Clarington have avariable and unique landscape including the Oak Ridges
Moraine and the Lake Ontario Waterfront. Rural areas have been under increasing pressure
for the provision of recreational activities including golf courses.
Submissions Received
Oceanfront Developments W130
Ron Strike W145
Doug Summers W167
75
Issues Identified
• Golf courses on Prime Agricultural lands or within the Oak Ridges Moraine
designation.
Agency Comments
Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs
The Ministry notes that the Draft Official 'Plan provides criteria for the evaluation of
Country Residential subdivisions and Rural Residential Clusters but not for golf courses.
Staff Comments
Three submissions reference golf course proposals as follows:
Doug Summers An application for an 18 hole golf course on lands in Part Lot
3, Concession 4, Darlington, south of Taunton Road.
Draft Official Plan designation: Green Space
Ronald Strike in Trust A proposal for golf course and residential uses in Part Lot 25,
Broken Front Concession, Clarke, just east of Newcastle
Village. No application or technical studies has been
submitted.
Draft Official designation: Waterfront Greenway
Oceanfront Developments A proposal for a golf course in part Lots 32 and 33,
Concession 7, Clarke, just west of the hamlet of Leskard. No
application or technical studies has been submitted.
Draft Official Plan designation: Oak Ridges Moraine and
Prime Agricultural Land
Golf courses are permitted in the General Agriculture and Green Space designations subject
to site specific amendments to the Official Plan. Both the Summers and the Strike proposals
for golf courses would be permitted subject to completion of detailed technical studies and
amendments to both the Regional and Clarington Official Plans.
The Oceanfront proposal would not be permitted under the Draft Official Plan since it is
designated partially Prime Agricultural Area and partially Oak Ridges Moraine. Although
the submission notes that golf courses are permitted within the comparable designation in
the Durham Regional Official Plan, the area municipal official plan can be more restrictive
by narrowing the range of land uses which otherwise are permissable in the Regional Official
Plan be amendment. Two of the key elements of the Clarington Official Plan are protecting
agricultural resources and protecting the natural environment. In this regard, the
Municipality has endeavoured to restrict the range of uses permitted in the Oak Ridges
Moraine and Prime Agricultural Areas.
76
However, Prime Agriculture Areas are large areas which primarily have high capability soils
for agriculture. It is noted that there are smaller areas with lower capability soils contained
within Prime Agriculture Areas. In such case, it would not be contrary to the policy
direction to permit golf course within such lands subject to amendment.
Recommendation
6 -5 That the Official Plan permit golf courses by site specific amendment within Prime
Agricultural Areas provided such lands do not have an agricultural soil capability rating
of 1 to 4.
Vyl
VA
7.1
7.2
Provincial and Regional Policy
Comprehensive Set of Provincial Policy. Statements
Policy B, Economic Community Development and Infrastructure Policies, states that
continuous linear characteristics of significant transportation and infrastructure corridors and
right -of -way should be protected.
Durham Regional Official Plan
The Regional Official Plan recognizes the importance of the Provincial freeway system,
including Highways 401 and 407. Map B designates the future 407, including provision fora
public transit facility. In addition, Regional Council supports the accelerated construction
on Highway 407 within the Region.
Highway 407 and Connecting Freeway Link
Overview
The Ministry of Transportation is undertaking the planning of the future Highway 407 and
the future Highway 401- 407 Connecting Freeway Link. In Clarington, the western segment
of the technically preferred route is proposed to have a ten lane right -of -way, which would
reduce to an eight lane right -of -way between the Solina Road interchange to Highway
115135. The Highway 401- 407 Connecting Freeway Link is proposed as an eight lane right -
of -way following an alignment just to the east of the Courtice urban area.
Submissions Received
John Brudek
Roy Dalzell, Lynn Helpard, Jim Slyfield
D. Davidson
John Waters
Durham Wetlands and Watersheds
Libby Racansky
Henry Eikens
Ann Cowman
W17
W67
W77
W81
W155
W171, W184
V34
V41
Summary of Issues Identified Through Submissions
• Identifying the entire length of the future Highway 407 to connect with Highway
351115
The environmental impacts of the future Highway 401 - 407 Connecting Freeway
Link
Agency Comments
Ministry of Transportation
The Ministry of Transportation acknowledged the Municipality's support for the future
Highway 407 from the west limits of Clarington to the north - south connecting link.
However, the Ministry requires that full length of the proposed Highway 407 to be shown.
In addition, it was requested that section 19.8 be modified to include a statement regarding
the exclusive transit right -of -way within the Highway 407 corridor as far east as the
connecting link.
Region of Durham
The future Highway 407 should be shown on the technically recommended alignment from
the interconnecting freeway to Highway 35/115 including the appropriate changes.
City of Oshawa
That the Clarington Official Plan should indicate the complete Highway 407 as contained in
the Durham Regional Official Plan
County of Victoria
The full extension of the proposed Highway 407 to the 35/115 is not recognized in the
Clarington Official Plan as a vital inter - regional transportation link. The County requests
that the corridor be shown in the Official in conformity with the Durham Regional Official
Plan.
Staff Comments
Identifying the entire length of the future Highway 407 to connect with Highway 35/115
The Ministry of Transportation is undertaking an Environmental Assessment for the future
Highway 407 through Durham Region connecting to Highway 35 /115 in Clarington. A
technically - preferred alignment has been selected but the Environmental Assessment will not
be completed until the preliminary engineering phase is done.
Opponents to the Highway 407 argue that it will not be of economic benefit to the
Municipality, allowing industry to easily by -pass Clarington and cottagers easier access to
their destination. The impacts of the highway on agriculture, natural environment and the
social fabric of the community has also been raised. On the other hand, it is felt that a new
,transportation link would bolster economic growth currently constrained by a congested
transportation network.
79
The alignment of the future Highway 407 up to and including the 407 -401 Freeway
Connecting Link has been supported by Clarington Council and is shown as such in the Draft
Official Plan. The portion easterly from the Connecting Link to Highway 35/115 is not
shown and is contrary to the Regional Official Plan.
The Clarington Official Plan has to be prepared in conformity with the Regional Official
Plan. Moreover, as a provincial undertaking, Highway 407 can be built regardless of the
Official Plan designation. However, staff also recognize the desire of Council to oppose the
Highway 407 alignment easterly from the Connecting Link. Therefore, staff will not be
making any recommendation on this issue. However, Council should be aware that when the
Plan is forwarded to the Region for approval, it is likely that the Region will request Council
to reconsider its position or the Region could impose such requirement.
Recommendation
limn
Environmental impacts of proposed Highway 401 -407 Connecting Freeway Link
Opposition to' the Highway 401 -407 Connecting Freeway link is based on, the negative
environmental impacts associated with the development of the proposed infrastructure. The
identification of the technically preferred route and eventual development of the route
requires compliance with the Environmental Assessment Act. In selecting the technically
preferred route for the connecting link the Ministry consultants went beyond the original
study limits in order to minimize the impacts, including environmental considerations, of this
transportation corridor. Staff believe the Environmental Assessment process is best able to
deal with the specific environmental and non - environmental issues of the route.
Recommendation
None
7.3 Transportation Network for Courtice
Overview
The road network for Courtice was designed and planned in the seventies on the basis of a
curvilinear collector road system for a population of 20,000. It did not take into account of
the possibility of future urban expansion beyond the then urban boundaries which makes
planning for the future road network extremely difficult for Courtice. In addition, the
natural barriers created by stream valleys present another constraint to establish a fully
connected grid of arterial road system for Courtice. As a result of large tract of lands being
added as urban areas in the Durham Plan, the local municipality is now faced with the
challenge of planning a road network that is required to meet the future need and beyond.
:1
Development pressures in Courtice have led to concerns about traffic volumes and speed on
collector and arterial roads. Most recent concerns about Glenabbey Drive, Prestonvale Road
and Robert Adams Drive are reflected in the submissions on the Draft Official Plan. Agency
concerns reflect the impact of Courtice development on adjacent Oshawa.
Submissions Received
Helen Castellan
W19
Hugh Neill
W44, W90, V43
R. Farr
W83
Courtice Heights Developments
W131
Penwest Developments
W152
Kiddicorp Investments Ltd.
W157
Dick Vooys
V51
Ross Miller
V52
Summary of Issues Raised in Submissions
• Prestonvale Road as a Type C arterial road
• Traffic volumes on Glenabbey Drive
• Alignment of new east -west Type C arterial road south of Glenabbey Drive
• Alignment of Robert Adams Drive south of Glenabbey Drive
Agency Comments
Region of Durham
The Region of Durham Planning Department identified various proposed road designations
in the Draft Official Plan which are not consistent with the Durham Plan. In addition to
these more general road classification comments, Regional Planning Staff identified the
following issues in the proposed road network:
• The mid -block east -west Type C arterial between Highway 2 and Bloor Street
( Glenabbey Drive) is not designated in conformity with the Regional Plan between
Prestonvale Road and Townline Road;
• A second east -west Type C arterial should be designated in the Courtice employment
area south of Bloor Street;
• The proposed Prestonvale Road/Townline Road - .401 interchange and the GO
Transit station are not designated in the Durham Plan;
• Prestonvale Road should be added to both the Regional and Clarington Official
Plans as Type C arterial.
mi
City Of Oshawa
The City is concerned that a Townline Road/Prestonvale Road interchange at Highway 401
may adversely affect the timing of the proposed new Col. Sam Drive interchange in Oshawa.
Concerns were also raised about a direct collector road connection to Grandview Drive.
Staff Comments
The Municipality has engaged Totten Sims Hubicki to review the Courtice transportation
network for both residential and employment area traffic. Staff will be reporting separately
on this issue. It is recommended that the Courtice transportation network issues be dealt
with separately at a later date.
Recommendation
None
FIN
E913
8.1
Transitional Policies
Overview
With the approval of any new Official Plan, there is the need to address transitional issues;
the change from the existing policy environment to the new policy environment.
Unless other specified, the new policies take effect upon approval of the Official Plan by the
Regional Municipality of Durham. The Draft Official Plan contains policies dealing with
previously- existing non - conforming uses. It also contains policies which address projects
which have received certain planning approvals but have not yet been constructed. It is the
latter policies which have been the concern of some submissions.
Submissions Received
Valiant Property Management W110, V45
Newcastle Co- Tenancy W128
Courtice Heights Developments W129, W131
The Kaitlin Group W132
Wayne Bolahood W163
Summary of Issues Raised in Submissions
Draft approved plans of subdivisions.
Approved privately- initiated official plan amendments.
Agency Comments
None
Staff Comments
Draft Approved Plans of Subdivision
Section 23.6.2 states that where a plan of subdivision has been granted draft approval prior
to the approval of the Official Plan, it is not the intention of Council to apply the policies
retroactively. However, when the proponent proposes revisions, the entire plan of
subdivision will be subject to review and the provisions of the new Official Plan shall apply.
Submissions indicated concerns that this policy would permit a review of the entire draft
approved plan of subdivision even if the slightest revision is proposed by the proponent. It
was not staffs intention to trigger major revisions to a draft approved plan of subdivision in
the event of a minor change requested by the proponent. However, by the same token, if
the proponent is requesting significant changes to its draft approval, the Municipality should
have the opportunity to enforce the new policy regime.
It is, therefore, proposed that the text be clarified to indicate that such a review and
application of the new policies would only occur in the event of significant revisions to the
draft - approved plan of subdivision.
Recommendation
8 -1 That the texd of the Plan be clarified to indicate that the policies of the new Official Plan
would only be applied to a previously draft`- ,approved plan of subdivision in the event of
significant revisions proposed by the applicant.
Approved Private Official Plan Amendments
Section 24.13 addresses private. Official Plan Amendments approved in, the current Official
Plan. All municipally- initiated official plan amendments will be superseded by the new
Official Plan. Unless otherwise specified, all privately- initiated official plan amendments
would be likewise superseded. However, policy 24.13 states that the policies of the new
Official Plan would not be applied retroactively to lands subject to a privately- initiated
amendment duly approved by the Minister or the Region. However, if the new Official Plan
has not specifically recognized such amendments and if the proponent has not proceeded to
develop the lands within 5 years from the date of the Region's approval of the Clarington
Official Plan, Council would void the validity of such amendments at.the time of the 5 year
review.
Some submissions raised concerns about this policy, particularly the potential loss of
development approvals after the effort and cost of obtaining the original official plan
amendment. On the other hand, the Municipality must be able to review and update its
official plan particularly in light of the inability of a landowner to implement its project.
In light of the concerns with respect to this policy and further consideration by Staff, it is
recommended that the draft policies be amended to allow Council the authority to review
each of the approved, privately - initiated amendments with a view not necessarily to void such
amendments if the project is not built prior to the next five (5) year review of the Official
Plan.
Recommendation
8-2 That policy 2433 be revised to indicate only that Council will "review" and not necessarily
"void" privately - initiated amendments which have not been built prior to the time of the
neat Official Plan Review.
.,
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W65
Mr. Roger Howard
Rice Capital Group
May 8/94
W127
Retirement home north of tracks appropriate affiliated
This proposal has been withdrawn by
No change.
17 Dean Street
W169
use to Wilmot Creek Community.
Ridge Pine Park Inc.
W176
Brampton, Ontario.
L6W 1 M7
for RIDGE PINE PARK INC.
W66
Mr. Bernard J. Kamin, Q.C.
Barrister and Solicitor
May 24/94
W147
Objects to Section 14.5.2 which prohibits country
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
111 Eglinton Ave. E., Ste. 401
residential development on the Moraine.
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
Toronto, Ontario. M4P 1H4
for MOSPORT PARK LTD.
W67
Mr. Roy Dalzell, Mr. Lynn
Helpard,
May 30/94
-
Happy to see Highway 407 terminate in Courtice at the
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway
Mr. Jim Slyfeld
Highway 401 -407 connecting link.
407)
R.R. #2
Orono, Ontario. LOB IMO
for COMMITTEE OF
CONCERNED CITIZENS
W68
Mr. W.G. Creamer
Project Manager
May 31/94
-
Population Total for Neighbourhood N2 (Graham)
Staff acknowledge mathematical error in
Correction will be made to
D.G. Biddle & Associates
should be 4493.
Newcastle Village population chart
population total in final Official Plan.
96 King Street East
Oshawa, Ontario
L1 H 186
for VICTORIA WOODS
(18T- 88061)
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W69
Mr. Eric A Hanna
June 1/94
W57
a) Pleased that draft Official Plan has included
Acknowledged.
No change.
Executive Vice- President
W61
the hospital in the Main Central Area.
Operations
47 Liberty Street South
b) The "Healthy Communities' concept should
Staff interpret the policies in the Official
Revise Section 3.2.2a) of Plan to
Bowmanville, Ontario.
include health services.
Plan to include public and private health
reference services. Healthy
Li C 2N4
services. However, the wording of Section
Community policies may also be
for BOWMANVILLE MEMORIAL
3.2.2 a) of the Plan may be strengthened.
included in the Strategic Directions
HOSPITAL
portion of the Official Plan.
C) Section 5.2.3: Include hospital as public
Partially agree.
Add a policy to Section 5 of Plan
infrastructure.
regarding the coordination of
urban growth management with
other public agencies, such as
hospitals.
d) Address the importance of health care in
Agree.
Revise Section 7.3.4 of Plan to refer
promoting economic development
to the provision of health care
facilities.
e) indicate hospital on Map A3.
Other institutional uses in the Main Central
Specifically indicate the hospital on
Area are not indicated on Map A3. The
the Land Use Schedule for the
Main Central Area Secondary Plan is the
Main Central Area Secondary Plan.
most appropriate document to indicate the
hospital.
f) Include a specific objective for the hospital in
Secondary Plans are not meant to contain
No change.
the Main Central Area Secondary Plan.
major strategic policies. Section 18.4.10 of
the draft Official Plan specifically promotes
the growth of the hospital.
g) Future traffic volumes on Liberty Street may
Liberty SL has been designated a Type "B"
: No change.
not be compatible with the hospital.
arterial. It will act as the principle north-
south spine in Bowmanville.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W70
Prof, and Mrs. James Lovekin
Box 159, 3 King Street West
June 6/94
(Newcastle Village
W112
W135A
Draft Official Plan is A-1.
Staff appreciate the comments.
Not Applicable.
Colborne, Ontario.
Open House)
W135B
KOK 1 S
W1 35C
W71
Mr. Beat Niklaus
P.O. Box 20056
May 31/94
W143
Designate property in Part Lot 26, B.F.C., Clarke as
"Residential"
Disagree. Property is located outside
No change.
Newcastle, Ontario,
not "Waterfront Greenway".
boundaries of Newcastle Village and
L1 B 1 l"3
designated "Major Open Space -
Waterfront by Regional Official Plan.
W72
Mr. William R. Stewart
25 Bennett Road
June 4/94
-
a) Revitalize Downtown Cores rather than
Agree. See Section 5.2.6 of Bowmanville
No change.
Bowmanvilie, Ontario,
permitting sprawling suburban development.
Main Central Area Secondary Plan. Also
L1 C 3K5
see Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas)
b) What has happened to the CAUSE Study?
Specific initiatives resulting from the
No change.
CAUSE Study are beyond the scope of the
Official Plan.
c) Are apartments and other uses above shops
Beyond scope of Official Plan.
No change.
and offices in good condition and being fully
utilized?
d) Downtown block interiors are unkept and used
Agree.
No change.
inefficiently.
e) Restrict all buildings to a height of 3 stories or
Disagree. Apartment buildings and mixed
No change.
less.
use (commercial /residential) buildings can
be up to 6 storeys in Bowmanvilie. Also
see Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
Neighbourhoods)
f) Provide downtown building owners with an
Beyond scope of Official Plan.
No change.
incentive to upgrade their buildings and
apartments.
g) Close King Street from Scugog to Ontario
Disagree. Recent traffic studies for the
No change.
Streets (or at least from Scugog to Division)
Main Central Area have indicated the
and make into a pedestrian mall with Church
importance of King Street to traffic
and Queen Streets made into one way
circulation in the downtown area.
through routes.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W72
Continued.
h) Close Temperance Street around the
The closure of Temperance Street on a
No change.
Municipal Administrative Centre and make it a
permanent basis is not feasible due to the
park (pedestrian mall ?)
need to provide efficient traffic circulation
in the downtown area.
The former Brock's (Petro-Canada) garage site
Council recently approved a retail
No change.
on IGng Street should have an "attractive
commercial development on this site.
short-term" parking garage.
i) The piano factory site should become a
Council recently approved a Seniors
No change.
metered parking area.
Apartment building and centre on this site.
k) Create angled parking for portions of Silver,
Not an Official Plan issue.
No change.
Temperance and Division Streets.
I) Do whatever is legally possible to get rid of the
The existing Castle Hotel has legal status
No change.
"hotel" which advertises exotic dancers.
under the existing zoning by -law.
m) Better use should be made of Bowmanville
Agree. Draft Official Plan allows such
No change.
Creek (Valley) and the Vanstone Mill area.
possibilities.
With imagination and political backing, these
areas of natural beauty could accommodate a
nice restaurant and nice boutiques which
could draw tourists.
W73
Ms. Jo -Anne Mehring
94 Varcoe Road
June 1/94
-
Spent over $12,000. to create a lot for future
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Courtice, Ontario.
development, now classified as a woodlot and
Policies).
Policies)
undevelopable. Allow development subject to tree
L1 E 1 Ni
preservation plan.
W74
Ms. Carole Noble
2761 Bellwood Drive
June 6194
(Newcastle Village
-
The Newcastle Village shopping area in the Main
Central Area should be upgraded. A heritage retail
The Official Plan promotes retail growth
Provide more detailed policies in
Newcastle, Ontario.
Open House)
theme should be adopted by businesses.
and good urban design for new
development Facade improvements or
the Newcastle Village Main Central
Area Secondary Plan.
LIB 1 L9
retail theming must be developed by the
local Business Improvement Area. Also
see Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas)
4
--
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W75
T. Holmes
June 7/94
-
Need more park and green area in Local Central Area
The Draft Official Plan has designated a
No change.
4115 Lakeshore
(Orono
of Port of Newcastle.
portion of the Port of Newcastle lands as
Newcastle, Ontario.
Open House)
Waterfront Greenway and Local Central
L1 B 1 M3
Area Section 10.2.2 of the Plan strives to
create Central Areas that are people -
oriented and developed with civic squares,
parks and walkways.
W76
Ms. Leah Houston
137 Cedar Crest Beach
June 7/94
W87
Protect Westside Creek Marsh.
See Section 5.4 of Report (SL Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (SG
Bowmanville, Ontario.
V23
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
L1 C 3K3
Marsh)
for YOUTH IN ACTION
W77
Mr. D. Davidson
R.R. #1
June 8/94
W16
a) Plan should recognize the reality of Highway
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway
( Bowmanville
407; terminating at the north -south connector
407)
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
is not good planning.
L1 C 3K2
b) Affordable housing should be appropriate to
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
community wishes. Should not become
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
excessive burden on taxpayer.
C) Keep group homes to a minimum; residents'
The Ministry of Housing has advised that
Revise policies to reflect Ministry of
concerns should be deciding factor.
the Municipality cannot regulate group
Housing comments.
homes.
d) Would like municipal water and sewer in
Hampton.
Beyond scrape of Official Plan.
No change.
W78
Dmytro Kocan
June 8194
Preserve agricultural lands, specifically orchards.
Addressed in Section 13 of draft Official
No change.
2072 Highway 2
( Bowmanville
Plan.
R.R. #6
Open House)
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1 C 3K7
W79
Anonymous
June 8/94
Name for Neighbourhood 13 (Waverly) in Bowmanville
Agree.
No change.
( Bowmanville
is appropriate.
Open House)
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W80
Mr. Andries Batelaan
June 8/94
-
Comments made at public hearings have had no
Comment acknowledged.
No change.
2538 Maple Grove Road
( Bowmanville
impact on the formation of the draft Official Plan with
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
respect to Maple Grove.
Li C 3K7
W81
Mr. John Waters
1882 Bloor Street East
June 9/94
( Courtice
-
Highway 401 -407 connecting link will impact
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway
Courtice, Ontario
Open House)
environmentally sensitive wetlands, large old trees and
an apple orchard.
407)
L1 C 3K3
W82
V.L Anderson
1585 Townline Road North
June 9/94
( Courtice
-
Amend by -law regulating distance of an Animal Shelter
from
Beyond the scope of the Official Plan.
No change.
R.R. #5
Open House)
a residence on agricultural land.
Separation requirements are contained in
Oshawa, Ontario.
the Agricultural Code of Practice.
Li H 8L7
W83
R. Farr
24 Glenabbey Drive
June 9/94
( Courtice
a) Glenabbey has high traffic volumes; need
better alternative to Highway 401 bound traffic.
Glenabbey Drive is designated as a
collector road and it will have higher levels
Under review. Also see Section 7.3
Report
Courtice, Ontario.
L1 E 1139
Open House)
of traffic. However, traffic volumes and
of ( Courtice Transportation
Network)
speeds on Glenabbey Drive are issues
being reviewed by Totten Sims Hubicki as
part of the South Courtice Transportation
Review.
b) The discontinuous alignment proposed for
Staff concur.
No change.
Type C Arterial ( Glenabbey) is a good idea
--1
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W84
Ms. Pam Callus
3452 Courtice Road
June 9/94
( Courtice
-
a) Focus development in Courtice to south.
Urban expansion areas indicated in the
No change.
Courtice, Ontario.
Open House)
Plan for Courtice are to the south of the
L1 C 21-6
existing boundary.
b) Encourage light industry to increase tax base.
Section 7 of the draft Plan contains a
No change.
policy to encourage corporate office and
prestige industrial uses in strategic
locations along Highway 401.
C) Supports compact urban form.
Agree.
No change.
d) Concerned with impact of drainage into
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
Second Marsh.
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
e) Do not allow tree removal until community
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
plan prepared. Incorporate woodlots and
Policies)
Policies)
other natural features into development.
W85
Walter and Josephine Borysiak
3666 Courtice Road North
June 14/94
( Bowmanville
W54
Extend urban boundary to include lands west of
Lands not designated for urban
No chane.
g
Courtice, Ontario.
Open House)
Courtice Road to Pebblestone Road.
development in Regional Official Plan.
L1 E 21-6
Agree.
W86
Mr. Frank M. Smith
June 9/94
-
Questions the Green Space designation on property in
921 Walnut Street
( Courtice
Mitchell Corners. General Agricultural designation is
Amend Map Al of Plan.
Oshawa, Ontario.
Open House)
more appropriate.
Li H 2H8
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
W87
Ms. Leah Houston
137 Cedar Crest Beach
June 7/94
(Presented to G.P.A.
W76
V23
Preserve Westside Creek Marsh.
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
Bowmanville, Ontario,
on June 21/94)
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
L7 C 3K3
Marsh)
for YOUTH IN ACTION
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W88A
W88B
Mr. Peter Smith
Bousfield, Dale- Harris, Cutler
June 8/94
(W88A)
W63A
W63B
a) How is Port of Newcastle Secondary Plan
The Secondary Plan for the Port of
No change.
and Smith Inc.
July 13/94
intended to fit within draft Official Plan?
Newcastle will form part of the Official
3 Church Street, Suite 200
(W88B)
Plan. Section 24.13 of the draft Official
Toronto, Ontario.
Plan would allow the policies of the
1
Secondary Plan to take precedence over
for or BRAM ALEA LTD.
the policies of the Official Plan.
-
b) What is relationship between Official Plan
The policies of OPA 57 have generally
No change.
Amendment No. 57 (Waterfront Amendment)
been incorporated into Sections 4.6 and
and draft Official Plan?
14.6 of the draft Official Plan.
C) Section 4.6.7. What is the extent of Shoreline
The actual extent of the Shoreline Erosion
No change.
Erosion Umit?
Umit would be identified through a
detailed review of the subdivision
application.
d) Section 4.6.7: Will tom setback from
OPA 57 requires the greater of 30 metres
No change.
Shoreline Erosion Umft be required and will it
or the actual limit detailed by the local
count toward parkland dedication?
Conservation Authority plus an additional
10 metres. Additional land beyond the
erosion zone could be counted towards
parkland dedication if it were developable
tableland.
e) Section 4.7.4: Is development of hotel and
This issue is most appropriately dealt with
No change.
residential building within floodplain
through the Secondary Plan, subject to
precluded?
comments from technical agencies.
f) Section 7.3.6: Do policies regarding Tourist
Yes
No change.
and Recreational Nodes apply to existing
marina and proposed hotel?
g) What is basis for boundary of Wilmot Creek
The Ministry of Natural Resources
Amend Map C4 of Plan.
wetland?
determined the boundaries of the Wilmot
Creek wetiand. Map C4 of draft Official
Plan has inadvertently included the 120
metre buffer within the Wetland
designation.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W88A
W886
Continued.
-
h) Section 4.7.7: Will tablelands within 120m
To be determined through detailed review
No change.
buffer of Wilmot Creek wetland count toward
of subdivision application.
parkland dedication?
Section 5.3.6: Do phasing policies apply to
Yes
No change.
Port of Newcastle?
I) Section 5.3.7. Can Municipality declare
Yes
No change.
development to be premature, recognizing
there is no appeal on 10 year capital works?
k) Section 9.3.1: How flexible are neighbourhood
The neighbourhood populations are
No change.
populations? is density mix Within
intended to be "allocations' and therefore,
neighbourhoods flexible enough to permit a
fairly precise. The mix of units within the
variety of unit mixes?
neighbourhoods are intended to be
somewhat flexible within the context of
Section 24.6 of the Official Plan. Also see
Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
Neighbourhoods)
Section 9.4.1: Are net densities specked
Yes
No change.
flexible enough for neo traditional planning?
m) Section 9.4.1: Locational criteria for medium
Freehold townhouses are permitted
No change
density would preclude freehold townhouse
throughout the Urban Residential
forms proposed by Bramalea.
designation subject to the permitted
density levels and population allocations.
The table found in Section 9.4.1 of the
Plan refers to "predominant housing forms
and would therefore permit a range of
housing types in accordance with Section
9.4.8. of the Plan.
_ 10
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
Summary of Submission s Recommendation
n) Section 9.4.6. May conflict with neo- traditional Disagree.
Sta7serv!cVe
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
W88A
W88B
Continued.
No change,
building forms in which amenity areas are
provided as part of public realm.
o) Section 9.5.3: Will greater net densities Not known at thitudy required No change.
associated with neo traditional building form by
Section 9.5.3 undertaken.
be permitted?
P) Section 10.6.2: What.uses are permitted The 2000 sq.m. antended to No change.
Within the 2,000 sq.m. of retail floorspace "loc
apply only to service
allocated to Port of Newcastle? uses. Additional commerci al floorspace
beyond the 2,000 sq.m. allocation could
be permitted for tourism - related uses.
q) Section 10.6.2: is 250 high density unit The high density unit allocation is intended No change
allocation intended to be flexible?
to be somewhat flexible in the context of
Section 24.6 of the Plan, provided that the
population allocations are being
r) Section 10.6.2: Would buildings within maintained.
Tourism Node be exempt from 250 unit No
limitation? No change
S) Section 10.6.3: Is hotel permitted within Local The marina, hotel and related uses are No change.
Central Area or Tourism Node at Port
of permitted by the Tourism Node. The Local
Newcastle?
Central Area designation is intended to
apply only to local retail and service uses.
t) Section 10.6.3: Is 0.75.floor space index The f.s.i. is applicable to individual Clarify
(f.s.f.)to be calculated across entire area, or for buldings.' policy in draft Official Plan.
individual uses or blocks?
U) How is "gross area of lot" in definition of Floor Acknowledge definition needs to be Delete word "gross" from definition
Space Index defined?
clarified. of "Floor Space Index'
_ 10
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W88A
W88B
Continued.
v) Sections 14.6.1 and 14.6.2: What is
Acknowledge policies need to be clarified.
Clarify permitted uses in Waterfront
relationship between permitted uses listed in
Greenway
each section?
W) is existing marina permitted Without
Yes
Clarify policy to indicate.
amendment?
amendment only required for new
golf courses and marinas
X) Section 19.6.2: Is right -of -way width less than
Yes
Amend policy to permit range of
26m acceptable for collector roads within Port
collector road widths from 23m to
of Newcastle?
26m
A Can policies regarding access be adjusted to
Yes
Add policy regarding access to
accommodate neo- traditional community
accommodate 'new urbanism'
form?
Z) Section 21.2.4: How does it relate to new
The new Wilmot Creek Water Pollution
No change relative to this
Wilmot Creek Water Pollution Control Plant?
Control Plan was subject to an
submission.
Environmental Assessment and is under
construction.
aa) In conflict between Primary and Secondary
Section 24.13 of the draft Official Plan
No change.
Plans, which takes precedence?
would allow the policies of the Secondary
Plan to take precedence over the policies
of the Primary Plan.
bb) What assumptions were used in land and
See Appendix A of draft Official Plan.
No change.
population budgets for Port of Newcastle?
cc) How was neighbourhood population for Port of
The assumptions used in calculating
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Newcastle determined?
neighbourhood population targets are
Urban Area Boundary for
contained in Appendix A of the Draft
Residential Areas)
Official Plan.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W89
Mr. Mark A. Foley
319 College Avenue,
June 14/94
W119
a) Concerned with policies requiring gratuitous
See Report - Section 3.3 (Natural Heritage
See Report - Section 3.3 (Natural
P.O. Box 11
dedication of environmentally sensitive areas
System) and Section 3.4 (Woodlot
Heritage System) and Section 3.4
Oshawa, Ontario.
and woodiots beyond park land dedication.
Delete these policies if not authorized by
Policies)
oodlot Policies )
L1 H 7K8
Planning Act
for KINGSBERRY PROPERTIES
b) Section 17.5: Include lands east of Truils
Pending outcome of Ontario Municipal
No change.
Road (Referral No. 1 to Regional Plan) in
Board Hearing.
Special Study Area No. 4.
C) Section 24.8: Make interim urban boundary
Disagree. Interim boundary is firm in order
No change.
more flexible. `
to allow for proper growth management of
the urban areas.
W90
Hugh and Carol Ann Neill
2111 Prestonvale Road
June 17/94
W44
a) Object to Prestonvale Road as Type "C
See Section 7.3 of Report ( Courtice
Under review.
Courtice, Ontario.
V43
arterial.
Transportation Network)
L1 E 2S2
b) Object to secondary school location. it should
Disagree. Staff and the Public School
No change.
be located on the south side of the Type C
Board have examined other sites but have
arterial east of Prestonvale Road or south of
not found a suitable alternative. Also see
the proposed community park.
Section 4.5 of Report (Schools)
C) Object to high density development at Bloor
High Density development is appropriate
No change.
Street and Prestonvale Road.
and supportive of future transit along Bloor
Street Also see Section 4.2 of Report
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
d) Object to commercial development at Bloor
Commercial development will be examined
Under review.
Street and Prestonvale Road. Should be
in the context of Council's decision on
south of Bloor Street where the suggested
Prestonvale Road.
Robert Adams Drive intersects with
Prestonvale Road.
12
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W90
Continued.
e) Extend the Type C arterial west of Prestonvale
Requires further study. See Section 7.3 of
See Section 7.3 of Report ( Courtice
Road to connect with Robert Adams Drive.
Report ( Courtice Transportation Network)
Transportation Network)
f) Extend Robert Adams Drive to either connect
See Section 7.3 of Report ( Courtice
See Section 7.3 of Report ( Courtice
with Prestonvale Road further south or connect
Transportation Network)
Transportation Network)
to the Towniine Road extension north of the
CPR line.
W91
Mr. S.S. Matharu
Consulting Engineer
June 16/94
-
Include his client's lands in the boundaries of the
Disagree. See Section 4.3 of Report
No change.
Courtice Main Central Area because the creek forms a
(Central Areas)
11 Stanley Court
natural boundary. Considers it in keeping with the
Unit 1
other Main-Central Areas and Sub Central Areas. The
Whitby, Ontario.
increase is marginal and would include existing
L1 N 8P9
commercial.
for MR. OTTO PROVENZANO
1678 I(ing Street
W92
D. Ashcroft
Group 5, Box 36, R.R.#2
June 21/94
(Bowmanville
V22
a) Must protect Westside Creek Marsh.
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
63 Cedar Crest Beach Road
Information Session)
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
L1 C 3K3
Marsh)
b) Permit existing homes in Waterfront Greenway
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
See Section 5.2 of Report
to be upgraded and expanded.
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition)
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Acquisition)
C) Restrict new severances within Waterfront
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
See Section 5.2 of Report
Greenway.
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition)
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Acquisition)
d) Permit building permits for existing lots in
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
See Section 5.2 of Report
Waterfront Greenway.
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition)
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Acquisition)
Written Submissions Related. to the Municipality of ClarIngton
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W93
J. Norman LeBlanc
Group 5, Box 36, R.R.#2
June 21/94
(Bowmanville
-
a) Do not permit quarrying or any industrial uses
See Section 5.4 of Report (SL Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (SG
63 Cedar Crest Beach Road
Information Session)
that would destroy Westside Creek Marsh.
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Bowmanville, Ontario.
b) Permit building permits to upgrade and
Marsh)
L1 C 3K3
expand existing homes in Waterfront
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
See Section 5.2 of Report
Greenway.
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition)
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Acquisition)
W94
Ms. Mavis Carlton
Box 14, Group 2, R.R.#2
June 8/94
(Bowmanville
-
a) Upset that Port Darlington Community might
be destroyed, while undeveloped land is
See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
Residential Communities)
See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
Residential
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
slated for residential use. Undeveloped land
Communities)
L1 C 3K3
should be part of Greenway, not established
residential community.
b) Upset that new Wilmot Creek Community
Wilmot Creek Community is designated
No change.
being given special consideration.
'Living Area' by Regional Official Plan.
c) . Use stronger word than "encourage" regarding
See Section 5.4 of Report (SL Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
Protection of Westside Creek Marsh.
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Marsh)
d) Official Plan not flexible enough to allow co-
Not enough specific information provided
No change.
operation with residents.
to answer question. However, it is noted
that there has been substantial public
participation through the Official Plan
Review process.
e) Treat homes in Waterfront Greenway same as
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
See Section 5.2 of Report
urban lots.
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition)
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Acquisition)
f) If new houses can be built on vacant lots in
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
See Section 5.2 of Report
Waterfront Greenway, then renovations to
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition)
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
existing homes should be permitted.
I
Acquisition)
— 14. - --
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W95
Mr. Gordon A. White
June 7/94
V20A
a) Special Policy Area 'B' should not include
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
Group 2, Box 21, R.R.#2
(Orono
V20B
Westside Creek Marsh.
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
Marsh)
L1 C 3K3
b) No justification for Official Plan showing Marsh
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
as Extractive; not determined in Regional
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Official Plan.
Marsh)
C) Aggregate from Marsh will not be required in
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
20 year planning period of Official Plan.
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Marsh)
d) Land use provisions for Cove portion of
See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
Waterfront Greenway should provide for logical
Residential Communities)
Residential Communities)
and efficient development of vacant lands.
W96A
Ms. Lynda F. Townsend
June 16/94
W110A
a) Parameters for Special Study Area No. 2
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas)
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
W966
Barrister and Solicitor
Nov. 18/94
W110B
should be clearly established In Official Plan,
Areas)
1556 Dundas Street West
V45
without jeopardizing previous zoning rights.
Mississauga, Ontario.
V46
L5G 1 E4
for MR. HANN (VALIANT
b) The Plan should maintain flexibility in
Partially agree.
Undertake further review of Section
achieving objectives of streetiine development
10.4.6 of Plan.
PROPERTIES)
for commercial projects.
Pt Lt. 30, Conc. 2, Courtice
c) Concerned with the Lake Iroquois Beach
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
indication and the restrictive policies
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
associated with such a feature. Exempt
commercial development from such policies.
d) Provide flexibility to allow development of
Agree.
Amend Section 1.1 of Courtice Sub
Courtice Main Central Area without awaiting
Central Area Secondary Plan
the completion of Courtice Sub Central Area.
15
1
Recommendation
No change.
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
Areas)
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
Areas)
No change.
No change.
No change.
See Section 3.2 of Report
(Watershed Planning)
16
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
F--
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Submission
Ref.
W96A
W96B
Continued,
e) Concerned with policy of integrating retailing
A mix of uses in Main Central Areas is
with housing, recreation, employment
essential If they are to function as a focus
opportunities and community uses.
for their communities.
I) Section 10.3.6: Objects to requirement for a
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas)
retail market study for developments in excess
of 2500 sq.m. The existing 150,000 sq.ft
allocation for the Courtice Main Central Area
should not be re- examined.
g) Concerned that Official Plan proposes to limit
uses in the Courtice Main Central Area
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas)
pending completion of a Secondary Plan
Study.
W97
Mr. Stan Racansky, P. Eng.
3200 Hancock Road
June 8/94
(Bowmanville Open
W138
W141
a) The Official Plan does little to protect the
Disagree. The Official Plan places
Courtice, Ontario.
House)
W171
environment
emphasis on environmental protection
LIE 2MI
W184
while recognizing the need for
development
V40
b) The Plan proposes to develop forested and
Disagree. This area has been included as
wetland areas in Neighbourhood 3C previously
part of the Courtice Area Urban since
omitted from development
1976.
C) The Plan does not address impact on
Population allocations and urban area
environment of an additional 30,000 residents
boundaries established by the Durham
in Courtice.
Region Official Plan must be reflected in
the Municipality's Official Plan.
d) The Plan does not provide an environmental
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
assessment on impact of areas further away,
Planning)
yet directly impacted (i.e. Second Marsh).
1
Recommendation
No change.
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
Areas)
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
Areas)
No change.
No change.
No change.
See Section 3.2 of Report
(Watershed Planning)
16
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W97
Continued.
e) The Plan does not protect wildlife corridors
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
and habitat
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
f) The Plan does not protect the significant
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
recharge areas of North Courtice. The
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
proposed development will reduce the
recharge system to a trickle.
W98
Mr. Henry Eikens
4740 Main Street
June 21/94
V21
Questions the Prime Agricultural Area designation on
Agree.
Amend Map Al of Plan to
Orono, Ontario.
V34
his property due to decline in tobacco demand and
redesignate lands to Green Space.
LOB 1 MO
poor soils.
Lot 35, Conc.S, Clarke
Lots 1 & 2, Conc. 4, Darlington
W99
Mr. George Strilchuk
40 Rebecca Court
June 21/94
( Bowmanville
-
Concerned about proposed development around
Official Plan provides lower densities for
No change.
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Lt C
Information Session)
Liberty Rills estate subdivision. Would like a transition
between existing homes and proposed medium density
this neighbourhood and no medium
density immediately adjacent to the Liberty
4N7
housing.
Rills subdivision.
W100
Mr. Ian Myles
35 Stirling Avenue
June 22/94
(Newcastle
-
Wants to know a timeframe for the extension of
Issue of local road extension is contingent
No change.
Courtice, Ontario.
Information Session)
Renwick Road to Old Highway No. 2.
upon review of future development
LIE 1X5
W101
Mr. Michael Freedman
289143 Ontario Limited
June 21/94
W108A
W108B
Expand interim urban boundary in southwest Courtice
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
7111 Dufferin Street
W108C
to include Stolp and Freedman lands.
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Thornhill, Ontario.
W165
Residential
l Areas )
L4J 2K2
V42
W102
Ms. Jean Graham
32 Remi Court
May 1994
-
Opposed to extension of Grady Drive in Newcastle
The subject creek crossing has been
No change.
Newcastle, Ontario.
Village over Foster Creek on basis of impact to creek
indicated in the Official Plan since 1983: It
B 1J1
valley and traffic impacts on existing streets.
is necessary to provide a mid -block
for RESIDENTS OF
collector north of Highway No. 2 to provide
COURT AND GRADY DRIVE
DR IVE
efficient traffic circulation for the Village.
17
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff. Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W103
Mrs. N. Mitchell
June 9/94
-
There are not sufficient schools designated to
The schools designated within the draft
No change.
85 Hemmingway Drive
( Courtice
accommodate the projected growth. Not responsible
Plan have been reviewed and located with
Courtice, Ontario.
Open House)
planning to permit growth and not provide educational
the assistance of both the Public and
Lt E 206
facilities.
Separate School Boards. Both Boards are
generally satisfied with the number of sites
designated.
W104
Mr. Kevin Tunney
Tunney Planning Inc.
June 24194
W2
Expand Courtice Interim Urban Boundary due to the
See Section 2.3 of Report (interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
340 Byron Street South,
W101
V2
difficulties in developing lands which are held under
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
fragmented ownership, as is the case for 50% of the
Residential Areas)
Suite 200
V10
lands within the Courtice interim urban boundary.
Whitby, Ontario.
V14
Li N 4P8
for STOLP HOMES and
289143 ONTARIO LTD.
W105
Mr. Edward Vanhaverbeke
85 King Street West, Unit 2
June 28/94
W107
Objects to all of his personal property on Highway No.
The analysis has indicated that a 16
See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
V31
2 being designated for Community Park uses.
hectare Community Park is required to
Newcastle, Ontario.
serve the future population of Newcastle
L1 B 11-2
Village and area. An appropriate amount
of land area and highway frontage is
required for this facility. Also see Section
4.4 of Report (Parks)
W106A
Ms. Diana Grandfield
June 22/94
V32A
a) Pleased that Official Plan recognizes
Acknowledged.
No change.
W1066
631 Mill Street South
V32B
importance of heritage preservation,
Newcastle, Ontario.
particularly architecturally significant buildings.
LIB 11-9
b) Concerned with non - residential to residential
Section 7 of the draft Plan contains
No change.
assessment ratio, and idea that Newcastle
policies to encourage economic growth in
Village is becoming bedroom community.
the community and the creation of a more
diverse economic base. Section 5.3.7 of
Plan permits Council to declare a plan of
subdivision to be premature if the non -
residential portion of the assessment ratio
falls below 15 %.
18
19
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Mr. Edmond Vanhaverbeke
Foster Creek Developments Ltd.
Date of
Submission
June 27/94
Cross.
Ref.
W105
Summary of Submission
Medium Density Residential should be located close to
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W107
Agree.
Identify,
85 King Street West, Unit 2
V31
Main Central Area in Newcastle Village. Requests
new Medium Density site
Newcastle, Ontario.
Medium Density designation on land west of Foster
on west side of Foster Creek north
Li S 11-2
Creek north of Highway No. 2.
of fling Street
for FOSTER CREEK
DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
Mr. Bryce Jordan, Associate
Planning Manager
June 17/94
Feb. 24/95
W101
W165
Objects to designation of warm water stream and valley
land on client's lands.
W108A
W108B
Intermittent stream to be removed under
Remove Green Space designation.
W108C
G.M. Sernas & Associates Ltd.
Mar. 10/95
V42
Previous Official Plan
documents do not Identify warm water stream east
approved Master Drainage Plan.
110
hi Scotia Court, Unit 41
tby, Ontario.
Whitby,
of
Truils Road. Is not recognized as a valley or fill
regulated area by CLOCA. Objects to the resulting
fo
for BON NYDON LTD.
Green Space designation on Schedule A.
PLLt 30, Conc. 2, Courtice
Mr. Bryce Jordan, Associate
Planning Manager
June 17/94
-
Include future development block on 18T -88060 as part
W109
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas)
No
G.M. Semas & Associates Ltd.
of the Main Central Area
change.
110 Scotia Court, Unit 41
Whitby, Ontario.
L1 N 8Y7
for RICHARD H. GAY HLDGS.
PLLt 30, Conc. 2, Courtice
19
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W110A
Ms. Lynda F. Townsend
June 27/94
W96A
a) Medium and high density nodes for Valiant's
The existing approvals are recognized in
No change.
W110B
Barrister & Solicitor
(W110A)
W96B
North Bowmanville lands are not designated,
the Local Central Area, as per the table in
1556 Dundas St W.
January 9/95
V45
which is contrary to existing Draft Plan of
Section 10.6.2 of Plan.
Mississauga, Ontario.
(W110B)
V46
Subdivision Approvals.
L5C 1 E4
for MR. HANN (VALIANT
b) The limits of 6 units /block for street
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
PROPERTIES)
townhousing and 50 units /block for block
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
Pt Lt 30, Conc. 2, Courtice
townhousing are too low and should be
increased to 70 units /development
(presumably for block townhousing). There
should be no restrictions on townhousing
facing each other across a street
C) Recognize department stores as a Main
All department stores are retail uses and
No change.
Central Area use and Junior Department
are permitted in all Main Central Areas and
Stores as a use in other Central Areas.
Sub - Central Areas.
d) • Sections 10.9.2 and 10.9.3: Would prevent
Agree.
Amend Courtice Sub - Central Area
easterly relocation of the V -Plus Gas Station at
Secondary Plan to allow the
the IGnglrownllne intersection. ,
relocation of the gas station.
e) Special Study Area No. 2 - Courtice Main
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas)
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
Central Area: Clarify the text to prohibit the
Areas)
downzoning of commercial land.
f) Section 23.6.2: Minor changes to a Draft
The intention of this section is to permit
Clarify policy to indicate that it will
Approved Plan of Subdivision should not
the entire plan of subdivision to be
only apply when substantive
trigger a review of the entire Plan.
reviewed if substantive revisions are
revisions are proposed.
proposed. Also see Section 8.1 of Report
(Transitional Policies)
Will
Wilson and Linda Reid
June 23194
-
Relocate collector road east of Courtice Road and
The precise alignment of the collector road
No change.
3191 Courtice Road
( Courtice
north of Nash Road as it appears to impact their
will be determined through review of plans
Courtice, Ontario.
Information Session)
property,
of subdivision.
L1 E 2H8
20
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submitter
Date of
No.
Submission
Ref.
Complimented the Planning Department on the Draft
Acknowledged.
No change.
W112
Prof. & Mrs. James P. Lovekin
June 22194
W70
Box 189, 3 King St. W.
(Newcastle
W135A
Official Plan.
Colborne, Ontario.
Information Session)
W135B
KOK 1 S
W135C
Concerned that there will be ongoing and long -term
Lands are designated 'Living Area" by the
No change.
June 22/94
-
W113
Mr. Roderick MacLeod
risks by permitting development in southwest
Regional Official Plan. The proposed
P.O. Box 2143
Bowmanville near the Darlington Nuclear Generating
development conforms to proximity
Oshawa, Ontario.
wa
Station.
standards set by the Atomic Energy
L1 H
Control Board.
for DURHAM NUCLEAR
AWARENESS
Extend interim urban boundary to Bloor Street in
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
W114
Mr. Walter Fracz
alter
June 23/94
23/
Courtice.
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
2212 Road S.
(une
Residential Areas)
Courtice, Ontario.
Information Centre)
Li E 2N2
The Draft Official Plan should emphasize residentiall
Agree.
No change.
June 23/94
-
W115
Mr. Dwayne Tapp
( Courtice
commercial mixed use development because of the
5 Spry Avenue
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Information Centre)
advantages it offers to both sectors and the urban
L1C 3T2
environment in general.
a) Concur with inclusion of their lands within the
Acknowledged.
No change.
W116
Mr. Bryce Jordan, Associate
June 16/94
W132
Planning Manager
W170
urban boundary.
G.M. Semas and Associates
V17
V38
b) Designation of two 'Warm water streams' on
Agree for northern tributary. Disagree for
Amend Map C of Plan to delete
Ltd.
their property is inappropriate.
southern tributary until speck coverage
northern tributary.
110 Scotia Court, Unit 41
scheme approved through plan of
Whitby,
Y
subdivision.
LIN SY7
for BAYLY HOLDINGS LTD.
Lot 16, Conc. 1, Bowmanville
(1 ST- 90050)
for GREEN MARTIN HOLDINGS
LTD.
Lot 17, Conc. 1, Bowmanville
(18T-90051)
21
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Caarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
.Cross.
Summary of Submission
Submission
•Ref.
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W117
Mr. John Bousfield
Bousfeld, Dale- Harris, Cutler &
June 21/94
W129
W131
Include lands in "North Hancock' in the interim urban
boundary,
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
Smith
V53
with reasons provided.
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Urban
3 Church Street, Suite 200
Area Boundary for
Toronto, Ontario.
Residential Areas)
M5E 1M2
for COURTICE HEIGHTS
DEVELOPMENTS
Lots 27,28, Conc. 3, Courtice
W118
Mr. John 1 Dale-Harris,
Bousfield, Dale Harris, Cutler
June 21/94
W134
W183
Include Special Study Area 4 (Deferral Area No. a to
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
and Smith Inc.
3 Church Street Suite 200
W189
Regional Plan) within the Courtice interim urban
boundary, with reasons provided.
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Urban Area Boundary for
Toronto, Ontario.
V7
Residential Areas)
MSE 1M2
V44 44
for WM. TONNO
V
CONSTRUCTION LTD.
PtLts.31,32, Cone. 3, Darlington
W119
Mr. John J. Foley
319 College Avenue
June 28/94
W89
Expand residential area north to Pebblestone Road and
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
P.O. Box 11
east to Courtice Road, with reasons provided.
P
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Urban
Ontario.
Area Boundary for
LiOshawa,
Residential Areas)
for KINGSBERRY PROPERTIES
W120
Mr. Bryce Jotdan
Associate Planning Manager
June 23/94
a) The extent of developable land southeast of
Agree.
i£
G.M. Somas Associates
the Liberty /Baseline intersection shown on
Adjust maps in Plan to reflect
110 Scotia Court, Unit 41
Map A3 is less than that shown on Map C3.
floodplain mapping.
Whitby, Ontario.
L1 N 8Y7
for 808807 ONTARIO LIMITED
b) Change designation from "Urban Residential"
to "Highway Commercial" and place some
Disagree. Insufficient tablelands to
No change.
Pt Lt 10, Conc. 1, Bowmanville
of
the Neighbourhood Commercial node across
develop Highway Commercial uses. Other
non - residential uses are permissible
(southeast cornea of
Liberty Street on it
within
the 'Residential' designation such as
Baseline/Liberty)
daycare, convenience commercial and
automobile service stations.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W121
Mr. C. Curtis
July 5/94
-
a) Objects to identification of woodlot on portion
Size and areal extent of woodlot along its
Under review. Also see Section 3.4
3280 Tooleys Road
of his property.
southern edge is being reviewed. Also
of Report (Woodiot Policies)
Courtice, Ontario
see Section 3.4 of Report (woodlot
L1 E 2K7
Policies)
PL LL 33, Conn 3, Courtice
b) No legal basis exists to require gratuitous
See Section 3.4 of Report (woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (woodlot
dedication of woodlots. The Municipality
Policies)
Policies)
should establish a policy of acquisition
through purchase in order to preserve high
quality woodlands.
C) Concerned about the separate school site
Location of school to be reviewed with
Under review. Also see Section 4.5
proposed south of his property on Tooleys
School Board. Also see Section 4.5 of
of Report (Schools)
Road since it would be necessary for the
Report (Schools)
school board to purchase three, four, or even
five existing residential properties.
W122
Mr. John Nekkers
July 7/94
-
a) The woodlot designation for Schleiss woodlot
Size and areal extent of woodlot along its
Under review. Also see Section 3.4
3324 Tooleys Road
is larger in size in the draft Official Plan than it
southern edge is being reviewed. Also
of Report (Woodiot Policies)
Courtice, Ontario
is in reality.
see Section 3.4 of Report (woodlot
Li E 2K7
Policies)
b) Separate school symbol in the area will curtail
Location of school to be reviewed with
Under review. Also see Section 4.5
development of the rear properties.
School Board. Also see Section 4.5 of
of Report (Schools)
Report (Schools)
W123
Martha and S. Penfound
June 9/94
Objects to the lands south of Oke Road and east of
Partially agree. Also see Section 3.3 of
Delete Green Space north of
2320 Prestonvale Road
Prestonvale Road being classified as environmentally
Report (Natural Heritage System)
Glenabbey Drive connector.
Courtice, Ontario.
sensitive.
Li E 2S1
23
No. I Submitter
W124 Ms. Pat Marjerrison
159 Liberty Street North
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Lt C 2M2
Date of Cross.
Submission Ref.
July 11/94 1 -
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
Summary of Submission Staff Comments
a) Concerned about the increased amount of
traffic on Liberty Street and especially the
comers of Liberty /Concession, Liberty /lGng,
and t. iberty/Baseline.
b) Close Bennett Road interchange on Highway
401 and open Mearns Avenue or Lambs Road
to encourage people to use the easterly
exchange and to give access to the expanded
Industrial Park on the south side of Highway
401.
c) Provide an east -west route between Regional
Road 57 and some point to the east
Recommendation
Liberty Street is designated as a Type B No change,
arterial and is intended to convey high
volumes of traffic. Concession, IGng and
Baseline are also arterials with the first two
being Type Bs and the latter a Type A.
Therefore, the resulting intersections will
have high volumes of traffic. The Region
will undertake widenings when appropriate
and ensure that the design of the road can
handle the traffic volumes.
Draft Plan suggests closing of the Bennett No change.
Road interchange and introduction of the
Lambs Road interchange.
L.ongworth Avenue is designated as a No change.
Type C arterial between Regional Road 57
and Lambs Road.
24
25
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
F
Cross.
Summa of'Submission
Summary
Staff Comments
Recommendation
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Ref.
-
a) Concerned with compact urban form (possible
deterioration into slums, building form).
Disagree. Provincial policy and Regional
Official Plan require compact urban form
b Pa
and higher urban densities.
No change.
W125
Dr. T.H. Holmes
P.O. Box 20025
June 25/94
Newcastle, Ontario.
L1B iM3
b) Recreational taclities not integrated into
Bramalea Plan; small parks provided are not
Partially agree Will be addressed through
review of subdivision plan.
No change.
useful
C) Economic benefits of development will leave
Clarington because Bramalea is not a local
Beyond scope of Official Plan.
No change.
developer.
d) Too much development on waterfront has
negative impact on environmentally sensitive
areas and wildlife habitat
Disagree. The Official Plan places
emphasis on environmental protection
while recognizing the need for
development
No change.
Location being reviewed.
Under review.
-
Objects to the proposed Neighbourhood Commercial
J P p°
site on the east side of Courtice Road north of Nash
W126
Mr. Ivan Perun
June 8/94
R.R. #1
Hampton, Ontario.
Hamp
Lobito
Road. He purchased his property based on the
strength of a `preliminary plan" published a few years
ago, which showed an alternate location for the
shopping centre. Wants a return to the original plan.
25
Written Submissions Related to the Municlpailty of Clarington
Official Plan Revlew, .
No. Submitter
Date of Cross ' Summary of Submission
Submission Ref.
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W127 Mr. Roger Howard
17 Dean Street
Jul 11/94
y W65 a) Expand boundaries of urban area and Special
W169
Proposal north of CNR has been
Brampton, Ontario.
L6W 1 M7
Study Area C to include lands north of CNR
W178 line for proposed retirement home;
withdrawn by Ridge Pine Park Inc.
No change.
for RIDGE PINE PARK INC.
proposal
meets general intent of Official Plan policies;
requests Municipality to request amendment to
Regional Official Plan to Include subject lands
In urban boundary.
b) Section 3.3.3e): How will residential growth be
tied to employment growth?
This issue is addressed throughout the
No change.
Plan, but most specifically In Sections
5.3.6 and 5.3.7, and all of Section 7.
C) Section 3.2.3e): What guidelines will be put in
place to differentiate retirement growth from
There is no intention to distinguish
No change.
standard residential growth?
retirement growth from other residential
growth in the Official Plan.
d) Section 5.2.4: The Official Plan should
recognize that the economic profile of the
Disagree. Although private services are
No change.
Wilmot-Creek Community is similar to
provided on -site, Wilmot Creek residents
also use services and facilities
industrial (le.. private services and amenities)
provided
within the larger community (eg. roads,
libraries).
e) Sections 5.3.6 and 5.3.7: Concerned that the
phasing and prematurity poficles of-the Plan
The Wilmot Creek Retirement Community
No change.
will prevent the orderly development of the
is a residential neighbourhood and is
considered the same as other residential
Wilmot Creek Retirement Community.
neighbourhoods in the Municipality.
f) Section 6.4.1: Wants to ensure that the
preclusion of mobile homes does not
Staff do not consider the homes in Wilmot
Creek
No change.
prohibit
the continued build out of the Wilmot Creek
as mobile homes.
Community.
9) Appendix (Population Tables): Current zoning
of 7 uph allows 867 units, not 850 as shown.
The population figure has been rounded
Adjust 850 to 867 units.
off. See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
Residential Communities)
26
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
No.
Submission
Ref.
h) Amend table to recognize Phase 6 application.
See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
W127
Continued.
Residential Communities)
Residential Communities)
Increase population figure for Wilmot Creek
Nursing home is permissible provided it is
No change.
Community to include Phase 6 (85 homes),
part of the 867 unit allocation.
110 retirement units, and 60 nursing units with
100 beds.
�J) Occupancy figure of 2 ppu appropriate.
It is noted that in Submission W178, Ridge
Not applicable.
Pine Park Inc. requests that the occupancy
figure be reduced to 1.67.
Mr. W.D. Manson
July 8194
-
a) Section 23.6.2:. Will permit Council to review a
plan of subdivision retroactively after the
Agree, although note that the Region of
Durham is now the approval authority for
Modify 23.6.2 of Plan to indicate
approval by the Region of Durham.
W128
W.D.M. Consultants
20 Clematis Road
Official Plan is approved. The Ministry's
the Official Plan.
Willowdale, Ontario.
approval date should govern and not the date
M2J 4X2
of Council's approval.
for NEWCASTLE CO- TENANCY,
b) Section 23.6.2: Will permit a review of the
The intention of this policy is to permit the
See Section 8.1 of Report
CLARET INVESTMENTS,
entire plan of subdivision and the application
entire plan of subdivision to be reviewed if
(Transitional Policies)
REXGATE HOLDINGS,
ROSSLAND PARK & TONNO
of all the provisions of the Official Plan even if
substantive revisions are proposed. See
CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
the slightest revision is proposed. Only major
Section 8.1 of Report (Transitional Policies)
Pt Lt 31, Conc. 2, Courtice
revisions should raise the possibility of a
(18T- 90046)
review.
C) Section 23.6.4: Instead of using 'occupancy",
Agree. The intent of the policy is to
Clarify policy.
it would be more appropriate to refer to "units
ensure the residential units are completed.
whose construction has been completed"
since this is a better indication of builder
performance than occupancy.
d) Section 23.6.4: Restrictions on further
Agree. Intent of policy is to deal with
Change to add word "residential"
issuance of building permits should only apply
residential units only, not commercial and
subdivision.
to residential construction and not buildings
industrial.
such as commercial.
27
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No. Submitter
Date of Cross. Summary of Submission
Ref.
Staff Comm
Recommendation
W128 Continued.
e) Section 9.3.4: Would prevent the
implementation of proposed medical /dental
The draft Official Plan proposes a revised
Recognize the approval-in-principle
building on the subdivision fronting on Trulls
commercial structure which increases
Neighbourhood Commercial from 500 to
granted to this project in the Official
a in h Official
Road opposite the Courtice Main Central Area
1,000 sq.m. but requires an Official Plan
due to:
designation. Section 9.3.4 refers to comer
• 100 sq.m. floorspace limit
• limitation of two uses per
convenience stores only. The draft Plan
neighbourhood
does not recognize this site as a
Neighbourhood Commercial Area.
However, the existing approved zoning
application would be recognized under the
W129 Mr. W.D. Manson
July 8/94 W117 a) Section
interpretation policies of the Plan.
W.D.M. Consultants
20 Clematis Road
23.6.2: Will permit Council to review a
W131 plan of subdivision retroactively after the
V53
Agree, although note that the Region of
Durham is now the Approval Authority for
Modify 23.6.2 of Plan to indicate
Willowdale, Ontario,
Official Plan is approved. The Ministry's
strY'
the Official Plan.
approval by the Region of Durham.
M2J 4X2
approval date should govern and not the date
for COURTICE HEIGHTS
of Council's approval.
DEVELOPMENTS
Pt Lt 30, Conc. 3, Courtice
b) Section 23 .6.2: Will permit a review of the
The intention of this policy is to the
(18T- 91005)
entire plan of subdivision and the application
of all the provisions of the Official Plan if
permit
entire plan of subdivision to be reviewed if
Clarify policy to indicate that it will
only apply when substantial
even
the slightest revision is proposed. Only major
substantive revisions are proposed. See
Section 8.1 of Report (Transitional Policies)
revisions are proposed. See
Section
revisions should raise the possibility of a
8.1 of Report (Trans t onal
review.
Policies)
C) Section 23.6.4: Instead of using "occupancy',
it would be more appropriate to refer to "units
Agree. The intent of the policy is to
whose construction has been completed"
since this is a better indication of builder
ensure the residential units are completed.
Clarify policy.
performance than occupancy.
d) Section 23.6.4: Restrictions on further
issuance of building permits should only apply
to residential construction and not buildings
Agree. Intent of policy is to deal with
such as commercial.
residential units only, not commercial and
industrial.
Change to add word "residential"
subdivision.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W129
Continued.
e) Section 24.13: Delete second sentence. It is
See (Section 8.1 of Report (Transitional
See (Section 8.1 of Report
not appropriate given the long term efforts and
Policies)
(Transitional Policies)
high cost required to obtain the original Official
Plan Amendment
f) Section 10.6.2: Revise figures to 1670 sq.m.
Agree.
Revise Section 10.6.2 of Plan
retail floorspace, and 110 Medium Density
housing units to reflect actual approvals.
g) Map C2 shows the Black Creek tributary
Current information indicates that this
No change.
passing through the Courtice Heights
tributary is a cold water stream.
Developments parcel as a cold water stream,
but construction of storm sewers in this area
would tend to negate this being a cold water
stream.
h) Section 20.2.7 will jeopardize the
Section 20.2.7 of Plan would not apply to
No change.
implementation of the Horban Water Quality
stormwater management facilities which
pond which has been designed to serve the
are already approved.
Courtice Heights Developments, Delbert
Developments and IQngsberry Properties
(Foley) residential subdivisions on the east
side of Trulls Road north of Nash Road.
Section 20.2.7: Water quality facilities serving
Policy was not intended to apply to
Clarify Section 20.2.7 of Plan to
commercial plazas which are typically located
underground facilities.
indicate it does not apply to
underground in parking lots will not be able to
underground facilities.
fulfil this policy.
29
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review.
No.
S
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Submission
Ref.
W130A
Mr. W.D. Manson
W.D.M. Consultants
July 11/94
W10
a) Assistance needed from the Municipality to
This point in the submission has been
20 Clematis Road
W130B
help defray the cost of a settlement capacity
superseded by Submission W1306.
Willowdale, Ontario.
V53
study for Leskard.
M2J 4X2
for OCEANFRONT
b) Modify Map Al to exclude the Oak Ridges
This point in the submission has been
DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
Moraine designation from the lands proposed
superseded by Submission W130B.
PLUS. 32, 33, Conc. 7, Hamlet
for Estate Residential development by
of Leskard (OPA 87 -25)
Oceanfront Developments General
Agricultural designation would be more
appropriate.
c) Requests the addition of a Section 13.3.4 b)
This point in the submission has been
which would allow for the expansion of a
superseded by Submission W130B.
Hamlet into a General Agricultural designation
by amendment to the Plan.
d) Section 13.3:4: Amend to permit golf courses
See Section 6.3 of Report (Golf Courses)
in the Prime Agricultural Areas by amendment
e) Section 14.5.1: Exclude the phrase "but shall
See Section 6.3 of Report (Golf Courses)
not include golf courses• and add the
following sentence: "Golf courses may be
permitted within the Oak Ridges Moraine by
amendment to this Plan ".
f) Section 12.4.5: Provide more flexible wording
Disagree. Section 19.7.3 of draft Plan
with respect to the provision of a grid street
addresses the issue of flexibility in the grid
system.
street system.
Recommendation
No change.
No change.
No change.
See Section 6.3 of Report (Golf
Courses)
See Section 6.3 of Report (Golf
Courses)
No change.
30
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W130B
Mr. Walter Frank
Apr 25/95
W10
W130A
a) Will consider withdrawing Official Plan
Amendment Application in favour of positive
The proposal would appear to have some
merit New residential lots created in this
Define a hamlet boundary for
Leskard on Map Al of Plan and
115 Simcoe Street S.
Oshawa, Ontario.
V53
response from Clarington on extending hamlet
location would be across Concession
include the subject lands.
Lt G 3S2
boundary on south side of Concession Road 8
Road 8 from existing hamlet residential lots
for OCEANFRONT
west of Wilmot Creek.
and would be integrated into the existing
DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
community fabric.
PtLts. 32 & 33, Conc. 7, Hamlet
of Leskard (OPA 87 -25)
b) Wishes to create four hamlet residential lots in
The number of lots in this location will be
No change.
subject area.
determined through review of development
applications.
C) Section 12.4.4: Infiiling requirement for hamlet
Section 12.4.4 of Plan would not apply to
Define hamlet boundary on Map Al
development may preclude the severance of
hamlets once a hamlet boundary has been
of Plan.
the four proposed lots.
defined in the Official Plan.
W131
Mr. W.D. Manson
July 8/94
W117
W129
a) Does not agree with the interim urban
boundary because it places part of the 25 acre
See Section 2.3 of Report (interim Urban
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Urban Area Boundary for
W.D.M. Consultants
20 Clematis Road
V53
parcel and ail of the 24 acre parcel beyond the
Residential Areas)
Willowdale, Ontario.
current development time frame. Modify
M2J 4X2
boundary to include all the Hancock
for COURTICE HEIGHTS
Neighbourhood between Courtice Road and
DEVELOPMENTS
Hancock Road as far north as the 1976
Ptl-ts. 27,28, Conc. 3, Courtice
Regional Official Plan Courtice urban
(18T- 92014)
boundary.
b) Increase population figures for Hancock South
Disagree. Lower densities have been
No change in the context of this
and Hancock North from 2900 to 4500
applied to the Hancock Neighbourhood
submission.
persons.
due to its environmental sensitivity.
C) 30,000 population for Courtice is too low for
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
20 year time frame.
Balance of Growth)
and Balance of Growth)
d) Map A2: Green Space forested area in the
Woodlot on property was removed prior to
Modify Maps A and C of Plan to
north -east portion of the Hancock
preparation of draft Official Plan.
recognize removal of woodiot.
Neighbourhood is mistakenly shown as
affecting the 24 acre parcel.
32
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W131
Continued.
e) r Map 132: Adjust alignment of the north(south
Alignment of collector roads will be
No change.
collector road and the east/west collector road.
determined through plans of subdivision.
f) Map C: Does not agree with the location of .
the tributary terminating slightly within the
Agree. The tributary is not located on the
Courtice Heights property,
Make minor adjustment to Map C
limits of the south limit of the 24 acre parcel.
of Plan.
g) Move symbols for the public elementary
Disagree.
No change.
school and neighbourhood park in Hancock
Neighbourhood slightly northwards to provide
a more central neighbourhood focus.
h) Map C (Natural Resources) shows the tributary
north of Nash Road as being a cold water
Current information indicates that this
tributary is a cold water stream.
No change.
stream but because of storm water detention
work to be completed, it does not seem
appropriate to call this tributary a cold water
stream. Redesignate as a warm water stream.
Section 2, Basis of the Plan, should be revised
to the year 2015/2016 with appropriate
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
Area
See Section 2.3 of Report (Inte(m
population increases in Section 5.3.1.
Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Residential Areas)
�) Sections 4.7.11 and 4.8.1: These sections
require the gratuitous dedication of all
See Report - Section 3.3 (Natural Heritage
System) and Section 3.4 (Woodlot
See Report - Section 3.3 (Natural
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) within
Policies)
Heritage
9 System) and Section 3.a
a proposed development Since ESAs include
(Woodlot Policies)
woodlots, groundwater recharge and
groundwater discharge areas, it would mean
that most of Courtice would be turned into a
large public open space block.
k) Sections 4.7.11, 4.8.1, 4.8.4: Currently there is
no provincial legislation requiring the
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Policies)
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
gratuitous dedication of woodlots or
Policies)
hedgerows.
32
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No,
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W131
Continued.
0 Section 4.8.2 and Map C: Questions the
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
validity of the woodlot criteria.
Policies)
Policies)
m) Section 4.10.4: Prohibits development on or
Agree. However, Provincial policy requires
Clarify wording in Section 4.10.4 of
near a contaminated site until R is
the extent of contamination to be
Plan.
decommissioned. The word "near" should be
determined and remediated prior to
changed to 'adjacent to" since it is fairly
development occurring.
undefinable.
n) Section. 5.3.4: Unduly restrictive in allowing
Disagree. Modifications to the interim
No change. Also see Section 2 of
amendments to adjust the Interim Boundary.
urban boundary should be done on a
Report (Growth Management)
It also prevents Council from reacting to
comprehensive basis and as part of the
unanticipated issues.
Plan's five (5) year review process and not
on individual applications. See Section 2
of Report (Growth Management).
o) Section 5.3.6: Unduly restrictive by requiring
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
that the phasing of residential development be
Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
based on a series of principles. Fragmented
ownership patterns and desires make this
difficult. Reword section to indicate that
phasing of residential development shall 'give
consideration to• the following principles.
P) Section 5.3.7: Far too arbitrary and therefore
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
is unacceptable. As presently worded, "if any
Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
of the following conditions apply" (i.e. even
one condition), the subdivision can be
declared premature.
q) Section 5.3.7: Subdivision application deemed
Section 5.3.7 of draft Plan is adequate in
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
premature prior to the update of the
that the Development Charge By -law is
and Prematurity Policies)
Municipality's Development Charge By -law
reviewed every 5 years and is subject to
may not be deemed premature once the
appeal. See Section 2.4 of Report
Development Charge By -law has been
(Phasing and Prematurity Policies)
reviewed.
33
I Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
f
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
Recommendation
W131
Continued.
r) Section 5.3.7 c): Indicates that a subdivision
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
can be declared premature, if the dominant
role of Bowmanvilie in the urban structure is
Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
not being achieved. This provision is .
unacceptable since'a subdivision application
in Courtice, where market forces are
historically strong, could be deemed
premature if market forces fail to materialize
sufficiently in Bowmanviile.
S) Section 5.3.7 d): The requirement that a
subdivision can be declared premature if the
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
Prematurity Policies)
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
non - residential assessment ratio falls below 15
and Prematurity Policies)
percent should be reconsidered since market
forces for residential land are not necessarily
linked to market forces -for industrial land.
t) • Section 5.3.8: Dogs not agree with policy
Section 5.3.8 of draft Plan is a policy of
No change.
since it encourages proponents of residential
development to concurrently develop
encouragement and is not mandatory. It
is included
employment •area lands. This assumes that
to indicate Council's desire to
tie residential growth to non - residential
residential developers have industrial lands in
growth.
their land reserve or can acquire these easily.
U) Section 5.3.9: Make more flexible by
indicating that the Municipality W11 consider"
Disagree. See Section 2.4 of Report
(Phasing and Prematurity Policies)
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
imposing conditions to implement Section
and Prematurity Policies)
5.3.6.
V) Section 5.3.9: Make more flexible by
indicating that final registration 'may" not be
Agree. See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
granted if.Section 5.3.6 is not met
and Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
34
No.
W131
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submitter
Submission
Ref.
w) The 10% high density objective for Courtice
Staff foresee the majority of the high
No change.
Continued.
may be overly optimistic in view of the
density growth to occur in the latter stages
evidence recently given by Barry Lyon and
of the draft Plan. The 10% is consistent
Associates at the Bowmanville hearing of the
with the Municipal Housing Statement
Ontario Municipal Board.
X) Section 6.8.1 b): Add "a minimum of before
Agree.
Change policy as suggested to be
consistent with Section 6.8.1 a) of
'a 2 year supply of land zoned...'
Plan.
A Section 6.8.1 c): Add "a minimum of before
Agree.
Change policy as suggested to be
"a 10 year supply of serviceable residential
consistent with Section 6.8.1 a) of
Plan.
Z) Section 6.8.2: Policy is workable if the 10 year
The Development Charges Act requires a
No change.
capital works forecast is updated every 5
Municipality to update its Development
years. Add a sentence to that effect
Charge By -law every 5 years.
aa) Section 9.4.1: Modify Density Table to show a
Agree. See Section 4.2 of Report
See Section 4.2 of Report
Low Density II range of 15.30 units per net
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
hectare rather than the current 15.25 units per
hectare. This adjustment will permit the
development of street townhouses in areas
which are to have a *predominant single
detached, semi- detachedpink, duplex'
character.
bb) Section 9.4.1: Modify Medium Density to 30•
Agree. See Section 4.2 of Report
See Section 4.2 of Report
60 units.
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
cc) Section 9.4.3: In order to permit flexibility,
Disagree. Section 24.6 of the Plan
No change.
include the allocation of dwelling units for
addresses the matter of flexibility in the
each density type in an Appendix to the Plan.
interpretation of numeric information.
35
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W131
Continued.
dd) Section 9.4.4: Modify the phrase "be
Disagree. Section 9.4.4 of Plan is
No change.
considered based on the following criteria' to
sufficiently flexible.
read "give consideration to the following
criteria'. This adjustment is suggested
because some of the Medium Density sites
proposed do not meet all the criteria.
ee) Section 9.4.4 b): Permit street townhouses up
to 8 units per block rather than the proposed 6
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
Neighbourhoods)
See Section 4.2 of Report
units per block.
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
ff) Section 9.4.5: Modify the phrase "shall be
developed on the basis of comprehensive site
Section 9.4.5 of draft Plan is not applicable
to
No change.
plans" to read "shall generally be developed..
on- street townhouse development
This wording will take Into account the fact
that a street townhouse development does not
require a comprehensive site plan.
gg) Section 9.4.6: Modify wording to read
"Council may require on -site amenity area..' to
Disagree. On -site amenities are intended
to improve the quality of fife of residents.
No change.
give Council more flexibility.
Section 9.4.6 of draft Plan is consistent
with Council approved amenity guidelines.
hh) Section 9.4.8: This section is unduly restrictive
since some subdivisions may only be suitable
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
Neighbourhoods)
See Section 4.2 of Report
for one house form. Modify wording to read
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
"Council shall encourage all proposed plans of
subdivision to provide a mixture of housing
forms'.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W131
Continued.
i) Section 10.10.1 a): This section mandates
Disagree. Section 19.7.3 of draft Plan
No change.
that in the review of development proposals
addresses the issue of flexibility in the grid
"all new public streets shall be developed in a
street system.
grid pattern...' Permit flexibility by modifying
to read 'all new public streets shall be
developed having regard where practical for
the grid pattern principle to meet the
transportation requirements..'
Section 14.3.2: The requirement for an
Agree that there is some difficulty in
Staff will clarify the requirements for
environmental impact study when an
application of this section.
preparation of an Environmental
application is located adjacent to the Green
Impact Study.
Space System is onerous in view of the
definition of Green Space system in Section
14.3.1 which indicates that it "consists of... the
Green Space in between including the
municipal park system ". Under the current
wording, being next to a municipal park,
makes an environmental impact study
mandatory. Modify wording to: "Where a
development application is located within or
adjacent to the Green Space System, the
Municipality may require where appropriate an
environmental impact study..."
kk) Section 18.3.3: The street frontage
See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
requirement of a minimum of 25% of the park
perimeter is onerous. Such frontage can
prove problematic for on- street parking, safety
problems with children playing, etc. Modify
wording to read 'The appropriate park street
frontage shall be determined by the
Municipality at the subdivision development
application stage.'
37
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official'Plan Review.
FW131Continued-
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Staff Comments Recommendation
Summary of SubmiTWeq
Iq Section 19.3.7: Questions er the current The Region's environmental study of No change.
wording of this section req further Courtice North did not address the
study. The purpose of"the nal Study Adelaide Avenue alignment in sufficient
was to generate sufficient information detail. An environmental assessment is
to permit the processing ovision required to determine the detailed
applications: alignment
mm) Section 19,5.7: Make more le by This section is being reviewed in Under review.
modifying to read `Private a to arterial
consultation with the Region.
roads shall be permitted on ited basis
having regard for the provispecified
'below..•.
nn) Section 19.6.2: Modify the collector road right- Agree a range of right -of -way widths for . Modify policy to permit range in
of -way width to indicate a range of 20-26
collector roads is appropriate but disagree collector road widths from 23
metre widths. with 20 metre widths.
metres to 26 metres,
oo) Section 19.6.2: Change reference to "large lot Suggestion has some merit Review, policy.
singles" by deleting the word `large. If it is
necessary to specify a minimum single lot
frontage,. then 12.2 metres (40 feet) could be
used.
pp) Section 19.6.2: It is unclear what.'front yard Front yard lanes are similar to rear yard Review policy.
lane concepts" are Who owns such front
a lanes, only they are in front of the dwelling.
yard lane and how is ongoing maintenance Ownership would probably be by way of a
ensured? condominium organization.
qq) Section ,19.7.2: Modify right -of -way width for Suggestion has some merit Review policy.
local roads to a -range of 18-23 metres. Modify
the second sentence to read `Right- of -wav
Width less than 20 metres may be considered
provided .. „• Add a subsection d) which
states: "the local road does not have any lots
fronting onto it.and/or the local road does not
contain the full range of underground
services.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No,
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W131
Continued.
rr) Section 19.7.3: Modify the wording to allow
The policy allows flexibility in terms of a
No change.
more flexibility in local road design and
modified grid pattern.
development of grid road system.
ss) Section 19.7.3: Sidewalks on both sides of a
Staff will review the policy regarding
Review policy.
road may not be appropriate.
sidewalks on both sides of a local road.
tt) Section 19.7.3: Questions policy discouraging
This policy reflects previous Council
No change.
cul-de-sacs.
direction and is consistent with the
provision of a connected grid system of
streets.
uu) Section 20.2.7: The current wording mandates
Disagree. The intent of this policy is to
No change.
that fencing not be used in relation to
integrate storm water management
stormwater management facilities, whether
facilities into the Green Space System, and
public or private. This design detail should
to enhance the physical appearance of the
not be part of an Official Plan and is better left
Municipality.
to the engineering design process which will
reflect what is possible and desirable from a
public safety perspective in any given
circumstance.
w) Section 23.2.6: The Official Plan should not
The five (5) year review is the more
No change.
discourage OPA applications which are legally
appropriate mechanism to deal with
permitted under the Planning Act
updates and revisions to the Plan on a
comprehensive basis, rather than on a
piece -meal basis through individual
development applications. However,
applications received will be appropriately
reviewed.
09
Written Submisslons Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Agree, although note the Region of
Recommendation
W131
Continued.
ww) Section 23.6.2: Concerned that the current
Modify Section 23.6.2 of draft Plan
wording of this section permits a subdivision
review after approval of the Official Plan by
Durham is now the Approval Authority for
the Official Plan.
to indicate approval by the Region
Council. The Official Plan can change
of Durham.
dramatically between Council and Ministerial
approval. Therefore, the date of the Ministry's
approval should govern and not the date of
Council's approval.
�oQ Section 23.6.4: Rather than using occupancy,
Agree. The intent of the policy is to ensure
Clarify policy.
it would be more appropriate to refer to "units
the residential units are completed.
whose construction has been completed"
since this is a better indication of builder
performance than occupancy.
yy) Map A2: The Interim urban boundary is unfair
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
to the lands designated in the 1976 Regional
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Official Plan. Preference for development
Residential Areas)
should be given to previously designated
urban lands in the 1976 Regional Official Plan.
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
Area
W132
Mr. Kelvin Whalen
Director of Land Development
July 21/94
W116
W170
a) Modify interim urban boundary for
Bowmanville and boundaries for Maple Green
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
1029 McNicoll Avenue
V17
and-Brookhill Neighbourhoods to balance new
Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Scarborough, Ontario.
V38
growth on both sides of Green Road.
Residential Areas)
M1W 3W6
for THE KAITLIN GROUP
WEST BOWMANVILLE DEVTS.
b) A Business Park would be appropriate on the
Business parks are not permitted in the
No change.
PtLts. 15,16, Conc. 1,
north side of Highway No. 2 on the west side
Living Area designation of Regional Plan.
Bowmanville
of Green Road.
Theses uses are most appropriately
for GAYLY HOLDINGS LTD.
H LDIN S LTD.
in Prestige Employment Areas.
Lot 16, Conc. 1, Bowmanville
(18T- 90050)
for GREEN MARTIN HOLDINGS
Lot 17, Conc. 1, Bowmanville
(18T- 90051)
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
c) Protection of natural features identied by Map
Disagree. Population allocation has been
No change.
C3 in Nash and Maple Wood Neighbourhoods
distributed evenly on vacant developable
will prevent population potential indicated by
lands.
the Plan from being reached. It may be
necessary to allow other areas to develop
more intensely or expand the land base for
development
d) Section 4.7.9: Indicate that 'appropriate
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
buffers' will be required from cold and warm
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
water streams, rather than stating quantitative
minimums.
e) Section 4.7.10: Selection and contractual
The selection of the consultant by the
No change.
relationship of consultant to undertake an EIS
Municipality is the best method to ensure
should rest with the proponent
that the analysis is objective and serves
the public interest
f) Section 4.8.10: Do not understand the reason
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
for or the meaning of an 'appropriate buffer'
Issues)
Issues)
from woodlots.
g) Section 5.3.4 is too rigid by not permitting
Disagree. Modifications to the interim
No change.
expansions to the interim urban boundary
urban boundary should be done on a
outside of comprehensive reviews.
comprehensive basis and as part of the
Plan's five (5) year review process and not
on individual applications. Also see
Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban Area
Boundary for Residential Areas)
h) Section 5.3.6 b): Leapfrogging development
Disagree. It is recognized that certain
No change.
may be unavoidable in certain circumstances.
development interests may be able to
proceed before others. However, it is in
the public interest and in keeping with the
intent of the Plan to prohibit leap- frogging
development
41
42
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Section 5.3.7 a): The proponent should be
permitted to finance capital works included
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W132
Continued.
Generally agree, provided it is permitted
Review plan for possible inclusion
not
under the Capital Works Program.
under the Development Charges Act and
does not affect the Development Charges
of policy on private financing of
quantum.
capital works.
j) Section. 5.3.7 d): Efforts should be directed at
encouraging non - residential development,
The Municipality currently has an active
No change
rather than discouraging residential growth.
program to attract non - residential
development which is supported by the
policies in the draft Official Plan. However,
this policy recognizes that non - residential
growth is much harder to attract than
residential growth and provides Council
With an easily used mechanism to avoid a
substantial imbalance in non - residential to
residential assessment
k) Section 5.3.9: The clearance for registration
would be subject to the arbitrary interpretation
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
Prematurity Policies)
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
of Section 5.3.6.
and Prematurity Policies)
I) Section 6.2:1: it may not be possible to have
Disagree.
No change.
g
enough land to meet the required
eq population
targets at the density levels given.
m) Section 9.3.4: Increase the maximum size for
The 100 sq.m. maximum is intended to
No change,
convenience commercial. from 100 sq.m. to
500 sq.m.
permit comer stores. Larger commercial
developments should develop as part of
comprehensively planned Neighbourhood
Commercial Areas.
42
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
official Plan Review
F No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W132
Continued.
n) Section 9.3.10: School board land area
Disagree. The land area requirements
No change.
requirements should not be prescribed in the
were developed in consultation with the
Official Plan in case they need less land.
School Boards and are outlined in the Plan
to provide general information to
developers and the public.
o) Section 9.4.4 b): Policy regarding size of
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
townhouse blocks should only be generally
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
applied.
P) Section 9.4.6: On -site amenities for Medium
Disagree. The amenities to be provided
No change.
and High Density developments should not be
are intended to improve the quality of life
required because they are additional to
of residents and are not intended to
parkland already provided by the developer.
duplicate the parkland requirements of the
Planning Act Section 9.4.6 of draft Plan is
consistent with Council approved amenity
guidelines.
q) Delete Section 9.4.7. Municipality should use
The Planning Act does not require
No change.
bonusing and density transfer, as permitted by
municipalities to use these tools. Staff
the Planning Act
agree that their application may be
beneficial in certain situations; however,
guidelines for their use can only be
properly developed through a
comprehensive review, which is provided
for by the existing policy.
r) Section 9.4.8: The provision of a mix of
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
housing is not practical for small subdivisions.
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
S) Section 9.5.1: Urban design criteria should
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
only be generally applied.
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
t) Sections 9.5.1 c) and e) should be clarified.
Disagree.
No change.
43
44
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments Recommendation
W132
Continued.
u) Section 9.5.2: Where are the Municipality's s
P ttY'
CurrenU y provided by the Municipality's No change.
architectural standards provided?
Architectural Control By -law and standard
Subdivision Agreement
V) Section 9.5.3: Define •neo-traditional ".
Agree. Under review.
W) Section 10.3.2: Maintain flexibility in
development of Central Areas by generally
Disagree. The application of these No change.
principles is important in order for Central
applying policies.
Areas to develop as envisioned by the
Plan.
X) Section 10.3.3: Too restrictive to require all
Partially agree. The integration of a mix of Review policy.
Central Areas to include mixed use and
uses into Central Areas is important so
residential components.
that they do not become single- purpose
commercial areas.
Y) Section 10.3.6: Do not require a retail impact
study for commercial development within
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas) See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
designated Central Areas.
Areas)
Z) Section 10.6.2: Retail floor space allocation
for Martin/Hartwell LCA should be "2,350 ".
Agree. Revise Section 10.6.2 of Plan
aa) Section 18.3.3: Permit park frontage to be
reduced below 25% subject to approval by
See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks) See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
Director.
bb) Section 18.3.4: Clarify that parkland
dedication target involves a combination
Addressed in Section 23.9.2 of draft No change.
of
dedications and purchase.
Official Plan
cc) Section 18.3.7: Clarify that the total of all
Addressed in Section 23.9.2 of draft No change.
parkland dedicated by a development
Official Plan
proponent shall be in accordance with the
Planning Act
44
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W132
Continued.
dd) Green Road designated as a Type B Arterial in
Staff intend to request the Region to
No change.
draft Plan, and as a Type C in the Regional
redesignate Green Road as a Type B
Plan.
arterial.
ee) Section 19.7.3: Indicate that new residential
Section 19.7.3 of Plan allows flexibility in
No change.
development shall "generally' develop in a grid
terms of a modified grid pattern.
system.
ft) Section 19.7.3: Do not preclude the
This policy reflects previous Council
No change.
development of cul-de -sacs.
direction and is consistent with the
provision of a connected grid system of
streets.
gg) Section 19.10.2: What criteria will determine
Criteria will be developed at a later date.
No change.
where pedestrian and bicycle routes are
appropriate?
hh) -Section 19.10.5: What is meant by bicycle
This would include bicycle racks and
No change.
-
storage facilities?
similar equipment to permit bicycle riders
to safely and securely store their bicycles.
However, the inclusion of a specific
definition is an inappropriate level of detail
for the Official Plan.
i) Section 19.10.7: Why do bicycles require
For safety reasons.
No change.
additional R.O.W.s?
jj) Section 20.2.7: Recognize storm water
Such facilities are required in order to
No change.
management facilities as part of parkland
meet the storm water management
dedication.
objectives of the Municipality. As well,
because they could be wet for significant
periods, they would not be useful for active
facilities.
45
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W132
Continued.
kk) Section 23.6.2: How is a' revision to a plan of
This section would only be applied when
See Section 8.1 of Report
subdivision' defined?
substantive revisions are proposed to a
(Transitional Policies)
plan of subdivision. See Section 8.1 of
Report (Transitional Policies)
10 Section 23.9.2: When using parkland
dedication on basis of 1 ha per 300 dwelling
Disagree. Existing policy approved by
No change.
units, the remaining lands being calculated on
Municipal Affairs.
the 5% criteria should exclude the
medium/high density blocks and half of the
abutting road allowances. -
W 133
Mr. Michael Noonan
1615 Dundas Street East
'Aug. 2194
a) Section 2e): Modify to recognize "needs as
'demands"
Agree
Amend policy to recognize 'needs"
Lang Tower, 4th Floor
well as for a variety of housing
t
types.
as ell a
well as 'demands' for a variety
Whitby, Ontario.
of housing.
L1 N 21-1
for DURHAM REGION NON-
b) Section 6.4.2: Once housing targets are
Section 6.8 of Plan requires the
No change.
PROFIT HOUSING CORP.
established, they are difficult to vary.
Municipality to monitor and maintain land
supply and housing unit supply targets on
a municipal wide basis. If market
conditions change dramatically, we will be
aware of this through our annual housing
report as provided for in Section 6.8.3 of
Plan and may revise the Plan in a
subsequent update.
C) Sections 6.4.3 and 9.3.8: These sections are
Disagree. The policy is not mandatory,
Review Iocational criteria,
too restrictive in terms of the provision of
but one of encouragement.
L
housing for special needs group.
I
46
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clair ngton
Official Plan Review
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
No.
Submitter
Submission
Ref.
d) Section 6.5.2c): Clarify "good urban design
Agree.
Revise policy.
W133
Continued.
principles' by including statements such as:
• size, height and intensity of
development is compatible with
adjacent land uses;
• organization of functions on site do
not adversely impact adjacent
properties;
• design, massing and building
materials are not out of character with
those in immediate neighbourhood.
e) Section 6.6: Province's housing policies are
Acknowledged.
Under review.
slated for revision and proclamation later in
1994.
f) Section 6.6.3: What is considered a
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
"concentration" of non - profit housing. Do not
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
agree that "small scale" equates to projects in
the 5o unit size.
g) Section 9.4.4: Does not agree with the criteria
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
proposed for block townhouse units. A
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
measure of flexibility is required in dealing with
appropriately planned and designed block
townhouse developments.
h) Section 10.6.2: Clarify table, specifically the
Table is located within Section 10.6 of Plan
No change.
portion dealing with new housing units. Not
- "Local Central Areas ".
sure whether restrictions apply to entire
neighbourhood or just Local Central Areas.
47
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W134 Mr. David Greenspan
Thomson Rogers
Aug. 1/94
g'
W118
W183
a) Map Al: The two-fold designation which Agree that two-fold land use designation is Modify Map Al of Plan to eliminate
shows North Courtice (Deferral Area for
Barristers and Solicitors
Suite 3100
W189
6 inappropriate.
Regional Plan) as Special Study'Area 4 with Green Space designation.
390 Bay Street
V7
V44
an underlying Green Space designation is
Toronto, Ontario.
V53
inappropriate.
MSH 1 W2
for WM. TONNO
CONSTRUCTION LTD.
b) Map A1: Modify to remove the Special Study Not appropriate to designate as Urban See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Area and Green Space designations for North Residential in light of the deferral
for ERHARD & HENRIETTA
and Urban Area Boundary for.
Courtice (Deferral Area 6 for Regional Plan) possible referral of this area to the Ontario Residential Areas)
and designate as Urban Residential.
WITZKE
Municipal Board hearing on the Regional
for 687120 ONTARIO LTD./
Plan. Also see Section 2.3 of Report
STEVE DEVESCERI LTD.
(Interim Urban Area Boundary for
PtLts. 31/32, Conc. 3,
Residential Areas)
Darlington
C) Adjust the 30 year boundary to include all of Clarington Official Plan does not provide a No change.
North Courtice (Deferral Area 6 for Regional 30
year boundary.
Plan).
d) Include North Courtice (Deferral Area 6) within Not appropriate in light of the deferral and See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
20 year urban boundary.
possible referral of this area to the Ontario Urban Area Boundary for
Municipal Board hearing on the Regional Residential Areas)
Plan. Also see Section 2.3 of Report
(Interim Urban Area Boundary for
Residential Areas)
e) Map E1 (Neighbourhood Boundaries - Not appropriate in light of the deferral and See Report - Section 2.3 (Interim
Courtice Urban Area): Modify to include a possible referral of this area to the Ontario
Urban Area Boundary for
"Neighbourhood 15 - Courtice North Municipal Board hearing on the Regional Residential Areas) and Section 3.2
Neighbourhood" to permit development of this
Plan. Also see Report - Section 2.3 (Watershed Planning)
area to occur within the 20 year planning (Interim Urban Area Boundary for
period of the Official Plan. Residential Areas) and Section 3.2
(Watershed Planning)
0 Map E - Table. Add a line entitled "N15 Not appropriate in light of the deferral and See Report - Section 2.3 (Interim
Courtice North' with a population target of
possible referral of this area to the Ontario Urban Area Boundary for
2,300 persons. Municipal Board hearing on the Regional Residential
Areas) and Section 3.2
Plan. Also see Report - Section 2.3 (Watershed Planning)
(Interim Urban Area Boundary for
Residential Areas) and Section 3.2
(Watershed Planning)
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W134
Continued.
g) In order to permit some flexibility in housing
Disagree. Section 24.6 of the Plan
No change.
mix, take the entire allocation of tow, medium,
addresses the matter of flexibility in the
high, and intensification units for each
interpretation of numeric information.
neighbourhood out of the main body of the
Official Plan and place in the Appendix.
h) Indicate detailed land use designations for
Not appropriate in light of deferral and
See Section 3.2 of Report
North Courtice (Deferral No. 6 for Regional
possible referral of this area to the Ontario
(Watershed Planning)
Plan),
Municipal Board hearing on the Regional
Plan. Also see Section 3.2 of Report
(Watershed Planning)
W1 35A
Prof. James P. Lovekin
Aug. 22194
W70
Supports designation of 2 parcels of land owned by
Acknowledged.
No change in designation. Change
W135B
3 King Street West
W112
him at Highways 35 /115 and 401 as Special Study
reference in Section 17.2 of Plan
W135C
P.O. Box 189
Area.
from "Lovekin's Property" to
Colborne, Ontario.
"Highway 3511151401 Area ".
KOK 1S0
W136
Ms. Dianne Lemieux
Aug. 26/94
-
Recognize existing landfill in Part Lots 11 and 12,
Existing landfill can continue as a legal
No change.
Project Manager
Concession 3, Clarke
non- conforming use. There is no
3410 South Service Road
justification to designate the site as a
P.O. Box 5057, Station A
Waste Disposal Facility in the absence of
Burlington, Ontario.
an approved application.
L7R 2Y8
for LAIDLAW WASTE SYSTEMS
W137
Eric and Geri Cornish
Sept 2/94
V36
a) The site is occupied by an overgrown
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Myrtle L. Leaver
Christmas tree plantation which does not meet
Policies)
Policies)
3425 Regional Road 57
the woodlot criteria in the draft Official Plan.
Bowmanville; Ontario.
Redesignate site from Green Space to
L1C 3K2
Residential.
Pt.Lt. 14, Conc. 3, Darlington
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
b) In North Bowmanville, move the interim urban
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
boundary north to coincide with the 30 Year
Residential Areas)
urban boundary.
49
50
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W138
Mr. Stan Racansky and Family
3200 Hancock Road
Sept 9/94
(Aug. 12194)
W97
W141
a) Concerned about using medium and high
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
Courtice, Ontario.
W171
environmentally sensitive land for
development, especially those that are aquifer
Beach )
Iroquois Beach}
L1 E 2M1
V40
or ground water recharge areas for the Black
and Farewell Creeks.
b) Several storm water retention ponds in the
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
area are warming up the cold water creeks
(eg. Black and their tributaries) and are
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
polluting the fresh water.
C) Identify the Farewell Creek Valley along
The ANSI designation is assigned by the
No change.
Highway No. 2 as an Area of Natural and
Ministry of Natural Resources and not by
Scientific Interest (ANSI). it is a unique area
the Official Plan.
with old trails and should be protected as a
natural heritage feature.
d) . They would like Clarington's support and
guidance in regard to development in
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
groundwater recharge areas (3A,38) and lands
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
around Black Creek.
e) Encourage public involvement in decision
making in the development of a
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Comprehensive Forest Policy.
Policies)
Policies)
f) Past clearing of woodlots in Neighbourhoods
Beyond scope of Official Plan.
No change.
3B and 3C has resulted in environmental
degradation. Why were "illegal clearing" and
"other incidents" not investigated by the By -law
Department?
g) Why was the Farewell /Black Water
Request from City of Oshawa received by
Under review.
Management Study for the protection of the
Municipality on March 27th, 1995, after the
Second Marsh.not updated by the municipality
release of the Draft Official Plan in May,
as required by the Second Marsh Defence
1994.
Association?
50
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Caarington
Official Plan Review
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
No.
F
Submitter
Submission
Ref.
Sept 14194
-
Expand boundary for Tyrone to include all the lands
subject of development applications. A number of
Staff have consulted with the Region on
this matter. As well, the technical reports
Adjust hamlet boundary to include
all of subject lands.
W139
Ms. Kathryn Harrison
Development Coordinator
technical reports have been submitted in support of
submitted by the applicant have addressed
Armstrong Harrison Associates
this request
most of the technical concerns with the
1 -138 Hopkins Street
development of the site. Council
Whitby, Ontario. L1N 2C3
previously approved a "Residential"
for GEORGIAN WOODS, DN.
or FOR
designation on the south portion of the site
183 ONTARIO LTD.
which, according to the draft subdivision
8NTARI &
s* OP
(Files:
plan, would permit the development of
18T-89092)
approximately 13 lots. The boundary
Pt Lt 8, C.7, Hamlet of Tyrone
expansion requested would permit an
additional 7 lots as proposed by the draft
subdivision plan.
Sept. 13/94
V50
a) On Map A of Port Darlington Secondary Plan,
replace "Utiiltied, designation on lands east of
Agree.
Revise Map A of Port Darlington
Secondary Plan and Map A3 of
W140
Mr. Bryce Jordan, M.C.I.P.
Associate, Planning Manager
G.M. Sernas & Associates Ltd.
Mearns Avenue road allowance with
Official Plan.
110 Scotia Court, Unit 41
"Residential".
Whitby, Ontario.
b) Clarify depth of Waterfront Greenway
The precise location of the boundary of the
No change.
Li N 8Y7
designation in Port Darlington Secondary Plan.
Waterfront Greenway will be determined
for HAAS SHOYCHET
The Plan prepared by the consultant indicated
through consideration of detailed
WAISGLASS PROPERTY
that the Open Space system along the
development applications.
PtLts.7,8, B.F.Conc.
shoreline would consist of 7.5 metres of
developable land beyond the shoreline erosion
setback-
C) Reinstate the Convenience Commercial
There is sufficient commercial floor space
No change.
designation at the intersection of the two
In the Village Commercial designation to
waterfront collector roads.
support the Port Darlington Secondary
Planning Area As well, Section 9.3.4 of
the draft Official Plan permits Convenience
Commercial uses in Residential areas.
51
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Caarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W140
Continued.
d) Section 9.5.1: Urban design criteria are too
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential See Section 4.2 of Report
prescriptive and would not allow for
innovation.
Neighbourhoods) (Residential Neighbourhoods)
e) Section 23.9.6: Objects to gratuitous
dedication of land beyond the statutory
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
Heritage
parkland requirement
System) Heritage System)
f) Section 23.10.3: Front - ending agreements on
Staff will review policy. Under review.
privately- funded capital works are not in
accordance with the Development Charges
Act
W141
Mr. Stan Racansky, P. Eng.
3200 Hancock Road
Sept. 13/94
W97
W138
OPA 93-02 (Deferral Area 6 for Regional Plan) does not
take into account its effect on the environment The
Subject area indicated as Special Study Modify Map Al of Plan to eliminate
Courtice, Ontario.
LIE 2M1
W171
area has been designated as a Special Stud Area due
Y
Area 4 to reflect Living Area designation Green Space designation.
a
approved by Regional Council, and
W184
to its environmental sensitivity and should not be given
deferral of decision on designation by
V40
a Green-Space designation. This proposal encroaches
Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Dual
on the Lake Iroquois Shoreline and its special wildlife
designation as Special Study Area and
habitat It should be permanently protected.
Green Space inappropriate.
W142
Mr. Philip Edward Brent
Suite 202
Sept. 14/94
-
Objects to the "Greenspace" designation and
"Community
See Section 4.4 of Report Parks
p° ( ) No change.
261 Davenport Road
Park" on his property.
Toronto, Ontario.
MSR 1K3
for ANGLO -YORK INDUSTRIES
LTD.
(PLLts. 9 & 10, Cone. 3,
Darlington)
W143
Dwayne Tapp
Box 20056
Sept 19/94
W71
Waterfront Greenway designation on Nicklaus property
ntire property designated 'Major Open No change.
55 Metcalf Street East
only justified for environmentally sensitive land in
southeast portion; balance should be designated Open
pace in Regional Official
Newcastle, Ontario.
Space.
�-Waterfronr
lan. e designation corresponds to the
[draft
L18 1 M3
aterfnt Greenway designation in the
for MR. AND MRS. NIKLAUS
Official Plan.
PL 26, B.F.C., Clarke
- _ _ - -- —
52
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W144
Mrs. Ruth Hinkley
Vice- President
Sept. 20/94
W4
a) Sections 4.6 and 16.4.4: Concerned that
The draft Plan does not address the
Under review.
1 Wheelhouse Drive, Unit 5
V4
V12
Waterfront Trail will ultimately be along bluffs
detailed alignment of the Waterfront Trail.
Newcastle, Ontario.
through Wilmot Creek Community.
It only indicates Council's intent to
Li B 189
ultimately establish a continuous trail along
for WILMOT CREEK
the Waterfront. The Plan recognizes that
HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
the completion of the trail may exceed the
Plan's 20 year timeframe.
b) Section 4.6.7: Prohibition of expansion to
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
See Section 5.2 of Report
existing residences should only apply to
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition of
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
lakeshore cottages or seasonal homes, not to
Waterfront Lands)
Acquisition of Waterfront Lands)
types of homes in Wilmot Creek.
c) Continuing bluff erosion needs to be
No. The Municipality will not institute
No change.
addressed. Does the Municipality intend to
erosion control.
institute erosion control across the bluffs to
implement the Waterfront Trail?
d) Request closure of unopened road allowance
The road allowance has been closed by
No change.
within Community for security reasons.
Council.
e) Permit retirement home proposal prior to next
Proposal has been withdrawn by Ridge
No change.
Plan review.
Pine Park Inc.
f) Sections 23.2.5 and 23.8: Wilmot Creek
Agree.
Revise Section 16.4.1 of Plan to
Retirement Community should not be treated
reflect landlease community.
as a Mobile Home Park.
g) Include Wilmot Creek Retirement Community
Public transit is addressed in general
No change.
in plans for public transit.
terms in the Official Plan. Specific routes
and financial impact considerations are
beyond the scope of the Official Plan.
53
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W144
Continued.
h) Section 19.4.4: Plans for Lambs Road
Agree. Access to the Wilmot Creek
No change.
Interchange should consider entry to and exit
Retirement Community is provided for in
from Wilmot Creek Retirement Community in
the draft Official Plan.
the event that the Bennett Road Interchange is
closed.
Association wishes input into any future
Any changes to the Official Plan will
No change.
studies for Special Policy Area C.
involve residents as part of the normal
consultation process.
I) Bluff area should remain in private ownership
Council has provided direction on this
No change.
as long as Wilmot Creek Retirement
issue.
Community exists, and no Public Trail be
permitted in the Green Space.
k) Supports establishment of a Waterfront Trail
Agree.
No change.
and conservation area near the mouth of
Wilmot Creek.
I) Section 8.3.9: Supports archaeological
Agree.
No change.
studies for lands proposed for development
M) Section 16.3.2: Concurs with policy to
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
encourage St. Marys Cement to explore
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Cement and Westside Creek
alternatives to excavating Westside Creek
Marsh)
Marsh.
W145
Mr. Ronald Strike
Strike, Salmers & Furlong
Sept 26/94
-
a) Designate property as Special Study Area for
No planning rationale to designate lands
No change to land use designation.
38 King Street West, P.O. Box 7
golf courses and ancillary residential uses.
for residential use. Also see Section 6.3 of
Also see Section 6.3 of Report (Golf
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Report (Golf Courses)
Courses)
L1 C 3K8
for RONALD STRIKE IN TRUST
b) Section 7.3.9 c): Add "and other active
recreational activi ies ".
Activities should be specifically waterfront
Modify Section 7.3.9 of Plan to
Pt Lt 25, B.F.C., Clarke
related.
indicate waterfront - related
recreational opportunities.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W146
Mr. Mars Barrick
2455 Richardson Sideroad
Sept 26/94
-
a) Must protect Westside Creek Marsh.
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
R.R. #2
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Carp, Ontario.
Marsh)
KOA 1 LO
b) Existing residences should be given same
See Report - Section 5.2 (Shoreline Hazard
See Report - Section 52 (Shoreline
consideration as St Marys Cement.
Zone and Public Acquisition of Waterfront
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition
Lands) and Section 5.3 (Existing
of Waterfront Lands) and Section
Residential Communities)
5.3 (Existing Residential
Communities)
W147
Sam L Cureatz, O.C.
Barrister and Solicitor
Oct 4/94
W66
Supports designation of Mosport Park as a Tourism
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
Node. Appreciative of the Municipality's recognition of
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
104 James Street West
Mosport Park as a key element of the Economic
Newcastle, Ontario.
Development Strategy.
1-113 106
for MOSPORT PARK
W148
Mr. Robert R. Owen
President
Oct 14/94
-
Designate property located at the southwest comer of
No objection to permitting expansion of
Add policy to Official Plan to permit
2728 Courtice Road
Highway #2 and Courtice Road to highway commercial
dealership.
minor expansion of dealership.
M
to permit expansion of existing car dealership.
Courtice, Ontario.
Li E 2M7
for ROY NICHOLS MOTORS
LTD.
W149
Mr. Allan Vaillancourt
1446 Highway #2
Oct 13/94
-
Courtice Neighbourhoods 3A, B and C contain
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
R.R.#6
wetlands, forests and recharge areas and are an
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
important part of the Black/Farewell Creek system.
Bowmanville, Ontario.
These creeks contain valuable cold water fisheries and
Li C 3K7
drain into the Second Marsh. The clear- cutting of
forests and development should not be permitted in
this area.
55
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W150
Mr. Glen Easton
Senior Planning Consultant
Oct 20/94
W151
Do not change site's commercial designation to an
Agree.
Revise Bowmanville Main Central
314 Clendenan Avenue
V48
institutional designation.
Area Secondary Plan
Toronto, Ontario. M6P 2X3
for SCHLEISS DEVT. CO. LTD.
Silver Street Parking Lot
Bowmanville
W151
Mr. Glen Easton
Senior Planning Consultant
Oct 19/94
W150
V48
a) Objects to "Green Space" designation for
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodiot
See Section 3.4 of Report ( Woodlot
314 Clendenan Avenue
woodlot
Policies)
Policies)
Toronto, Ontario.
M6P 2X3
b) Objects to gratuitous dedication of woodlots.
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (woodlot
for SCHLEISS & HOLLAND
Policies)
Policies)
Ptlt 34, Conc. 3, Courtice
(18T- 86068)
c) Objects to designation of school site on
Disagree. Site chosen in consultation with
Also see Section 4.5 of Report
property.
the School Board. Also see Section 4.5 of
(Schools)
Report (Schools)
W152
Mr. Jim Collishaw
Cambridge Engineering and
Oct 3/94
-
Relocate east/.west Type 'C' Arterial road between
The Type 'a arterial is intended to function
Revise alignment of Type 'C' arterial
Planning Consultants Ltd.
Courtice and Prestonvale Roads south of Penwest
as a mid -block arterial. Relocating this
as per Region's comments.
15 Cambridge Street
property.
road too far south would effect the
Cambridge, Ontario.
intended function. However, the alignment
Ni R 3R8
will be modified slightly based on
for PENWEST DEVELOPMENTS
comments received from the Region.
W153
Mr. Michael J. McQuaid
Weir & Foulds
Oct 28/94
-
a) Show entire licensed area as Aggregate
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
Exchange Tower
Extraction Area" in accordance with Provincial
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Suite 1600, P.O. Box 480
Policy Statement.
h
Marsh)
2 First Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario.
b) Include Waverly Road in "Aggregate Extraction
".
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
M5X 1J5
Area
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
for ST. MARYS CEMENT
Marsh)
C) .Federal and Provincial review of dock
Disagree. The municipality should have
No change.
expansion is thorough; therefore, there is no
input into the Federal and Provincial review
need for municipal approval.
process and has jurisdiction over land use.
_ _ 5�
M
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendati on
W153
Continued.
d) Section 11.6.4: Do not restrict the area,
Suggestion has some merit
Under review.
height, and location of outside storage on
dock.
e) Delete Section 16.3.4 requiring consultation
Disagree.
No change.
with municipality prior to rehabilitation.
f) Delete "Contaminated Site symbol.
Disagree. Site has been identified by the
No change.
Ministry of Environment and Energy in
correspondence to the Municipality of
Clarington, November, 1991.
g) Designate Waverly Road south of Highway 401
Disagree. The moderate volume of traffic
No change.
as a Type A• Arterial to serve quarry, dock,
on Waverly Road south of Highway 401
and ancillary uses.
does not warrant redesignation to Type "A"
Arterial.
h) Include unlicensed lands owned by St Marys
Disagree.
No change.
Cement within Aggregate Extraction Area•.
Map C3: Remove Shoreline Erosion Setback
Limit from existing dock
Agree.
Remove Shoreline Erosion setback
limit from dock on Map C3 of Plan.
i) Section 4.6.3: Permit lakefilling to allow dock
Dock expansion is currently under review
Under review.
expansion.
by Federal agencies.
W154
Mr. Stephen Kassinger
Vice - President
Oct 26/94
-
a) Section 4.7.9: Ouantative minimums for
See Section 3.3 of Report Natural
Po (
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
Chair, Municipal Liaison
development setbacks are not appropriate for
cold water and warm water streams.
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
King Street Postal Outlet
P.O. Box 26064
206 King Street East
b) Section 4.7.10: The retention of qualified
The selection of the consultant by the
No change.
Oshawa, Ontario.
professional expertise for Environmental
Municipality re
L1 H 1 CO
Impact Studies should be the right of the
s
that the analysis objective and serves
for OSHAWA- DURHAM HOME
proponent
the public interest.
BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
M
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W154
Continued.
c) Section 4.7.11: Restrict gratuitous dedication
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
of Environmentally Sensitive Areas to
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
valleylands only.
d) Section 4.8.4: Delete policy requiring the
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodiot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
gratuitous dedication of woodiots.
Policies)
Policies)
e) Section 5.3.4: Gives Council too little flexibility
Modifications to the interim urban
No change.
to deal with adjustments to the interim urban
boundary should be done on a
area boundary only as part of a
comprehensive basis and as part of the
comprehensive review of the Official Plan.
Plan's five year review process and not on
individual applications.
f) Section 5.3.6: The phasing policies are too
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
rigid and should allow Council some flexibility.
Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
g) Section 5.3.7: Delete Subsection a) to allow
Generally agree with concept of proponent
Review plan for possible inclusion
for proponent funding of capital works.
funding, provided it is permitted under the
of policy on private financing of
Development Charges Act and does not
capital works.
affect the Development Charge quantum.
h) Section 5.3.7: Delete Subsection d) with
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
respect to the non - residential assessment ratio
Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
of not less than .15 %.
Section 5.3.9: Final approval for registration
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
should be given upon satisfying the conditions
Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
related to phasing not upon compliance with
Section 5.3.6 as well.
58
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W154
Continued.
17 Section 6.8.2: Reference to processing time
Proponent financing of capital works may
Review plan for possible inclusion
for applications within the area included in the
be appropriate, provided it is permitted
of policy on private financing of
10 Year Capital Budget Forecast does not
under the Development Charges Act and
capital works.
allow for applicant funding of capital works.
does not affect the Development Charge
quantum.
k) Section 9.4.4: Make the criteria for Medium
Disagree. Section 9.4.4 of draft Plan is
No change.
and High Density more flexible by Inserting the
sufficiently flexible.
word "generally'.
1) Section 9.4.4: Allow street townhousing to
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
develop up to 8 unit blocks as allowed in the
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
Ontario Building Code.
m) Section 9.4.5: Insert word "generally" to policy
Disagree. See Section 4.2 of Report
See Section 4.2 of Report
requiring comprehensive site plans.
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
n) Section 9.4.6: Does the requirement to
On -site amenity area requirements are
Clarify Policy 9.4.6 of Plan
provide on -site amenities apply to street
intended for townhouses and apartment
townhouses? Flexibility is required.
blocks. It is assumed that street
townhouses will have a rear yard outdoor
amenity area.
o) Section 9.4.7: Allow bonusing provisions and
Staff agree that the application of these
No change.
density transfer as an option.
tools may be beneficial in certain
situations; however, guidelines for their
use can only be properly developed
through a comprehensive review, which is
provided for by the existing policy.
P) Section 9.4.8: The requirement for all plans of
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
subdivision to provide a mix of housing types
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
requires greater flexibility by inserting the word
.generally".
59
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W154
Continued
q) Section 9.5.1: The urban design criteria is
Disagree.
No change.
open to interpretation and the word *generally"
should be inserted.
r) Section 9.5.2 What are the architectural
Disagree. Standards are currently
No change.
standards of the Municipality? This vague
provided by the Municipality's Architectural
statement should be removed or made more
Control By -law and standard Subdivision
flexible.
Agreement
s) Section 9.5.3: Clarify the definition of neo-
Agree
Under review.
traditional neighbourhood.
t) Section 12.3.2: is an allocation of only 300
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
new lots in rural settlement areas adequate
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
over the life of the Plan?
Residential Areas)
U) Section 12.5.3: Will the allocation of no more
This allocation is based on development
No change.
than 20 country residential lots within a 5 year
trends and is considered to be sufficient
period be enough?
V) Section 18.3.3: Requiring parks to have 25%
See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
of their perimeter as street frontage is onerous
and too rigid.
W) Section 18.3.4: A parkland goal of 2 ha per
Addressed in Section 23.9.2 of draft
No change.
1000 persons is almost twice the parkland
Official Plan.
dedication requirement The Plan should
_ clarify that this goal is to be achieved in
conjunction with land purchase.
X) Section 19.6.2: Right -of -way widths for
Agree a range of collector road widths is
Modify policy to permit range in
collector roads should be between 20 and
appropriate; however, disagree with 20
collector road widths from 23
26m. This section should consider "Alternative
metre width.
metres to 26 metres.
Development Standards Guideline" as well.
60
09
pane sa „au!lap!no spiepuelS luawdolanao
•sanaw 93 of sa .4aw
ylp!M ailaw
anllawalidw Jap!suoo pinoys uolloas s141 w9Z
CZ wa; sylp!rn pea JoloallOO
OZ 4UM aai6eslp jaAamoq :alaudadda
pua OZ uaaAgaq aq pinoys speoi joloalloo
w abuej 1lwlad of !ollod I(;lpolnl
s! s4lp!M paw ioloalloo ;o a6uej a 0916V
10; sylpten Arm- 10-1461a Z'9'6L uoRoaS (X
•asayomd pull yl!M uo!lounfuoo
ui panatyoe aq of si lao6 slyl 1e41 APLI10
pinoys uald 841 zuawannbaj uogsolpap
'uald 11401110
puapind eyl ao.m isowia s! suosiad 0001
•86ue40 ON
uaip ;O Z'6'8Z uO!loas w passalppy
jad ey Z ;o leo6 puelMjad y :17'E'9L uoRoaS (M
•p!6u ool pua
snaauo si 96alua; laegs se jejewuad jlayl ;o
(s%:ad) llOd9a ;0 17.17 UO.4098 aaS
(sMlad) liodaa ;o 17.17 uopaS aaS
%9Z enay of sXjad 6uulnbaa :E'E'8L uolloaS (n
Ly6noua aq pouad
•lualoWns aq of pajaplsuoo sl pus spuail
naA 9 a ul4l!m slol pi uaplsai IGiunoo OZ uayl
•a6uayo ON
luawdolanap uo paseq s! uolleoolle s141
OJOw ou ;0 uolla00pa ayl II!M :E'S'Zl u011oaS (n
(saaiy ppaplsau
Luald a41 ;o akl 141 nano
jo; Aepunog awry usgin
(seaiy leguappe)l jo; kepuno8 aaiy
elanbape sum luawaplas lairu ui slol mau
wualul) liodaa;o E'Z uolloeS ass
uegjn wualul) Uodau io gZ uo.n -s ass
00E Aluo ;o u01le0opa ua sl :Z'E ZL u0 pas (1
•pooyjnogy6l9u lauompell
'Malnaj japufl
eai6y
-oau ;o ual!uvap eyl /(1ua10 :E'9'6 uolloaS (s
'luawaa�6y
'alq.�il
uotsiNpgnS plspusls pus Mel -Ae loiluoo
aiow spew jo panowai aq pinoys luawalels
A d
lajnloauyojy s ilvO a
6n s .
1 L�ad0unry ayl ;o sp�epals
a6uayo
Agualino an spiapumS •e9i6si
einloeliy01a eyl aJS la4M ZPOS U
uON
•palresui aq pinoys
,Apmua6, pionn ayl pue uoi lalaidialu! of uado
•a6ueyO ON
-aai6asla
st aueluo u6lsep uegjn 941 :L'9'6 uo1loaS (b
panulluo0
17SlM
•;aa
uo!ss!wgnS
uogapuawwo0ay
sluawwo0 $elS
uolsslwgnS ;o IGewwnS
'ssa0
10 also
JalllwgnS
oN
Melnea uald I1310WO
uol6uliul0 to AilladlolunW eLp of Pelelea suolsslwgnS uallljM
go,
lie �g 1� i�� IE9 I IVIV N I N 6 1� i IHi 'p � ��d � �M I � y E�
I1NU ®plool�i H�IW la �iBI�II !�
M6ineu Mid IElol110
uol6ulJetO to Jylledlolunpy 64101 P619168 suolsslwgns uai1IJM
lolled ®ulloixa o41 Aq jai PoopiAoid
$l 4o14M 'Mamal enlsuayaJdwoo E y6noJ4l
padolanap /gi9doJd eq Jlluo ueo esn
nayl Jo; saullapin6 'JanaMo4 !suo.prgs
unniao ul lElogauaq aq /Iew slool
•uolldo UE Se J91suEJl 4suap
•96ue40 ON
aseyl ;o uolimlidde a41 leyl aaJ6E MqS
pue suolslnoJd 6ulsnuoq Mopy :111.6 uolloaS (o
TIM, dlluawE
Joopino pmA JeaJ a anEy IL!+ sasnoyuMol
19aAs 1E41 PewnssE s! 11 •s3poiq
paJlnbaJ sl 14!llq! -Izl LsasnoyuMol
ivawlredE pue sasnoyuMO1 Jo; papualul
leans of JGdde saljluauJE alls•uo aPlnoJd
uEld ;o 9•v'6 Aoll0d 4PEIO
aJE sluawaJlnbaJ eaJE dlluawE aus u0
of ivawaJlnbei ayl saop :9'1.6 u0110eS (u
(spooymogy6laN MWOPIsaW
(spooyJnogy6laN IElivaplsaa)
sueld ays enlsuayaJdwoo 6uulnbeJ
liodalj ;o Z'b uo!3oaS aaS
VOdau ;o Z•v uogOeS 90S •aaJ6es!0
Ao!lod of .AIIEJauaB. pi OM yasul :9•b•6 uolloaS (w
(spooymogy619N lE1luaPlsa8)
(spooymogy619N
apo0 6u1P1ng ouEluo
041 ul paMolp, se s>looiq pun 9 o1 do dolanap
ltodau ;o Z•17 uolloaS aaS
1e11ueplsau) liodau ;o Z•y uogoaS aaS
o1 6wsnoyuMol laags Mo Ily :b'4'6 uogOaS (I
.AJIMaua6, pJoM
aigixal; /IRualop ;ns
ay16u1uasul Aq alglxag aJow dllsuap 1461H puE
•06ue40 ON
s1 ueld PUP 10 q17*6 uogaaS 'aaJ6Es10
wnlPoW Jo; eualuo ey1 aJlew :yy6 uolloaS N
•wnluenb
96JE40 luawdolanao ayl loage 1ou saop
miloM p4!deo ;o 6ulpun; lueo11dde Jo; Mope
•S31JOM 1E11dEo
Pus lay sa6Je40 luawdolanao ayl Jepun
lou soop lsEoaJo l la6png pnIdeO JEak o1
;0 6ulousuy alEyJd uo �Sopod ;o
palgwJad s1 Ii paPlnoJd 'aleudoJddE eq
ayl u1 papnloul EaJe 941 uly11M suollwIldde Jo;
uolsnloul alglssod Jo; uEld Malnau
�(Ew sHJOM IelldEO ;o 6upueug luauodOJd
awl 6ulssaooJd of eouaJa ;au :a-g-9 uopoeS (f
•panulluo0
ys W
uollspuawwooau
sluawwoo p1s
uolsslwgnS ;o AJewwnS
• ;au
ssa0
uolsslwgnS
;o also
Ja1U.wgnS
'ON
M6ineu Mid IElol110
uol6ulJetO to Jylledlolunpy 64101 P619168 suolsslwgns uai1IJM
09
•pane se „auilap!nE) sp upuelS luawdolanaa
•saJlaw 9Z 01 sallow
•41p!M aJlaw
anR12wally„ Japlsuoo pinoys uolloas slyl w9Z
CZ wa; sylplM pea Joloapoo
oz 41lM aal6eslp 'Janamoy :aleudoldde
pue 0Z uaaMlaq aq pinoys speoi Joloapoo
u! abm 1lwlad of Aollod 41po1N
Si sylplM peol 101091103 ;0 a6uei a aa16y
Jo; syIPIM APP- ;o -ly6la :Z•9-6t uolloas (x
•aseyand pu12l 41lM uollounfuoo
ui pan9lyoe eq of sI leo6 slyl le4l /11!11213
pinoys ueld 841 •luawal!nbal uolleolpap
veld IMOVIO
purgmd ayi ootAn lsowle s! suoslad 000L
•eBu12y0 ON
Help 10 Z•6•ez 110110as ul passalppy
lad ey Z ;o leo6 ptlulMied y :ys•8L uo!3oaS (M
pl6u 001 pue
snolauo's!.a6elua; laalls se Jalawuad J1a41 ;o
(sX112d) VOday ;o Vt, uo90as aaS
(sNled) llodau ;o q•y uogoaS aaS
%SZ eAvq of s>iJed 6uulnbau :s-ID-8L uogoas (n
446noue aq pouad
jualo!4ns aq of palaplsuoo si pus spual
Jeal( S e ulyl_lm slol lepaplsaJ kjunoo•OZ uLgl
a6uey3 ON
luawdolanap uo paseq st uo11e3oile slyl
glow ou ;o uolle001e 841 !pM :s•S•ZL u0110as (n
(seaJy Ielluaplsau
Zueld 84110 akl 941 J9n0
Jo; /uepunog eaiV ueg1n
(s-Jy le!luaplsau Jo; /iepunog eaiv
alenbape ware luawaMas lwN u! slol Mau
wualul) 1lodau ;o s•Z uopaS aaS
ueg1n wualul) llodau ;o s•Z uolloas aaS
006 Aluo ;o uoR ue sl. Z•s•ZL u0!108S (1
pooylnogy6lau leuolpail
MalnaJ Japun
eaJ6y
oau ;o uoglugap 941 A}uE1O s'S 6 u0ll0as (s
luawaal6y
'81g.�ell
uolswpgns pJepuels pue Mel -Ae lonuoa
alow apew Jo panowal aq pinoys luawalels
lelnl0al14ay s,/Gllediotunlnl ayl /!q papinad
9n6en s!41 41181edmunyV ayl ;o spJepuels
86uey3 ON
1(gualm3 aJe spJepu12ls aaJ6eslo
i121n139114012 eyl aJe le4M Z•9•6 uolloaS (J
•papasul aq pinoys
„Apelaua6„ p1oM ayl pue uolleiaJdlalul of uedo
•96ue43 ON
•aaJ6estd
si euagJO u6lsap uegm'ayl :L•S•6 uo!108S (b
panuguo0
YSLM
uogepuawwo0au
sluawwoO e1s
uolsslwgns ;o Aiewuins
• ;au
ssola
uolsslwgns
;o alea
Jall!wgnS
ON
melnau uuId IBIDWO
uoi6ulJelp ;o Allledialunw ey3 01 peleleu suoisslwgns uenlJM
Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
Written
Summa of Submission
N
Staff Comments
Recommendation
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
y) Section 19.7.2: The - Alternative Development
Standards Guideline" should be considered for
Suggestion has some meat
Review policy.
Wi54
Continued
local road right -of -way widths.
Z) Section 1,9.7.3: Qualify the grid design
stipulation for local roads by adding the word
'generally' to be more flexible.
The policy allows flexibility in terms of a
modified grid pattern.
No change.
aa) Section 19.7.3: Sidewalks on both side of
local roads are not currently required, and is
Staff will review the policy regarding
sidewalks on both sides of a local road.
Review policy.
onerous and unwarranted.
bb) Section 19.7.3: Cul-de -sacs are land use
efficient, very popular and should not be
precluded.
This policy reflects previous Council
direction and is consistent with the
provision of a connected grid system of
streets.
No change.
cc) - Section 20.2.7: If the Municipality requires
Storm Water Management facilities be
designed for recreation, should the
Municipality not consider these facilities to be
parkland dedication?
Such facilities are required in order to
meet the stormwater management
objectives of the Municipality. As well,
because they could be wet for significant
periods, they would not be useful for active
facilities.
No change.
dd) Section 23.2.6: The Plan should not
discourage official plan amendment
applications prioi to the five year review.
The five year review is the more
appropriate mechanism to deal with
updates and revisions to the Plan on a
comprehensive basis, rather than on a
piece -meal basis through individual
development applications. However,
applications received will be appropriately
No change.
reviewed.
_ _— — -- - -- -- —_ — 62
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W154
Continued
ee) Section 23.6.2: An entire plan of subdivision
The Intent of this policy Is to permit the
Clarify policy indicate that it
should not be reviewed because of one minor
entire plan of subdivision to be reviewed if
will
only a a
Y ppty when substantial
revision
substantive revisions are proposed.
revisions are proposed.
fl) Section 23.6.4: The phasing policies for plans
Agree. The intent of the policy is to
Clarify policy.
of subdivision are too restrictive. Replace
"occupancy'
ensure the residential units are completed.
provision with 'Issuance of
building permits'.
W155
Mr. John F. Foster
288 Kng Street East
Oct 28/94
a) Clarington should amend its Official Plan if it
There are many points on which the two
Under review.
Oshawa, Ontario.
does not conform to Regional Plan.
Plans differ. Staff will review each one to
Li H 1 C8
determine if the draft Official Plan should
for DURHAM WETLANDS AND
be modified or an amendment to the
WATERSHEDS
Regional Plan should be sought
b) Section 2h): The basis of the Plan is flawed in
The Plan seeks to balance development
No change.
that it only plans for development and not the
and protection of the environment in the
environment
context established by the Regional Official
Plan.
C) Section 3.1 c): Change "conservation and
enhancement' to "preservation'.
The concept of "preserving" natural
Delete reference to conservation,
features as though they can be totally
and incorporate concepts of
isolated from human activity is not realistic.
protection, management and
CLOCA has suggested that the concepts
enhancement
of "protection. management and
enhancemenP of the natural environment
are more appropriate.
d) Section 3.2: "Sustained maintenance of
This is not a realistic suggestion given the
No change.
existing community" should be only key
current and future population growth in
principle of Plan.
Clarington and Durham Region.
_ _— — -- - -- -- —_ — 62
written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
official Plan Review
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Ref.
e) Section 3.2.1: Directions for Sustainable
Staff agree that "sustainable development'
No change.
W155
Continued.
Development unrealistic; rewrite to reflect local
will be difficult to implement but feel it is a
conditions.
goal worth striving for. The submission
does not specify how this section should
be rewritten to reflect local conditions.
f) Section 3.2.3: Rewrite to provide more
realistic management of urban sprawl and
The boundaries of the Courtice,
Bowmanville and Newcastle Village urban
Review policies in Sections 4 and
14 of Plan to clarify and enhance
protection of environmentally significant
areas are established by the Durham
protection and management of the
features.
Region Official Plan and must be reflected
natural environment.
in the local Official Plan. The policies
regarding the natural environment are
currently being reviewed.
g) Section 4.21: Rewrite as 'To preserve, buffer
Staff agree with CLOCKS suggestion to
Change wording to incorporate
and protect wetlands, watersheds, woodlands
incorporate the concepts of 'protection,
concepts of protection,
and other.. "
management and enhancement' of the
management and enhancement
natural environment
h) Add new Section 4.2.6: 'To protect current
Policies regarding trails are addressed
No change.
and future terrestrial trails as benefits to the
under Section 19.10 of Plan (Bicycle and
Municipality as a whole."
Pedestrian System).
Section 4.3.1: Reword to read "Council
Council does not have the authority to
Review policy to provide more
requires property owners to practice
require landowners to practice responsible
detail on how land stewardship
responsible land stewardship...'.
land stewardship. The Region has
could be encouraged.
suggested that this policy detail how
Council may encourage property owners.
D Section 4.3.4: Should undertake
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
comprehensive watershed plans prior to
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
Official Plan Review.
k) Section 4.3.5: Detailed definition of natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
features through development applications is
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
ad hoc planning.
63
No.
W155
Continued
Submitter I Date of
Submission
I
Written Submisslons Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
I)
Section 4.4.1: Reword second sentence to
read 'Council requires the maintenance
Council has limited authority to require
No change.
of
environmental integrity..' of the Oak Ridges
landowners to maintain the environmental
integrity of their properties. Also see
Moraine.
Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
Moraine)
m)
Section 4.5.1: Define exact location of Lake
Iroquois Shoreline on Map C.
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
n)
Section 4:5.1: Reword last sentence to read
'Council requires the maintenance of the
Council does not have the authority to
No change.
environmental integrity of the Lake Iroquois
Shoreline'.
require the maintenance of the
environmental integrity of the Lake Iroquois
Shoreline /Beach.
o)
Identify Lake Iroquois Shoreline as east-West
greenbelt to join with those in Oshawa and
Much of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline is
designated Green Space in the draft
No change.
Whitby Official Plans.
Official Plan. Also see Section 3.5 of
Report (Lake Iroquois Beach)
P)
Aggregate extraction and development in Lake
Iroquois Shoreline will negatively effect
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
groundwater. No additional development
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
should be permitted on the Shoreline.
q)
Section 4.6.3: All lakefilling and erosion
control unacceptable.
Limited lakefilling and erosion control may,
No change.
in some instances, provide greater benefits
than no action. Therefore; a total
prohibition on these activities is not
warranted.
r)
Section 4.7.2: Reword second sentence to
indicate natural features must be preserved,
Staff agree with CLOCA's previous
suggestion to incorporate the concepts
Incorporate concepts of protection,
buffered, and protected.
of
'protection, maintenance and
management and enhancement
into Plan.
enhancement'.
RA
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
'Official Plan Review
No. 7�
Submiiter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W155
Continued.
s) Section 4.7.5: Precise limits of floodlines and
Conservation Authorities have detailed
No change.
tops of bank should already be known. No
floodplain and topographic mapping.
cut and fill should be permitted in vaileylands.
t) Section 4.7.7: Buffer around wetlands should
Disagree. This matter is guided by
No change.
be minimum of 800m; no development should
Provincial policy.
be permitted within 120m of wetlands.
U) Section 4.7.8: Do not permit peat extraction
Disagree.
No change,
for any purpose. .
V) Section 4.7.9: Development setbacks for cold
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
and warm water streams should be 300m and
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
150m respectively.
W) Section 4.7.10: No development should be
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
permitted within Environmentally Sensitive
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
Areas.
X) Section 4.7.10: Environmental impact Studies
The Official Plan provides for the
No change.
should be undertaken by party other than
Municipality to retain a consultant at the
Municipality and proponent
proponents expense. This is considered
the most appropriate way to ensure
protection of the public interest.
Y) Section 4.8: Municipality should prepare Tree
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Conservation By -law.
Policies)
Policies)
Z) Section 4.8.10: 120m would be appropriate
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
buffer between development and woodiot.
Policies)
Policies)
aa) Plan continues pattern of urban growth based
Official Plan must recognize urban
No change.
on sprawl.
boundaries given in Durham Regional
Official Plan.
65
written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W155
Continued.
bb) All landscaping on public lands should be
Not within the scope of the Official Plan.
No change.
done with native species.
cc) Add new Section 8.3.10: To consult with First
Nations whenever native artifacts
This is consistent with comments made by
Incorporate appropriate wording
or sites •
discovered.
the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and
into Section 8.
Recreation.
dd) Sections 9.3.10 and 9.3.11: Park requirement
School and park facilities tend to be used
No change.
should not be reduced if located adjacent to
at different times. Therefore, the land
school•
requirement can be reduced without
compromising park standards. This also
contributes to compact urban form and
allows municipal funds to be used more
efficiently.
ee) Section 9.5: Base new development on grid
Agree.
No change.
system to encourage more compact urban
form.
ff) Section 12.4.2 Settlement capacity studies
The hamlets recognized in the Official Plan
No change.
should have been undertaken before
are traditional settlement areas.
designation of hamlets.
Settlement capacity studies are required
for expansion to existing settlement areas.
gg) Section 12.5.2 Confine all residential
The Plan's policies reinforce hamlets and
No change.
development to urban centres, hamlets and
urban areas as the preferred locations for
rural residential clusters; prohibit all estate
residential development Estate
development
development is permitted only in the
General Agriculture Area and Green Space
by amendment
hh) Decrease amount of agricultural land
Land designated for urban development in
No change.
designated for urban development
Clarington Official Plan must be the same
as that designated in Regional Plan.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No. Submitter Date of Cross. Summary of Submission Staff Comments Recommendation
Submission Ref.
W155 I Continued.
i) Prohibit all development within Green Space The draft Official Plan discourages No change.
System, including cemeteries and golf development applications in the Green
courses. Space System. Goff courses and
cemeteries are more appropriate in Green
Space than other designations and
therefore are permissible by amendment
jl� Establish independent Environmental Council resolved not to establish such a No change.
Monitoring Committee. Committee (Report PD- 7 -94).
kk) Hydro - electric transmission corridors should
There has been no conclusive evidence as
No change.
be regarded as hazardous due to electro-
to the negative effects of electro- magnetic
magnetic radiation.
radiation.
10 Opposes aggregate extraction in Oak Ridges
Provincial policy requires Official Plans to
No change to Map D. Also see
Moraine, Lake Iroquois Shoreline, Waterfront,
designate and protect high potential
Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
and Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Delete
aggregate resource areas. Also see
Moraine).
all aggregate resource areas from Map D.
Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
Moraine).
mm) Section 16.2.3: Prohibit development within 1
The adjacent lands are designated
No change.
km of Port Granby Waste Management Site.
"Waterfront Greenway" and /or `Prime
Agricultural Areas". Non -farm development
can generally only proceed by amendment
in these designations.
nn) Section 16.3.2: Remove Aggregate Extraction
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
designation from Westside Creek Marsh;
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
designate as part of Waterfront Greenway.
Marsh)
oo) Section 19.4.2: Address impact of Highway
These issues will be addressed by the
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway
407 and connecting link on environmentally
Ministry of Transportation through the
407)
sensitive areas and green space.
Environmental Assessments for the
highways. Also see Section 7.2 of Report
(Highway 407).
67
1E Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
_7
Cross.
Ref.
�
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Potential impacts on the natural
Recommendation
W155
Continued.
pp) Sections 9.5 to 9.12: Address watersheds,
No change.
green spaces and environmentally sensitive
environment are generally addressed
areas in planning for roads, railways and
through Environmental Assessments or
airports,
through Environmental Impact Studies in
the review of development applications.
qq) Section 20.2.1: Undertake comprehensive
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
watershed plans rather than Master Drainage
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
Plans.
rr) Section 20.2.4: Stormwater management
Disagree. They address 100 year storms
No change.
plans do not account for Regional or 100 year
as a minimum requirement
storms. .
ss) Section 20.2.4: Stormwater management
Disagree. Stormwater management
Clarify policy.
does not provide treatment of stormwater to
includes water quality controls.
improve quality (eg. toxic chemicals).
tt) Section 23.2: Hold public meetings in
Council meeting procedures not within
No change.
evening; deadlines for deputations and
scope of Official Plan.
submissions should be end of day.
uu) Section 23.2.2: Provide twenty-eight (28) day
Planning Act provides for alternative notice
No change.
notification period for public meetings.
requirements. Staff feel the 18 day notice
requirement proposal is adequate.
w) Section 23.2.2a): Public Notices should be
Specific notice procedures not within
No change.
published in.locai newspapers, Post Offices
scope of Official Plan.
and Public Libraries.
ww) Section 23.11.1: Planning studies should be
All studies submitted in support of
No change.
undertaken prior to development proceeding.
development applications must be
accepted by review agencies prior to
development being approved.
xx) Define "Prime Agricultural Area" and "General
See Section 13.3 of draft Official Plan.
No change.
Agricultural Area".
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W155
Continued.
yy) The Waterfront Greenway, Lake Iroquois
The Official Plan identifies and protects the
No change.
Shoreline and the Oak Ridges Moraine are the
most significant green corridors.
only east-west greenways indicated on Map A.
zz) Map B1 does not show Highway 407 east of
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway
connecting link.
407)
aaa) Map C3 does not show Westside Creek
Disagree.
No change.
Marsh.
bbb) Appendix 3: Disagrees with scoring system
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodiot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
for woodlots.
Policies)
Policies)
ccc) Include Westside Creek Marsh in Port
Darlington Secondary Plan.
Disagree. The Secondary Planning Area is
No change.
intended to include primarily development
lands, not conservation lands.
W156
Mr. Roger R. Elliott
Oct 28/94
-
a) Since the issue of the existence and shape of
The Municipal Board decision was
Incorporate the Board's decision
Fasken Campbell Godfrey
the West Main Central Area is before the
rendered in December, 1994.
into the final Official Plan.
Toronto-Dominion Bank Tower
Ontario Municipal Board, it is inappropriate to
P.O. Box 20
show a West Main Central Area with
Toronto-Dominion Centre
boundaries.
Toronto, Ontario.
M5K 1 N6
b) Recognize new format retailing and
Highway Commercial Areas have been
No change.
for BOWMANVILLE MALL
appropriate locations for it along Highways
identified in Bowmanville and Courtice as
(BARMOND BUILDERS LTD.)
351115 and Highway 401.
potential sites subject to appropriate
studies.
C) Section 2 b): The statement that Bowmanville
Both Official Plans recognize Bowmanville
No change.
will form the eastern anchor of the Region is
as the predominant urban centre. In the
incorrect since the Regional Official Plan cites
20 year timeframe of the Plan, Newcastle
Bowmanville/Newcastle Village as the Region's
Village will remain relatively small in terms
eastern anchor.
of population, employment and
commercial services, and will remain
separate and distinct from Bowmanville.
69
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
The interim boundary applies to residential
Recommendation
W156
Continued.
d) Economic development and jobs are
No change.
promoted and yet Employment Lands are
development and does not apply to
beyond the 20 year (interim Urban) Boundary.
industrial development and its required
servicing.
e) Section 24.14: Define Green Space and
'Green Space" is a land use designation
Under review.
valleylands.
defined by the permitted uses. However,
there may be merit in providing a definition
of valleylands to enhance understanding of
the Plan's policies.
f) Clarify that the limits of the valleylands are the
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
applicable fill and construction limits.
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
g) Section 4.7.7: Use the term "Zone of
Influence" rather than "buffer' around wetlands,
MNR has indicated that the 120m
development buffer around wetlands is
Modify wording to reflect MNR's
policies.
actually 'adjacent lands' as defined by the
Policy Statements. Th erefore, neither
"buffer' nor "zone of influence" is an
appropriate term.
h) Section 4.7.11: Gratuitous dedication of ESAs
Partially agree. See Section 3.3 of Report
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
or parts thereof within the limits of a proposed
(Natural Heritage System)
Heritage System)
development is not current policy or law.
State that Clarington will endeavour to acquire
such lands at a minimal cost
Section 10.4.4: The maximum floor space
The fsi of 1.5 is appropriate for
No change.
index (fs) of 1.5 for the Bowmanville Main
Bowmanville. It allows mixed use
Central Area is too low, particularly when
development or redevelopment whereas
applied on a project -by- project basis. A
most projects are currently constructed at
maximum fsi of 2 to 2.5 should be acceptable
0.3 to 0.5 fsi.
for the non - heritage components of the
existing Main Central Area.
_ —_ 70
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
w15s
Continued.
i) Section 10.3.6: The 2,500 sq.m. threshold for
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas)
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
the requirement of a retail impact study for
Areas)
retail developments in the Main Central Area is
too low. A better threshold might be 3,500
sq.m.
k) Section 10.3.6: This section does not require
Section 10.3.6 of draft Plan only applies to
No change.
impact studies for retail commercial
Central Areas. Retail studies are not
development outside Central Areas, although
required for Convenience Commercial and
there are a number of other designations
Neighbourhood Commercial, but are
which permit substantial developments.
required for Highway Commercial.
n Section 16.6: The Goodyear factory area
Disagree. The Goodyear lands do not
No change.
should be evaluated for commercial use
merit consideration as commercial site at
potential since it is a large site adjacent to the
this time.
existing Main Central Area.
m) Section 19.9.6: Recognize possible (parking)
The referenced policy would apply to East
No change.
reductions in applicable circumstances for the
Main Central Area in mixed -use
East MCA.
developments.
n) Maps A3,B3,C1 and D: These maps all
Some of the larger scale maps (Maps C &
Make appropriate revisions.
identify a creek traversing the (Maio site which
D) show the stream incorrectly. Maps A3,
is not there and so, the land is developable.
B3 and the Secondary Plan show the
These maps should show the Main Central
stream correctly.
Area south of Highway 2 projecting further
east and the ownership configuration adjacent
to Hobbs as has been previously done.
o) Map C3: The map shows valleylands and
Disagree. The valleylands shown are
No change.
stream conditions further west than is the
approximate and the exact limits are
case. The map should be changed.
determined at the time of development
applications.
71
I Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
( Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission .
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W156
Continued.
p) Maps A and B: There is no flexibility in
Sections 24.4 and 24.7 of the draft Plan
No change.
boundaries interpretation.
allow for the appropriate flexibility in
boundary interpretations on Maps A,C and
D. Maps B and E are schematic only.
Downtown and East Main Central Area Secondary Plan
q) Section 1.3: Identify the downtown and the
The Ontario Municipal Board decision
Make appropriate revisions to Plan
East Main Central Area collectively as "the"
created two Main Central Areas for
to implement OMB decision on two
focal point of activity. Include reference that .
Bowmanviile. it is therefore appropriate to
Main Central Areas for
this collective area provides a fully integrated
recognize the downtown and East Main
Bowmanville.
array of various activities.
Central Areas as "a" focal point, not 'the"
only focal point Section 21 of the
Secondary Plan addresses the integration
of a full array of activities.
r) Section 3.3: Insert the words "local and"
"regional
The policy needs to be clarified to
Appropriate revisions to simplify
before market' and "retail commercial
recognize local and regional retail uses.
text
and personal service uses" before "specialty
food ".
S) Section 4.2: increase the East Main Central
It is recognized that further development
No change.
Area's 30,000 sq.m. maximum for retail and
potential is possible, but the Plan only
personal services floorspace to reflect the
recognizes an initial allocation to be
additional potential of the area and the need to
updated in further Plan Reviews.
Intensify.
t) Section 521 e): Recognize that mixed uses
"horizontally
Suggestion has some merits.
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
may be displayed ".
Areas)
U) Section 5.22 to 5.25: These Sections focus
Partially agree.
Review policy.
on the downtown. The role of the East Main
Central Area needs to be clarfed.
72
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W156
Continued
Downtown and East Main Central Area Secondary Plan
(Continued)
V) Section 6.2.1: May suggest that retail uses
Disagree. Freestanding residential
No change.
could not exist in horizontal relationship to
buildings are permitted. The intent of this
residential uses but only in vertical
section is to ensure a mix of uses.
relationship. Section 6.21 should recognize
that mixed use development include wholly
residential buildings adjacent to retail
buildings.
W) Section 11.2.6: Consider reduced parking
Disagree. The nature of the downtown
No change.
requirements for the East Main Central Area
with public parking lots and on- street
similar to those for the downtown.
parking makes it worthy of special
consideration.
X) Map A: Modify Map to extend the 'Street
The limits of the Street Related Retail Area
No change.
Related Retail Area" to just east of the Mearns
and the Green Space are conceptual. The
Avenue alignment
precise limits of these designations will be
determined in the review of future
development application.
W157
W. G. Creamer
Oct 31/94
a) The location of the proposed Arterial Type 'C'
Agree.
Revise alignment of Type 'C'
Project Manager
Road between the Avondale and Ebenezer
arterial.
D.G. Biddle & Associates Ltd.
Neighbourhoods appears to be located too far
96 King Street East
north. It does not meet Regional Criteria for
Oshawa, Ontario.
Arterial /Collector intersection spacing on Trulis
Li H 1136
Road which is a Type 'B' Arterial Road in the
for KIDDICORP INVESTMENTS
draft Plan.
LTD.
73
t�
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
S.bmn ter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff
Recommendation
W157
Continued.
b) Re-evaluate the location of the proposed
school sites because the Avondale
The high school sit greater area
See Section 4.5 of Report (Schools)
Neighbourhood has 2 proposed elementary
than the immediate rhood. The
separate school site d to serve
school sites and 1 high school site for a
7Ue
several neighbourhe Ebenezer
Population of 2,350. The Ebenezer
neighbourhood is loside the
Neighbourhood has only 1 elementary school
interim urban bound
site for a population of 2,950.
C) Westmore Neighbourhood, Courtice - Table 2
Population target an have been
No change.
and Map E: Re- evaluate population a nd
reduced as a result of the findings of the
housing allocations to allow lands currently
environmental studies recently conducted.
zoned and to allow densities allowed by by-
Staff have allowed some medium density
law
in consideration of previous zoning rights;
however, it is difficult to justify more
density to this area based on the high level
of environmental sensitivity assigned.
d) Revise Greens Space/woodlot designation on
A recent environmental study of North
No change.
Sirchdale Village lands to reflect current R4
Courtice has indicated that the Trulls Road
zoning.
Woods is the most significant woodlot
remaining in Courtice. Speck boundaries
for the woodlot should be identified
through a more detailed environmental
study. Also see Section 3.4 of Report
( Woodlot Policies).
e) Locate the extension of Cecil Found Crescent
This matter was recently dealt with by
No change.
so that no existing dwellings would require
Council.
removal.
t) Permit development on both sides of collector
Partially agree. However, the road should
No change.
road where practical.
form the southerly boundary of the Green
Space in the central part of the
neighbourhood.
g) Redesignate lands within Lots 33 and 34,
Disagree. Lands are designated
No change.
Concession 6, Clarke to show Green Space
Permanent Agricultural Reserve in
and not Agricultural Reserve.
Regional Official Plan.
74
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W157
Continued.
h) Section 4.7.10: The selection of qualified
The selection of the consultant by the
No change.
professional expertise to prepare the
Municipality is the best method to ensure
environmental impact study should be
that the analysis is objective and serves
proposed by the proponent and be acceptable
the public interest
to the Municipality.
) Section 4.7.11: Only valley lands, streams and
See Report - Section 3.3 (Natural Heritage
See Report - Section 3.3 (Natural
hazard lands, and not woodlots, should be
System) and Section 3.4 (Woodlot
Heritage System) and Section 3.4
subject to gratuitous dedication.
Policies)
(Woodlot Policies)
1) Amend Section 5.3.4 to reflect Section 6.8.1.
Disagree.
No change.
k) Section 5.3.6: This section should be
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
softened to "the phasing of residential
Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
development of urban areas shall generally be
based on the following criteria'. There may be
extenuating .circumstances.
) Section 5.3.7 d): Remove the policy regarding
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing and
See Section 2.4 of Report (Phasing
the non - residential assessment ratio in order
Prematurity Policies)
and Prematurity Policies)
to allow the market to dictate viability.
M) Section 9.4.4 b): Restriction to 50 townhouse
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
units per block is too restrictive since there
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
may be extenuating circumstances. All
housing projects should be reviewed on their
own merits.
n) Section 9.4.7: Rather than proposing to
Agree that the application of these tools
No change
investigate the feasibility of introducing
may be beneficial in certain situations.
housing and density transfer provisions at a
However, guidelines for their use can only
later date, the Municipality should review this
be properly developed through a
policy now and incorporate it as part of Official
comprehensive review, which is provided
Plan.
for by the existing policy.
75
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W157
Continued.
o) Section 9.4.8: Amend to read "Council shall
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
generally require proposed Plans of
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
Subdivision to provide a mixture of housing
forms'.
P) Section 19.6.2: Right -of -way widths for
A range of right -of -way widths for collector
Permit a range of 23 to 26 metres
collector roads should range between 20 and
roads is appropriate; however, 20m is too
for collector road right -of -ways.
26 metres to reflect existing street widths and
narrow.
to provide flexibility In land requirements.
W158
Roger Bryant, P. Eng.
Property Manager
Oct, 27/94
-
a) Draft Official Plan is lacking in recognition and
Disagree. Section 15 of the draft Plan
No change.
White Street, P.O. Box 519
support of the aggregate industry. The
policies do not mirror that of the Regional
reiterates major points within the goals of
Section 19 of the Regional Official Plan.
C
Cobourg, Ontario.
K9A 4L3
Official Plan.
Further, Ma D• identifies those areas
P "
for WIMPEY MINERALS
possessing significant aggregate
CANADA
resources.
b) Section 4.5: States that aggregate extraction
Section 4.5.3 of draft Plan is redundant as
Delete Section 4.5.3,
may be permitted. This should be stated in
Section 15.3.3 states aggregate extraction
Section 4.4:
may be permitted through amendment on
lands not identified as Aggregate Resource
Area.
C) Reiterate Section 19.2.4 of the Regional Official
Section 15.3.1 of draft Plan indicates that
No change.
Plan in Clarington Plan. (This section
significant aggregate resource potential
indicates high potential aggregate areas shall
areas as shown on Map D are to be
be protected for extraction and that Regional
protected for extraction. There is no need
Council shall undertake a study to identify
to refer to a study to be undertaken by
areas where extraction is encouraged.
Regional Council in the Clarington Official
Plan.
d) Delete Section 15.3.4.
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
e) Map "C" shows a woodlot on the Wimpey
Map "C" should be changed and the
Revise Map "C"
lands.
woodlot within the north portion of Lot 17
removed.
76'
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W159A
Mr. John P. Genest
Nov. 7194
W179A
a) If the Official Plan is to truly shape Clarington's
Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban Area
Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
W159B
Senior Consultant
May 3/95
W179B
future for a 20 year period, it should adopt a
Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Residential Areas)
Malone Given Parsons Ltd,
planning horizon 20 years hence, or 2016 (vs.
140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201
2011) and adopt population targets that
Markham, Ontario.
correspond with that horizon.
L3R 6133
for AMBERGLEN
b) It is neither prudent nor reasonable to plan for
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
DEVELOPMENTS INC. AND
a population target that is more likely to under-
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
THE SELBY FAMILY
estimate growth then to approximate it. The
Residential Areas)
(PLLt. 26, Cone. 2,
requirements for units are best met by
Newcastle Village)
inclusion of the North Village lands (134 ha) if
not the Foster West (44 ha) lands to attain the
2016 horizon for the Newcastle Village.
C) The dwelling unit and land area calculations in
Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and Balance of
Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and
the Official Plan assume that the overstated
Growth)
Balance of Growth)
1991 household size values remain constant
for the forecast period, regardless of the
planning horizon. It is more reasonable to
recognize the trend of declining. household
size and work with figures that describe that
trend.
d) There is a need for at least another 70
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
hectares of residential lands within the interim
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
urban boundary if Newcastle Village is to
Residential Areas)
achieve even the low targets currently set in
the Draft Official Plan.
e) North Village is a logical location for an
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
expanded interim boundary due to
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
serviceability and connection to the Village
Residential Areas)
Core.
77
E:7
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
Submitter
Date of Cross. Summary of Submission
Submission Ref.
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Mr. James D. Parkin, B.E.S.
MacNaughton Hermsen Britton
Nov. 10/94 - Map C1 shows a woodlot on the south side of the CBM
Agree.
Clarkson Planning Limited
"Mosport" pit which should be removed as this is a
Revise Map C1.
171 victoria Street North
recently approved aggregate extraction operation.
Kitchener, Ontario N2H 5C5
or CBM (CANADIAN BUILDING
MATERIALS) (re: MOSPORT
ONewcastle,
PIT)
PLLts. 29,30, Conc. 10, Clarke
Mr. Dwayne Tapp
753 Metcalf Street
Oct 7/94 _
a) Objects to designation of land as Waterfront
Lands designated 'Major Open Space -
No
Ontario
Greenway and restrictions to agricultural uses
Waterfront" in Regional Official Plan which
change.
1 B 1 L9
only
corresponds to "Waterfront Greenwa y' in
r MR. & MRS. LAKE
Clarington Plan.
t Lt 23, B.F.C., Clarke
b) Designating land for Waterfront Greenway
Section 14.5.3 of draft Plan states that
represents government landbanking.
Government should compensate landowners
lands within the Green Space System are
See Section 5.2 of Report
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
for dictating future use of their land.
not required to be made available for
public use, and that Municipality will not
Acquisition)
purchase lands. Also see Section 5.2 of
Report (Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
W162 Mr. Dwayne Tapp
179 Riley Road
Oct 14/94 _ a) Maintain Major Open Space designation for
Acquisition)
Lands designated `Major Open Space -
Newcastle, Ontario
property. not Waterfront Greenway. Objects to
land uses being restricted to
Waterfront" by Regional Plan which
1-18 il-9
agriculture.
corresponds to "Waterfront Greenway" in
7Nochange.
for MR. & MRS. RILEY
Ciarington Plan.
Pt Lt 24, B.F.C., Clarke
b) No justification for Waterfront Greenway
designation
Waterfront Trail is not the only reason fo
because Waterfront Trail will not
designating Waterfront Greenway. The
be constructed along Lakeshore Road.
Greenway is designated for a variety of
reasons including environmentally
sensitive areas, hazard lands and proximity
to lake.
78
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W162
Continued.
c) Landowners affected by Waterfront Greenway
Public Notice has been provided
No change.
designation not consulted.
throughout Official Plan Review process.
d) How will public areas in Waterfront Greenway
Section 4.6.5 of draft Plan discusses public
No change.
be acquired?
acquisition of Waterfront lands, including
sources of funding. Also see Section 5.2
of Report (Shoreline Hazard Zone and
Public Acquistion)
e) Would private park be permitted in Waterfront
Recreational uses are permitted within the
No change.
Greenway?
Waterfront Greenway depending on the
speck nature of the proposal.
f) Waterfront Greenway designation reduces
These lands have never been designated
No change.
market value of land. Need more flexible and
f or development therefore Waterfront
less restrictive policies for agricultural lands.
Greenway designation should not affect
value of land.
g) Government should compensate landowners
The Planning Act permits municipalities to
No change.
for Waterfront Greenway designation.
regulate how land may be used.
W163A
Mr. Wayne J. Bolahood
Nov. 8/94
-
a) Table attached to Map E indicates 300 units;
Numbers in the Plan were rounded.
Revise figures to 330.
W163B
10 Mary Street, #201
Dec. 16/94
333 units were approved.
W1 63C
Oshawa, Ontario
L1H 8M3
May 24/95
b) Section 24.13: Concerned with the ability of
See Section 8.1 of Report (Transitional
See Section 8.1 of Report
for property at
Council to void approved Official Plan
Policies)
(Transitional Policies)
1475 Highway No. 2, Courtice
Amendments after 5 years.
C) Objects to 6 storeys as maximum height for
See Section 8.1 of Report (Transitional
See Section 8.1 of Report
residential buildings; his project zoned for
Policies)
(Transitional Policies)
maximum 12 storey building.
79
80
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
taff Comments
Recommendation
W164
Mr. Robert Cook
Executive Director
Nov. 9/94
-
a) Official Plan should be consistent with Policy F
of the Comprehensive Set of Policy
final will be consistent with Policy
F.
Modify Plan if necessary to reflect
365 Brunel Road, Unit 2
Mississauga, Ontario
Statements
Policy Statements.
L4Z 1Z5
for AGGREGATE PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATION
b) Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.4: Concerned about
the lack of recognition of a
9 aggregate resources.
rneed
Revise policy.
OF ONTARIO
C) Sections 4.4, 14.3 and 14.5: Include policies
tion 15 of the draft Plan is
No change,
addressing significance of aggregate
ly to aggregate resources.
resources.
cuss aggregate resources
in detail in Sections 4 and 14.
d) Section 4.7 is too general and requires clear
definitions both in text and on mapping.
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
Heritage System)
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
Heritage System)
e) Sections 4.7. 11 and 4.8.4: Policies requiring
gratuitous dedication of lands may interfere
Disagree. It Is not clear how these policies
'No change in the context of this
With rehabilitation plan.
would interfere with rehabilitation plans.
submission.
f) Section 4.8: Would permit a locally significant
woodlot to sterilize a provincially significant
Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot Policies)
Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
aggregate resource.
Policies)
g) Sections 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3: Need to
emphasize identification and of
Partially agree. Section 15.3.3 of draft
No change.
protection
existing licensed pits and quarries (required by
Plan indicates that Aggregate Extraction
Areas which are licensed pits or pits which
Provincial policy and Regional Plan).
have received the Municipality's approval
are identified on Map A.
h) Map D: Identify limestone/dolomite bedrock
These areas are located in urban areas
No change.
resources and protect these resources from
incompatible land uses.
and along stream banks and, as such, are
not suitable for extraction due to existing
land uses.
80
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
No.
Submitter
Section 15.3.3: State that aggregate
extraction is permitted in aggregate extraction
Agree.
Review policy.
W164
Continued.
areas.
J7 Section 15.3.4: Policy is no longer supported
by the Regional Plan and the Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
Moraine)
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
Ridges Moraine)
Moraine Strategy.
k) Section 15.3.5: Delete "provided that they are
compatible with surrounding land uses ".
Partially agree.
Revise policy.
I) Section 15.3.6: Delete "portable" and "related
to speck construction project'.
Disagree. The policy is intended to
discourage the establishment of
permanent facilities which may operate
without relying on site resources.
No change.
M) Section 15.3.8: Some of the issues listed may
be addressed without the need of a study,
The concerns listed should be addressed
in the review of any application for a new
or expanded aggregate resource extraction
area. The policy does not indicate how
detailed the studies have to be, provided
No change.
the issues are adequately addressed.
n) Do not put contaminated sites and Aggregate
Agree.
Revise Maps C and D.
Resource Areas on same map.
o) Delete Section 15.3.10 as it duplicates the
Aggregate Resources Act Rehabilitation to
uses other than wildlife habitat may be
Disagree. This section is necessary to
ensure rehabilitation plan conforms to the
Official Plan.
No change.
appropriate.
Li-
I
I
P) Delete Sections 15.3.9 and 15.3.11 as they
duplicate the Aggregate Resources Act
I
Disagree.
I
No change.
82
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Submitter
Continued.
Date of Cross.
Submission Ref,
q)
Official Plan Review
Summary of Submission
Section 23.8: Include exception for aggregate
Staff Comments
Aggregate extraction activities are
Recommendation
No.
Wt 64
extraction to be consistent with Section 20.6.2
not
subject to site plan control; however, the
Review policy.
of the Regional Plan.
location of buildings and structures, as
Mr. Kevin Tunney
Tunney Planning Inc.
340 Byron
Nov. 16/94 W101 a)
W108A
Designate area bounded by Bloor Street,
Robinson Creek, and Prestonvale
well as entrances, are subject to municipal
approval.
Residential designation not in conformity
No change.
W1 65
Street South
Suite 200
W108B
Road as
Residential to permit development of 314
with Regional Plan.
Whitby, Ontario
W108C
V42
residential units.
L1 N 4P8
for 289143 ONTARIO LTD.
b)
Relocate Community Park to the south.
See Section 4.4 of Report Parks
Po (Parks)
No change.
Pttts. 34,36, Conc. 1, Courtice
c)
Include land within interim urban area
See Section 2.3 of Report Urban
Mr. Gary W. Templeton, M.C.I.P.
Nov. 28/94
boundary.
(Interim
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
No change.
W1 66A
Wt66B
Templeton Lepek Limited
9030 Leslie Street, Suite 227
Dec. 2/94 a)
Include the lands known as "Trudeau Farm' on
the west side of Lambs Road, the east side of
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
Area Boundary for Residential Areas )
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Urban
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Soper Creek and north of Highway No. 2 in
Area Boundary for
L4R 1G2
the interim urban boundary.
Residential Areas)
for SCHICKEDANZ EROS. LTD.
f ow CHIC le
b)
Designate Highway No. 2 frontage of property
Disagree. Staff are concerned with the
for highway commercial uses.
potential for strip commercial development
No change.
There are other locations identified in the
Plan for Special Purpose Commercial.
C)
Refine Green Space designation north of the
Agree.
CP Rail line so that tableland is excluded and
Make appropriate revisions to Map
designated as "Urban Residential'.
A3.
d)
Disagree with the Community Park designation
south of the CP Rail line.
See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
See Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
82
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Caarington
Official Plan Review
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
No.
Submission
Ref.
W167
Mr. Kevin Tunney
Nov. 30194
Amend the Draft Official Plan to permit a golf course at
Goff courses are permissible only by
No change.
Tunney Planning Inc.
the subject location.
amendment to Durham Regional Official
Plan and local Official Plan.
340 Byron Street South
Suite 200
Whitby, Ontario
L1 N 4P8
for MR. DOUG SUMMERS
(TAUNTON ROAD GOLF
COURSE PROJECT)
PLLL 3, Conc. 4, Darlington
W168A
Zenia Glecoff
Jan. 6/95
-
Maintain the current zoning on property and reduce the
Agree.
Make appropriate revisions to
designate General Industrial on
W168B
488 Byron Court
Feb. 6/95
Green Space shown on Map A3.
portions of land currently zoned for
Oshawa, Ontario
industrial uses.
L1 H 6R9
PLLL 8, Conc. 1, Bowmanville
W169
Roger Howard, M.C.I.P.
Jan. 13/95
W65
a) To allow 150 additional units of detached,
See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
No change.
Ridge Pine Park Inc.
W127
• semi - detached, attached, townhouse and
Residential Communities)
17 Dean Street
W178
grouped dwellings for the Phase 6 lands for a
Brampton, Ontario
total population of 2034 at 2 ppu for the entire
L6W 1 M7
retirement community.
for WILMOT CREEK.
b) Request removal of reference to trail in Section
Policy will be modified.
Revise Section 16.4.4 to change
16.4.4 of the Plan.
the requirement for the Waterfront
Trail to be voluntary rather than
mandatory.
W170
Kelvin Whalen, P.Eng.
Jan. 13195
W116
Change text and map to allow a business park
Business parks are not permitted in the
No change.
Director of Land Development
W132
northwest of Highway No. 2 and Green Road.
Living Area designation of the Regional
1029 McNicoil Avenue
V17
Plan. These uses are most appropriately
Scarborough, Ontario
V38
located in Prestige Employment Areas.
M1W 3W6
for THE KAITLIN GROUP LTD.
83
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Caalington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of Cross.
Summary of Submission
Submission Ref.
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W171
Libby Racansky
3200 Hancock Road
Jan. 18195 W97
W138
a) Opposed to Highway 401-407 Freeway link
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See
e, Ontario
Section 7.2 of Report (Highway
Li
L1 E 2M1
W141
407)
W184
V40
b) Require a watershed study for Farewell Creek
and Black Creek before any development
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
occurs in North Courtice.
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
C) Opposed to development between Tooleys
Road, Hancock Road, Taunton Road
Land use designations in Regional Official
No change.
and
Highway No. 2.
Plan must be reflected in the local Official
Plan.
d) Woodlands, creeks and wetlands are
important to creating a healthy
Agree that a healthy natural environment is
. No change.
W172
Mike
community.
fundamental to a healthy community.
Hickory
714 Hickory Street
Whitby, Ontario
Jan. 23/95 -
Include property within the 20 year interim urban
Y
boundary for Bowmanviile.
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Li
Area Boundary for Residential Areas
Urban Area Boundary for
for or JOSEPH LUCHKA
Residential Areas)
PLLt 34, Conc. 1, Darlington
W173
Mr. Robert Merrin
Bldg. Committee Chairperson
Feb. 24/95 -
Sections 11.4.2 and 11.5.3: Modify to permit churches
in Prestige
Disagree. Churches are community
No
51 Turnberry Crescent
Employment Areas and Light Industrial
Areas.
facilities and thus should be located within
chan e.
g
Courtice, Ontario
residential neighbourhoods or central
Li E 1A4
areas.
for ST. ANTHONY OF PADUA
PARISH
W174
Mr. Nick Lazaridis, President
1811 Spruce Hill Road
Feb. 22/95 -
Include property within the proposed interim urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
Pickering, Ontario
boundary for Newcastle Village.
Area Boundary for Residential Areas
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Urban
L1V 1S5
Area Boundary for
for GARTHWOOD HOMES LTD.
Residential Areas)
PLLt 32, Conc. 2, Newcastle
Village
_ 84
85
Written
Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Reoommendation
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Objects to the separate elementary school designation
on their property. Both school boards had previously
indicated that this site would not be required.
The Separate School Board has advised
that a site is now required to serve the
population in this area. Also see Section
4.5 of Report (Schools).
No change. Also see Section 4.5
of Report (Schools).
W175
Mr. Alex B Marchetti
111 o x Ma Avenue
111 Boke, Ontario
March 7/95
-
M9B 4E6
for E MARCHETTI AND A.
DEMINICO
Pt Lt 9, Conc. 2, Bowmanville
a) Despite Submission W132.by the Kaftan
Group, Mr. Steven Carruthers owns the
western portion of the Brookhill
Neighbourhood. He supports the interim
urban boundary shown in the draft Official
Plan, including the reservation of the Maple
Green Neighbourhood for post-2011
development
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Urban Area Boundary for
Residential Areas)
W176
Ronald F. Worboy
Mr. Rona
Barrister l Solicitor
153 Simcce Street North
Oshawa, Ontario
Lt G 4S6
for STEVEN CARRUTHERS
Pt Lt 16, Conc. 2, Bowmanville
March 27/95
b) Given the size of Bowmanviile's Employment
Areas, the proposed West Bowmanvlle
Agree.
No change.
Business Park as proposed by the Kaitlan
Group is not needed.
a) Upset about designation of her property as a
woodlot.
Size and areal extent of woodlot along its
southern edge is being reviewed. Also
see Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Under review. Also see Section 3.4
of Report (Woodlot Policies)
W177
Ms. Peggi Dalidowicz
3310 Tooleys Road
March 29/95
Courtice, Ontario.
Policies)
LIE 2K7
b) Does not feel that she has had proper notice.
Ample notice of the Official Plan Process
has been provided to the public during the
No change.
course of the Review.
85
86
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Submitter
Date of
Official Plan Review
Cross. Summary of Submis7ft6
7FWl78TM,,Davk1
W. Rice
eelhouse Drive, Unit #1
Submission
April 7/95
Ref.
W65 a) Draft Official Plan does not e existing
W127
Staff Comments
See Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
Recommendation
See
astle, Ontario.
zoning of Wilmot Creek anoes not
Wi69 the
Residential Communities )
Section 5.3 of Report (Existing
Residential Communities)
B9
permit rezoning of Phailmot
fo
for WILMOT CREEK
Creek as it Is presently pro
RETIREMENT GROUP
b) The household size should 8 ppu to
Staff will revise population allocation to
permit 1011 units.
1,475 to reflect household size of 1.7 ppu.
Revi se household size for Wilmot
Creek to 1.7 ppu.
c) Delete reference to waterfroSection
Policy will be modified.
16.4.4.
Revise Section 16.4.4 to change
the requirement for the waterfront
Mr. John P. Genest
Malone Given Parsons
Mar. 8/95
May 3/95
W159A Include Amberglen's land within the Interim boundary
W159B
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
trail to be voluntary rather than
mandatory.
W179A
W1796
140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201
for Newcastle Village, with reasons provided.
P
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Urban
Markham, Ontario.
Area Boundary for
L3R 663
Residential Areas)
for AMBERGLEN
DEVELOPMENTS INC. AND
SELBY FAMILY
Murray and Jean
4612 Highway 2
ay 4/95
- Include stonehouse on property within the hamlet
The storehouse is considered to be
W1 so
R.R. #1
boundary for Newtonville.
located within the existing Newtonville
Map change not necessary.
Newtonville, Ontar
Hamlet boundaries.
LOA 1J0
Pt Lt 8, Cont. 2,
Mr. D.R. Taylor
1610 Concession
q#7
r. 28/95
- Designate Bradley's Corners as a Rural Cluster.
Disagree. Lands located within Prime
W181
Enniskillen, Ontari
Agricultural Area in draft Plan. Clusters
No change.
LOB 1Ho
not permitted in this designation.
for RESIDENTS O
CORNERS
86
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W182
Mr. Larry Kovacic
Mar. 13/95
-
Include their property in the Rural Residential Cluster
Disagree. Property located within Prime
No change.
24 Scott Street
north of Hampton.
Agricultural Area in draft Plan. Clusters
Whitby, Ontario. LIN 31-1
not permitted in this designation.
for 6010 OLD SCUGOG ROAD
HAMPTON
W183
Mr. William Tonno
May 15/95
W118
a) Submitted a petition on behalf of 25 property
See Section 2.3 of Report (interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
William Tonno Construction Ltd.
W134
owners requesting that the lands west of Trulis
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
650 King St. E., Suite 215
W187
Road and east of Farewell Creek/Timberlane
Residential Areas)
Oshawa, Ontario. L1H 1G5
V7
Court, north to Pebblestone Road, be included
for RATEPAYERS IN SUPPORT
V44
within the 20 year interim boundary for
OF URBANIZATION OF NORTH
V53
Courtice.
COURTICE
NIA Lts. 31 & 32, Conc. 3,
b) Make appropriate provision in the Capital
Beyond scope of Official Plan.
No change.
Darlington
Budget for Trulls Road improvements, and
park development
W184
Mr. Stan Racansky
Oct 11/94
W97
a) Map A2: Designate the remaining
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
3200 Hancock Road
W138
undeveloped lands in the Highland Gardens,
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
Courtice, Ontario
W141
Westmore and Hancock Neighbourhoods in
LIE 2M1
W171
Courtice as Hazard /Environmentally Sensitive
for FRIENDS OF THE
V40
Areas.
FAREWELL
b) Section 4.7.12: Wants cleared forests restored
Restoration of specific woodlots is not
No change.
in Neighbourhoods 3A and 3B.
within the scope of the Official Plan at this
time.
C) Section 19.12: Airport in Clarington is not
The Region has noted this policy is not in
Delete policy.
feasible.
conformity with their Official Plan.
d) Section 19.4.1: Highway 401 -407 connecting
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway
link will be built at the expense of the
407)
environment
e) Wants to see evidence of commitment to
The evidence will be provided in the final
None.
environmental protection in final Official Plan.
Official Plan.
87
it
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Caarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W185
Mr. Robert Sherman
394 Glenmar Avenue
June 12/95
Include land in interim urban boundary for Newcastle
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Oshawa, Ontario
Village
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
L1J 3J8
Residential Areas)
(5.68 acres in PtLt 29, Conc. 2,
Clarke)
The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural
W186
Mr. Ronald F. Worboy
Barrister and Solicitor
June 21/95
-
Extend hamlet boundary for Enfield to lot line between
No change.
153 Simcoe Street North
Lots 29 and 30, Concession 9.
Affairs has objected to recognizing the
Oshawa, Ontario
current level of development for those
L1 G 4S6
hamlets for which Secondary Plans have
for MARJORIE AND KENNETH
not been prepared. Expansions or
KNOX (Pt LL30, Conc. 9,
rounding out of existing boundaries will
Darlington)
require justification under Provincial Policy
Statement B.
W187
Mr. David A. Baffa_
McDermott & Associates Ltd.
July 7/95
W8
Concur with 'Urban Residential' and 'Medium Density
Acknowledged.
No chan e.
g
Pickering Corporate Centre
Residential' designations for client's lands,
1305 Pickering Parkway
Suite 704
Pickering, Ontario
Lt V 3P2
for TRIANKA DEVELOPMENTS
(4.0 ha in Pt Lt 17, Conc. 1,
Bowmanville)
W188
Anthony Ching
Liza Development Corporation
July 17/95
W5
Objects to the extension of Cecil Found Crescent as
A collector road between Trulls Road. and
No change.
Wertheim Court
collector road through subject draft approved
Courtice Road has been designated in
Suite
subdivision plan.
existing Official Plan. On July 17, 1995
Richmond Hill, Ontario
Council endorsed removal of one (1) lot in
L4B 1B9
draft plan of subdivision 18T -91006 to
(Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-
accommodate the collector road.
91006, PLLt 30, Conc. 3,
Courtice)
88
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Caalington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W189
Mr. David Greenspan
July 17/95
W118
Designate North Courtice Urban Expansion Area
Not appropriate in light of the deferral and
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Thomson Rogers
W134
(Deferral Area #6 in Regional Plan) for residential
possible referral of this area to the Ontario
Urban Area Boundary for
Barristers and Solicitors
W183
development, in light of CLOCKS support of Living
Municipal Board hearing on the Regional
Residential Areas)
Suite 3100
V7
Area designation in Regional Plan.
Plan. Also see Section 2.3 of Report
390 Bay Street
V44
(Interim Urban Area Boundary for
Toronto, Ontario.
V53
Residential Areas).
M5H 1W2
for WM. TONNO
CONSTRUCTION LTD.
for ERHARD & HENRIETTA
WITZKE
for 687120 ONTARIO LTD./
STEVE DEVESCERI LTD.
Pt.Lts. 31/32, Conc. 3,
Darlington
89
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross
Ref. #
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendations
V18.
Mr. Kirk Kemp
4553 Middle Road
June 21, 1994
(G.P.A)
-
a) Questioned why some of his lands have
been designated as "Major Open Space%
Agree that woodlot on Map C3 and resulting
Green Space
Modify Maps A3 and C3. Also see
Bowmanville, Ontario
He noted that he and his father have farmed
designation on Map A3 is too
large. Also see Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Policies).
L1 C 3K2
the land most of their lives.
Policies).
b) Concerned with proposed location of high
See Section 4.5 of Report (Schools)
See Section 4.5 of Report
school on his property.
(Schools)
C) If the area adjacent to his property is
See Section 2.3 of Report (interim Urban Area
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
developed, the 20 year urban boundary
Boundary for Residential Areas).
Urban Area Boundary for
should be expanded to include his property
Residential Areas).
V19.
Mr. Mario Veltri
1038 Pinetree Court
June 21, 1994
(G.P.A.)
V6
Part of the Northbrook Planning Group. Requested
that his lands be included in the 20 urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban Area
Boundary
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
Oshawa, Ontario
year
boundary for Bowmanville.
for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Residential Areas)
V20A.
Mr. Gordon White
Group 2, Box 21
June 21, 1994
(G.P.A.)
W95
V20B
a) Strengthen wording in Section 16.3.2 of draft
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys Cement
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
R. R. #2
Plan to protect Westside Creek Marsh.
and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside
Bowmanville, Ontario
Creek Marsh)
Lt C 3K3
for PORT DARLINGTON
b) Provisions in Mineral Aggregate Extraction
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys Cement
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Act permit Province to place restrictions on
existing extraction licences.
and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside
Creek Marsh)
C) Municipality should clearly indicate to the
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys Cement
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
Province its interest in preserving Westside
and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside
Creek Marsh to Province.
Creek Marsh)
V20B.
Mr. Gordon White
Group 2, Box 21
June 21, 1994
(G.P.A.)
W95
V20A
Recognize the Cove as a neighbourhood to permit
See Report - Section 5.2 (Shoreline Hazard Zone
See Report - Section 5.2
R. R. #2
development
and Public Acquisition of Waterfront Lands) and
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Bowmanville, Ontario
Section 5.3 (Existing Residential Communities)
Acquisition of Waterfront Lands)
L1 C 3K3
and Section 5.3 (Existing
Residential Communities)
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
NSubmitter
Date of
Submission
Cross
Ref. #
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
- -=7
Recommendations
V21.
Mr. Henry Ekens
June 21, 1994
V34
Redesignate land from "Prime Agriculture Area" to
Agree
4740 Main Street
(G.P.A.)
W98
"Green Space".
Amend Map Al to redesignate
Orono, Ontario
lands to Green Space.
LOB 1 M
Part Lot 35, Conc. 5, Clarke
Part Lots 1 & 2, Conc. 4,
Darlington
V22.
Mr. David Ashcraft
63 Cedar Crest Beach Road
June 21, 1994
(G.P.A.)
W92
a) Supports preservation of Wests7CreekSee
Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys Cement
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
Group 5, Box 36, R. R. #2
Marsh
d Westside Creek Marsh )
Marys Cement and Westside
Bowmanville, Ontario
Creek Marsh)
L1 C 3K3
b) Permit existing property owners
e Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline Hazard
See Section 5.2 of Report
Crest Beach Road to improve h.
one and Public Acquisition of Waterfront
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Lands)
Acquisition of Waterfront Lands)
V23.
Ms. Leah Houston
0137 Cedar Crest Beach Road
June 21, 1994
(G. P.A.)
W76
W87
Amend section relating to the Westside Creek Marsh
"Designation
See Section 5.4 of Report (SL Marys Cement
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
Bowmanville, Ontario
to read for new Aggregate Extraction
shall not be permitted ".
and Westside Creek Marsh )
Marys Cement and Westside
L1 C 3K3
Creek Marsh)
for YOUTH IN ACTION
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys Cement
V24.
Mr. Dennis Kavanaugh
68 Spry Avenue
June 21, 1994
(G.P.A.)
-
a) Supports the preservation of the Westside
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
Bowmanville, Ontario
Creek Marsh.
and Westside Creek Marsh )
Marys Cement and Westside
LiC 3Y3
Creek Marsh)
b) Stressed the importance of leaving the lands
The submission relates to the development
No change in context of this
surrounding the Bowmanville Creek in their
application submitted by 970973 Ontario Ltd.
submission.
natural state,
south of the Goodyear plant, recently approved
by Council as Amendment #59. The valley
lands will be dedicated to the Municipality as a
condition of approval
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendations
Submission
Ref. #
V25.
Mr. Bob Carruthers
June 21, 1994
V3
Include their lands in the 20 year urban boundary for
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban Area
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
R. R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario
(G.P.A.)
W3
Bowmanville.
Boundary for Residential Areas).
Urban Area Boundary for
L1C 3K2
W7
Residential Areas).
for NORTHBROOK PLANNING
GROUP
V26.
Mr. Mark Battle
June 21, 1994
Designate lands adjacent to Bowmanville Creek as
See response to Submission V24
No change in context of
25 Hunt Street
(G.P.A.)
"Major Open Space" with no development permitted.
submission.
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1 C 2W8
V27.
Mr. John Bolahood, President
June 21, 1994
-
Expand the range of uses permitted in 'Prestige
Disagree. Prestige Employment Areas already
No change
74 King Street West
(G.P.A.)
Employment" areas.
have a wide range of permitted uses.
Oshawa, Ontario
for GINAEL HOLDINGS LTD.
(Part Lot 16, B.F. Concession,
Bowmanville - Southeast corner
of Baseline and Green Roads)
V28.
Mr. Rick Dankmeyer
June 21, 1994
Concurs with remarks made by Mr. Mark Battle (V26).
See response to Submission V24
No change in context of
4 Loscombe Dr.
(G.P.A.)
Bowmanville, Ontario
submission.
L1 C 3Y7
V29.
Mr. Lance Thornton
June 21, 1994
Concurs with remarks made by Mr. Battle (V26). This
See response to Submission V24
No change in context of
34 John Scott Ave.
(G. P.A.)
space could be used as a picnic area.
submission.
Bowmanville, Ontario
Li C 4K9
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Submission
Ref. #
V30.
Ms. Katherine Guiselle
June 22, 1994
W1A
a) Supports policies to protect ecosystems.
Acknowledged
45 Connaught St
(G.P.A.)
WiB
Oshawa, Ontario
UG 2H1
W64
b) All natural systems, not just water, should be
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed Planning)
for S.A.G.A.
V1
addressed in preparation of Watershed
Plans.
C) Opposes approval of new country residential
Country residential subdivisions are permitted by
subdivisions.
amendment only in the General Agricultural Area
and Green Space. The provision of a limited
number of this type of housing is appropriate to
provide a range of housing opportunities in the
Municipality.
d) Policies regarding Regional Nodes in Oak
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges Moraine)
Ridges Moraine not clear.
e) Clarify what constitutes Ganaraska
Agree. See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
Headwaters.
Moraine)
V31.
Mr. Ed Vanhaverbeke
June 22, 1994
W107
a) Locate 'Medium Density" symbols in
Agree
3377 Highway # 2
(G.P.A.)
W105
Newcastle Village closer to downtown.
Newcastle, Ontario
LIB 11-9
b) Enlarge downtown core to permit
commercial development without affecting
Boundaries of Newcastle Village Main Central
existing commercial properties.
Area will be determined through preparation of
Secondary Plan.
V3 2A.
V32B.
Ms. Diana Grandfield,
Chairperson
June 22, 1994
W106A
a) Supports the emphasis in the Plan placed on
Acknowledged
(G.P.A.)
W106B
the preservation of heritage properties.
631 Mill Street South
Newcastle, Ontario
LIB 1 C1
b) The ideal residential assessment ratio should
The Municipality and the Official Plan seek to
for LA.C.A.C.
be achieved on a graduated process.
achieve a better balance in the non -
residential /residential ratio as quickly as
Possible.
Recommendations
No change
See Section 3.2 of Report
(Watershed Planning)
No change
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
Ridges Moraine)
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
Ridges Moraine)
Identify new Medium Density site
on west side of Foster Creek north
of King Street.
Under review
Vo change
qo change
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendations
Submission
Ref. #
V33.
Ms. Ronni Zolumoff
June 22, 1994
-
Strongly opposes St. Marys Cement changing the
Phasing of aggregate extraction beyond scope
See Section 5.4 of Report (St.
151 Cedar Crest Beach Rd.,
(G.P.A.)
order of their extraction phasing. The extraction from
of Official Plan. Also see Section 5.4 of Report
Marys Cement and Westside
Bowmanville, Ontario
the Westside Creek Marsh will totally devalue her
(St. Marys Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Creek Marsh)
L1 C 3K3
home and eliminate her quality of life.
V34.
Mr. Henry Eikens
June 22, 1994
V21
Clarify alignment of the proposed Highway 407. If
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See Section 7.2 of Report
4740 Main Street
(G.P.A.)
W98
Highway 407 terminates at Hancock Road, the
(Highway 407)
Orono, Ontario
Municipality will have a highway which goes nowhere.
LOB 1 MO
V35.
Mr. Roy Forrester
June 22, 1994
-
a) Draft Official Plan does not address how will
This issue is addressed throughout the Plan, but
No change
6 Mill Lane
(G.P.A.)
achieve ideal industrial /residential
most specifically in Sections 5.3.6 and 5.3.7, and
Newcastle, Ontario
assessment ratio.
all of Section 7.
b) More employment in Clarington would
Agree
No change
.improve quality of life for commuting
workers.
No change
C) Protect Leskard area from aggregate
Lands around Leskard are not indicated as
extraction.
being Aggregate Resource Areas. Aggregate
extraction would be permitted by amendment to
the Plan subject to the preparation of studies
which indicate minimal social and environmental
impacts.
d) Should also prohibit aggregate extraction in
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed Planning).
See Section 3.2 of Report
headwaters of Wilmot Creek, Bowmanville
(Watershed Planning).
Creek and Soper Creek.
e) Locate some industrial land east of Highway
The Orono Industrial lands were designated
No change
351115.
"Rural Employment Area" by the Regional Official
Plan; however, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
has deferred approval of this designation.
I
6
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
Cross
Ref. #
W137
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
Summary of Submission
Objects to half of his property being designated as
"Major Open Space'.
Staff Comments
See Report - Section 3.4 (Woodlots Policies) and
Recommendations
See Report - Section 3.4
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
V36.
Mr. George Leaver
R. R. # 2
June 22, 1994
(G.P.A.)
Sobcaygeon, Ontario
Section 2.3 (Interim Urban Area Boundary for
(Woodlots Policies) and Section
KOM 1A0
Residential Areas).
2.3 (Interim Urban Area Boundary
Part Lot 14, Conc. 3, Darlington
Requested clarification regarding the Regional Nodes
and questioned where the Oshawa Ski Club fits in
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges Moraine)
for Residential Areas).
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
V37.
Mr. Rick Donald
314 Lorindale Drive
June 22, 1994
(G.P.A.)
Oshawa, Ontario
L1 H 6X4
this plan.
Ridges Moraine)
for OSHAWA SIC CLUB
V17
Pleased with recognition given to their lands along
Acknowledged
V38.
Mr. Kelvin Whalen
1029 McNichol Ave.
June 22, 1994
(G.P.A.)
Scarborough, Ontario
W116
Highway # 2 and will be liaising with Staff in the
No change
M1W 3W9
W132
future.
for THE KAITLIN GROUP
W170
W102
Requested clarification and justification for the
1
The subject creek crossing has been indicated
V39.
Ms. Tracy Howe
1 Grad Drive
Y
June 22, 1994
(G.P.A)
Newcastle, Ontario
proposed future crossing of Foster Creek.
in the Official Plan since 1983. It is necessary to
No change
LIS iJ1
provide a mid -block collector north of Highway 2
to provide efficient traffic circulation for the
Village.
6
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross
Ref. #
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
The Region has noted this policy is not in
Recommendations
V40.
Ms. Elena Racansky
3200 Hancock Rd.
June 23, 1994
(G.P.A.)
W97
W138
a) Clarington has no need for an airport
Delete policy
Courtice, Ontario
W141
conformity with their Official Plan.
LIE 2M1
W171
W184
b) Woodlots shown on the maps reflect only 40
See Section 3.4 of Report
po (Woodlot Policies)
See Section 3.4 of Report
- 50% of their actual size.
(Woodlot Policies)
C) Draft Official Plan does not reflect the desires
Disagree. The Plan seeks to protect significant
No change
of people who moved from densely
natural features in urban areas and to increase
populated areas to rural areas in order to
densities in designated living areas to maintain
enjoy ecological systems.
as much land as possible in a natural state.
d) Each time the Courtice Heights Development
Applications being reviewed.
Not applicable
is amended, .ft reflects a higher density and
has less regard for the environment
e) Draft Official Plan does not address the
Population allocations and urban area
No change
adverse effect that an additional population
boundaries established by the Durham Regional
of 30,000 will have on the environment
Official Plan must be reflected in the
Municipality's Official Plan.
V41.
Ms. Ann Cowman
June 23, 1994
-
She has 3 concerns:
55 Darlington Blvd.
(G.P.A.)
Cou tire, Ontario
a) Housing of the frail and elderly
Policies for special needs housing are included
Modify policies.
in Section 9 of the Plan. New policies regarding
garden suites are to be included in the Official
Plan.
b) Preservation of Farewell Creek which in
See Report - Section 3.2 (Watershed Planning)
See Report - Section 3.2
some parts is no deeper than four inches
and Section 3.5 (Lake Iroquois Beach)
(Watershed Planning) and Section
C) Proposed Highway 407
3.5 (Lake Iroquois Beach)
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See Section 7.2 of Report
(Highway 407)
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross
Ref. #
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
Recommendations
V42.-
Ms. Jane Pepino, Solicitor
145 King St W., Suite 1500 -
June 23, 1994
(G.P.A.)
W101
W108A
"Community Park" designation on property does not
reflect the preferred option for the lands as indicated
Section 4.4 of Report (Parks)
Toronto, Ontario
W108B
by the Courtice Employment Area Secondary
MSH 2J3
for 289143 ONTARIO LIMITED
W108C
W165
Planning Study.
(42 acres parcel at southeast
corner of Bloor Street and
Prestonvale Road)
V43.
Mr. Hugh Neill
2111 Prestonvale Road
June 23, 1994
(G.P.A)
W44
W90
a) He and other residents of Prestonvale Road
Prestonvale Road has been reconstructed to a
No change
Courtice, Ontario
South are unhappy with the widening of
10 m wide pavement width from Highway 2
L1 C 2S2
Prestonvale Road south of Glenabby Dr. and
southerly to Glenabby Dr. as a result of traffic
its redesignation as a Type "C" arterial.
counts and levels of service being provided.
b) Extend new east -west mid -block arterial
See Section 7.3 of Report ( Courtice
See Section 7.3 of Report
street, which runs east from Prestonvale Rd.
just south of Glenabby Dr. to Bloor St., close
Transportation Network).
( Courtice Transportation Network).
to where Robert Adams Dr. now meets Bloor
Street
C) Object to high density housing in south
High density development is appropriate and
No change
Courtice.
supportive of future transit along Bloor Street.
Also see Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
Neighbourhoods)
d) Object to commercial development at Bloor
Commercial development will be examined in
No change
and Prestonvale. Development should be
the context of Council's decision on Prestonvale
south of Bloor Street where the suggested
Road.
new street (Robert Adams) intersects with
Prestonvale Road.
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendations
Submission
Ref. #
V44.
Mrs. Henriette Witzke
June 23, 1994
W118
North CouRice should be allowed to develop at this
Not appropriate in light of the deferral and
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
R. R. # 3
(G.P.A.)
W134
time.
possible referral of these lands to the Ontario
Urban Area Boundary for'
Bowmanville, Ontario
W183
Municipal Board hearing on the Regional Plan.
Residential Areas).
L1 C 3K4
W189
Also see Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
V7
Area Boundary for Residential Areas).
V53
V45.
Mr. Bob Hann
June 23, 1994
W110A
a) Has received approval on some of his
See Section 8.1 of Report (Transitional Policies)
See Section 8.1 of Report
for VALIANT PROPERTY
(G. P.A.)
W110B
projects and does not want to start the whole
(Transitional Policies)
MANAGEMENT
V46
public meeting process all over again.
V96A
V966
b) Questioned the designation of the Lake
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois Beach)
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
Iroquois Shoreline and disagrees with its
Iroquois Beach)
location.
C) There is no creek on his land located at the
intermittent stream to be removed under
Remove Green Space designation.
southeast corner of King Street and Trulls
approved Master Drainage Plan.
Road.
d) Concerned with neo traditional planning
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central Areas).
See Section 4.3 of Report (Central
retail proposals, noting that the concept of
Areas)
stores at the end of a road does not work
and is not good planning.
9.
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross
Ref. #
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Disagree. A Secondary Plan Study for the
Recommendations
V46.
Ms. Lynn Townsend
for VALIANT PROPERTY
June 23, 1994
(G.P.A.)
W96A
W96B
a) Her client willing to conduct study of the
No change
MANAGEMENT
W110A
Courtice Main Central Area, but not a
Courtice Main Central Area is the most
W110B
secondary plan study as indicated by draft
appropriate tool to ensure the area develops in
V45
Plan.
accordance with policies of Official Plan.
b) The Draft Official Plan should be reviewed to
Partially agree
Undertake further review of
allow more flexibility pertaining to street line
Section 10.4.6 of Plan
frontages.
C) The draft Plan is unclear as it relates to the
Lake Iroquois Shoreline.
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois Beach)
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
Iroquois Beach)
d) The 'Zellers" type store could perhaps be
Agree. All department stores are retail uses and
No change
accommodated in the Main Central Area.
are permitted in all Main Central Areas and Sub -
Central Areas.
e) Phased and sequential development which is
Agree.
Amend Section 1.1 of Courtice
more flexible should be allowed.
Sub Central Area Secondary Plan.
f) Refine the types of retail stores permitted in
Main Central Areas are intended to include a
No change
Courtice Main Central Area.
broad range of retail uses. The specific types of
uses are most appropriately defined in the
Zoning By -law.
g) Section 23.6.2: Indicate plan of subdivision
"may" be subject to review if revisions
Disagree. However, the policy should be
Clarify policy to indicate it will only
proposed.
clarified to indicate it will only apply if
apply when substantive revisions
substantive revisions are proposed. Also see
are proposed.
Section 8.1 of Report (Transitional Policies).
V47.
Ms. Donna Roka
2236 Trull's Road South
June 23, 1994
(G.P.A.)
-
Her well water has been contaminated since 1991.
Requested municipal action to correct problem.
Staff are sympathetic with concern. However,
impacts
Not applicable
Courtice, Ontario
on wells resulting from development are
taken care of through the Region of Durham's
Well Interference Policy. Mrs. Roka has been
advised by Staff to contact the Region of
Durham.
10
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendations
Submission
Ref. #
V48.
Mr. Glen Easton
June 23, 1994
W150
Requested clarification on the Regional Report being
The comment refers to the North Courtice
No change
314 Clendenan Ave.
(G.P.A.)
W151
prepared on the easterly extension of Adelaide
Environmental Study. The Study did not
Toronto, Ontario
Avenue and what impact it will have on his clients.
address the Adelaide Avenue alignment in
M6P 2X3
sufficient detail. An environmental assessment
for MR. SCHLEISS i£ MR.
is required to determine the detailed alignment
HOLLAND
Part Lots 33 and 34, Conc. 3,
Courtice
V49.
Ms. Josephine Vooys
June 23, 1994
V51
Include her lands within interim urban boundary for
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban Area
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
2304 Trull's Road South
(G.P.A.)
Courtice.
Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Courtice, Ontario
Residential Areas)
LIE 2N2
V50.
Gais Waissglass
June 23, 1994
W140
Supports changes made to Port Darlington
Acknowledged.
No change.
P.O. Box 401
(G.P.A.)
Secondary Plan.
209 Dundas Street E,
Whitby, Ontario
L1 N 5S4
for COSMART MARKETING
CORP.
V51.
Mr. Dick Vooys
June 23, 1994
V49
Concerned that the proposed road planned to
Staff assume the "proposed road" is the Type "C"
No change.
2304 Trulls Road
(G.P.A.)
alleviate the problem on Glenabbey Drive will only
arterial between Prestonvale Rd. and Courtice
Courtice, Ontario
transfer the problems to the residents fronting on this
Rd., north of Bloor St. This road provides an
LIE 2N2
new road.
east -west connection from Courtice Rd. to
Prestonvale Rd., as per the Regional Plan. It is
not making a direct connection with the existing
Glenabby Dr., which is considered to assist
traffic movement
PHASE 3 - DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendations
Submission
Ref. #
V52.
Mr. Ross Miller
June 23, 1994
-
a) Concerned with the new road configuration
The road configuration south of Glenabbey Dr. is
Under review.
131 Glenabbey Dr.,
(G.P.A.)
being proposed to alleviate the problems on
part of the transportation review currently being
Courtice, Ontario
Glenabbey Drive.
undertaken by Totten Sims Hubicki.
LIE 2B7
b) Opposed to the high density housing
High density development in south Courtice is
No change
proposed in this area since he believes it is
appropriate and supportive of future transit
not necessary.
Also see Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
Neighbourhoods).
V53.
Mr. W. D. Manson
June 23, 1994
W117
a) Increase the proposed population and rate of
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and Balance of
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
20 Clematis Road
(G.P.A.)
W118
growth for Courtice.
Growth)
and Balance of Growth)
Willowdale, Ont.
W129
M2J 4Y2
W131
b) Protect the draft approval given to 18T -90046
Section 23.6.2 of draft Plan would protect
Clarify Section 23.6.2 of Plan to
on behalf of Courtice Heights
W134
and 18T- 91005.
existing draft approvals, unless substantive
indicate it would only apply to
Developments and William
W138
revisions are proposed, in which case the entire
substantive revisions.
Tonno Construction
W141
subdivision plan would be subject to review in
W171
the context of the new Official Plan. Also see
W184
Section 8.1 of the Report (Transitional Policies).
W189
V7
c) Include all of Hancock Neighbourhood (3C)
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban Area
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
V40
within interim urban boundary for Courtice.
Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
V44
Residential Areas)
d) Include lands within Special Study Area 4
Inappropriate in light of the deferral and possible
See Section
within interim urban boundary for Courtice.
referral of these lands to the Ontario Municipal
Board hearing on the Regional Plan. Also see
Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban Area
Boundary for Residential Areas.)
V54.
Mr. Ken Shaw
June 23, 1994
-
Include his property within interim urban boundary for
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban Area
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
3292 Hancock Road N.
(G.P.A.)
Courtice.
Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Courtice, Ontario
Residential Areas)
LIE 2M1
12
PHASE 2 - PLANNING ISSUES AND OPTIONS
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W50
Mr. Donald W. Robins
Nov. 1/93
-
Displays were interesting and informative. Planners
Acknowledged.
Not applicable.
4552 Highway
(Newcastle Village
were able to answer questions in an 'understandable"
Newtonville, Ontario.
Open House)
manner. Staff followed up on a number of questions
LOA 1J0
that could not be answered that night.
W51
Ms. Esther C. AIIin
Nov. 2/93
W22
a) Protect Oak Ridges Moraine.
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
3292 Concession 3, R.R. #8
(Orono
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
Newcastle, Ontario.
LIB 11.9
Open House)
b) Concerned with projected population growth.
The new Official Plan must have regard for
No change.
the population targets set out in the
Regional Official Plan.
C) Strip development detracts from an area.
Section 12.3.1 of the draft plan prohibits
No change.
scattered non -farm residential development
within the rural area, while Section 10
encourages commercial development to
locate in Central Areas developed on a
grid system.
W52
Ms. Susan Larsh
Nov. 4/93
W13
a) Pleased to see the incorporation of the
Acknowledged.
No change.
20 Rosalynne Avenue
( Courtice
"Healthy Community" concept and supports
Bowmanviile, Ontario.
Open House)
the directions outlined for pursuing a Healthy
L1 3X8
Community.
b) Funding is available from the provincial
Specific Healthy Community initiatives are
Not applicable.
government. Minister of Health has
beyond the scope of the Official Plan.
announced $700,000. in funding for the
Ontario Healthy Communities Coalition.
W53
Cameron Berry
Nov. 4193
Avoid using same street name on a Court and Drive.
Not an Official Plan issue, although
No change.
5 Whitecliffe Drive
(Cour ice
comment will be taken into consideration
Courtice, Ontario.
Open House)
in review of street names for new
LIE IT5
development.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W54
J. Borysiak
3566 Courtice Road
Nov. 3/93
(Bowmanviile
W85
Believes that nothing 'new- was shown on display
Disagree with comment Phase I provided
No change.
1-6 e, Ontario.
Open House)
panels.
Background Information while Phase it
Li E 2L
Li E 2
presented options for the new Official Plan.
W55
Ms. Debbie Carlisle
139 Galbraith Court
Nov. 4/93
( Courtice
-
a) Tourism potential for Bowmanville is untapped.
Section 7.3.7 of the draft Plan encourages
No change.
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
It has the potential to develop its waterfront
and downtown similar to Cobourg, Port Hope
the development of new tourism and
L1C 4P7
and Port Perry.
recreational opportunities. Section 7.3.8
also promotes historical downtowns as
points of interest Section 7.3.9 outlines a
policy to recognize and promote the
tourism and recreational potential of the
waterfront
b) Need more interesting tourist information
Not within scope of Official Plan. However,
No change.
centre.
initiatives are currently underway to plan
for a new and more attractive tourist
information centre.
Acknowledged.
W56
L Skeiding
3-8 Wellington Street
Nov. 4/93
( Courtice
a) Interested to learn Municipality is considering
No chap e.
g
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
neo- traditional planning which reflects the
Lt C 1 V2
overall attitude of conservation and cost -
efficiency.
b) Communities need parks within walking
Section 18.3.5(c) of the draft Plan requires
No change.
distance of homes.
parks to be located as centrally as
possible. Section 18.3.7 outlines policies
for the location of various sized parks.
Neighbourhood Parks are intended to
serve the needs of surrounding residents.
C) Pleased Clarington is stressing a "Healthy
Section 3.2.2 of the draft Official Plan deals
No change.
Community".
specifically with the concept of "Healthy
Community".
Written Submisslona Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W57
Mr. Eric A. Hanna
Executive Vice President
Dec. 10/93
W61
a) Expand definition of Central Areas to include
Bowmanville Memorial Hospital is
No change.
-
Operations
W69
health care facilities.
specifically indicated on the Land Use
47 Liberty Street South
Schedule for the Bowmanville Main Central
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Area
Lt C 2N4
for BOWMANVILLE MEMORIAL
b) Concerned that Liberty Street will not be able
Liberty Street is a Regional. Road and is
No change.
HOSPITAL
to handle traffic generated by traffic.
designated as a Type 'IT arterial. Speck
operational improvements to Liberty Street
are beyond the scope of the Official Plan. .
C) Recognize hospitals as community facilities.
Partially agree. Although the Official Plan
Add policy to Section 5 of Plan
does not regulate the use of the hospital, it
regarding the co- ordination of
would be appropriate to promote the
urban growth management with
efficient use of hospital facilities and other
other public agencies such as
public facilities.
hospitals.
W58
Ms. Ann Wilson, Staff Geologist
Southwestern District
Dec. 20/93
a) Plan should reflect need for aggregates on a
Section 15.1.1 of the draft Plan states that
No change.
Ontario Geological Survey,
Provincial basis.
a goal of the Official Plan is to provide
P.O. Box 5463
opportunities for extraction of aggregate
659 Exeter Road ,
resources to meet Provincial need.
London, Ontario.
N6A 41_6
b) Identify existing mining /quarrying operations
Licensed Aggregate Extraction Areas are
No change.
for MINISTRY OF NORTHERN
as permitted uses.
designated on Map A of the draft Plan.
DEVELOPMENT AND MINES
c) New land uses on or near areas of significant
Section 15.3.1 of the draft Plan protects
No change.
mineral potential should be compatible with
areas possessing significant aggregate
exploration, development and extraction of
resources from other land uses.
mineral resources.
d) Identify and protect significant deposits of non-
Map "D" identifies significant aggregate
No change.
renewable resources.
resource areas.
e) Cannot phase aggregate extraction activities
No policies have been included in the Plan
No change.
based upon perceived need.
which require proponents of new
aggregate extraction operations to
demonstrate a need for the aggregate.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W58
Continued.
f) Should not establish separate policies for
Both primary and secondary resource
No change.
primary and secondary resource areas.
areas have been indicated on Map D and
are protected by policy from incompatible
land uses.
g) Should consider future feasibility of extraction
Extraction is not precluded anywhere in
No change.
in areas currently considered to be
the Municipality. However, an Official Plan
uneconomic.
Amendment will be necessary with
appropriate studies to address social and
environmental impacts.
h) Rehabilitation of excavated land should permit
Disagree. Rehabilitation and
No change.
creation of new landscapes and establishment
establishment of new land uses should be
of new land uses.
in conformity with Official Plan.
W59
Mr. Dale Toombs, Land Use
Dec. 22/93
a) Concerned with discouraging specialized or
The Ministry comment is based upon the
No change.
Specialist
intensive agricultural uses in the Oak Ridges
Phase 11 discussion papers which
322 Kent Street West
Lindsay, Ontario.
Moraine.
presented the option of restricting
K9V 2Z9
speciality and intensive agricultural
for MINISTRY OF
operations on the Moraine. However, this
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
option was not incorporated into the draft
Official Plan and Section 14.5.1 lists
agriculture as a permitted use within the
Oak Ridges Moraine designation.
b) Grouping future residential growth in hamlets
Agree. Reflected in draft Official Plan.
No change,
is preferred to scattering development
throughout the agricultural area.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W59
Continued.
c) Inappropriate to suggest that when agriculture
The Ministry's concern is again based
No change.
is no longer profitable, agricultural land
upon the Phase If discussion papers which
protection policies may be discarded.
presented a variety of options for
agriculture and the rural economy. The
draft Official Plan in fact embraces the
concept of agricultural land protection and
Section 13.1.1 states that a goal of the
draft Official Plan is "to protect and
encourage the use of agricultural lands by
maintaining and preserving the agricultural
function of the rural areas ".
d) A definite rural /urban boundary over a
Agree. Reflected in draft Official Plan.
No change.
significant time period will encourage farmers
to not only retain the land for agricultural
purposes, but also to make investments in
land and building improvements.
e) Specialty farms are farm uses.
Partially agree.
Review distinction between farm,
farm- related and non -farm uses in
Section 13.3 of draft Plan.
f) Some farm - related uses are appropriate in the
Agree. Reflected in draft Official Plan.
No change.
Agricultural designations, while other services
should be located in hamlets or towns, or in
the Major Open Space.
g) Food Land Guidelines require that Class 1-3
Agree.
Add a new policy requiring Class 1-
agricultural lands be rehabilitated back to
3 agricultural land to be
agriculture as part of the rehabilitation
rehabilitated after cessation of
program for aggregate extraction operations.
aggregate extraction to
substantially the same acreage and
average soil capability.
F Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Caarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W60
Mr. James A. Tedford, Manager
Stewardship Services
Jan. 26/94
-
Would like to be considered for possible Steering
Acknowledged.
No change.
P.O. Box 328
Committee as may be required for future phases of the
Port Hope, Ontario.
Official Plan Review.
L1A 3W4
for GANARASKA REGION
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
W61
Mr. Eric A Hanna, Executive
Vice- President Operation
Feb. 2/94
W57
a) Supports the planning principle of a "Healthy
Acknowledged.
No change.
47 Liberty Street South
W69
Community".
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Li C 2N4
b) Planning Department and Hospital should co-
Acknowledged.
No change.
for BOWMANVILLE MEMORIAL
operate in planning initiatives as they have in
HOSPITAL
the past..
W62
Mr. Donald Wright, Resources
Planner
Feb. 15/94
-
a) Need comprehensive data base of natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
100 Whiting Avenue
systems/features at start of planning process.
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
Oshawa, Ontario.
LiH 3T3
b) Need to monitor natural environment to
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
for CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO
evaluate sustainable planning concepts.
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
C) Caarington Official Plan can only attempt to
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
mitigate environmental impacts of urban
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
growth prescribed by Regional Official Plan.
d) Land use conflicts within and adjacent to
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
wetlands require resolution if wetlands are to
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
function as core areas.
e) Port Darlington Marsh is subject to impacts
Protection of Marsh addressed in Port
No change.
from existing and future residential uses and
Darlington Secondary Plan.
marina activities.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W62
Continued.
f) Westside Creek Marsh is highest ranked
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
marsh affected by urban influences but is
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
designated for extraction.
Marsh)
g) Raby Head Marsh will be.impacted /destroyed
See Section 5.4 of Report (St. Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St.
by St. Marys dock expansion.
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Marsh)
h) Can Clarington Official Plan impose natural
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St
heritage concepts on St. Marys/Westside
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
Creek.
Marsh)
) May need restrictive policies on agricultural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
land in Black/Farewell Creek wetland complex
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
to preserve core functions.
D Must consider function when assessing quality
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
of urban woodlots.
Policies)
Policies)
k) Should consider woodlot function when
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
incorporating into urban development
Policies)
Policies)
1) Preservation of recharge /discharge functions
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
in Courtice and North Bowmanviile critical to
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
cold water fish species/habitat in adjacent
streams.
m) Radically different methods of storm water
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
management required in Courtice and North
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
Bowmanviile to protect groundwater functions.
n) If alternative stormwater management
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
measures not used, development within
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
recharge /discharge areas must be questioned.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W62
Continued,
o) Stream/valleyland setback policy should
incorporate both Fixed Buffer Zones
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
and
Development Performance Standards.
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
P) Watershed studies should be prepared early in
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
planning process.
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
q) Secondary Plans must have sufficient flexibility
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
to incorporate detailed findings of watershed
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
studies.
T) Recognize CLOCA as responsible for
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
preparation of watershed management plans.
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
S) No objection to changing Regulatory Flood
Standard to 1:100 year zone.
Regulatory flood standards are reduced
Include policy regarding
only after detailed studies on a watershed
requirements to reduce Regulatory
Flood.
t) Discourages use of 2 -zone flood concept.
Agree
Include policy discouraging 2 -Zone
Flood Concept
U) Flood and erosion limits on waterfront
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
See Section 5.2 of Report
regulated by CLOCA generally only in the
vicinity of stream mouths on basis of Fill and
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition)
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Construction regulations.
Acquisition)
V) What would be acceptable land use in areas
where 100 year erosion setback exceeds
See Section 5.2 of Report (Shoreline
Hazard Zone and Public Acquisition)
See Section 5.2 of Report
suggested width of Waterfront Greenway?
(Shoreline Hazard Zone and Public
Acquisition)
W) Higher urban densities may require existing
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
stormwater management facilities and plans to
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
be re- evaluated.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W62
Continued.
x) Interim stormwater management options
Agree. However, this issue is beyond the
No change.
should implement ultimate master drainage
scope of the Official Plan.
plans.
A May need surface drains, ditches and
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
infiltration areas in groundwater
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
recharge /discharge areas.
Z) Incorporate recreational aspects of storm
Section 20.2.7 of draft Plan requires the
No change.
water management ponds into initial design.
design of stormwater management
facilities to provide opportunities for
recreational purposes.
aa) How will existing incompatible uses in Oak
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
Ridges Moraine be addressed?
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
bb) Will Official Plan ensure the intent of the Oak
Yes
Appropriate revisions to incorporate
Ridges Moraine Guidelines are implemented?
Oak Ridges Moraine Strategy.
cc) Opposed to farm - related residential uses..
Farm - related severances are permitted
No change.
subject to criteria set out in Section 13.3.1
of draft plan.
dd) How will cumulative groundwater impacts of
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
new agricultural operations in Oak Ridges
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
Moraine be assessed?
ee) May need more stringent standards for private
The creation of new rural residential lots
No change.
sewage disposal systems to protect
requires the submission of a
groundwater.
hydrogeologicai analysis.
ff) Endorses municipal acquisition of vaileylands
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
in rural areas as the best means to protect
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
valleylands.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W62
Continued.
gg) Wetland guidelines should address any
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
development activity, regardless of distance,
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
that could have impact
hh) Concerned with impact of expanded
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
agricultural uses on woodlots. Should
Policies)
Policies)
preserve woodlots larger than 30 ha and 300m
deep.
i) Need development setbacks for woodlots
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
smaller than 30 ha to promote regeneration of
Policies)
Policies)
forest core.
j)) Should require hydrogeologic assessment for
There is some merit in requiring
Under review.
new rural lots in key areas to protect
applications for Country Residential
groundwater.
subdivisions on the Lake Iroquois Beach to
undertake an assessment of impact on
baseflow to streams.
kk) Should undertake environmental assessment
Section 4.7.10 of draft Plan permits the
Add policy permitting environmental
of aggregate extraction proposals at
Municipality to undertake an Environmental
studies for aggregate extraction
applicant's expense.
Impact Study at the proponent's expense.
operations to be undertaken by the
It would therefore be consistent to apply
Municipality at the expense of the
this policy to aggregate extraction
proponent
operations.
I) How will Lake Iroquois. Beach be protected in
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake Iroquois
See Section 3.5 of Report (Lake
North Courtice?
Beach)
Iroquois Beach)
10
IF- Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W63A
Mr. Peter F. Smith
Feb. 22/94 (W63A)
W88A
a) Bramalea proposal meets criteria for inclusion
Agree.
No change.
W63B
Bousfield, Dale- Harris, Cutler
Mar. 21/94 (W64B)
W88B
in 20 year urban boundary.
and Smith Inc.
3 Church Street, Suite 200
b) Substantial public benefits from development
Development subject to review through
No change.
Toronto, Ontario.
(preservation of natural areas, improved
preparation of Port of Newcastle
M5E 1 M2
access to waterfront, compact urban form).
Secondary Plan.
for BRAMALEA LIMITED
(18T-94004, 18T-91012)
c) Open Space and density standards for
Disagree. However, site specific policies
No change.
Lots 28,29,30, B.F.Conc.
suburban development not compatible with
for Port of Newcastle can be provided, if
neo- traditional urban design.
necessary, through Secondary Plan.
d) Density designations should be based on
Disagree. Section 9.4.1 of draft Plan
e
No change
range of permitted housing forms, not
provides for a range of housing forms
numerical densities.
within each density level.
W64
Ms. Katherine Guselle
Mar. 16/94
W1A
a) Include statement of intent regarding
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
President
Wi8
watersheds or sub - watershed plans,
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
45 Connaught Street
W64
particularly for Ganaraska headwaters.
Oshawa, Ontario.
Vt
Li G 2H1
V30
b) Establish tax levy for subwatershed plans.
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
for S.A.G.A.
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
C) Permitted uses at Kirby Ski Club should only
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
serve sk "nng activities. Node should reflect
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
current ski club boundaries. Objects to
residential development at Kirby Ski Club.
d) Restrict residential growth until
Section 7 of draft Plan encourages a non-
No change.
industrial /residential balance readdressed.
residential/ residential assessment ratio of
75:25. Section 5 permits Council to
declare a plan of subdivision to be
premature V the non - residential share of
assessment drops below 15 %.
e) Use Environmental Advisory Committee to
Council, through its consideration of Staff
No change.
improve public participation.
Report PD -7 -94, resolved not to establish
such a Committee.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W64
Continued.
t) Require fiscal impact analysis for subdivision
Agree for major development only. See
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
proposals.
Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and Balance of
and Balance of Growth)
Growth)
g) Opposes relaxed zoning standards to
Standards to permit intensification have
No change.
encourage intensification.
not been significantly relaxed. However,
the draft Official Plan must reflect
Provincial policies on housing
intensification.
h) Should use ecosystem function to delineate
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
Oak Ridges Moraine.
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
Opposed to new non -farm lots.
Non -farm lots are restricted to farm
No change.
retirement lots and Infilling in existing
residential clusters.
1) Require need for country- estate proposal to be
The draft Plan provides for only 20 country
No change.
addressed in comprehensive municipal -wide
residential lots to be approved within any 5
study.
year period. Therefore, the suggested
study should not be necessary.
k) Define specialized or intensive agriculture.
It is not necessary to define these types of
No change.
agricultural uses as they fall within the
intent of agricultural uses and related
policies.
1) Supports passive recreational activities on Oak
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
Ridges Moraine,
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
12
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarir
Official Plan Review
F 7
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Submission
Ref.
W64
Continued.
m) Rigid buffer zones for valleys and wetlands
contrary to concept of eco- system protection.
n) Focus residential development in hamlets.
o) Environmentally Sensitive Areas not. property
identified in Ganaraska area.
P) Lake Iroquois Shoreline important as
groundwater recharge and discharge area.
q) Recognize habitat and hydrogeological
function of woodlots.
r) Opposed to re- adoption of existing hamlet
plans.
s) Recognize value of streetscapes and
landscapes in context of heritage conservation
for hamlets.
t) Prohibit estate development in Oak Ridges
Moraine and along Waterfront
U) Hydrogeologicai assessments should address
broad cumulative effects.
gton
Staff Comments
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
Heritage System)
Agree. Section 12.2.3 of the draft Plan
states that hamlets are to be predominant
and preferred locations for rural growth.
Will update plan of basis of information
from the Oak Ridges Moraine Studies.
Agree. Reflected in draft Official Plan
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Policies)
Existing hamlet plans were approved by
Council after the public process required
by the Planning Act
Section 12.4.7 of the draft Plan requires
new growth in hamlets is to be
:omplimentary to and consistent with the
,iistoric character.
Agree. Reflected in draft Official Plan.
lee Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
'fanning)
Recommendation
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
Heritage System)
No change.
Revise Map C on basis of new
information.
No change.
See Section 3.4 of Report (Woodlot
Policies)
No change.
No change.
No change.
See Section 3.2 of Report
(Watershed Planning)
13
DR. OP.4SU &123
PHASE 1 - BACKGROUND PAPERS
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W1A
Ms. Elva Reid, Vice- President
Sept. 16/91
W64
a) Address cumulative effects of development
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
W1B
R.R. #1'
V1
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
Ganaraska Road
V30
Newtonville, Ontario.
b) Need strategies for protection of Ganaraska
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
LOA 1J0
Headwaters.
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
for SAGA
C) Intensification of use at Oshawa /Kirby Ski Club
Section 7.3.6 of the Plan permits
Revise policy to require
through Regional Node designation should
expansion of existing uses and
environmental impact studies.
waft for Environmental Studies.
introduction of related uses provided no
adverse environmental impact
d) Integrate watershed planning approach into
See Section 3.2 of Report (Watershed
See Section 3.2 of Report
Official Plan.
Planning)
(Watershed Planning)
e) Environmental Advisory Committee should be
Council, through its consideration of Staff
No change.
established.
Report PD -7 -94, resolved not to establish
such a Committee.
W2
Kevin Tunney
Sept. 16/91
W104
Request Stolp applications continue to be processed
In January 1992, Council directed staff to
No change.
Tunney Planning Inc.
V2
during the Official Plan review.
continue processing the Stolp applications.
340 Byron StS., Suite 200
V10
Whitby, Ontario LIN 4P8
V14
for STOUP HOMES
(NEWCASTLE) DEVELOPERS
Pt. Lt 35, Cone. 1, Courtice
W3
Kevin Tunney
Sept. 16/91
W7
Council should give priority to the processing of
In January 1992, Council resolved to defer
No change.
Tunney Planning Inc.
V3
applications for these lands.
processing of applications in urban
340 Byron St.S., Suite 200
V25
expansion areas pending completion of
Whitby, Ontario Lt N 4P8
the Official Plan Review.
for NORTHBROOK
DEVELOPERS GROUP
PtLts. 12,13,14, Cone. 3,
Bowmanville
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W4
Mrs. Ruth Hinkley
Sept. 16/91
W144
Applications by Ridge Pine Park Inc. for closure of road
Road allowance has been closed by
No change.
Government Liaison
V4
allowance, Phase 6 and nursing home should not be
Council. Nursing home proposal north of
I Wheelhouse Drive, Unit 5
V12
affected by Official Plan Review.
CN Rail line has been withdrawn by Ridge
Newcastle, Ontario.
Pine Park Inc. Details related to the Phase
L1 B 169
for WILMOT CREEK
6 proposal are reviewed in Section 5.3 of '
.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
Report (Existing Residential Communities)
W5
Mr. Ralph Bouwmeester
Sept. 16/91
V5
a) Agrees with the need for an Official Plan
in January 1992, Council resolved to defer
No change.
80 Wertheim Court
Review, but does not agree with the need to
processing of applications in urban
(Commerce Gardens)
halt development applications in expansion
expansion areas pending completion of
Suite 9
Richmond Hill, Ontario.
areas.
the Official Plan Review.
L4B I B9
b) Believes that supporting documentation for
Applications and their supporting
No change.
for FIARO DEVELOPMENT
development applications would be of benefit
documentation were reviewed during the
MANAGEMENT CORP.
to determine Official Plan policies.
Official Plan Review process.
W6
Erskine Duncan
MacGregor
Feb. 28/92
-
Concerned with impact of Waterfront Trail and
Council resolved to terminate waterfront
No change.
Lynda
Bramalea development proposal on quality of life in
trail at Bond Head. Issues related to
27 Boutton Street, R.R. #8
Bond Head.
development at Port of Newcastle will be
Newcastle, Ontario.
addressed through a Secondary Plan.
LIB 11-9
for BOND HEAD COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION
W7
Kevin Tunney
Tunney Planning Inc.
Mar. 20/92
W3
Northbrook Development Area should be given priority
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim Urban
See Section 2.3 of Report (Interim
340 Byron St. S., Suite 200
V3
V25
in the new Official Plan.
Area Boundary for Residential Areas)
Urban Area Boundary for
Whitby, Ontario.
Residential Areas)
LIN 4P8
for NORTHBROOK
DEVELOPERS GROUP
PtLts. 12,13,14, Conc. 3,
Bowmanville (OPA 89 -107)
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Wa
Kevin Tunney
Tunney Planning Inc.
Apr. 10/92
W187
Submitted a concept draft plan as input into the Town's
Acknowledged.
No change.
340 Byron SL S., Suite 200
Official Plan Review.
Whitby, Ontario.
L1 N 4P8
for TRIANKA DEVELOPMENTS
Lot 17, Cone. 1, Bowmanville
W9
W.G. Creamer
D.G. Biddle & Assoc. Ltd,
Aug. 10/92
Subdivision 18T -86082 received draft approval for
Subdivision plan subsequently revised to
No change.
96 King Street East
eleven (11) lots in Tyrone. Due to Ministry of
provide 9 lots. Hamlet extension not
Oshawa, Ontario,
Environment and Energy comments, the hamlet
required.
Lt H 1 B5
boundary needs to be expanded to provide additional
land required for the 11 lots..
for MRS. JOST (18T- 86062)
PLLL 9, Conc. 6, Tyrone
W10
Mr. William D. Manson
WDM Consultants
Oct 14/92
W130A
Submitted a report which identifies three (3) possible
Submission superseded by Submission
No change.
20 Clematis Road
W130B
expansion areas to the Hamlet of Leskard. The report
#W130b).
V53
can be used for partial fulfilment of settlement capacity
Willowdaie, Ontario.
study.
M2J 4X2
for OCEANFRONT
DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
W11
Mr. George E. Gouldburn
1721 Highway #2
Nov. 5/92
-
Request commercial consideration for Highway No. 2
No justification provided for commercial
No change.
Courtice, Ontario.
frontage of his property.
designation. Commercial development
L1 E 2R5
should be focused in Central Areas and
Pt Lt 29, Conc. 2, Courtice
not in strips along Highway No. 2.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W12
Mr. Vern Garlick
Nov. 16/92
W13
Should plan the Municipality to be a Healthy
Agree. Policies concerning the healthy
Review possible inclusion of
150 Trudeau Drive
W52
Community in which to live, work and play. Need to
community concept have been
additional policies on Healthy
Bowmanviile, Ontario.
ensure:
incorporated into the Official Plan.
Communities.
Lt C 4J3
• clean environment, air and water,
• basic needs for all;
• work that is health enhancing, flexible and
satisfying;
• neighbourhoods that are people oriented, safe
and provide a mix of housing;
• good health and social services accessible to
all;
• accessible and responsible government that
involves citizens in decision making.
W13
Ms. Susan Larsh
Nov. 19/92
W12
"Healthy Community Project' deserves consideration
Agree. Policies concerning the healthy
No change in the context of this
20 Rosatynne Avenue
(Newcastle Village
W52
since Town is experiencing such rapid growth. This
community concept have been
submission.
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
project would help to keep the lines of communication
incorporated into the Official Plan,
Lt C 3X8
open between various sectors of the community.
However, speck initiatives are beyond the
scope of the Official Plan.
W14
J. Armstrong
Nov. 16192
-
a) Need to preserve agricultural land.
Section 13.1 of the Plan establishes the
No change.
35 Oatley Court
(Newcastle Village
goals for Agricultural Areas including the
Newcastle, Ontario.
Open House)
protection of agricultural lands.
LIB 1 J8
b) Need to preserve heritage sites.
Section 8.2 of the Plan establishes the
No change.
goals* for heritage sites including the
conservation of structures and sites.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter. .
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W15
Doug Hately
Nov. 16/92
-
a) Need more emphasis on parks, particularly in
District Parks have been designated along
No change.
3 First Street
(Newcastle Village
waterfront areas.
the Lake Ontario waterfront in Courtice,
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
Bowmanville and Newcastle Village.
Lt C 2A2
b) Consider a one -way street system for
Road operations are not an Official Plan
No change.
downtown Bowmanville.
issue.
C) Provide free one hour parking in downtown
Beyond scope of Official Plan.
No change.
Bowmanville.
d) Extend GO Transit as early as possible.
The decision whether to extend GO Train
No change.
Service to Bowmanville rests with the
provincial government. However, a GO
Train site has been identified in the Official
Plan near Regional Road 57 in the event
service is extended.
e) Restrict growth on Class 1 Agricultural land.
The Clarington Official Plan must reflect
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
the urban boundaries provided in the
and Balance of Growth)
Regional Official Plan. However, the draft
Plan restricts the use of land designated
"Prime Agricultural Area" to primarily
farming and farm - related uses.
W16
D. Davidson
Nov. 16/92
W77
a) Any hamlets located within 3 miles of
The provision of municipal water and
No change.
R.R. #1
(Newcastle Village
Bowmanville should have water and sewage
sewer services is a Regional responsibility
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
services.
and beyond the scope of the Clarington
Li C 3112
Official Plan.
b) Should consider aesthetics for planning
Section 18.3 of the Plan deals with
No change.
setbacks, parkettes, creek walkways,
physical requirements for parks and covers
such matters as access, uses, design and
locations.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W16
Continued.
c) Avoid low cost and assisted housing with all
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
See Section 4.2 of Report
component problems.
Neighbourhoods)
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
d) Get companies that draw aggregate from the
Beyond scope of the Official Plan.
No change.
area to show more interest in the Municipality
(eg. sponsoring local teams, paying for
cultural events, etc.).
W17
Mr. John Brudek
-R.R. #1
Nov. 16/92
(Newcastle Village
a) Objects to Highway 407 and its negative
impact
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway 407)
See Section 7.2 of Report (Highway
Hampton, Ontario,
Open House)
on quality of fife and the agricultural
community.
407)
LOB IJO
b) Need balance between urban, rural and
Agree. See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
No change.
industrial growth.
and Balance of Growth)
WI6
Fleurette
159 North Street
Nov. 16/92
(Newcastle Village
-
a) Need activities for teens and pre - teens.
Beyond scope of Official Plan.
No change.
Newcastle, Ontario.
LIB IHs
Open House)
b) Many residents moved to Newcastle Village to
The Regional Official Plan provides a 30
No change.
escape city pollution.
year population of 17,500 for Newcastle
Village. The draft Clarington Plan seeks to
plan for and accommodate this growth
while protecting the natural environment
C) Need culture and arts.
The Official Plan permits these types of
No change.
facilities within all Main Central Areas.
d) Need to promote the history of Newcastle
The Official Plan promotes the preservation
No change.
Village.
of buildings with historic and architectural
significance. However, the speck
promotion of the Village's history is
beyond the scope of the Official Plan.
e) Do not promote industry in Newcastle Village.
Industrial land has been designated in
No change.
Newcastle Village by the Durham Regional
Official Plan which must be reflected in the
Clarington Plan. .
6
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
Wig
Helen Castellan
38 Glenabbey Drive
Nov. 17/92
(Orono
-
a) Need the realigned Bloor between Townline
Agree. The Bloor Street realignment is
No change.
Courtice, Ontario.
Open House)
and Prestonvale completed.
shown in the draft Official Plan and will
LIE 1138
take place through development of
residential applications.
b) Traffic levels on Glenabbey are dangerous.
Traffic volumes and speeds on Glenabbey
Under review.
Drive are issues being reviewed by Totten
Sims Hubicki as part of the South Courtice
Transportation Review. See also Section
7.3 of Report ( Courtice Transportation
Network)
W20
Anonymous
Nov. 17/92
-
Expansion of Orono, and survival of community
Orono has been designated as Special
No change.
(Orono Open
services and local businesses, dependent on water and
Study Area 3 to investigate the extension
House)
sewer problems being addressed.
of lake -based services to Orono. However,
no time frame for the study has been
established.
W21
Mr. David Metcalf
Nov. 16/92
-
a) Must preserve natural environment and
Section 14.6 of draft Official Plan indicates
No change.
4116 Lakeshore Road
(Newcastle Village
agricultural land on waterfront
permitted uses in Waterfront Greenway as
R.R. #8
Newcastle. Ontario.
Open House)
conservation, reforestation, agriculture, and
LIB iL9
recreation.
b) Less emphasis on population growth.
The Regional Official Plan has allocated
No change.
significant population growth for
Clarington. The local Official Plan is
required to reflect and plan for this growth.
C) More emphasis on tourism and preservation of
Agree. Section 7.3.7 of the draft Plan
No change.
historical character.
encourages development of new tourism
and recreational opportunities. Section 8
of the Plan encourages the preservation,
restoration and utilization of heritage
resources.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W21
Continued.
d) Wiser use of municipal tax revenues (eg. year-
Many operational issues are beyond the
No change.
round use of school buildings.
scope of the Official Plan. Growth
Management policies of the Official Plan
seek to optimize use of public
infrastructure.
e) Attract environment friendly industries and
Section 11.3 of draft Plan states hazardous
No change.
modern recycling plant
uses are not permitted, while Section 4.9.2
indicates that the emphasis in waste
management will be on the 3Rs.
f) Need community flower and vegetable
Not applicable to Official Plan.
No change.
gardens for apartment residents.
W22
Ms. Esther Allin
3292 Concession 3
Nov. 17/92
(Orono
W51
a) Rapid growth of Municipality will cause
The Regional Plan has allocated significant
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
R.R. #8
Open House)
urbanization problems. Municipality should
population growth for Clarington which
and Balance of Growth)
Newcastle, Ontario.
seriously consider the direction it is taking. It
must be reflected in the local Official Plan.
1-16 11-9
is growing too fast.
Section 5 of the draft Plan contains
policies to guide and manage growth
consistent with principles of sustainable
development and healthy communities.
b) Ecosystems cannot survive if they are
Sections 4 and 14 of the draft Plan seek to
See Section 3 of Report
surrounded by high density populations.
protect the natural environment while
(Environmental Issues)
Mechanisms for preserving green space are
accommodating population growth. Also
not strong enough.
see Section 3 of Report (Environmental
Issues)
C) Security and pollution problems are an issue.
These issues are central to the concept of
No change.
Healthy Communities. Policies regarding
Healthy Communities have been
incorporated into the Official Plan.
8
F7- Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W23
D.A. Barnett
Nov. 17/92
a) Instead of expanding three urban areas
The Clarington Plan must reflect urban
No change.
5504 Victors Road
(Orono
through the use of prime agricultural land,
boundaries indicated in Regional Official
R.R. #1
Open House)
Municipality should use marginal land.
Plan.
Orono, Ontario.
LOB 1 MO
b) Size of homes should be smaller since families
Section 6.4.1 of the Plan encourages the
No change.
are smaller and they do not want to do a lot of
provision of a diverse housing stock in
work at home.
terms of type, tenure, density and cost.
C) Need to supply more arts and recreational
Section 18.4 of the Plan outlines policies
No change.
facilities and activities.
for community facilities which are
encouraged to be located in urban areas.
W24
Ms. Susan Finlay
Nov. 17/92
-
a) Preserve park and recreational space.
Addressed in Section 18 of draft Plan
No change.
6101 Leskard Road
(Orono
which provides policies for parks and
R.R.#2
Open House)
community facilties.
Orono, Ontario.
LOB IMO
b) Preserve Ganaraska Forest for recreation and
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak Ridges
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
wildlife reserve.
Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
C) Should facilitate construction of useful and
The draft Plan provides urban design
No change.
attractive buildings.
criteria for residential neighbourhoods and
Central Areas.
W25
Mr. Harvey Partner
Nov. 17/92
Need sewer and take based water supply in Orono.
Orono has been designated as Special
No change.
14 Princess Street
(Orono
Study Area 3 to investigate the extension
Box 28
Orono, Ontario.
Open House)
of lake -based services to Orono. However,
LOB 1 MO
no time frame for the study has been
established.
IF7-- Written Submissions Related to the MunlclpMIty of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
I
Staff Comments
i
Recommendation
W26
Pat Irwin Lycett
5500 Main Street
Nov. 17192
(Orono
-
a) Development must occur outwardly from
Agree. Section 3.2.3 of the draft Plan
No change.
Orono, Ontario.
Open House)
existing towns.
encourages compact urban form and
LOB 1 MO
indicates urban and hamlet growth will
take place in the context of clear
boundaries to prevent urban sprawl.
b) Not realistic to hope that Orono will retain
Section 3.2.2 c) of draft Plan encourages
No change.
small town personality.
community identity to be fostered.
C) Oak Ridges Moraine crucial for water recharge
Agree. See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
See Section 6.2 of Report (Oak
and production, and must not be developed.
Ridges Moraine)
Ridges Moraine)
W27
R. Cameron
10 Veterans Avenue
Nov. 17192
(Orono
-
a) Protect wetlands (eg. marshlands around St.
See Report - Section 3.3 (Natural Heritage
See Report - Section 3.3 (Natural
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
Marys Cement).
System) and Section 5.4 (St Marys
Heritage System) and Section 5.4
L1 C 2C2
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
(St Marys Cement and Westside
Creek Marsh)
b) Need more parkland and easier access to
Section 18 of the Plan sets out policies for
No change.
green space.
parks and seeks to integrate the municipal
park system with the Green Space System.
C) Prevent strip residential in agricultural areas.
Agree. Section 13.3 of the Plan restricts
No change.
the creation of residential lots in prime
agricultural areas.
d) Clean up Bowmanville Beach areas.
Community Improvement Policies are
No change.
contained in Section 22 of the Plan. Map
F indicates the Bowmanville Beach Area as
a Community Improvement Project Area.
See Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
e) Maintain high standards for row housing to
Neighbourhoods)
See Section 4.2 of Report
avoid slums.
(Residential Neighbourhoods)
Section 9.5.1 e) of the draft Plan provides
f) Require tree planting in all new subdivisions.
for the preparation of urban landscape and
No change.
streetscape plans.
10
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Ciarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W27
Continued.
g) Improve appearance of downtown
This is addressed in the Secondary Plan
No change.
Bowmanville.
for the Bowmanville Downtown and East
Main Central Area. Downtown
Bowmanville is also indicated on Map F as
Community Improvement Subarea B3.
h) Need public transit.
Section 19.8 of the draft plan provides
No change.
policies regarding public transit
W28
'Mr. Robert Morrison
Nov. 17/92
-
Designate Bowmanville Second Marsh as Recreational.
See Section 5.4 of Report (St Marys
See Section 5.4 of Report (St.
97 Cedar Crest Beach Road
(Orono
Cement and Westside Creek Marsh)
Marys Cement and Westside Creek
R.R. #2, Group 5, Box 25
Open House)
Marsh)
Bowmanville, Ontario. LlC 3K3
W29
Ms. Caroline Charman
Nov. 17/92
a) Restrict future development since services leg.
The Regional Official Plan allocates
No change.
2 Albert Street
(Orono
schools etc.) cannot keep up with the
significant population growth to Clarington,
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Open House)
population.
which must be reflected in the local Official
L1 C 1 G7
Plan. Section 5 of the Plan contains
policies to guide and manage this growth.
Staff also consults with other agencies
such as School Boards to ensure services
are provided to new residents.
b) Need more employment.
Section 7 of the Plan encourages more
No change.
non - residential growth and a diverse
economic base.
C) Need to consider impact on traffic with new
The transportation network provided in the
No change.
development Example: too much traffic on
Official Plan is intended to accommodate
Liberty Street North.
traffic generated by existing and planned
new growth. Traffic impact studies are
only required when development does not
conform to the Official Plan.
d) Develop Lakeshore into public lands for
Section 4.6.5 of the Plan provides for a
No change.
residents and tourists.
public land acquisition program for the
Waterfront
12
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W30
Mr. Dirk Woudstra Jr.
3463 Millpond Road
Nov. 17/92
(Orono
-
Requests residential designation for property in Part Lot
The subject lands are located almost
No change.
Orono, Ontario.
Open House)
29, Concession 4, Orono.
entirely within the Orono Creek valley and
L0B 1 M0
are designated 'Green Space•. A
residential designation on the lands
outside the floodplain would not provide
for growth contiguous with the rest of
Orono.
W31
Mr. Hans Knecht
5 Fourth Street
Nov. 18, 1992
(Bowmanviile
a) Need public access to Bowmanvilie Creek
valley.
Se
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
See Section 3.3 of Report (Natural
Bowmanvilie, Ontario.
Open House)
Heritage System)
Heritage System)
L1 C 2E9
b) Need public access to Bowmanville
Section 4.6 of the Plan provides for a
No change.
Waterfront.
public acquisition program for the
Waterfront and the establishment of a
continuous Waterfront Trail.
C) Need small neighbourhood parkettes for
Neighbourhood parks include passive
No change.
passive use.
components. If neighbourhood park
requirements cannot be satisfied through
neighbourhood park locations, parkettes
are provided.
The Clarington Official Plan is required to
No change.
W32
Mr. and Mrs. John Huber
2679 Holt Road
Nov. 18/92
( Bowmanville
a) Questions allowing development of good
R.R. #6
Open House
p )
agricultural land (Watson's farm and
)
establishment of greenbelt between Courtice
reflect urban boundaries established by
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1 C 3K7
and Bowmanviile. Greenbelt should be
the Regional Official Plan. Also see
Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
established between Townline and Courtice
Neighbourhoods).
Road to separate Bowmanviile from Oshawa.
b) Concerned with high density in Courtice and
One of the objectives of the draft Plan
No change.
west of Highway No. 57 due to crime rates.
(9.2. 1) is to provide a variety of densities
and housing forms. Crime rates are not
governed by density.
C) Estate subdivisions should be permitted in the
The draft Plan permits residential
No change.
greenbelt area to allow neighbourhood watch
development in Green Space by
programs to be established.
amendment
12
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
W33
Ms. Karen Allin
R.R. #4
Nov. 18/92
( Bowmanvlle Open
Allow for severing of historic homes from farms in order
to
Section 13 of the draft Plan provides for
No change.
2774 Concession 8
House)
make the countryside look better.
the severance of farm retirement lots
Bowmanville,.Ontario.
subject to criteria.
L1 C 3K5
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and
W34
Anonymous
Nov. 18/92
anville Open
Tax base should be increased through focusing growth
in
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
Hoouse
service industry (i.e. resorts, race tracks).
Balance of Growth)
and Balance of Growth)
W35
A. Thomas
45 The Cove Road
Nov. 18/92
( Bowmanville Open
Sewage Treatment Plant at Wilmot Creek will ruin fish
habitat
The new Wilmot Creek Water Pollution
No change.
Newcastle, Ontario.
House)
Control Plant is a Regional facility. It was
LIB 1A9
subject to an Environmental Assessment
and therefore is permitted in the proposed
location adjacent to the wetland.
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and
W36
Ms. June Clark
4 Wellington Street
Nov. 18192
( Bowmanville Open
a) Residential growth is too fast, need more
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
Bowmanville, Ontario.
House
commercial growth, but must protect
Balance of Growth )
and Balance of Growth)
LiC 1V1
environment
b) Need public transit and GO train.
The Transportation Policies of the draft
No change.
Plan (Section 19) encourage the
development of public transit and
designates two GO Transit Stations.
C) Need Seniors Centre.
The Plan allows for the development of
No change.
Senior Centres.
d) Protect farmland.
Protection of agricultural land addressed in
No change.
Section 13 of draft Plan.
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W36
Continued.
e) Clean up West Beach for public use in natural
Section 4.6.5 of draft plan provides for a
No change.
setting.
public land acquisition program for the
waterfront This area is also designated as
part of the Community Improvement
Subarea B6.
f) Provide drop -in centre for youth.
Drop -in centre and other community
No change.
facilities are permitted by the draft Plan.
g) Do not permit high density developments.
High Density development is permitted to
No change.
provide a range of housing opportunities.
Also see Section 4.2 of Report (Residential
Neighbourhoods).
W37
Mr. W. Bonchek
Nov. 18/92
-
a) Allow for severance of 10 acre lots.
Disagree. The draft Official Plan seeks to
No change.
4357 Green Road
(Bowmanville Open
direct rural residential development to
R.R. #1
House)
Hamlets.
Hampton, Ontario.
LOB 1J0
b) Leave open spaces in urban areas.
Section 18 of the draft Plan outlines
No change.
policies for parks while Sections 4 and 14
outline policies for protection of the natural
environment
W38
Ms. Jacqueline Vaneyk
Nov. 18/92
a) The Official Plan should address granny flats
Agree
Include policy on Granny
R.R.#2
(Bowmanville Open
and be temporary. housing.
Flats /Garden Suites.
Bowmanville, Ontario.
House)
L1C 3K3
b) Public access to the lake is an issue.
Section 4.6 of draft Plan outlines policies
No change.
for the waterfront including policies for a
public land acquisition program and
Waterfront Trail.
W39
Francis and Eria Jose
Nov. 18/92
-
a) Prohibit development east of Bondhead.
Designated Waterfront Greenway and
No change.
3600 Lakeshore Road
(Bowmanville Open
Prime Agricultural Area in draft plan.
R.R. #8
House)
Newcastle, Ontario.
b) Traffic should use Metcalf Street rather than
Road operations are beyond scope of
No change.
Lt B 11-9
Lakeshore Road.
Official Plan.
14
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
7
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W40
Mr. Tom Varley
Nov. 18/92
-
a) . New residential units should not impact tax
Section 23.10.1 indicates development
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
81 Duke Street
( Bowmanville Open
base.
shall be consistent with providing
and Balance of Growth)
Bowmanville, Ontario.
House)
municipal services in a cosF effective
L1 C 2V7
manner to minimize impact to taxpayers.
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and
Balance of Growth)
b) Upgrade ditches to storm sewers in urban
Subject to Public Works timing of
No change.
areas.
improvements.
W41
Ms. Viola Ashton
Nov. 18/92
a) Need more industry and business.
Section 5 of the Plan, (Urban Growth
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
6092 Solina Road
( Bowmanville Open
Management), encourages a ratio of 75:25
and Balance of Growth)
R.R. #1
House)
residential to non - residential assessment
Hampton, Ontario.
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and
LOB 1J0
Balance of Growth)
The Clarington Official Plan must reflect
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
b) The use of agricultural land for development
the urban boundaries established by the
and Balance of Growth)
should be halted.
Regional Plan. See Section 2.2 of Report
(Rate and Balance of Growth)
W42
Mr. Norbert Egli
Nov. 19/92
a) Include Canada Post postal code and /or P.O.
Beyond scope of Official Plan.
No change.
4384 Trulls Road
( Courtice Open
boxes in Official Plan.
Hampton, Ontario.
House)
LOB 1JO
b) Include Mitchell's Corners as part of Courtice.
Mitchell Comers is designated as a hamlet
No change.
and is outside of the Courtice urban
boundary as defined in the Regional
Official Plan.
15
Written Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
Official Plan Review
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross.
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendation
Submission
Ref.
W43
Janis Tomkinson
Nov. 19192
-
a) Need appropriate mix of commercial and
Agree. Section 9 of draft Plan, (Residential
No change.
Box 13, 1651 Nash Road
( Courtice Open
residential uses, less convenience store
Neighbourhoods) and Section 10 (Central
Courtice, Ontario.
House)
plazas.
Areas and Commercial Uses) provides
LIE 1S8
policies for mixed use developments.
b) Preserve existing buildings and encourage
The Plan does not prevent the reuse of
No change,
new industry into vacant buildings.
existing vacant buildings for permitted
uses. Section 8 (Heritage Conservation)
promotes the preservation and protection
of heritage structures.
C) Expand services to accommodate proposed
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate and
See Section 2.2 of Report (Rate
residential growth (i.e. fire, police, hospital,
Balance of Growth)
and Balance of Growth)
recreational opportunities)
W44
Mr. Hugh A. Neill
Jan. 1993
W90
a) Upset Prestonvale Road has been widened to
Prestonvale Road has been reconstructed
No change.
2111 Prestonvale Road
V43
10.0m and is designated a collector road.
to a 10.Om wide pavement width from
Courtice, Ontario.
Highway 2 southerly to Gienabbey Drive
LIE 2S2
as a result of traffic counts and levels of
'service being provided.
b) Concerned that resident's comments and input.
Residents comments are reviewed and
No change.
on road concerns are not being seriously
many suggestions are implemented in
reviewed.
various parts or in whole. However, it is
not always practical to incorporate all
suggested revisions.
C) Preservation of farmland with defined
Map A of the draft Plan provides distinctive
No change.
boundaries is important.
boundaries for the urban areas and the
rural areas. The policies of Section 13
(Agricultural) are restrictive as to what type
of development may take place in the rural
areas.
16
II
Wr
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross.
Ref.
W44
Continued.
The Plan seeks to establish a
Under review.
system and not be dependent on using
W45
Mr. Dick Carlson
Feb. 1993
proposed growth. This includes re
1910 - Cobbledick Road
designating some roads to a higher level.
Newcastle, Ontario.
Network for Courtice).
LIB 1 L9
1) Limit on- street parking in new subdivisions
Except for the Central Areas, on- street
No change.
W46
Ms. Barb Shetler
Feb. 12/93
appealing streets.
Plan.
4404 Highway No. 2
a) Opposed to Wilmot Creek Retirement
Community designated as'Uving Area' by
No change.
Newtonvilie, Ontario.
Durham Region Official Plan.
b) Opposed to development in area of
LOA 1J0
No change.
Cobbledick Road.
tten Submissions Related to the Municipality of Clarington
official Plan Review
Summary of Submission Staff Comments Recommendation
b Clarit
n on and The Durham Region Official Plan is No change.
i) Maintain a buffer etween g
Oshawa.
premised on Oshawa - Whitby- Courtice
being the central anchor of the Region.
a) Require new development to provide road
The Plan seeks to establish a
Under review.
system and not be dependent on using
transportation system to accommodate
existing roads.
proposed growth. This includes re
designating some roads to a higher level.
See Section 7.3 of Report (Transportation
Network for Courtice).
1) Limit on- street parking in new subdivisions
Except for the Central Areas, on- street
No change.
and require longer driveways for safer, more
parking is beyond the scope of the Official
appealing streets.
Plan.
a) Opposed to Wilmot Creek Retirement
Community designated as'Uving Area' by
No change.
Community.
Durham Region Official Plan.
b) Opposed to development in area of
Special Study Area 1 (Lovekin's area) does.
No change.
Cobbledick Road.
not permit development unless a study is
undertaken.
C) Frequent amendments to comprehensive
Agree. Section 23.2.6 of draft Plan
No change.
plans undermines basic goals.
indicates that private amendments to the
Official Plan are discouraged.
a) Newcastle Village should be developed as a
Newcastle Village cannot be exclusively
No change.
as Retirement Community with uses geared to.
developed as a retirement community. A
seniors.
mix of housing types are required under
provincial policy.
b) Make government more accessible to average
This is not an Official Plan issue.
No change.
person.
17
PHASE 1 - BACKGROUND PAPERS
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Submission
Cross
Ref. #
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendations
V4.
Mrs. Ruth Hinkley
Government Liaison.
September 16, 1991
(Council)
W4
W144
a) Supports comprehensive review of Official
Acknowledged
No change
1 Wheelhouse Drive, Unit 5
V12
Plan,
_
Newcastle, Ontario
LIB IQ9
b) New Official Plan should reflect diversity in
Reflected in Draft Official Plan.
No change
Municipality.
for WILMOT CREEK
HOMEOWNERS ASSOC.
c) Interested in designations of policies for rural
Wilmot Creek Retirement Community Is
No change
areas including Wilmot Creek
designated "Urban Living'Aree by Regional Plan
which must be reflected in local Official Plan.
d) Interested in commercial development,
Acknowledged
No change
growth pressures, transportation, changing
age structure of population, and Provincial
Policy Initiatives.
V5.
Mr. Ralph Bouwmeester
30 Wertheim Court
September 16, 1991
(Council)
W5
Agrees with need of Official Plan review but does not
See response to Submission V 3
No change.
agree with need to haft development applications in
(Commerce Gardens)
expansion areas.
Suite 9
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4B 1B9
for FAIRO DEVELOPMENT
MANAGEMENT CORP.
V6.
Mr. Marro Veftri
68 King Street East
September 16, 1991
(Council)
V19
Part of Northbrook Developers Group. Disagrees with
halting
See Response to Submission V3
No change
development applications in expansions areas.
Bowmanville, Ontario
L IC 3X2
for VELTRI & SONS
CORPORATION
2
PHASE i - BACKGROUND PAPERS
SUMMARY OF VERBAL SUBMISSIONS MADE AT MEETINGS
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
No.
Submitter
Date of
Cross
Summary of Submission
Staff Comments
Recommendations
Submission
Ref. #
V7.
Bill Manson
September 16, 1991
W118
Council should consider engaging one or two staff
See Response to Submission V3
No change
650 King Street East
(Counciq
W134
members or a consultant to deal with applications in
Suite 215
W183
the expansion areas. Believes development industry
Oshawa, Ontario
W189
would be pleased to help cover costs for this
UH IGS
V44
arrangement
for TONNO CONSTRUC11ON
V53
LTD.
Va.
Mr. AI Strike
September 16, 1991
-
a) - The Official Plan should review the balance
Addressed in Section 7 of the Plan (Economic
No change
Strike Salmers & Furlong
(Council)
of industrial /commercial assessment
Development) and Section 5 (Urban Growth
38 King Street West
Management).
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1C 1R2
b) Fiscal responsibility should be addressed (ie.
Addressed in Section 5 of the draft Plan (Urban
No change
how much will the capital works cost).
Gworth Management)
V9.
Scott Kapuscinski
September 16, 1991
W142
The two developers in north -east Bowmanville
See response to Submission V3
No change
G. M. Sernas & Associates
(Councio
V13
expansion area should be considered in the context
110 Scotia Court, Unit 41
V16
of a neighbourhood plan prepared for this area.
Whitby, Ontario
LIN 8Y7
for CREDIT POINT
DEVELOPMENTS INC. &
ANGLO YORK INDUSTRIES
LTD.
Vi 0.
Kevin Tunney
January 6, 1992
W2
He requested that Report PD -13-92 be tabled for two
See response to Submission V2
No change.
Tunney Planning Inc.
(Council)
W104
weeks to allow the applicant to provide the necessary
Suite 200
V2
documentation to address the concerns of the
340 Byron Street South
V14
Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Town of
Whitby, Ontario
Newcastle.
Li N 4P8
for ST LP HOMES
(NEWCASTLE) DEVELOPERS
INC.