The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPSD-062-13 Addendum UNFINISHED BUSINESS CI REPORT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: February 3, 2014 Resolution#: (569 , 656-1 ` By-law#: C261-'l-m( Addendum to Report#: PSD-062-13 File#: COPA 2012-0003 and ZBA 2012-0007 Subject: APPLICATIONS FOR AN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 155 SUITE, 5 STOREY RETIREMENT RESIDENCE AND A 104 UNIT, 9 STOREY SENIORS APARTMENT APPLICANT: THE FORREST GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-062-13 and Addendum to Report PSD-062-13 be received; 2. THAT 105 Queen Street be designated a 'Class 4 area' in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment's "Environmental Noise Guideline - Stationary and Transportation Sources -Approval and Planning (Publication NPC-300)"; 3. THAT the application to amend the Clarington Official Plan as revised, submitted by the Forrest Group be approved and that Official Plan Amendment No. 95 in Attachment 1 be adopted, and the related By-law in Attachment 2, be passed; 4. THAT the Zoning By-law Amendment application as revised, submitted by the Forrest Group be approved subject to provisions for the removal of the Holding (H) prefix, as contained in Attachment 3; 5. THAT once all conditions contained in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, a By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be forwarded to Council for approval; 6. THAT Council deem the revisions to the applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to be minor and not require additional public meeting; 7. THAT the Durham Regional Planning Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Addendum Report PSD-062-13, Report PSD-062- 13 and Council's decision; and CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 2 8. THAT all interested parties listed in Addendum Report PSD-062-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by: David J. Vrome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer TW/CP/sn/df 28 January 2014 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 3 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Staff submitted a recommendation report PSD-062-13 (Attachment 4) to the General Purpose and Administration Committee on October 28, 2013. The report recommended the approval of Phase 1 of the project only. It recommended that Phase 2 should be considered after the Ministry of Environment has granted Environmental Compliance Approval to abatement works at the Veyance Plant and future studies on noise, odour, and dust are undertaken and that any non-trivial impacts are integrated at the source. 1.2 Chris Bobyk, agent for the Forrest Group, requested the General Purpose and Administration Committee defer making a decision on the proposed application until November 25, 2013. The extended deadline was requested to provide time for discussions with staff for consideration of approvals for both Phase I and 2. 1.3 After the October 28, 2013 General Purpose and Administrative Committee meeting, Staff and the applicant learned that the Ministry of the Environment had replaced four existing noise-related guidelines with "Environmental Noise Guideline — Stationary and Transportation Sources —Approval and Planning (Publication NPC-300)" on October 21, 2013. Staff and the applicant agreed that additional time would be needed to review the new guideline and determine if it could be utilized in the assessment of the proposal. Staff attended a training session on the new guidelines following which it was agreed with the applicant, that an updated Noise Study would be appropriate to address the NPC-300 Guidelines. To provide time for its completion, the applicant requested the addendum report be scheduled for February 3, 2014. The updated Noise Report was received on January 14, 2014. 1.4 To address staff concerns with potential dust and odour emissions, SENES Consultants, on behalf of the applicant submitted a memo on December 12, 2013. The applicant also submitted a revised concept plan which provides a greater separation distance between the Phase 2 building and Veyance Technologies than what was previously proposed. The revised concept and additional emission details were provided to RWDI for peer review. Their comments were received on January 9,2014. 2. DISCUSSION 2.1 The applicant submitted a revised concept plan which provides an increase in the separation distance between Phase 2 and Veyance Technologies. Previously Phase 2 was set back approximately 32 metres from the closest point at Veyance Technologies, now there is a 50 metre separation distance. The Ministry of the Environment D-6 Guideline "Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses" recommends a minimum separation distance of 70 metres, which can be reduced provided there are mitigation measures that can be established based on an evaluation of the industrial processes and the potential for offsite impacts on the proposed land use. 2.2 In order to achieve the increased separation distance between Phase 2 and Veyance Technologies, while maintaining 104 units, the applicant increased the height of Phase ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 4 2 from 7 to 9 storeys. Due to the increase in height, staff requested an updated shadow study. The shadow from the revised Phase 2 will extend further west into the valleylands, in the morning during the spring and fall equinox. In the early evening, there will be shadows cast in the rear yard of the properties on the south side of Queen Street between Queen Avenue and the entrance of Veyance Technologies. Properties within proximity of the proposal will continue to have sun exposure for the majority of a typical day during the spring, summer and fall. 2.3 Staff provided notice on January 15, 2014 to the interested parties that a recommendation report would be considered by General Purpose and Administration Committee on February 3, 2014. In addition, a second notice was provided on January 28, 2014 advising all interested parties that the application had been revised from 7 to 9 storeys for the Phase 2 building. Figure 1: Revised Concept Plan o? 1 g I � n. •, v o�oG P' Bag House 1 &2 Balson Residence nl ,. a"-5,( r /TPC��ydnce i7, i C0011 ayi�9is ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 5 2.4 Mr. Balson, the owner of the residential property to the south, contracted staff to advise that his initial concerns with the drainage and the projected height of Phase 2 have been addressed by the applicant. He noted that the development will benefit Bowmanville's historical downtown. To maintain appropriate setbacks between the residential properties to the south and west, minimum setbacks based on the proposed concept plan have been added to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment contained in Attachment 3. 2.5 The Ministry of Environment replaced the following noise-related guidelines with "Environmental Noise Guideline — Stationary and Transportation Sources —Approval and Planning (Publication NPC-300)": • "Publication LU-131 — Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning" October 1997; • "Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning: Requirements, Procedures and Implementation" October 1997; • "Publication NPC-205— Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 1 and 2 Areas (Urban)" October 1995; and • "Publication NPC-232 — Sound Level Limits for Stationary Sources in Class 3 Areas (Rural)" October 1995. The primary motivation for the creation of Guideline NPC-300 was to eliminate conflicts between LU-131 and NPC-205/232. LU-131 allowed municipalities to approve sound- sensitive land uses, such as a residential proposal with an exceedance of 5dBA over applicable limits for existing stationary sources, such as an industrial facility. NPC- 205/232 did not provide for a similar exceedance which could force an existing stationary source (industrial use) out of compliance with its Certificate of Approval after a residential development is built nearby. There is also a discrepancy with the evening sound level limit for stationary sources impacting a point of reception in a Class 1 environment. The limit in NPC-205 is 47 dBA, whereas in LU-131 the limit is 50 dBA. In resolving this discrepancy, NPC-300 adopts the 50 dBA. Guideline NPC-300 introduces a new category of acoustic environment "Class 4". It has been introduced for land areas geared for redevelopment and infilling in proximity to existing industries. The Class 4 designation is not available to existing residential uses in proximity of an industrial use. Prior to introducing a new land use, a Municipality has the ability to grant an area Class 4 status. If noise mitigation is required, the new "Class 4" acoustic environment provides developers with the opportunity to incorporate mitigation within their buildings instead of relying solely on at source mitigation within the existing industry. The applicant has requested that the subject lands be granted "Class 4" designation. Staff discussed this request with staff at Veyance Technologies and was advised that the industry would have no objections to this approach. Veyance staff indicated that the NPC-300 Noise Guidelines were released after their Environmental Compliance Approval application submission to the Ministry of the Environment. However, they advised that they have subsequently requested Ministry of Environment to consider the new guidelines during the review of their Environmental Compliance Approval ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 6 application. As the creation of the new "Class 4" acoustic environment was intended to address infill scenarios similar to the subject application, it is appropriate to grant the subject property "Class 4" designation. 2.6 The updated Noise Study prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd., dated January 10, 2014, was submitted to address: • noise mitigation measures implemented by Veyance Technologies since the preparation of the original report and subsequent addendum; • the revised concept plan with an increased setback for Phase 2; and • the new Ministry of the Environment Noise Guidelines (NPC-300). The updated Noise Study discusses results for both the previous and new Ministry of Environment Noise guidelines as it was assumed that the Environmental Compliance Approval application submitted by Veyance Technologies may be based on the previous guidelines. As noted above, Veyance Technologies staff advised that they have requested that their Environmental Compliance Approval application be assessed based on the new NPC-300 Guideline. Based on a "Class 4" acoustic environment under the NPC-300 guidelines the sound levels for the proposal would comply with the exception of a 2dBA excess for portions of the Phase 2 fagade for non-impulse sources of noise. The Noise Study suggests that Veyance Technologies, through their Environmental Compliance Approval application will be required to implement further noise mitigation to achieve compliance with the Class 1 sound level for the existing residents. Once the noise levels are mitigated for existing residences, the 2 dBA excess for portions of the Phase 2 fagade would also be mitigated based on "Class 4" sound levels. Noise mitigation recommendations with regards to Transportation Noise remains unchanged from the previous study. 2.7 On December 12, 2013, a memo was submitted by SENES Consultants to address the concerns regarding potential dust emissions identified in the October 28, 2013 Planning Services recommendation report. The applicant is concerned with the recommendation, in the original PSD-062-13 report, that the Holding symbol not be removed for Phase I until Veyance Technologies received Environmental Compliance Approval by the Ministry of the Environment. SENES points out that Environmental Compliance Approval review and approval times remain within the 12-18 month timeframe with some extending beyond that. As Environmental Compliance Approval is outside of the control of the applicant, SENES conducted a desktop exercise to calculate particulate emissions. Based on their analysis and assumptions, SENES concluded that the Veyance facility is very likely in compliance with the Ministry of Environment Point of Impingement standard for Total Suspended Particulate Matter at the property line. Staff had pointed out that the previous peer review report dated September 16, 2013 noted that the current standard for carbon black is 25 pg/m3 compared with the 100 pg/m3 used for the calculation of Total Suspended Particulate matter. SENES responded that the total emissions would not be comprised entirely of carbon black ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 7 since the facility uses a number of other formulation components. SENES advised they assumed that if 50% of the emissions were comprised of carbon black, the concentration would be 23 pg/m3, which would comply with the current standard. The correspondence provided by SENES was sent for peer review by RWDI. The response from RWDI indicated that there were a number of assumptions made by SENES in order to calculate emissions from Veyance Technologies. RWDI had no significant concerns with SENES calculation that Total Suspended Particulate Matter would be within 57% of Schedule 2 standard Ontario Regulation 419/05. In regards to carbon black, SENES calculated the impacts to be within 92% of the Schedule 2 standard (Ontario Regulation 419/05). RWDI has concerns with this conclusion, particularly with the fact that the estimated impacts are above 90% of the standard. If any assumptions were underestimated there is a potential for the facility to be determined to be out of compliance with the standard. RWDI indicated that there are possible additional sources of information to confirm the assumptions made by SENES. Unfortunately, the additional sources of information requires cooperation from Veyance with respect to a number of their operative practices. During a meeting with Planning Services staff, Veyance Technologies staff advised that although they were not in a position to share the reports submitted in support of their Environmental Compliance Approval because Ministry of Environment has not reviewed and approved them, their consultants believe they comply with provincial requirements regarding air emissions. As noted above, the timing of an Environmental Compliance Approval for Veyance Technologies is an unknown, however, staff agree with the RWDI conclusions that prior to the development of a sensitive use commencing in proximity to Veyance, the emission levels need to be determined more definitively than the assumptions made by SENES. Although Phase 1 is beyond the 70 metre recommended minimum separation distance, it is well within the 300 metre potential influence area in the D-6 Guideline. It is recommended that the application be approved, as revised with a Holding (H) symbol on both the first and second phase. For development of Phase 1, one of the conditions for lifting of the Holding symbol shall be the completion of an odour and dust study that demonstrates Veyance Technologies complies with Ontario Regulation 419/05 or Veyance Technologies to receive their Environmental Compliance Approval from the Ministry of Environment. Lifting of the Holding symbol for Phase 2 will include the requirement for a noise study to show compliance with the NPC-300 Guideline. 2.8 Taxes payable to the Municipality of Clarington are up to date for the subject property. 3. CONCURRENCE — Not Applicable 4. CONCLUSION 4.1 The revisions to the site plan to increase the Phase 2 building setback to a minimum of 50 metres from the Veyance building and the updated noise and dust studies provide ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 8 staff with greater confidence that these issues can be resolved as this project moves forward, into detailed design, with each phase. In order to achieve this, it is recommended that Council declare the subject lands as a "Class 4" acoustical environment recognizing that this permits increased noise levels impacts from adjacent industrial operations for this project. 4.2 In consideration of the findings of all supporting studies, comments received from circulated agencies and area residents, and based on review of the proposal, staff recommends that the proposed Clarington Official Plan Amendment as shown on Attachment 1, and Zoning By- law as shown on Attachment 3 be approved. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development X Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Tracey Webster, Senior Planner Attachments: Attachment 1 - Proposed Official Plan Amendment Attachment 2 - Clarington Official Plan Amendment Adopting By- law Attachment 3 - Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Attachment 4 - PSD-062-13 List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Chris Bobyk Roy Moore George Vella Stephen F. Shine Kerri-Allen Walcer Debbie Alldread Ben Arends Mac Rutherford Ben Edery Sharon Moore Greg Balson Marie Cervenka Mike and Kathy Fagan Debbie Alread Diane McArthur Libby Racansky Simone Borlase Glenn German Gary and Doreen Carpenter Ian McPhee Christine Patel ATTACHMENT 1 TO ADDENDUM REPORT PSD-062-13 AMENDMENT NO. 95 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: To amend the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan by replacing the "Community Facility" designation with "High Density Residential" and "Environmental Protection Area" designations on the subject property located on the south-west corner of Queen Street and Queen Avenue; and to add a special policy to the "High Density Residential' designation in the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan, BASIS: This amendment is based on an application by the Forrest Group. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. By amending Map A "Land Use Downtown: Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan" as shown on Exhibit "A" to this Amendment; 2. By adding a new Sub-Section 8.5.4 to the High Density Residential Area policies of the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan as follows: "Notwithstanding Sections 8.5.1 and 8.5.2, for the lands municipally addressed as 105 Queen Street, the following shall apply: a) Buildings fronting on Queen Street shall have a maximum height of 5 storeys; b) Buildings further than 80 metres from the Queen Street frontage shall have a maximum height of 9 storeys; and c) A maximum density of 186 units per net residential hectare." IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Exhibit "A", Amendment No. 95 To The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, Map A Land Use, Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan LI W H180N 133aS .UN3811 W a z LU M (v W Y = C O J N En a off $ 1332115 3NIN30 4 y\� 0 a, z 0 pOO Q �� !S ` O $ 3nN3AV H0338 G u. ~ . CD W tad 0°0 Vt o'00 .�'• 000000 p } �'s.'0,° 1J o°o°o°o°o°o°o°O 4, 5 G o0 0 oop o � Q Q Y �)d� ♦ ° �!� °14, c, Q �oQ- ♦. ;�!S ° � o°°0°0 O:°�t E•j#II'I� I;b C>o o o° O z F LL o00o oo z °o 0 O Z 0' W a.. ♦.;Eiil: llE:'o0 000001 iII,II� 00000 00000 !V �� 00 iEii 3E'•l E,: �i •'i• 00000 000000 00 •� i '.�,, ' 0 ,�Q- 00000 lil'c'0p 000000 �i 000000 •' 00000 0000000 •:. ♦.i i i i;:1E' 00000 0000000 00000 �� 0000000 0°0°0°0°°°0 ,00000 00000° 00 \� 0000 00000 000 0 0 0 00000 13381S 000f10S 00 00000000 000° C) 000000000000 O ■ `J �Q a 000000 00400 E O W W W ■ S im— �W-2 8 ♦ 1N0 •3AV 3�0D OE a to U X g ERM 00 �1= 3nN3AV 3N1US °0000 VA 3nN3AV 3lllll 3z0 Q E W z N Oa 0 0 p ' to Zo NOH21 � E ATTACHMENT 2 TO ADDENDUM REPORT PSD-062-13 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO.2014- being a By-law to adopt Amendment No. 95 to the Clarington Official Plan WHEREAS Section 17 (22) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, authorizes the Municipality of Clarington to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and Amendments thereto; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend the Clarington Official Plan to permit the development of a 155 suite, 5 storey retirement residence;and a 104 unit,9 storey seniors apartment building; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment No. 95 to the Clarington Official Plan being the attached Explanatory Text is hereby adopted. 2. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of the passing hereof. BY-LAW passed in open session this 10th day of February,2014. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk t ATTACHMENT TO ADDENDUM REPORT PSD-062-13 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2014- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63,the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2012-0007; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT,the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 15.4 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS—URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE FOUR(R4)ZONE"is hereby amended by adding a new Sub-section 15.4.35 as follows: "15.4.35 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R4-35)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 3.10, 3.13 c., 3.16 e.,15.1 a.,15.2 a., 15.2 c., d. i), g., h. and i. those lands zoned R4-35 on the Schedules to this By-law shall be used subject to the following zone regulations: a. Definitions I) Long Term Care Facility: Shall mean a facility regulated through the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, or any successor, that provides accommodation for people requiring a broad range of 24 hour health care, personal care and support care within a supervised and secured setting and where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided and common lounges, recreation rooms, medical care facilities and personal services, may also be provided. ii) Retirement Home: Shall mean a residential building premise that provides accommodation in suites primarily for retired persons or couples. Such suites shall not have a stove or range and have separate entrances from a common hall but where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided, and where common lounges, recreation rooms and medical care facilities may also be provided. iii) Underground Parking Structure: Shall mean a part of a building which is provided and maintained for the purpose of parking vehicles related to the permitted use of the building, which is generally located below finished grade and may include parking spaces, parking aisles and access ramps. b. Permitted Uses i) Apartment Building ii) Retirement Home iii) Long Term Care Facility c. Regulations i) Density(maximum) 193 units/suites per net ha ii) Yard Requirements a) Front Yard 3.5 metres minimum 6.5 metres maximum b) Interior Side Yard 10 metre minimum c) Exterior Side Yard (within 30 metres or less of the front lot line) 5 metre minimum 7 metre maximum d) Exterior Side Yard (greater than 30 metres of the front lot line) 45 metres minimum e) Setback to R4-36 zone 0 metres f) Underground Parking Space Structure 1.0 metre to any property line or 3.0 metres to any EP zone boundary iii) Building Height(maximum) 5 storeys iv) An operating pedestrian entrance to the building will be located in the north facing building fagade on Queen Street. v) No outdoor amenity area shall be permitted in the required rear or exterior side yard. vi) Dwelling Unit Area (minimum) a) Bachelor Dwelling Unit 33 square metres vii) parking for uses permitted in the R4-35 zone may be provided on lands zoned R4- 36. viii) One loading space shall be provided with a minimum size of 11 metres by 4 metres ix) Any communication equipment other than an antenna must be contained within the building or mechanical penthouse. d. The Holding symbol shall only be removed from the Urban Residential Exception (R4-35) Zone when the following provisions are met: I) A clearance letter has been received to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham from the Ministry of the Environment for Record of Site Condition for a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment; ii) A site plan agreement is executed with the Municipality; and iii) Odour and Dust assessment is completed in accordance with Ontario Regulation 419/05 to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington and Region of Durham or an Environmental Compliance Approval is issued to Veyance Technologies by the Ministry of the Environment. 2. Section 15.4 SPECIAL EXCPEPTIONS—URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE FOUR(R4)ZONE"is herby amended.by adding a new Sub-section 15.4.36 as follows: "15.4.35 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R4-36)ZONE Notwithstanding Sections 3.10, 3.13 c., 3.16 e.,15.1 a.,15.2 a., c. i), iii),and iv), d. i), g., h. and I., those lands zoned R4-36 on the Schedules to this By-law shall be used for subject to the following zone regulations: a. Definitions I) The definitions of Long Term Care Facility, Retirement.Home and Underground Parking Structure in the Urban Residential Exception (R4-35)Zone apply. b. Permitted Uses i) Apartment Building ii) Retirement Home iii) Long Term Care Facility c. Regulations i) Density(maximum) 185 units/suites per net ha ii) Yard Setbacks (minimum) a) East Lot Line 29 metres b) South lot line 31 metres c) To R4-35 zone 0 metres iii) Dwelling Unit Area(minimum) a) Bachelor Dwelling Unit 33 square metres iv) Building Height(maximum) 1 9 storeys v) Underground Parking Structure 1.0 metre to any property line or 3.0 metres to any EP zone boundary vi) Parking for uses permitted in the R4-36 zone may be provided on lands zoned R4-35 vii) No outdoor amenity area shall be permitted within 30 metres of the east lot line viii) Loading spaces Nil ix) Any communication equipment other than an antenna must be contained within the building or mechanical penthouse. d. The Holding symbol shall only be removed from the Urban Residential Exception (R4-36) Zone when the following provisions are met: i) A clearance letter has been received to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham from the Ministry of the Environment for Record of Site Condition for a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment; ii) A site plan agreement is executed with the Municipality; iii) Noise mitigation as required to meet applicable Ministry of the Environment Guidelines has been implemented to the satisfaction of the Region of-Durham and/or confirmation of a Legal Agreement between the Owner and Veyance Technologies guaranteeing mitigation measures will be implemented prior to the occupancy of Phase 2 as required to meet applicable Ministry of the Environment Guidelines; and iv) Odour and Dust assessment is completed in accordance with Ontario Regulation 419/05 to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington and Region of Durham or an Environmental Compliance Approval is issued to Veyance Technologies by the Ministry of the Environment. 3. Schedule "3" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: "Urban Residential Type One (R1)Zone"to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R4- 35)'; "Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone"to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R4- 36)'; and "Urban Residential Type One (R1)Zone"to"Environmental Protection (EP)Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule"A" hereto. 4. Schedule"A"attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. BY-LAW passed in open session this 10th day of February 2014. This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2014- , passed this day of , 2014 A.D. FFT o\� ^mow 1. r♦�y ^Yvw N�w„tiy�y1,y^ • N Zoning Change From TV To"(H)R4-35" ®Zoning Change From TV To"(H)R4-36" Zoning Change From"R1"To"EP" Adrian Foster,Mayor Pattl L.Barrie,Municipal Clerk c 4ROH 9� s�e 3 N R�N`�GRNO y4 S�Fl �sr o � TREWPl UNE � � �u c}'P p� 'CGS SFr BOWMANVILLE o za 2012-0007 ° a SCHEDULE 3 e4 ATTACHMENT 4 TO ADDENDUM REPORT PSD-062-13 Ciffft Wil REPORT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: October 28, 2013 Resolution#: By-law#: Report#: PSD-062-13 File#: COPA 2012-0003 and ZBA 2012-0007 Subject: APPLICATIONS FOR AN OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 155 SUITE, 5 STOREY RETIREMENT RESIDENCE AND A 104 UNIT, 7 STOREY SENIORS APARTMENT APPLICANT: THE FORREST GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-062-13 be received; 2. THAT the application to amend the Clarington Official Plan submitted by the Forrest Group be approved in part to allow Phase 1 (155 Suite Retirement Residence) to proceed, that Official Plan Amendment No. 95 (Attachment 1) be adopted, and the related By-law in Attachment 2, be passed; 3. THAT the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by the Forrest Group be approved in part, to allow Phase 1 (155 Suite Retirement Residence) to proceed subject to provisions for the removal of the Holding (H) prefix, as contained in Attachment 3; 4. THAT once all conditions contained in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law (Attachment 3) with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be forwarded to Council for approval; 5. THAT the consideration of the Phase 2 portion of the application be deferred as recommended in Section 11.6 of Report PSD-062-13; 6. THAT the Durham Regional Planning Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-062-13 and Council' s decision; and 7. THAT all interested parties listed in Report PSD-062-13 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Submitted by: Reviewed by-1/1" David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP 1-Ftanklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer TW/CP/df/nl/sn 23 October 2013 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1 C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 2 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: Forrest Group 1.2 Owner: 2278196 Ontario Inc. 1.3 Proposal: Clarington Official Plan Amendment • Amend Map H2 by changing the population of the East Town Centre Neighbourhood from 3100 to 3575. • Amend Table 9-2 by revising the housing target of the East Town Centre Neighbourhood as follows: i. Increasing the high density units from 225 to 475; and ii. Amend all corresponding totals. • Amend Map "A" Land Use Downtown "Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan" by deleting the "Community Facility' designation and replacing it with a "High Density Residential" designation at the southwest corner of Queen Street and Queen Avenue. • Adding a new sub-section to the High Density Residential policies of the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan that would permit a maximum height of seven storeys and a maximum density of 185 units per net residential hectare, specific to 105 Queen Street. Zoning By-law Amendment • Appropriate zones to permit the development of a 155 suite, five storey retirement residence and a 104 unit, seven storey seniors apartment building. 1.4 Area: 2.02 ha 1.5 Location: The subject lands are located at 105 Queen Street in Bowmanville. It is located on the southwest corner of Queen Street and Queen Avenue. The site is the former Bowmanville Senior Public School site which was closed in 2007. — — — n Figure 1: Former Bowmanville Senior Public School PAGE 3 REPORT NO.: PSD.062A3 2 BACKGROUND submitted applications to amend 55 official Plan 2 1 On April 2, 2012, the Forrest Group apartment building. The _law 84-63 to permit the deve. sen seniors apart storey nin with the and Zoning BY 104 u phases, beginning. retirement home and a seven storey, the site in two p approximately applicant has advised they intend to deartm nt building would follow in app Retirement Residence. The seniors apartment five years. GeP"Seat \ �o \ Ss%f laey e N ,\ r a \ / 1 Gry6 0 qFc�Rdr h `R�j.. JJ a fgep 9R�y`l`rTS@ 7 ' C er sRO�tT@S(6 I 0 �4. 4, 4 4iq ^may Lim qAd !Oq�Slo�yRla /Go��/p Ps dr1 �f r Figure 2: Proposed Concept Plan REPORT NO:: PSD-062-13 PAGE 4 2.2 The applications were deemed incomplete at that time of submission because a Land Use Compatibility Assessment had not been submitted and the Noise Attenuation Report was not complete. Digital copies of all submissions, and minor edits to the proposed Official Plan Amendment were also required. The applicant subsequently proposed changes to their proposal in regards to directing stormwater from the site to Bowmanville Creek. This change required the submission of an Environmental Impact Study and Functional Servicing Report to complete the application. All outstanding items were received on December 20, 2012 and the applications were deemed complete on January 9, 2013. The studies submitted in support of the application are summarized in Section 7 of this report. 3. LAND CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 The subject site is located within the Bowmanville East Town Centre, on the southwest corner of Queen Street and Queen Avenue, at the southern terminus of Division Street. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Commercial South - A single detached dwelling, Bowmanville Creek and associated valleylands East - Residential and Industrial (Veyance Technologies, formerly Goodyear) West - Residential and Parkland (Rotary Park) Q `q1 P• Wl Y J 4 P S ZBA 2012-00071 COPA 2012-0003 Figure 3: Site Location REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 5 4. PROVINCIAL POLICY 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement 4.1.1 The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy liveable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment, recreational and open space uses to meet long term needs. 4.1.2 Settlement areas are the focus of growth, intensification and redevelopment. Appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety. 4.1.3 The Housing Policies state that Planning authorities are required to provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities required to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. All forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements, including special needs requirements are to be permitted and facilitated. 4.1.4 The use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized wherever feasible. 4.1.5 Natural heritage features and areas are to be protected for the long term. Development and site alteration shall not be permitted within or adjacent to significant woodlands and valleylands unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Development and site alteration in a fish habitat is not permitted except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. 4.1.6 Planning authorities can implement necessary restrictions on development and site alteration to protect, improve or restore vulnerable surface and ground water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive groundwater features and their hydrologic functions. Stormwater management practices which minimize stormwater volumes and contaminant loads, and maintain or increase the extent of vegetative and pervious surfaces are encouraged. 4.1.7 Development shall generally be directed to areas outside of hazardous lands adjacent to rivers which are impacted by flooding and/or erosion hazards. 4.1.8 The applications are consistent with the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement as the proposal provides for residential intensification within the settlement area. The redevelopment of the former school site to accommodate housing for seniors which will meet current and future need of Clarington residents. The development will make use of existing sanitary and water services and is in close proximity to public services such as transit, libraries and other community services. Development will occur outside of the hazard and natural heritage features associated with the Bowmanville Creek. Appropriate measures are included in the proposed Zoning By-law (Attachment 3) to allow the residential use to mix well with the adjacent industrial use, once the appropriate mitigation measures are in place REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 6 4.2 Provincial Growth Plan 4.2.1 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas. Increasing intensification of the existing built- up area, with a focus on greyfields is encouraged. Concentrating new development in these areas provides a focus for transit and infrastructure investments to support future growth. 4.2.2 Towns are encouraged to develop as complete communities with a diverse mix of land uses, a range and mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services. 4.2.3 This proposal provides for a mix of land uses within the Built-up Area, therefore, the applications meet the objectives of the Provincial Growth Plan. 5. OFFICIAL PLANS 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The subject lands are within the Regional Centre designation of the Durham Regional Official Plan. Regional Centres are intended to be planned and developed as the main concentrations of urban activities, providing a fully integrated array of institutional, commercial, major retail, residential, recreational, cultural, entertainment and major office uses. Generally, Regional Centres shall function as places of symbolic and physical interest for the residents, and shall provide identity to the area municipalities within which they are located. An overall, long-term density target of at least 75 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.5 shall be supported. The built form should be an appropriate mix of high-rise and mid-rise development. It should be noted that the floor space index requirement is for the entire Regional Centre, not a site specific requirement. The proposed uses conform to the Regional Official Plan policies. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands as Town Centre. Within the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan the subject lands are designated Community Facility and Environmental Protection Area. The Community Facility designation recognized the Bowmanville Senior Public School. Town Centres are to be developed as the main concentration of urban activity in the community, providing a fully integrated array of retail and personal service, office, residential, cultural, community, recreational and institutional uses. It will function as the focal point of culture, art, entertainment and civic gathering, be places of symbolic and physical interest for residents, and foster a sense of local identity. REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 7 A goal of the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan is to provide for ongoing redevelopment in the Downtown with emphasis on increased densities, heritage preservation and quality urban design. The maximum height is six storeys and the floor space index shall not exceed 1.5. Urban design policies for Town Centres require buildings sited near the street with direct access to the public sidewalk. Buildings are to be designed to: • recognize the historic context of the neighbourhood; • provide main entrances that are visible and directly accessible to the public sidewalk of the main street; • enhance the built environment with attention to massing, building articulation; architectural detail, the use of local materials and styles; • provide transitions to lower density; • provide for adequate light and privacy for existing and proposed developments; and • minimize shadow and wind impacts. Environmental Protection Areas are recognized as the most significant components of the Municipality's natural environment. As such, these areas and their ecological functions are to be preserved and protected from the effects of human activity. The precise limits of these areas are to be determined in consultation with the Conservation Authority. The property is adjacent the Bowmanville Creek and contains significant valleylands and woodlands. An Environmental Impact Study is to be undertaken for development applications in accordance with the Natural Environment and Resource Management policies of the Official Plan. Queen Street is identified as a Collector Road which is designed to move moderate volumes of traffic over short distances within a particular area of the Municipality. The primary function is to collect and distribute traffic among local roads, collector roads, arterial roads and major traffic generators. The proposal generally conforms to the Clarington Official Plan with the exception of those items which are the subject of the Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 1). 6. ZONING BY-LAW 6.1 Within the Comprehensive Zoning By- law 84-63, as amended, the lands are zoned "Urban Residential Type One (R1)". A Zoning By- law amendment is required in order to implement the proposed development. REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 8 7. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND STUDIES 7.1 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Terraprobe Inc. conducted an assessment to determine if historical land uses and activities on the adjoining properties may have impacted the soil and ground water quality of the property. The property had previously been used as a school therefore the proposed redevelopment to a residential land use is not considered to be a change to a more sensitive land use under Ontario Regulation 153/04 (O.Reg. 511/09). Water and soil samples were analyzed and it was determined that there were no contaminant exceedances; therefore no further environmental investigations are required. 7.2 Planninq Justification Report MHBC prepared the report and subsequent addendum. The report concluded that the proposal is in the public interest and represents good planning for the following reasons: • The proposed redevelopment conforms to the Growth Plan by contributing to a complete community. The Proposal provides retirement residence space, seniors apartment space and amenity space within a 5 minute walking distance of transit routes, on full municipal services and within an existing Built-up Area. • The proposed redevelopment is consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement. • The proposal represents the intensification of an underutilized property and will be of a compact form, making efficient use of land and infrastructure in the Town. • Development of this proposal will take advantage of, and enhance the viability of multi-modal transportation available to and proposed for this area, including existing GO Transit bus service, planned future GO Transit train service, and Durham Region Transit. • The proposal represents a density of 185 units per net hectare within an existing Built-up-area and within the designated "Regional Centre" and "Major Open Space Area". Thus the proposal supports not only the Province's intensification goals but also provides for an intensified use within an area designated as a focus for growth in the Durham Region Official Plan. • The proposed modifications to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law allow for a retirement complex use and permit increases in height and density. This increase is intended to accommodate the demand for retirement spaces in the Municipality of Clarington, satisfying a segment of housing that is under-represented from an availability perspective. • The proposal intends to achieve an attractive streetscape with social interaction by framing buildings along the public spaces and directing vehicular and pedestrian activity to those spaces. Furthermore, the proposal has balanced the need for intensification with adjacent neighbourhoods through the arrangement of building heights and step-backs of building massing. • The proposal brings additional residents to downtown Bowmanville, supporting existing retail and commercial services and enhancing the long-term economic viability of the area. REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 9 7.3 Shadow Study The Planning Justification Report prepared by MHBC summarized the shadow study prepared by the Forrest Group. MHBC advises that two residential properties to the west will be subject to shadows during the 9 a.m. spring equinox, and a portion of one residential property to the west will be subject to shadows during the 9 a.m. summer solstice. The total increments of potential shadow exposure were found to be acceptable. The report concluded that the proposed development would have minimal shadow impacts as the two residences will continue to have sun exposure for a greater part of a typical day. 7.4 Traffic Impact Study Prepared by Transtech, the Traffic Impact Study found that the incremental site traffic volume generated by the proposed development can be easily accommodated on Queen Street. The unsignalized intersections at Division Street, Queen Avenue and Liberty Street on Queen Street are expected to operate at acceptable levels. The study recommends that the eastbound advanced green at the signalized intersection at King Street and Scugog Street be increased in time by 4 seconds. This recommendation is related to overall traffic growth, not related to the site. It is recommended that the Region monitor these volumes before implementing traffic signal timing adjustments. 7.5 Functional Servicing Report A Functional Servicing Report was prepared in support of the proposal. Engineering Services and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority identified a number of concerns with the report. The applicants Engineer has since provided a revised site grading plan and a detailed response to the concerns. A revised Functional Servicing Report will be required and reviewed as part of the detailed site plan application submission. 7.6 Environmental Impact Study & Hazard Line Analysis Based on the Hazard Line Analysis, prepared by Terraprobe, the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) prepared by Azumuth Environmental Consulting Inc., concluded that the proposal is situated outside of the hazard lands and have established an appropriate setback. As the report relied on the details from the Functional Servicing Report which requires revision, an addendum to the Environmental Impact Study will be required. Detailed comments will be reviewed with the applicant through the pre-consultation process for a proposed site plan application. The vacant school was identified as suitable habitat for Barn Swallow and Chimney Swift which are both species at risk. The EIS recommended that if demolition of the building is planned after March 2013, the chimney be screened before April and the surfaces be checked again prior to demolition to ensure no new nesting of Barn Swallows or Chimney Swifts has occurred. If nesting has occurred the applicant may require additional approvals from the Ministry of Natural Resources and demolition may be restricted from occurring during the nesting/roosting period from May to September. REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 10 7.7 D-6 Guideline Evaluation and Justifying Impact Assessment The Ministry of the Environment D-6 Guideline governs compatibility between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses. The retirement home and seniors apartments would be considered sensitive land uses. In support of the application, a Land Use Capability report titled "D-6 Guideline Evaluation" (UEM Inc., November 2012) and an Addendum Letter (May 17, 2013) has been submitted. This report summarizes the Noise and Dust/Odour Assessment reports and relates the findings to the minimum setback requirements as outlined in the D-6 guidelines. The D-6 Guidelines Evaluation and Addendum Letter have been assessed as part of the Peer Review of the Noise and Dust/Odour studies. 7.8 Noise Feasibility Study The subject applications propose a sensitive land use adjacent to an industrial facility (Veyance Technologies, formerly Goodyear). In order to ensure that there are no noise conflicts present, a noise assessment was requested. In support of the application an Environmental Noise Feasibility Study has been submitted (prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd., Nov. 2012). The Noise Feasibility Study addresses potential impacts from adjacent roadways (Queen Street) as well as stationary sources (the adjacent Veyance manufacturing facility). A subsequent noise addendum letter (Valcoustics Canada Ltd., May 2, 2013) has also been received, which provides clarification in areas such as implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Given the complex nature of the Noise Feasibility Study/addendum letter, a Peer Review was conducted (RWDI Air Inc., September 16, 2013). The Peer Reviewer concluded that they generally agree with the Valcoustic recommendations and approach. This includes separate implementation measures, such Site Plan Approval, future Noise Study Updates and Holding Provisions as well as at source mitigation measures for Phase 1 and 2 of the proposal. A few areas of minor disagreement or areas where additional consideration should be taken have been identified by the Peer Reviewer, which are recognized as being a non-issue or have the ability to be clarified as part of the future Noise Assessment(s). 7.9 Land Use Compatibility Assessment (Dust and Odour) Also in support of the application an odour/dust assessment entitled "Land Use Compatibility Assessment" (SENES Consultants Limited, September 2012) was submitted. In addition, a report addendum was also submitted in support of the application (SENES Consultants Limited, April 25, 2013). The reports address potential odour and dust impacts associated with the Veyance facility. The facility manufactures industrial conveyor belts for the mining and petrochemical industry. The belts are manufactured out of rubber, silica, carbon black, and a number of polymeric additives. The reports conclude that potential impacts on the proposed development, in their opinion, meet the definition of "Trivial" impact. The prevailing wind directions are generally from the southwest through to the north- northwest, which means that in most cases the subject property is located upwind of Veyance Technologies and unlikely to experience effects due to dust and odour emissions. During certain meteorological conditions, there is the potential for the emissions to be blown towards the subject property. REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 11 SENES contacted the Ministry of Environment which indicated that there has been some odour complaints related to Veyance Technologies (Goodyear) in the past 5-6 years and there have been historical issues related to baghouse emissions due to process upsets. A major blowout of a carbon black baghouse occurred in August 2002, resulting in 10 complaints to the MOE. Carbon black is an extremely fine, powdery material which disperses readily in air, and is relatively difficult to clean, as it forms a suspension in water which causes it to smear when wiped. Homes impacted by the incident were cleaned professionally and the facility was charged and convicted based on the incident. There have been ongoing odour complaints. Odours are emitted though roof fans, open windows etc. Given the complex nature of the Odour/Dust assessments, a Peer Review was conducted. The Peer Reviewer's final report (RWDI Air Inc., September 16, 2013 recognizes the difficulty of assessing the impacts of Veyance on the subject property where there are no up-to-date Emission Summary and Dispersion Modeling (ESDM). The Peer Reviewer disagrees with the SENES finding that the potential odour/dust conflicts meet the Ministry of Environment's definition of"Trivial", It is apparent that SENES Consultants Limited and RWDI Air Inc. offer different interpretations of the D-6 Guidelines in regards to Phase 1. SENES concludes that because Phase 1 meets the minimum distance separation of 70 metres, separation for a medium category industrial use, that Phase should proceed. RWDI notes that as Phase 1 is within the 300 metre zone of potential influence, odour and dust impacts and Veyance must be objectively evaluated in order to determine the level of impact. The Peer Review report (Attachment 6) offers some recommendations in order to address these issues, including a recommendation that an existing exhaust vent be modified to vent vertically (as opposed to horizontally). A number of mitigation measures are proposed for Phase 1, and the use of a Holding (H) Provision to address the lack of updated EDSM information, that will be submitted as part of Veyance's Environmental Compliance Approval submission, for Phase 2. 8. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 8.1 A Public Meeting was held on February 25, 2013. Public Notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject property and a public meeting notice was installed on the property in the centre of each street frontage. 8.2 At the time of the writing of this report, and during the Public Meeting, the following concerns were indicated: • A resident recently moved to the area and was expecting Queen Avenue to be a quiet dead end street. • Two residents expressed concerned with an increase in traffic on Queen Avenue from the proposal and the adequacy of the onsite parking; • The owner of the residential property to the south is concerned that the proposed development will add to existing drainage problems; and REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 12 • The height of the development at the south end will appear as nine stories to the existing dwelling to the south. The dwelling is at a lower elevation than the proposed buildings. 8.3 A resident immediately to the west of the development advised Planning staff that they felt the proposed development would blend in with historical Bowmanville and the gardens and landscaped grounds would compliment the area. Additional housing for the aging adult could benefit the downtown businesses as well as providing new jobs. Quiet well mannered residents are always good neighbours. 8.4 During the public meeting a resident expressed an interest in apartments for older adults. She was looking to downsize and was having difficulty locating appropriate accommodations in Clarington. Since the time of the meeting she advised that she has relocated outside of Clarington. 8.5 The Planning Department has received a number of inquiries from residents interested in rental accommodations. They have expressed concerns with the difficulty of finding such accommodations within the Municipality of Clarington. 8.6 A letter was received in support of the proposal from the owner of 53 King Street West. The letter noted that the project "will bring significant additional, and much-needed, commercial activity to the downtown core and in particular to those commercial properties like ours that are in close proximity to the proposed development." 9. AGENCY COMMENTS 9.1 Veridian Corporation, Enbridge Gas, the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Rogers Cable, Bell Canada and the Clarington Heritage Committee expressed no concerns with the proposal. Detailed comments relating to the development will be considered in the preparation of a future site plan application. 9.2 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority have no objections to the proposed use, redesignation and rezoning of the property. There are outstanding comments that can be addressed through the detailed design process at the site plan application stage should the requested applications be approved by Council and a site plan application follows. 9.3 The Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department advised that the subject lands are designated "Regional Centre" in the Region of Durham Official Plan. This proposal consists of two mid rise (one five storey and one seven storey) buildings with a total overall density of 185 units per hectare. This proposal, including the density and floor space index, generally conforms to the current ROP. The applications have been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 13 A Phase II Environmental Site Assessment submitted in support of the application concluded that there were no exceedances for in-soil and ground water samples. The Region requires that a Record of Site Condition be filed with the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Servicing Municipal services (water supply & sanitary sewers) are available from the existing 300 mm watermain and existing 300 mm sanitary sewer on Queen Street. Plant capacity for Phase 1 of this proposal (retirement residence) is available in the Port Darlington Water Pollution Control Plant. However, sanitary sewer capacity for Phase 2 (seniors apartments) is dependent on the completion and operation of the Port Darlington WPCP expansion. The anticipated commissioning of the plant expansion is Spring 2015. Comments regarding the Functional Servicing Report and Site Servicing Plan will be discussed through the pre-consultation process for the proposed site plan application. Regional Development Charges will be applicable to this proposal and due prior to the issuance of a building permit. Durham Region Transit Durham Region Transit has no additional comments as part of these applications. Conclusion The Region provided a detailed letter on noise, dust, odour and the requirements for approval of the subject application. The letter is contained in Attachment 7. The Region has a number of requirements to be satisfied prior to the lifting of a Holding Symbol if the applications were to proceed. Some of these requirements affect the contents of the Site Plan Agreement, further studies and peer reviews. The Official Plan amendment is considered to have no significant Regional or Provincial concerns and is exempt from Regional approval, provided the issues identified above are addressed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. 10. DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS 10.1 Clarington Emergency and Fire Services, Clarington Building Division and Clarington Operations had no concerns with the proposed land use. Detailed comments regarding site design will be provided to the applicant for consideration in preparation of a future site plan application. 10.2 Engineering Services The Engineering Services Department advises that all comments regarding stormwater management, grading, and servicing can be addressed, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services, at the Site Plan approval stage. The applicant must be mindful that an area on site may be required for surface and/or underground storage of stormwater. REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 14 The preliminary grading plan prepared by Cole Engineering, dated March 12, 2013 was reviewed and it is satisfactory in terms of providing confirmation that there will not be any grading in the hazard lands. No other grading information has been provided with this submission. Additional information will be required at site plan stage regarding any proposed retaining walls, proposed grading on the rest of the site particularly along the east boundary with the municipality's road allowance, driveway entrance grades, demonstration that all boulevards grade positively to the road allowance and any other details required by the Director of Engineering Services and all subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services. The Engineering Services Department has no objection. 10.3 Clarington Heritage Committee The Committee reviewed the revised rendering at their meeting on January 15, 2013. The rendering meets the intent of their resolution dated May 7, 2012 which requested the developer to: • Embrace the principles outlined in the Old Bowmanville Heritage Guidelines; • Incorporate the architectural design features of the existing heritage structures in the downtown core; • Provide a facade with the appearance of a historic institutional building, similar to the original 1890 school house; • Massing of the building facing Queen Street be designed to complement the perceived size of the buildings in the neighbourhood; and • The building be constructed with materials that match the heritage structures along the street and architectural details such as quoins and cornicing 11. DISCUSSION 11.1 The shadow study submitted contained analysis of the Spring Equinox, Summer Solstice and Fall Equinox at 9am, 12pm, 2pm and 4pm. In their Planning Justification Report, MHBC concluded that two residential properties to the west will be subject to shadows during the 9am spring equinox, and a portion of one residential property to the west will be subject to shadows during the 9am summer solstice (see Attachment 4). The total increments of potential shadow exposure were found to be acceptable. The applicant has since provided details for the 6pm Summer Solstice, Spring & Fall Equinox (see Attachment 5). There will be minimal impacts during the Summer on the residential property on the South East corner of Queen Street and Queen Avenue. This property will experience similar impacts in the Spring and Fall as will four properties on the north side of Queen Street, East of Division Street (see Attachment 5). Staff concurs with MHBC that the proposed development would have minimal shadow impacts as the properties will continue to have sun exposure for a greater part of a typical day. REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 15 11.2 Initially the applicant had proposed a contemporary design for the development that incorporated a retaining wall along Queen Street, preventing direct pedestrian access to the building from the sidewalk. Staff met with the applicant in June 2012 to discuss the comments of the Heritage Committee and the urban design policies of the Municipality. Since that time the concept elevations have been modified (see Figures 4 and 5). The proposed concept has adopted the portico entrance with arched opening and direct access to Queen Street. The building design has also incorporated, arched windows and conical tower design elements from the original 1890 school house (see Figure 6). 4 rul •' _ `- Figure 4: Queen Street Perspective N 23 iaar Figure 5: Queen Avenue Perspective REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 16 } Figure 6: Original 1890 High School 11.3 It is proposed to rezone the lands associated with the Bowmanville Creek and an appropriate buffer as "Environmental Protection (EP)" through this application. The limits of this area have been determined through the acceptance of the Hazard Line Analysis by Municipality of Clarington and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Staff. The area to be zoned "Environmental Protection (EP)" has been removed from the developable area of the site for the purpose of calculating density and floor space index. The proposed density of 185 units per net residential hectare contained in the proposed Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 1) has been verified. 11.4 The proposed retirement residence has a maximum height of 5 storeys, while the apartments propose to have 7 storeys. As building height is measured from the lowest point of the grade, and the property slopes significantly to the south, the height of the retirement residence on Queen Street will be 4 storeys, while it will be 5 storeys from the south. The apartments will be 6 storeys at the north end and 7 storeys on the valley side. - 11.5 There is underground parking proposed for the development with access from Queen Avenue. A total of 86 spaces will be provided for the retirement residence, exceeding the Zoning By-law requirement by 47 spaces. A total of 208 spaces are provided for the apartments. The applicant has not finalized the unit count breakdown for the apartments. However, if it assumed that the proposed 104 unit development is entirely two bedroom units, the total parking provided would exceed the Zoning By-law requirement and the typical request of 0.25 spaces per unit for visitors parking by 52 spaces. Engineering Services are satisfied the traffic proposed from the site can be accommodated on the existing road system. 11.6 The Land Use Compatibility Assessment (Dust and Odour), D-6 Guideline Evaluation, and Noise Study were submitted to address the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) D-6 Guideline "Compatibility Between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses". This guideline establishes minimum separation distances between industrial facilities and sensitive uses (residential, institutional, and recreational). The guidelines are intended REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 17 to consider emissions including noise, dust and odour generated by an industrial facility in proximity to sensitive uses. The studies were required in recognition of the proximity of the proposed residential development to Veyance Technologies. Based on D-6 Guidelines the studies submitted consider Veyance Technologies as a Class II Industrial Facility, which is a medium scale manufacturing facility with occasional outputs of emissions (noise, odour and dust). Class II facilities have a potential influence area of 300 metres in which adverse impacts may be experienced. Based on MOE studies and historical complaint data, the Guideline recommends a minimum separation distance of 70 metres from such a facility. The distance is to be measured from the required zone setbacks, or actual building whichever is closer. The Phase-1 retirement residence is approximately 90 metres from Veyance Technologies, while the Phase II seniors apartment is approximately 32 metres. The guidelines recognize that municipalities may want to promote redevelopment projects, infill development and mixed uses in areas where there are established industrial uses, and the minimum distances cannot be achieved. In such cases, the minimum separation distance can be reduced provided there are mitigation measures that can be established based on an evaluation of the industrial processes and the potential for off- site impacts on the proposed land use. Ile �V - ::.�11 i I �I�- � ��. '\� � � / � •�. �l 1A i ��oMs Exhaust Fro in �. Tie � dJ S e }_. 26A 201.2 WO Figure 7: Location of Bag House Exhaust REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 18 Due to the differing interpretations of the D-6 Guideline by SENES and RWDI as to whether assessment is required for developments within the minimum distance separation (70 metres), or the potential area of influence (300 metres), staff contacted the MOE for clarification. The MOE advised that because the D-6 Guidelines are only 'guidelines' and not enforceable that both consultants were correct in their interpretations, and it is up to the Municipality to decide whether to approve a sensitive land uses within the potential area of influence of an existing industrial facility. Both SENES and RWDI have identified that there could be potential impacts from an existing bag house exhaust that vents horizontally, as opposed to vertically. The location of the bag house exhaust is near the closest point of the Veyance facility to the proposed development (see Figure 7). Until an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) is completed and approved to the satisfaction of the MOE, the impacts of the stack and the balance of the Veyance facility are unknown in regards to dust and odour. Veyance submitted their Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application to MOE on September 30, 2013. MOE advised that any work done by Veyance to reduce emissions (noise, dust and odour) must be identified in their ECA and must be approved by MOE prior to any work being undertaken. The retirement residence (Phase 1) is outside of MOE's minimum separation distance guidelines of 70 metres. Veyance Technologies is currently seeking their Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), where it is believed that enhancements will be proposed and undertaken to the satisfaction of the MOE. The use of the holding symbol will provide for this process to be completed prior to the construction of the retirement residence. The ECA will provide for an enforceable plan to ensure appropriate mitigation. The consultant's recommendations also provide for additional measures to protect future residents, particularly in the event of an incident. Staff do not support the approval of the apartment units (Phase 2) at this time due to the close proximity to the factory and the exhaust vents. RWDI noted that their concern is heightened due to the close proximity within the 70 m radius. They also noted that presumably MOE is considering the impact of elevated points of impingement but this is not yet known. Furthermore the timeliness of the completion of the approvals process and the timelines for the implementation of the abatement plans are highly variable. They also recommend further odour and dust studies in a similar manner to the noise study updates that were proposed. It may or may not be possible to mitigate the impacts sufficiently. Given this uncertainty, it is premature for the Municipality to provide a land use permission within the 70 metre minimum separation distance. It is recommended that the second phase only be considered: • After the MOE ECA is given and the proposed abatement works are undertaken • Future studies on noise, odour and dust are undertaken after the abatement improvements and that any additional non-trivial impacts are mitigated at the source • A minimum of two years operation of the retirement residence to allow monitoring of noise, odour and dust and possible complaints REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 19 11.7 The proposed Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 1) has been modified from the applicant's proposal described in Section 1.3. As Phase 2 is not supported it is not necessary to amend the population and housing targets for the East Town Centre Neighbourhood as the 155 retirement units can be considered as part of the 275 intensification units. The High Density Residential Area policies of the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan permit heights up to 6 storeys which will accommodate the proposed retirement home. 11.8 Taxes payable to the Municipality of Clarington are outstanding. The proposed Clarington Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 1), and Zoning By- law (Attachment 3) should not be approved until confirmation that the taxes are up to date have been received. 12. CONCURRENCE — Not Applicable 13. CONCLUSION 13.1 The Provincial Policy Statement promotes redevelopment and a range of mixed uses provided the appropriate levels of public health and safety are maintained. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed development fits well within the historic Bowmanville Town Centre. Staff also recognizes the important role Veyance Technologies (formerly Goodyear) has held as a long term employer in the community. To ensure both land uses coexist in a safe manner, staff support only proceeding with Phase I at this time, providing that the ECA approvals are in place with the MOE. It is also recognized that the ECA approvals are an important step in ensuring potential impacts on existing residents continue to be mitigated appropriately. 13.2 In consideration of the findings of all supporting studies, comments received from circulated agencies and area residents, and based on review of the proposal, staff recommends that the proposed Clarington Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 1), and Zoning By- law (Attachment 3) be approved upon confirmation that the taxes of the property are up to date. CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN The recommendations contained in this report conform to the general intent of the following priorities of the Strategic Plan: Promoting economic development X Maintaining financial stability Connecting Clarington Promoting green initiatives Investing in infrastructure Showcasing our community Not in conformity with Strategic Plan Staff Contact: Tracey Webster, Senior Planner REPORT NO.: PSD-062-13 PAGE 20 Attachments: Attachment 1 - Proposed Official Plan Amendment Attachment 2 - Clarington Official Plan Amendment Adopting By- law Attachment 3 - Proposed Zoning By- law Amendment Attachment 4 - 9am Spring Equinox and Summer Solstice Attachment 5 - 6pm Spring & Fall Equinox and Summer Solstice Attachment 6 - Peer Review Final Report, RWDI Air Inc. Attachment 7 - Regional of Durham Comments List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Chris Bobyk Christine Patel George Vella Roy Moore Kerri-Allen Walcer Stephen F. Shine Ben Arends Debbie Alldread Ben Edery Henry Pope Greg Balson Mac Rutherford Mike and Kathy Fagan Lynn Webb and John King Diane McArthur Sharon Moore Simone Borlase Marie Cervenka Gary and Doreen Carpenter ATTACHMENT TO REPORT PSD-062-13 AMENDMENT NO. 95 TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: To amend the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan by replacing the "Community Facility" designation with "High Density Residential" and "Environmental Protection Area" designations on the subject property located on the south-west corner of Queen Street and Queen Avenue; to add a special policy to the "High Density Residential" designation in the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan; and to adjust the population and high density housing target for the East Town Centre Neighbourhood. BASIS: This amendment is based on an application by the Forrest Group. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Clarington Official Plan is hereby amended as follows: 1. By amending Map A "Land Use Downtown: Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan" as shown on Exhibit "A" to this Amendment; IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, regarding the implementation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan, regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. W K °° 0 o Q x- 0000 °00 0 i. : . i i � w 0 ........... s e w o w ° ° � D 000 00000000°••: v 000 oogoQOO . '• 000 000000000..: : 'a °000o0o0...` <v`� LOWS STREET LOVERS LANE °000 ♦ST. w KING C r CD _ WEST Qq,� z 0) Uj \\ �,,• S( .� ALEXANDER BLVD. Q. CL 51 'N LIBERTY PLACE ( CD CD CD r4p� v Z CARLISLE AVENUE W O N o COMP • 0000°0000 F� �FST ��e�� oo°o0cy co °°C °0°0°0°0° °0°0°0°0 \G� .00 000000000 00000 ° tiCT 0I RC °00 °000000 ��NC 0 O 00000 O� 00 ° 'pF�• CD 0 STRIKE AVENUE ♦� `•0000 FF °000 z•,0000000°ti o00 N w 0 000 rh :ES. w Z 000°.'= _ °000 ��i n m > w = g�` ri z o ♦ � it O -...... - .....- Change From.Communit _ = w 0 w Y < = _Q Facility"To"High Density cD O of Residential" m C� O BAR 9TA', ,� ca J F C'1 iQ DOWNTOWN HIGH DENSITY ® INSTITUTION 4 MAP A O O BOUNDARY =='•• RESIDENTIAL 3 CL = © LAND USE 0 RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY FACILITY DOWNTOWN STREET—RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL BOWMANVILLE COMMERCIAL AREA PROTECTION AREA EAST TOWN CENTRE SECONDARY PLAN .D 0 50 100 150 m AUGUST, 2010 °o o MIXED USE AREA DISTRICT PARK 50 m o 0 0 o THIS CONSOLIDATION IS PROVIDED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY AND REPRESENTS REQUESTED MODIMCATIONS AND APPROVALS ,. ATTACHMENT TO REPORT PSD-062-13 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2013- being a By-law to adopt Amendment No. 95 to the Clarington Official Plan WHEREAS Section 17 (22) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, authorizes the Municipality of Clarington to pass by-laws for the adoption or repeal of Official Plans and Amendments thereto; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend the Clarington Official Plan to permit the development of a 155 suite, five storey retirement residence; and a 104 unit, seven storey seniors apartment building. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment No. 95 to the Clarington Official Plan being the attached Explanatory Text is hereby adopted. 2. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the date of the passing hereof. BY-LAW passed in open session this xx day of xx, 2013. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk ATTACHMENT TO REPORT PSD-062-13 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2013- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the former Town of Newcastle WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2012-0007; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 15.4 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS — URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE FOUR (R4) ZONE" is herby amended by adding a new Sub-section 15.4.35 as follows: "15.4.35 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R4-35)ZONE Notwithstanding Section 15.1a and 15.2a, 15.2 c and 15.2 g. h. and i, those lands zoned R4-35 on the Schedules to this By-law shall be used for a retirement home subject to the following zone regulations: a. Definitions i) Long Term Care Facility: Shall mean a facility regulated through the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, or any successor, that provides accommodation for people requiring a broad range of 24 hour health care, personal care and support care within a supervised and secured setting and where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided and common lounges, recreation rooms, medical care facilities and personal services, may also be provided. ii) Retirement Home: Shall mean a residential building premise that provides accommodation in suites primarily for retired persons or couples. Such suites shall not have a stove or range and have separate entrances from a common hall but where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided, and where common lounges, recreation rooms and medical care facilities may also be provided. iii) Underground Parking Structure: Shall mean a part of a building which is provided and maintained for the purpose of parking vehicles related to the permitted use of the building„ which is generally located below finished grade and may include parking spaces, parking aisles and access ramps. b. Permitted Uses i) Retirement Home ii) Long Term Care Facility C. Regulations i) Density(maximum) 80 units per net ha ii) Yard Requirements a) Front Yard 3.5 metres minimum 6.5 metre maximum b) Exterior Side Yard (within 30 metres or less of the front lot line) 5 metre minimum 7 metre maximum c) Exterior Side Yard (greater than 30 metres of the front lot line) 45 metres d) Rear Yard (minimum) 75 metres e) Underground Parking Structure 3.0 metres to any property line or EP zone boundary iii) Building Height 5 storeys iv) An entrance to the building shall be located in the north facing building fagade iv) with the exception of a vehicular entrance and staircases any portion of the underground parking structure shall be permitted to a maximum of 0.5 metres above adjacent finished grade. v) No outdoor amenity area shall be permitted in the required rear or exterior side yard The Holding symbol shall only be removed from the Urban Residential Exception (R4-35) Zone when the following provisions are met: i) A clearance letter from the Ministry of the Environment for Record of Site Condition for a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment has been received to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham; ii) A site plan agreement is executed with the Municipality; iii) Noise mitigation to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and completion of a Noise Abatement Action Plan executed between Veyance Technologies and the Ministry of the Environment; and iv) Confirmation of Environmental Compliance Approval of Veyance Technologies by the Ministry of the Environment. 2. Schedule"3"to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: "Urban Residential Type One (131) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R4-35)"; and "Urban Residential Type One(R1)Zone"to"Environmental Protection (EP)Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule"A" hereto. 3. Schedule"A"attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. BY-LAW passed in open session this day of , 2013. Adrian Foster, Mayor Patti L. Barrie, Municipal Clerk This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2013- , passed this day of 1 2013 A.D. «4• 6� �ti4 Nr� 4'v NK w""1v WtiN. w��yW.atip r •ti "tv� � q �w"'�t'""`•v O ♦,n` y�K"q'4�N N " ® Zoning Change From"R1"To"(H)R4-35" Zoning Change From"R1"To"EP" Adrian Foster,Mayor Patti L.Barrie,Municipal Clerk N w � ostaEEt WES a ��"�r � Lie `NCroN {� S gFFTh•5 Q�� STRP NSt Fsr � HGgoH ,Wy S �opNE Z,� �6T s q _ 2A OS�F� p�P �FFT f _ _a =�W o�P�s c'yHRONSr i rc TREWiN LANE w `�� 9 MHOS RFFT s r w Ilk 0�� RFFrE� FJ � .fin BOWMANVILLE - o� Z13 012-0007 i SCHEDULE 3 s _ �. ,� f kL: 4f y F ! Ak 80WMANVILLE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY Acct nu^6t= 152rj 2aoa SPRING,EO UINOX 9 " �� ° a�2a,rz AM 2012 s W MORRESTGROUPC/p BOWMANVILLERETIRE ERCHANDI$ESPAC wcre�y, RETIREMENT E INC � � w u.n SUMMER SOLSTICE SAM 2012 °tee `�'�` FORREST WE MERCHANDIS pSPAC "'°"brresrg,a,p ca INC 1 0 ZI m D � M Nz w4�6 i 1 t � • . vr Na je r "let j Bowmanvilie Ret,rei„enr Conym�n r r lY ! 'e Retirement �p7�.,i1 r war 1�404 k°.,i�.,T '"untty -'Ot3 V y O ;v m v 0n ;D y y y � n ® 2 ° m �► y W c)'► ATTACHMENT 6 TO REPORT PSD-062-13 Tel: 51 9.823.1311 !'!g5'T' Fax: 51g.823.1316 r , , ', MANAGED RWDI AIR Inc. 1 i t COMPANIES 650 Woodlawn Road West Guelph,Ontario,Canada WK 1B8 CONSUUING ENGINEERS &SCIENTISTS i Clarington ® Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Municipality of Clarington, Ontario Final Report I Peer Review Consulting Services RWDI #1301949 September 16, 2013 I i i SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY: Tracey Webster Nicole Korba Senior Planner Project Manager TWebster clarinoton.net Nicole.Korba oDtwdi.com Municipality of Clarington Mike Lepage, M.Sc.,ACM,CCM Development Review Branch Project Director 40 Temperance Street Mike.Lepage(g)rwdi,com Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 David Cotsman, Pang. Air Quality Specialist David.Cotsman aC7.rwdi.com This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom It Is addressed and may contain Information that Is privileged and/or confidential,If you have received this In error,please notify us Immediately. m RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America Reputation Resources Results Canada I USA I UK I India I China I Hong Kong I Singapore www.rwdl.com Clarington-Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning 0 Peer Review Consulting Services RWDI#1301940 September 16,2013 CONSULTING UIGINEERS &SCIENTISTS TABLE OF CONTENT'S 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1 i 2. D-6 GUIDELINE EVALUATION ........................................................................1 3. ODOUR.................................................................................................................................................3 4. DUST/CARBON BLACK....................................................................................................................4 6. SITE VISIT............................................................................................................................................4 6. CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................6 7. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................6 7.1 Phase 1 .........................................................................................................................................6 i 7.2 Phase 2.........................................................................................................................................6 Figures Figure 1: Cobourg Annual Windrose I I Reputation Resources Results Canada I USA I UK I India I China I Hong Kong I Singapore www.twdl.com Claringlon-Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Peer Review Consulting Services RWDI 0301949 September 16,2013 g q Page 1 i CONSULTING ENGINEERS &SCIENTISTS 1. INTRODUCTION On April 2, 2012, the Forrest Group submitted a formal application to amend the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 64-63 to permit the development of a 155 suite, 5 storey retirement residence (Phase 1) and a 104 unit, 6 storey senior's apartment building (Phase 2). The development is proposed to be located at 105 Queen Street in Bowmanville, Ontario. The proposed site is the former Bowmanville Senior Public School which has been vacant since 2007. 'The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the land as Regional Centre, the Clarington Official Plan designates the land as Town Centre and the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan designates the land as Community Facility and Environmental Protection Area. Given the land designations, an amendment of the Official Plans and a rezoning of the subject land is required to allow for the development as proposed by the Forrest Group. The Municipality of Clarington, in accordance with Section 23.15.1 e) of Amendment No. 77 to the Clarington Official Plan, gives right to the Municipality to request a peer review of the required studies and reports by a qualified consultant. RWDI AIR Inc. (RWDI) was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to review and comment on the reports included with the application. This report specifically details the review of the four following documents: 1. "D-6 Guideline Evaluation and Justifying Impact Assessment, 105 Queen Street East, Bowmanville, Ontario",dated November 21, 2012,prepared by Urban& Environmental Management Inc. 2. "Addendum to D-6 Guideline Evaluation and Justifying Impact Assessment, 105 Queen Street East, Bowmanville, Ontario", dated May 17, 2013, prepared by Urban&Environmental Management Inc. 3. "Land Use Compatibility Assessment — GoodyearNeyance Technologies and Proposed Seniors Residence (Former Bowmanville Senior Public School Site)", dated September 13, 2012, prepared by SENES Consultants Limited. 4. Report Addendum to"Land Use Compatibility Assessment--GoodyearNeyance Technologies and Proposed Seniors Residence (Former Bowrnanvilie Senior Public School Site)", dated April 25, 2013, prepared by SENES Consultants Limited. This report has been updated based on a teleconference on August 22, 2013 and comments received from SENES in a memorandum dated August 29, 2013. 2. D-6 GUIDELINE EVALUATION In the November 21, 2012 report, Urban & Environmental Management Inc. (UEM) provides a review of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's (MOE)"Guideline D-6 Compatibility between Industrial Facilities and Sensitive Land Uses". UEM identified five existing or proposed industrial land uses.within 1000m of the subject property and classified there as either Class 1, Class II or Class III industries, as per the subjective definition provided in D-6. For each class, D-6 identifies a representative zone of influence I within which noise, odour and/or dust impacts may occur, based on past MOE case studies and complaint history analyses. UEM report shows that 4 out of 5 of the identified industrial uses are well Reputation Resources Results Canada I USA I UK I India I China I Hong Kong I Singapore www.rwdi.corn Clarington-Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning ® Peer Review Consulting Services RWDI#1301049 September 16,2013 Page 2 CONSULTING ENGINEERS R SCIE14TISTS outside their zones of influence with respect to the subject property. The fifth industrial use, Veyance Technologies, is well within the zone of influence. In addition to defining representative zones of influence, Guideline D-6 also recommends a minimum separation distance for each class of industry. UEM looked closely at the separation distances for Veyance Technologies and concluded that Phase I of the proposed development meets the recommended minimum separation distance of 70m for a Class II industry, but Phase II does not. RWDI concurs with this finding of UEM, but we note that even though Phase I meets the minimum recommended separation distance of D-6, this does not necessarily mean that there will be no dust or odour impact. UEM goes on to say that Phase II of the development meets the test of an infill development, for which Guideline D-6 indicates it may not be possible to meet the minimum recommended separation distance. RWDI agrees, but notes that in these cases, D-6 spells out several limitations that should be applied when approving such infills. Arnong these limitations is a requirement for an "assessment of the types and levels of contaminant discharges being generated by current industrial facilities, including those associated with transportation facilities that serve the industries." UEM refers to Section 4.6 of D-6,which is where the guideline recommends that the proponent undertake studies of odour, dust and noise. UEM indicates the these studies were done. The UEM reports provide a surnmary of the findings of the "Land Use Compatibility Assessment' and addendum prepared by SENES Consultants Limited(SENES). The conclusion of the UEM reports is that Phase 1 of the development can proceed as it meets.the rninimum set back requirements specified in D-6. The report notes that noise mitigation measures proposed by Veyance and required under the Ontario Environmental Protection Act (EPA) can achieve their obligations at existing residences and Phase 1 of the proposed development. For Phase 2, the UEM report recommends an agreement with the proponent to implement mitigative measures and that a provision of a Holding designation be placed on the zoning until the mitigative measures are in place and proven to be effective. For both Phase 1 and Phase 2, the May 2013 UEM report notes that the'minor and infrequent nuisance impacts related to odour and dust would meet the MOE D-series definition of trivial impact" as per the conclusions of the SENES reports. As discussed below, RWDI disagrees with this conclusion, and instead, concludes that further assessment is needed to determine whether the frequency and magnitude Of impacts is sufficiently small to be considered as trivial. Environmental Compliance Approval As noted, the Veyance facility has 2 existing Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) for the facility for 2 of the 3 baghouses. The SENES studies indicated that the third baghouse has been grandfathered. Under the current regulatory regime, grandfathering is not permitted and this source requires approval for the facility to comply with Section 9 of the Environmental Protection Act. Reputation Resources Results Canada I USA I UK I India I China I Hong Kong I Singapore www.rwdi.com Claringlon-Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Peer Review Consulting Services RWDI#1301949 September 16,2013 `. Page 3 CONSULTING ENGINEERS &SCIENTISTS As discussed later in this report, the potential Impacts frorn Veyance include odour and carbon black. There is currently no published standard or guideline for odour however, the level of 1 OU, at a frequency of exceedence of 0.5%of the time, is the desired level based on MOE guidance to date and this has been adopted in the past by the MOE as a condition of ECAs for facilities that are known to emit odours. It is RWDI's opinion that a level of 1 OU, exceeded at a frequency of 0.5% of the time or less, is an appropriate test of whether or not the odour can be considered trivial. The current standard (schedule 2)that applies to Veyance for carbon black is 25 pg/rn3(1/2 hour average) and in 2020 schedule 3 applies and the standard reduces to 10 pg/m3 (24 hour average). The standards for carbon black are based on the soiling properties as described in the SENES report dated September i 13, 2012. Here again, RWDI concludes that this standard for carbon black is the appropriate test for triviality., The odour level of 1 OU, at a frequency of 0.5% of the time, and the carbon black standards of 25 and 10 pglm3 represent objective indicators of whether or not the impacts of the facility can be considered trivial. The Veyance facility should be assessed against these objective levels. SENES stated that there may be compliance issues in relation to carbon black once a full assessment is completed. RWDI concurs with this staternent. If compliance issues are identified, then an abatement plan will need to be developed and implemented. Any abatement completed at the facility will decrease any potential impacts at the Subject property. . I 3. ODOUR The SENES reports discuss the observed odour impacts at the facility. During field measurements, measurements of 1 to 4 OU were observed converted to a 10-minute average. These odour concentrations are in the range typically described as detection/recognition. It should be noted that although SENES timed their site visits to coincide with favourable wind speeds and directions, odour was detected on each visit. Although not the dominant wind direct, based on a windrose for Cobourg, Ontario, winds blow frorn the south to southeast(i.e. frorn Veyance toward the subject property) approximately 4% of the tirne. The wind rose is attached in Figure 1. Based on a 24-hr operation at Veyance, there Is potential that an odour level above 1 OU greater than 0.5%of the time(44 hours per year) is exceeded at the subject property. As described above, the level of 1 OU, not to be exceeded more than 0.5% of the time, is the desired level applied by the MOE. In addition, it was observed on the June 28th, 2012 site visit that the odour levels were more noticeable and stronger at the top of a hill in the direction of the subject property(at the school). Therefore, there is potential that the above ground floors of the proposed seniors' residence may experience stronger impacts than those currently observed at nearby residences. There are also Infrequent but consistent odour complaints. Complaints typically occur at higher odour concentrations so although there are typically only 1-4 complaints a year, this is not a good indicator of the frequency of odour concentrations above 1 OU,which is, by definition, the detection level of an odour. Reputation Resources Results Canada I USA I UK I India I China I Hong Kong I Singapore www.rwdi.com Clarington•Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning i Peer Review Consulting Services RWDI#1301949 k' September 16,2013 Page 4 CONSULTING L14GIIIEERS F SCIENTISTS 4. DUST / CARBON BLACK As noted in the SENES report, the dust issues related to the facility are due to carbon black. SENES noted visible staining on nearby residences and that there have been historical issues related to carbon black emissions and spills. In the SENES addendum report, a comparison of the potential dust impacts to the MOE dustfall (particulate fallout)ambient air quality criterion of 7 g/m2/30 days. They observed that"the amount of dust on residential properties, discussions with local residents, survey responses , and lack of complaints related to dust deposition in the MOE files, the level of dust deposition currently bebrg experienced appears to he very low and below this criterion". It should be noted,that the MOE's standards for carbon black are significantly more stringent than those for particulate matter clue to the soiling characteristics of carbon black. As described above, the current standard (schedule 2) that applies to Veyance for carbon black is 25 pg/►n3 compared with 100 pg/m3 for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (1/2 hour averages) and in 2020 schedule 3 applies and the standard reduces to 10 pg/m3 for carbon black compared with 120 lag/rn3 for Total Suspended Particulate Matter(24 hour averages).SENES concludes that the dustfall criteria are met; however, these criteria are based on total particulate matter and not based on a compound with a significantly higher potential to cause soiling, as demonstrated with the more stringent standard for . carbon black. As observed with odour, there is potential that the higher elevations of the proposed seniors' residence i will'experience higher concentrations of carbon black. The SENES report identified two baghouses relevant to the handling of carbon black at Veyance: the No. 1 mixer baghouse and the preparation area baghouse, SENES expressed some concern over the preparation area baghouse because of its proximity to the proposed development and the fact that it discharges horizontally, beside the building. SENES identified a potential for"occasional but significant nuisance effects" and suggested that proper configuration, operation and maintenance of this baghouse were key to minimizing upset emissions. Reconfiguration of the exhaust stack from this baghouse so that it exhausts vertically, above the roof level, was suggested to enhance the dispersion and reduce the potential for impacts from an upset. RWDI concurs with this suggestion, but notes that even that might not be sufficient to mitigate impacts on an adjacent, multistory residential building. It is also unclear whether the baghouse as currently configured or with a vertical discharge would meet the provincial standard for carbon black at the nearest points of impingement. 5. SITE VISIT A site visit was conducted by RWDI personnel on July 22, 2013. Visible impacts of carbon black were riot observed at the subject property. The winds were blowing frorn southeast to northwest, Winds were very low, gusting to around 10km/h. During lulls In the wind,a mild rubber smell was noticeable in the parking lot. There was no noticeable odour to the west of the facility on the school property, or to the east of the facility. Reputation Resources ReSUitS Canada I USA I UK I India I China I Hong Kong I Singapore www.rwdi.com Claringlon-Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning ® Peer Review Consulting Services RWDI#1301949 September 16,2013 Page 5 yt CONSULTING ENGINEERS &SCIENTISTS 6. CONCLUSIONS Based on the history of odour and carbon black complaints and the observation of odoLlrs by SENES, OEM's classification of Veyance as a Class II facility Linder Guideline D-6, with a minimum recommended separation distance of 70m and a potential zone of influence of 300m, seems reasonable. Phase 1 of the proposed development meets the minimum separation distance of 70m with respect to Veyance, but is well within the 300m zone of influence, Phase 2 of the proposed development does not meet the minimum separation distance of 70m, but meets the test of an Infill, which means that development within the minimum separation distance may be acceptable if certain requirements are ►net. D-6 recommends that a study of dust and odours be done, and this recommendation applies to both Phase 1 and Phase 2, A study was undertaken by SENES, but RWDI finds the study to be inconclusive in terms of whether the j facility Would produce levels of odour or carbon black at the proposed development that can be considered trivial. It is difficult to discuss the impacts of-Veyance on the subject property without Veyance updating their Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling (ESDM) Report to include all sources onsite, including roof monitor(s), for odour and carbon black. The dispersion modeling would provide an indication of whether the facility meets the test for trivial odour impact and whether it meets the provincial standard for carbon black under normal operating conditions. Veyance has an ongoing history of odour complaints. SENES detected odours around the Veyance facility on every visit to the site, including odours on the subject property during one of the visits. The odour levels were found to be 'stronger at higher elevations, which Is an undesirable finding for a multi-storey residential building. SENES also indicated that there may be compliance issues with respect to carbon black and raised legitimate concerns with respect to the preparation baghouse, where carbon black Is handled and suggested a mitigation option for the baghouse exhaust. Ultimately, SENES concluded that "the potential minor and infrequent nuisance impacts related to dust and odour would meet the definition of a trivial impact". RWDI disagrees with this statement. Until the odour and dust impacts at the site are evaluated in a more objective manner, it cannot be concluded that the nuisance impacts on the site rneet the definition of a trivial impact at either Phase 1 or Phase 2 of the proposed development. Notwithstanding that SENES considered the impacts to be trivial; they proposed certain mitigation measures for Phase 2 of the proposed development. These measures consisted of warning clauses on title or lease, and ensuring the capability to retrofit dust and odour filtering on the central air system, if such measures prove to be necessary. In RWDI's view, these measures are applicable to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed development, along with the additional measure of providing air conditioning or central air conditioning to all the units, so that windows and balcony doors can be closed comfortably when an odour event occurs. A further additional measure is that the mitigation suggested by SENES for the preparation baghouse at Veyance(duct the exhaust so that it discharges vertically,above the roof)be implemented. I Reputation Resources Results Canada I USA I, UK I India I China I Hong Kong I Singapore www.iwdi.coin Cla ring ton-Proposed Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Peer Review Consulting Services RWDI#1301949 September 10,2013 Page 6 3 .s ' g i; CONSULTING ENGINEERS &SCIENTISTS For Phase 2, the level of concern is heightened due to its closer proximity to the Veyance facility. In this case, more objective studies of odour and carbon black than the study conducted by SENES are desirable to confirm whether or not there is a potential for non-trivial impacts and, if so, implement appropriate mitigation measures at Veyance Technologies Ltd. Such studies would be consistent.with the requirements for an infill set out in Guideline D-6. The need for such studies could be fulfilled by Veyance updating their Emission Summary and Dispersion Model (ESDM) report and Environmental Compliance Approval. SENES has contacted the MOE, who confirmed that Veyance is in the process of updating their ESDM and will be required to submit shortly(no specific timeline identified). Under the circumstances, it is likely that the 'MOE would require both odours and carbon black to be included as contaminants within the assessment. Presumably, the MOE would also ensure that the elevated points of impingement associated with the proposed development be taken into account in the analysis, to the extent that the design of the proposed buildings is known. If mitigation is found to be necessary, the MOE process could lead to an abatement plan with a specified schedule for implementation. However, RWDI's experience has been that timelines for completion of approvals processes, and timelines for abatement plans are highly variable and often lengthy. RWDI recommends a similar approach to odour and dust to that recommended for Phase 2 by Valcoustics Canada Ltd.for noise. Valcoustics recommended that Phase 2 be under a Holding provision until a site plan agreement, updated noise report and mitigation agreement between the developer and Veyance Technologies is in place. In the case of odour and dust, the hold could be kept in place until the rnore objective study mentioned previously is complete and any non-trivia► impacts identified by the study are mitigated at the source. As noted in the August 29, 2013 SENES memorandum, Phase 2 is several years frorn being constructed and this should allow sufficient time for the above assessment and/or Environmental Compliance Approval process to be cornpleted. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS i Based on RWDI's review of the relevant studies,the following are recommended. 7.1 Phase 1 Warning clauses on title or lease. Capability to retrofit dust and odour filtering on the central air system. Mitigation of the preparation baghouse at Veyance(duct the exhaust$o that it discharges vertically, above the roof). 7.2 Phase 2 • Same as Phase 1; plus, • Completion of an additional study of odours and carbon black, in the manner prescribed by 0. Reg. 41.9/05 and MOE supporting guidance, assessing carbon black against the Schedule 3 standard, I and odours against the MOE guidance of 1.0 OU at a frequency of 0.5%of the time. • Implementation of mitigation measures, if any, required for compliance with these limits. Reputation Resources Results Canada I USA I UK I India I China I Hong Kong I Singapore www.rwdi.com i FIGURES I N NNW, I NNIE NW I ,�,.^ ,NE. it ,� ,�'•- -ENE 71 W E \ I Wind Speed (m/s) Probability Calm 6.3 1-3 43.4 ---- 4-6 36.1 7-9 -10.8 10-12 2.7 ® >12 0.7 SS'd, I SSE Annual Winds Directional Dis ribution (%) of Winds (Blowing From) Figure No. 1 Cobourg Automat d Station (1993-2007) Proposed Official Plan A mendment and Rezoning—Clarington,Ontario Project#1301949 Date: September 13,2013 ATTACHMENT 7 TO REPORT PSD-062-13 October 7, 2013 Tracey Webster, Senior Planner U11 Community Planning and Design Branch Municipality of Clarington M�JNJGJVAU1Y of C'LA11melom 40 Temperance Street Bowt-nanville, Ontario L 1 C 3A6 Mrs. Webster: Tho 110glanal Re: Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications of Durham CODA 2012-003 and ZIBA 2012-007 (Submission #3) Planning and EconomIc Applicant: Forrest Group. Dovolopment Department Location: 105 Queen Street Planning Division Part of Lot 12, Concession 1, former Bowrnanville Municipality: Clarington 60,13 ROSSLAND RD, E. 4'11 FLOOR PO BOX 823 WHI-MYON 1-1N 6A3 CANADA The Region previously provided comments on this proposal in our letter 905-668-7711 dated May 16, 2012. At that time, the application had been deemed 1-800-172-1102 "Incomplete". Following the submission of a complete application, the rax: 905-666-6208 Email:planning0durtiarn.ca Region provided updated comments in our letter dated March, 4, 2013, which still expressed concerns related to odour, dust and noise impacts on the proposed development. A series of addendum reports have since been A.L.Georgloff,MC11-1,RPP submitted and Peer Reviewed. commissioner of Planning Mid Economic Dovolopment The comments in the Region's previous letters related to Official Flan and Provincial Plan conformity, servicing, and other matters remain applicable. This letter provides clarification related to noise, dust and odour and the Region's requirements for approval of the subject applications, D-6 Guideline Evaluation In support of the application, a Land Use Capability report titled "D-6 Guideline Evaluation" (UEM Inc., November 2012) and an Addendum Letter (May 17, 2013) has been submitted. This report summarizes the Noise and Dust/Odour Assessment reports and relates the findings to the minimum setback requirements.as outlined in the D-6 guidelines, The D-6 Guidelines Evaluation and Addendum Letter has been assessed as pail of the Peer Review of the Noise and Dust/Odour studies, Potential Noise, ITt j)a c ts The Subject applications propose a sensitive land use (senior's,residence) adjacent to an industrial facility. In order to ensure that there are no noise conflicts present, a noise assessment was requested. In Support of the application an Environmental Noise Feasibility Study has been Submitted "Sorvira kNoodlence for roar communilles" 100%[lost Consunior Page 2 (prepared by ValOOLIStiCS Canada Ltd, Nov. 2012). The Noise Feasibility Study addresses potential impacts from adjacent roadways (Queen Street) as well as stationary sources (the adjacent Veyance manufacturing facility). A subsequent noise addendum letter (VaICOUStiCS Canada Ltd, May 2, 2013) has also been received, which provides clarification in areas Such as implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Given the complex nature of the Noise Feasibility Study/addendum letter, a Peet* Review was conducted. The Peet- Reviewer's final report (RWDI Air Inc., September 16, 2013) has been reviewed by Regional staff. It is noted that the Peer Reviewer generally agrees with the ValCOLIStiC recommendations and approach, which includes separate implementation measures, such Site Plan Approval, future Noise Study Updates and Holding Provisions as well at source mitigation measures for Phase I and 2 of the proposal. A few areas of minor disagreement or areas where additional consideration should be taken have been identified by the Peer Reviewer, which are recognized as being a non-issue or have the ability to be clarified as part of the future Noise Assessment(s). The Region is satisfied with Valcoustic's findings and proposed mitigation measures, and is satisfied with the general agreement provided by the Peer Reviewer, The Implementation section of this letter contains the appropriate conditions of approval from the Region of Durham. Odour Dust In Support of the application an Odour Dust assessment titled "Land Use Compatibility Assessment" (SENES Consultants Limited, September 2012) was submitted. In addition, a report addendum was also submitted in support of the application (SENES Consultants Limited, April 26, 2013). The reports address potential odour and dust impacts associated with the Veyance facility. The reports conclude that potential impacts on the proposed development, in their opinion, meet the definition of"Trivial". Given the complex nature of the Odour/ Dust assessments, a Peer Review was conducted, The Peet* Reviewer's final report (RWDI Air Inc,, September 16, 2013) has been reviewed by Regional staff. The Peer Review report recognizes the difficulty of assessing the impacts of Veyance on the Subject property where there are no up-to-date Emission Summary and Dispersion Modeling (ESDM). In addition, the Peer Reviewer disagrees with the SENES finding that the potential odour/dust conflicts meet the Ministry of Environment's definition of"Trival", particularly at Phase 2 where the proposed building does not meet the D-6 guidelines recommend separation distance, The Peer Review report offers some recommendations in order to address these issues. A number of mitigation measures are proposed for Phase 1, and the use of a Holding Provision to address the lack of updated EDSM Page 3 information, that will be submitted as part of Veyance's Environmental Compliance Approval submission, for Phase 2. The Region is satisfied with the Peer Reviewer's recommended approach, The Implementation section of this letter contains the appropriate conditions of approval from the Region of Durham. Environmental CornpIiancq_Approval It is understood that the Veyance facility has submitted an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for Air application to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). The ECA process will assess all emissions (noise, odour, dust) in the application from the Veyance facility and determine their compliance with MOE standards, Should modifications be required to Veyance's equipment these will be incorporated in their hew ECA. It is Veyance's responsibility to comply with MOE standards and with the terms and conditions of their new ECA. If there are non-compliance issues in the future, the Ministry will deal with Veyance through voluntary and/or mandatory abatement tools depending on what the situation warrants. It is important to note, that while a company may be operating in compliance with their ECA, their operation May Still Cause an adverse effect on off-site sensitive receptors such as residences, etc, For such instances, the MOE provides a complaint reporting process in which a provincial officer will investigate reported adverse impacts and determine if any further mitigation is required. It is noted that the Peer Review of the odour assessment included a recommendation that an existing exhaust vent be modified to vent vertically (as opposed to horizontally). This recommendation has been discussed with staff from MOE. MOE has indicated that recommendations from parties other than Veyance, their consultant and the Ministry cannot be imposed by MOE on a proponent. Veyance's air pollution control equipment will be reviewed and assessed as part of the ECA process. Should mitigation or adjustment to any of the existing exhaust vents be required, they will be addressed through the ECA process, Implementation: Conditions of Approval Outlined below, and in accordance with the supporting technical Studies and peer review reports, are the Region of Durham's Planning and Economic Development Department (referred to as "the Region") conditions of approval for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed development: Phase I That the implementing zoning by-law for Phase 1 shall be subject to a Holding 'F1' Provision, Conditions of the Holding will include: Page 4 o That the applicant Submit a Record of Site Condition for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment to the Ministry of the Environment, with a Clearance Letter being provided to the Region of Durharn to the Region's satisfaction. o That Site Plan Approval be granted and that the Developer enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Municipality. a That as part of the Site Plan Approval process, an updated Noise Assessment which demonstrates compliance for Phase 1 with the Ministry of Environment's Noise Criteria be submitted. The updated Noise Assessment shall state that the Phase I mitigation works, as detailed in the May 2, 2013 Valcoustics Letter, have been completed, or alternatively, provide evidence that a Noise Abatement Action Plan has been executed between the Veyance Facility and the MOE to guarantee the mitigation measures will be secured prior to the Occupancy of Phase 1, This requirement shall be completed to the Region's satisfaction, with the developer covering the expense of a further Peer Review, if required. * That the Site Plan Agreement include a statement that the developer will implement the recommendations and mitigation measures of the Noise Feasibility Study (November 2, 2012) and Addendum Letter (May 2, 2013) as well as the required Phase I Noise Study Update. This includes mandatory central air conditioning, warning clauses and conditions related to the issuance of building permits. That the Site Plan Agreement contain the recommended mitigation measures as outlined in the peer review of the odour and dust assessments to the Region's satisfaction. This includes: o Warning Clauses which will be registered on title or lease indicating the proximity and potential for impacts from the adjacent Veyance facility. o Mandatory air conditioning for all units, o The capability to retrofit dust and odour fitting on the central air system. Phase 2 That the implementing zoning by-law for Phase 2 be subject to a Holding 'H' Provision. Conditions of the Holding will include: o That the applicant submit a Record of Site Condition for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment to the Page 5 Ministry of the Environment, with a Clearance Letter being provided to the Region of Durham to the Region's satisfaction, o That Site Plan Approval be granted and that the Developer enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Municipality, o That an updated Noise.Report which demonstrates compliance for Phase 2 with the Ministry of Environment's Noise Criteria be submitted. The updated Noise Assessment shall state that the Phase 2 mitigation works, as detailed in the May 2, 2013 Valcoustics Letter, have been completed, or alternatively, provide evidence that a Legal Agreement between the Developer and the Veyance Facility has been entered into, which will ensure the mitigation measures will be secured prior to the occupancy of Phase 2. This study shall be conducted in tandem with Site Plan Approval of Phase 2, and shall identify any changes or modifications to the design of the Phase 2 building if necessary. This requirement shall be completed to the Region's satisfaction, with the developer covering the expense of a further Peer Review, if required, The Developer further recognizes and agrees that where responsible for mitigation work at source, the Developer will post securities with the MOnicipality of Clarington to ensure the work is completed to the Municipality's and Region's satisfaction, o That a new study addressing odour and dust issues in , accordance with the Peer Reviewer's recommendation be prepared. This new study shall be completed in accordance with Ontario Regulation 419/05 and the Ministry of Environment's Supporting guidance, This updated Study shall identify any mitigation measures, warning Clauses or design modifications that may be required and secured through the Site Plan Approval process. This requirement shall be completed to the Region's satisfaction, with the developer covering the expense of a further Peer Review, if required That the Site Plan Agreement include a statement that the developer will implement the recommendations and mitigation measures of the Noise Feasibility Study (November 2, 2012) and Addendum Letter (May 2, 2013) as well as the required Phase 2 Noise Study update and the new Odour and Dust assessment. This includes mandatory central air conditioning and warning clauses, and conditions related to the issuance of building permits, Conclusion The Official Plan amendment is considered to have no significant Regional or- Provincial concerns and is exempt from Regional approval, provided the Page 6 above issues identified above are addressed to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. Please advise the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development of your Council's decision. If Council adopts an Amendment, please forward a record to this Department within 15 days of the date of adoption. The record should include the following: ® Two (2) copies of the adopted amendment; ® A copy of the adopting by-law; and * A copy of the staff report and any relevant materials. If you have any questions or concerns, please call Brad Anderson, Project Planner, in this Department. Yours trul Brian Brid eman, MCIP, RPP Director Current Planning cc: Regional Works Department—John Molica Durham Region Transit— Martin Ward