Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/5/2015Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Michelle Chambers, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at mchambers(a)-clarington.net. Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Audio Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio record of Planning and Development Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a Planning and Development Committee meeting, the Municipality will be audio recording you and will make the recording public by publishing the recording on the Municipality's website. Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net ClaEWW Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 1 Call to Order 2 New Business — Introduction 3 Adopt the Agenda 4 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest 5 Announcements 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 6.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of September 14, 2015 6-1 7 Public Meetings 7.1 Application for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 7-1 Applicant: 2265719 Ontario Limited Report PSD -049-15 7.2 Application to Permit a Temporary Parking Lot 7-3 Applicant: Cowan Buick GMC/Gerr Holdings Ltd. Report: PSD -050-15 8 Delegations 8.1 Delegation of Bonnie Martin Regarding the Rezoning of a Property Located at 2385 Maplegrove Road 8.2 Delegation of Clint Cole, Enniskillen Environmental Association, Regarding Resolution PD -015-15, Clarington Transformer Station, Tabled at the September 14, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Meeting 9 Communications - Receive for Information 1- 1 Manish Nayar, President, Oya Solar Inc. — Hybridyne Power Generation 9-1 Site A Solar Farm — Notice of Public Information Centre Regarding the Construction of a Communication Tower Page 1 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 10 Communications— Direction D-1 Janet McNeill, DNA Coordinator, Durham Nuclear Awareness — OPG's 10-1 Request for 13 Year Licence for Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (Due to Volume, Only Pages 84-100 of the Submission of the Canadian Environmental Law Association are Included) (Motion for direction) 11 Presentations Presentation of Steve Usher, SLR Consulting Canada, Regarding Report PSD -052-15, Clarington Transformer Station, Annual Update 12 Planning Services Department Reports 12.1 PSD -049-15 An Application by 2265719 Ontario Inc., to Permit 70 Single 12-1 Detached Dwellings 12.2 PSD -050-15 An Application by Cowan Buick GMC, on Behalf of Gerr 12-10 Holdings Ltd., to Permit the Temporary Use of a Vacant Lot for Employee Parking 12.3 PSD -051-15 Application for Removal of Holding Symbol 12-18 Applicant: Claret Investments Limited and 1361189 Ontario Limited 12.4 PSD -052-15 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review, Annual 12-24 Update 12.5 PSD -053-15 Request for Extension of Draft Approval by Far Sight 12-45 Investments Ltd. 13 New Business e Consideration 14 Unfinished Business 14.1 Resolution # Clarington Transformer Station [Tabled from the 14-1 PD -015-15 September 14, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Meeting] Page 2 iAL • 811000,9 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 15 Confidential Reports No Reports 16 Adjournment Page 3 Clari Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 i Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on Monday, September 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. Present Were: Mayor A. Foster, Councillor S. Cooke, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor W. Partner, Councillor C. Trail[, Councillor W. Woo Staff Present: D. Crome, J. Gallagher, M. Chambers 1 Call to Order Councillor Woo called the meeting I m tin to order '0 P g d t 7. 0 M. i 2 New Business — Introduction Councillor Neal added a new business item, regarding the Clarington Transformer Station, to the New Business — Consideration section of the Agenda. j 3 Adopt the Agenda P ! Resolution #PD-001-15 I Moved by Councillor Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Councillor Cooke That the Agenda for the Planning and Development Committee meeting of September 14, 2015 be adopted as presented, with the following item being added to the "New Business — Consideration" section of the Agenda: O Clarington Transformer Station Carried 4 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest !' Councillor Partner indicated she would be declaring a pecuniary interest in Report ! PSD-042-15 regarding Public Meeting Report for a General Amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63. 5 Announcements Members of Council announced upcoming community events and matters of community ' interest. 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting There were no previous minutes to be considered under this Section of the Agenda. it 6-1 j. Clarington Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 7 Public Meetings 7.1 Application to Permit an Outdoor Wedding and Event Venue Applicant: Lesle Gibson Report: PSD-041-15 Anne Taylor Scott, Planner II, made a verbal and electronic presentation to the Committee regarding the application. James Kamstra, local resident speaking on behalf of his parents, spoke in opposition to the application. He advised the Committee that he is concerned with the size and frequency of the events. Mr. Kamstra added that he is also concerned with the increased traffic during events. He concluded that he believes this application appears be a temporary use and is concerned that it will become a permanent use in the future and the events will continue to grow larger. Jim Kamstra, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. He advised the Committee that he is not completely opposed to the application, however he feels that more studies need to be conducted prior to approving this application. Mr. Kamstra is concerned with the "S" bend on the narrow road in front of the property. He noted that he is also concerned with increased speeding in the area and any increase in the size and frequency of these events. Mr. Kamstra explained that he is concerned with events being licensed, the noise from these events, how late will the run, and how will these events be policed. He concluded by asking that alternative options be looked at and presented to the public. Heather Saddler, Planner, EcoVue, was present on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Saddler explained to the Committee that Ms. Gibson is well known for her event hosting and party planning all over the world and looking to bring these events to the Municipality of Clarington and to her family farm. She explained that these events will reflect the nature of the property and are intended to benefit from the existing agricultural operations. Ms. Saddler noted that the events will range from small to large and will not all have 250 guests in attendance. She explained that these events will be well planned, well managed, elegant events with considerable planning. Ms. Saddler noted that they understand the neighbours concerns and explained that any future plans will be controlled through the Official Plan, Zoning By-law, Site Plan Control, and the Noise By- law. Ms. Saddler concluded by stated that all events will be licensed by the Municipality, are not intended to be disruptive to the community, and will help develop rural farm properties and strengthen them for the future. Lesle, Gibson, applicant, responded to specific questions regarding parking and the municipal Noise By-law. - 2 - 6-2 r Planning and Development Committee 17arington Minutes September 14, 2015 7.2 Application for a General Amendment to Zoning By-Law 84-63 Applicant: Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-042-15 Tracey Webster, Senior Planner, made a verbal and electronic presentation to the t Committee regarding the application. Clifford Curtis, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Curtis noted that he had previously submitted his written delegation to the members of the Committee. He explained that he has owned property at the end of Tooley Road since 1981 and it is currently zoned (H)R1. Mr. Curtis explained that this property was severed in 1991.and is currently landlocked. He requested that Section 3.11 of the proposed Zoning By-law not be passed as it will make it extremely difficult to proceed with the Removal of Holding process. He concluded by asking that these changes be deferred until the new Official Plan and Zoning By-law are passed to ensure that these changes comply. No one spoke in support of the application. Recess Resolution #PD-002-15 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Mayor Foster i That the committee recess for 10 minutes. Carried The meeting reconvened at 8:35 PM with Councillor Woo in the Chair. 8 Delegations 8.1 Delegation of Michael Fry, D.G. Biddle & Associates, Regarding Report PSD-043-15, A Rezoning Application by 1351739 Ontario Limited to Amend Zoning By-Law 84-63 to Permit the Severance of a Residential Lot Fronting on Townline Road, Courtice r Michael Fry, D.G. Biddle & Associates, was present regarding Report PSD-043-15. Mr. Fry thanked the Committee and advised that he would like to speak to some of the changes in the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. He noted that this By-law complies with both the Regional and local Official Plan's. Mr. Fry continued by stating that he would like to address the provision in the staff report regarding the Removal of Holding. He explained that originally there was a provision to dedicate the open space lands to the Municipality of Clarington based on the existence of the Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW) and after the pre-consultation the Central Lake Conservation Authority determined that there is no PSW on the subject property. Mr. Fry concluded by asking the Committee to change the By-law to remove this provision. - 3 - 6-3 li. Clatington Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 8.2 Delegation of Michael Fry, DG Biddle & Associates, Regarding Report PSD-045-15, Application by Zemer Holdings Ltd. to Rezone Lands to Permit an Apartment Building at 50 Martin Road in Bowmanville Michael Fry, D.G. Biddle & Associates, was present regarding Report PSD-045-15. Mr. Fry thanked the Committee and noted that he has reviewed the recommendations in the staff report and would like to address a few items. He addressed recommendation 3b in the staff report regarding the provision for the construction of a trail that is publicly accessible prior to the removal of holding symbol. Mr. Fry explained that this will be an issue for the property owner due to the slope of the land making it extremely difficult to create and maintain a public trail. He added that the property owner will have difficulty obtaining insurance for this trail which will make it difficult to receive funds. Mr. Fry continued by noting concern for recommendation 3c regarding the completion of an Environmental Impact Study to address the proposed sewer connection. Mr. Fry added that after he reviewed the proposed draft Zoning By-law, he feels that it does not completely address items in the building envelope, including but not limited to the setback and height provisions. 8.3 Delegation of Laverne Kirkness, Kirkness Consulting, Regarding Report PSD-048-15, An Application By 2346123 Ontario Inc. (Wally Gupta) To Permit a Motor Vehicle Fuel Bar Laverne Kirkness, Kirkness Consulting, was present regarding Report PSD-048-15. Mr. Kirkness explained to the Committee that he was present at the Public Meeting in June, 2015 and provided a detailed overview of the features of the proposed development. He thanked staff for the report and the recommendations. Mr. Kirkness concluded by noting they are pleased with the Report, have some work to do with this project, and would like to move forward and prepare a Site Plan. 9 Communications - Receive for Information 1-1 D. Bowen, AMCT, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Durham — 2015 Corporate Climate Change Update 1-2 Melodee Smart, Works Department, Regional Municipality of Durham — Durham/York Energy from Waste Project—Ambient Air Monitoring 1-3 Melodee Smart, Works Department, Regional Municipality of Durham — Durham/York Energy from Waste Project— 2014 Durham Region and York Region Waste Diversion Program Monitoring Reports and Waste Management Annual Reports ' 1-4 Melodee Smart, Works Department, Regional Municipality of Durham — Durham/York Energy from Waste Project—April, May and June 2015 Complaint and Inquiry Logs and Project Team Direct Contact Log - 4 - 6-4 C i Clarjvgton Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 i 1-5 Minutes of the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority dated May 21, and June 18, 2015 i Resolution #PD-003-15 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Cooke That correspondence items I - I to 1 -5 to be received for information. Carried 10 Communications — Direction D-1 Lesle Gibson, Letter Addressing Concerns of Neighbours Regarding Proposed Amendment to the Official Plan, Report PSD-041-015, Applications by Lesle Gibson to Permit an Outdoor Wedding and Event Venue Resolution #PD-004-15 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Traill That the correspondence from Lesle Gibson, regarding Report PSD-041-15, Applications by Lesle Gibson to Permit.an Outdoor Wedding and Event Venue, be referred to the Director of Planning Services to be considered as part of the application review process. Carried D-2 Cliff Curtis, Correspondence Regarding a Proposed General Amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63, Report PSD-042-15, Public Meeting Report for a General Amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63 _ r Resolution #PD-005-15 L Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper '' That the correspondence from Clifford Curtis, regarding Report PSD-042-15, Public is Meeting Report for a General Amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63, be referred to the Director of Planning Services to be considered as part of the application review process. Carried I I? F` t; E` r- r - 5 - i r. 6-5 Clarington Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 11 Presentations There were no Presentations scheduled under this Section of the Agenda. 12 Planning Services.Department Reports 12.1 PSD-041-15 Applications by Lesle Gibson to Permit an Outdoor Wedding and Event Venue Resolution #PD-006-15 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Traill That Report PSD-041-15 be received; That the proposed applications by Lesle Gibson to amend the Clarington Official Plan (COPA 2015-0003) and Zoning By-law (ZBA 2015-0011) be approved, and the appropriate by-laws be brought forward to the September 21, 2015 Council meeting; That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-041-15 and Council's decision; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-041-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 12.2 PSD-042-15 Public Meeting Report for a General Amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63 Councillor Partner declared a pecuniary interest in Report PSD-042-15, regarding Public Meeting Report for a General Amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63, as she is an owner of a dog related business. Councillor Partner left the room and refrained from discussion and voting on this matter. Resolution #PD-007-15 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper That Report PSD-042-15 be received; That the Zoning By-law Amendment contained in Attachment 3 of Report PSD-042-15 be approved; That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-042-15 and Council's decision; and - 6 - 6-6 Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-042-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried as Amended r (See following motion) Resolution #PD-008-15 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill That the foregoing Resolution #PD-007-15 be amended by adding the following at the end of Paragraph one: r with the changes indicated in the handout distributed by the Director of Planning Services and the following change to Item 9xi) of the handout: replace the words 'one student at a time' with the words 'up to three individuals."' Carried f The foregoing Resolution #PD-007-15 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. Councillor Partner returned to the meeting. i 12.3 PSD-043-15 A Rezoning Application by 1351739 Ontario Limited to Amend Zoning By-Law 84-63 to Permit the Severance of a Residential Lot Fronting on Townline Road, Courtice Resolution #PD-009-15 f Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper That Report PSD-043-15 be received; That the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by 1351739 Ontario Limited be approved as contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD-043-15; That, once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved; That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and !' Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-043-15 and Council's decision; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-043-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. I Carried j; - 7 - f 6-7 Clarivgton Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 12.4 PSD-044-15 Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan — Terms of Reference Resolution #PD-010-15 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Mayor Foster That Report PSD-044-15 be received; That the Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan process and approach be accepted and the consulting proposal call issued; That Staff provide a recommendation for the retention of a consulting team in accordance with the Purchasing By-law; That the costs be charged to Unclassified Administration — Professional Fees Account #100-21-211-00000-7161 with 90 percent recovered from the General Government Development Charges Reserve Fund; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-044-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 12.5 PSD-045-15 Application by Zemer Holdings Ltd. to Rezone Lands to Permit an Apartment Building at 50 Martin Road in Bowmanville Resolution #PD-011-15 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper That Report PSD-045-15, regarding Application by Zemer Holdings Ltd. to Rezone Lands to Permit an Apartment Building at 50 Martin Road in Bowmanville, be referred to Staff to discuss the matter further with the applicant. Carried 12.6 PSD-046-15 Ontario Heritage Trust Recognition Program Resolution #PD-012-15 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Hooper That Report PSD-046-15 be received; That the Ontario Heritage Trust be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington nominates Brian and Audrey Jose for recognition under the Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award for Excellence in Conservation for their significant contribution to the conservation of Clarington's built heritage with restoring The Walbridge House; and - 8 - 6-8 i r Planning and. Development Committee Uarhigton Minutes September 14, 2015 That Brian and Audrey Jose, the Ontario Heritage Trust, and all interested parties listed in Report PSD-046-15 be advised of Council's decision. Carried 12.7 PSD-047-15 Clarington Heritage!Meek 2015 Resolution #PD-013-15 Moved by Councillor Hooper,-seconded by Councillor Cooke I That Report PSD-047-15 be received for information. Carried 12.8 PSD-048-15 An Application by 2346123 Ontario Inc. (Wally Gupta) to Permit a Motor Vehicle Fuel Bar Resolution #PD-014-15 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Mayor Foster That Report PSD-048-15 be received; E: That the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by 2346123 Ontario Inc. (Wally Gupta) be approved and the by-law passed as contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD-048-15; That once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, including the matters identified in Section 11.13 of Report PSD-048-15, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol, be approved; That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-048-15 and Council's decision; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-048-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried . 1 f ' r 6-9 Clarpgton Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 13 , New Business e Consideration 13.1 Clarington 'Transformer station Resolution #PD-015-15 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill Whereas the Environmental Site Report ("ESR") submitted by Hydro One to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (the "Minister") for the Clarington Transformer Station ("CTS") was based on a desktop study prepared by Stantec, and which has been refuted by the site concept model developed by SLR Consulting, prepared based on actual hydro-geological results; and Whereas recent tests have indicated the presence of elevated levels of tritium in three residential wells which had been selected for testing by SLR Consulting; Now therefore be it resolved that: 1. Clarington is requesting.that the Minister require that Hydro One submit a new ESR based on the site concept model developed by SLR Consulting, and to include the results of the studies referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, and that the Minister consider making a Part II Order for the CTS; 2. Clarington is requesting that Hydro One pay for comprehensive tritium tests, including helium 3 testing, on all affected residential wells, and to be analyzed at a neutral testing lab; 3. Clarington is requesting that Hydro One provide access for and waive any management fees for, Group 360 for the drilling and monitoring of the sonic deep well. 4. This resolution be forwarded to MPP Granville Anderson, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Hydro One, Durham Region, Enniskillen Environmental Association and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Motion tabled (See following motion) Resolution #PD-016-15 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Partner That the above Resolution #PD-015-15, be tabled until the Planning & Development Committee meeting of October 5, 2015. Carried - 10 - 6-10 f Clarington Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 14 Unfinished Business i There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. 15 Confidential Reports 15.1 Confidential Verbal Report from the Director of Planning Services Regarding a Property Matter Closed Session Resolution #PD-017-15 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Partner j i That, in accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the meeting be closed for the purpose of discussing a confidential verbal report from the I Director of Planning Services regarding a property matter, a proposed or pending E acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board. j Carried Rise and Report The meeting resumed in open session at 10:42 PM with Councillor Woo in the Chair. i Councillor Woo advised that one item was discussed in "closed" session in accordance with Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and no resolutions were passed. r Resolution #PD-018-15 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill That the confidential verbal report, from the Director of Planning Services, regarding a property matter, be received for information. Carried I' i 6-11 Clarington Planning and Development Committee Minutes September 14, 2015 16 Adjournment Resolution #PD-019-15 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Traill That the meeting adjourn at 10:44 PM. Carried Mayor Deputy Clerk - 12 - 6-12 I Public Meeting Report PSD-049-15 Municipality of Clarington Nomoe of Pubflc MeeUng A pared use change has been proposed, have your amyl The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application for-a proposed..Pian'of Subdivision and to amend the Zoning By-law. 0 0 0 2265719 Ontario Limited wants to develop 70 single detached homes. The appftatllo6s are complete for circulation and review. MIAMI !ill Address: 3425 and 3499 Regional Road 57, Bow manville The subject site is located on the east side of Regional Road 57, approAmately I kilometre north of Concession Road 3. S�C 2015-0002 &ZOA 2015-0014 The-proposed plan of subdivision and.zoning by-law amendment, additional information and background studies are available for review at the Planning Services Department and on our website at.hftp://www.cl*arington.net/developmentproposals Questions? Please contact Cynthia Strike 905-623-3379, extension 2410, or by email at cstrike @clarington.net, or write to the Planning Services Department to the.attention of Cynthia Strike Speak at the Public Meeting: Date: Monday, October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM ' Place: 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 Municipal Administrative Centre Council.Chambers L /V QUARRY LAKE GOLF COURSE 2 4 8 CRAIG pT • 3 5 3499 z 1 2 34567891811 iz 1314151617 819 02122322 262 2829 HARRY LEE CRESCENT HIGHAM DRIVE, 48 43 33 32 is 2 58 56 55 54 53 52 515 9 4 So 6263 8 U-'07- 5 TO 69 68 67 6 7- 1 __fffl_M7TTT7-T-n— f bur) L , TMITM 11T�_ n- Freedom of Wormatoon and Protection of Privacy Act The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the Clerk's Department at 905- 623-3379, extension 2102. Ac cessibifl ty If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations please contact the Clerk's Department at 905-623-3379, extension 2109. AppeM Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed, you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable*grounds to do to. David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services 09 September 2015 7-2 Public Meeting Report#PSD-050-15 Pahl O. fi Municipality of Clarington Notice of Publ' A land ruse* change has been proposed,osed, Piave your say! The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application to amend the Zoning Qy-law, to continue to permit a $emp®raay parking/®$. - Cowan Buick GMC on behalf of Gerr Holdings Ltd, wants to continue to use a vacant lot as a temporary parking lot for the staff of their automobile dealership which is located s: across the street. As a result, they have submitted a SUBJECT PROPERTY _� ,� � �� � � � � � � � � complete application that meets all of the technical requirements of the Municipality. rr X. : I-A W t r ;' The gravel parking lot is located at'18 Brown Street(the 011 west side of Brown Street OW to b- Informed Q��.y �` � � �> 4,. S_7� t irk - l• � �. dpi A copy of the application is available for review at the Planning Services Department. �. Questions? Please contact Paul Wirch 905-623-3379, extension.2418, or by email at gton.net pwirch(c�clarin fr n. Tz ip. �- • _ - Speak at the P _ p Public Meeting: . - Date: Monday, October 5, 2015 - Time: 7:00 PM tan fly Place: 40 Temperance Street, Bowma'nvi Il e O NL1C3A 6, r Municipal Administrative Centre Council Chambers Or write the Planning Services Department to the attention 'a -- of Paul Wirch. 7-3 [file ISIUmibor ZBA 201.5-0016 Freedom ®u Informailon and Protection ®f Privacy Act The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the'public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the Clerk's Department at 905-623-3379,'extension 2102. Accessibility If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations please contact the Clerk's Department at 905-623-33.79, extension 2109. Appeaii Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed, you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do to. David J. Came, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services September 16, 2015 7-4 _6 f-- SOLAR September 24th, 2015 CLARINGTON MUNICIPALITY& MUNICIPAL CLERK 40 TEMPERANCE ST BOWMANVILLE ON L1C 3A6 RE: Oya Solar Inc.: Hybridyne Power Generation Site A Solar Farm—Notice of Public Information Centre Regarding the Construction of a Communication Tower Dear CLARINGTON MUNICIPALITY& MUNICIPAL CLERK, Oya Solar Inc.,on behalf of HPG Site A Inc., please find enclosed the"Notice of Public Information Centre" for the HPG Site A Solar Farm located within the Municipality of Clarington, Ontario. Oya Solar Inc. is proposing the construction of a communication tower as a requirement from Hydro One Inc.This communication tower is being constructed for exclusive use of the HPG Site A Solar Farm. The attached notice, as well as the Public Information Centre are in accordance with section 3.a.i of the Municipality of Clarington Report#PSD-041-13. To learn more about the project,the relevant contact information can be found on the Project Notice. Sincerely, Oya Solar Inc. Manish Nayar President of Oya Solar Inc. Attachment: Notice of Public Information Cenre U0. REVIEWED B;' i C3E<ly! .AL TO: U COL!t�CIL�I' 'vuiuv' L! FILE $ DIRECTION 1WIOR10ATI0 N cOP`/TO: CZ MAYOR G MEMBERS o CAO iI DE COUNCIL f o COi+iMUNITY ❑ CORPORATE O EMERGENCY SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES El ENGINEERING Li PAUNICIPAL o OPERATION'S SERVICES CLERK'S OYA Solar Inc. PLANNNIG U FOLIGITOR D TREASURY i 11 Kodiak Crescent SERVICES St ite C Toronto,Ontario ❑ OTHER _.___�. M3-1 3E5 CANADA �J T:1.416.84i{p,,,�335'5 hhUfJICIPALCI.[RK'SEILE — F:1.416.86Of66U vnvw.oyasolar—rn NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CENTRE To be held by Oya Solar Inc. (on behalf of HPG Site A Inc.) regarding the construction of a Communication Tower Project Name: Hybridyne Power Generation Site A Solar Farm TOWER AND ACCESSORIES DESIGNED TO OPA Reference Number: FIT-FTFGBZ3 4 N/Tzc —13 FOR: yr AND ICE=ZOmm Project Location:The project is located in the Municipality of Clarington, Ontario.The site is a 10.5 acre parcel of land located at 2100 Brownsville a—322 x 32 O.D.x 4,.32 H.SS � 'GRM o TO? C—914mm x 914mm Rd.on Part of Lot 19, Concession 2,former Township of Clarke. D-E'3-3SP A B C D E7:46.77m 04� x ------- Oya Solar Inc., on behalf of HPG Site A Inc. is currently in the construction a w E I phase of the HPG Site A Solar Farm at 2100 Brownsville Rd, Municipality of oY :E "E ` Clarington. This project was issued a Renewable Energy Approval(REA)on ? November 26th, 2012 (#8332.8ZXN8R). HPG Site A Inc. is proposing the ^ construction of a communication tower. This notice is being distributed to �^ o make the public aware of a public information centre. x E Meeting Location: DATE: Tuesday,October 27th,2015 .4g e TIME: 7:00—9:00 PM PLACE: Program Room#1 V+ x x Newcastle&District Recreation Complex Fg 1780 Rudell Road,Newcastle �^ 6 J c� nE OA d Communication Tower Description: The proposed tower is to be 80m north of the Solar Farm located at 2100 `£ olAv 7D9.9A-r Brownsville Rd,on Part of Lot 19,Concession 2,former Township of Clarke, in the Municipality of Clarington. It will be constructed to 50.29m in height, - ° 72.29k` 1 ,67.B81 and meets all CSA-S37-13 standards.The tower will have a triangle base, q F f3�k and be of the lattice type,all material meeting the CSA Grade 40.21 300W, -ALL UMSS AM UNFA-MRM- being silver in colour.This antenna system will comply with Health Canada's r-PAF11U1ANY-- Safety Code 6. Communication Tower Purpose: This tower is being constructed as a Hydro One Inc. requirement.The key purpose of the tower is to allow Hydro One Inc.to have the ability to shut down the solar farm for safety and regulatory requirements.The tower will be used exclusively for the purposes of operating the solar farm,including but,not limited to real-time monitoring. This tower will work in conjunction with a secondan immunication tower located It near Port Hope. _ p4 Public Responses:All public responses can be made at the public information •• % centre,if you are unable to attend,please see contact information below. Responses •`'• to all public inquiries must be made.5 business days following the public information o~ ��TOwe,r Location* '� centre, p4 , Contact Information: `� Nz Blow^;��9e�� Developer Contact: Municipal of Clarington Contact: .�.� Loni Tsui, Regulatory Manager Bob Russell,Planner II Ioni.tsui@oyasolar.com Development Review Branch 416-840-3358 ext.131 brusseA @clarington.net 905-623-3379 exL2421 EMend 0 7M�]3M Fz4eleic.e.-:yn - Oya Solar Inc. Municipality of Clarington HPG Site A Solar Farm, 11 Kodiak Crescent, Suite C 40 Temperance Street Municipality of Clarington Toronto,ON Bowmanville, ON M3J 3E5 L1 C 3A6 9-2 C D - 1 Fleming, Cindy From: Janet McNeill <mcneill.janet @g mail.com> Sent: September-17-15 1:09 PM To: Clerks Department Outside Cc: Mayors ExternalMailGroup; Woo, Willie; Traill, Corinna; Neal, Joe; Partner, Wendy; Hooper, Ron; Cooke, Steven; Janet McNeill Subject: DNA Letter: Darlington Hearing; OPG Request for a 13-year licence(relevant materials attached)---- 1 st Message Attachments: Request for Ruling Aug.2015.pdf;ATT00001.htm; OSHAWA Council re Sev Acc Study.pdf; ATT00002.htm; Why Not 13 Years-Sept.17'15-2.pdf; ATT00003.htm Clarington Clerk& Council Members: I am attaching our letter, as well as inserting it below here as text. It may be best that I send some of the materials referred to as "attached" in a separate email message. One of the files is fairly large;I'll send it separately. DISTRIBU e 1 Janet McNeill REVIEWED BY DNA Coordinator ORIG " '_ O: ❑ COUNCIL ❑ FILE DIRECTION INFORMATION COPY TO: September 17, 2015. ❑ MAYOR ❑ MEMBERS ❑ CAD OF COUNCIL } I ❑ COMMUNITY ❑ CORPORATE ❑ EMERGENCY SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES ❑ ENGINEERING ❑ MUNICIPAL ❑ OPERATIONS Council of the Municipality of Clarington SS RVICES CLERK'S Municipal Office-40 Temperance St. p'PLANNING ❑ SOLICITOR ❑ TREASURY SERVICES Bowmanville, ON L 1 C 3A6. MUNICIPAL CLERK'S FILE , Re: OPG's Request for 13-year Licence for DarlinLyton Nuclear Generatine Station t; Dear Members of Clarington Council: You have likely heard that Ontario Power Generation(OPG)is asking the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission(CNSC) for a 13-year licence for the continued operation and refurbishment of the four reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station(NGS). The hearing on this matter is scheduled to take place in Courtice on November 2-5,2015. i Deadline for written submissions to the CNSC is September 28'.Details about the hearing can be found here http://goo.gl/j a5AEa. 1 _ � 10-1 As you might expect, our group has concerns about the licence application. It is unprecedented for OPG to request a licence of this length. In the past, OPG's licences have always been for 2-5 years maximum.I'm attaching a summary of reasons why our group does not believe a 13-year licence for the Darlington NGS is the best and most reasonable course of action for protecting the safety of the people of Durham Region—as well as that of the Toronto/GTA public. It is important to note that we are neither asking nor or expecting Durham's political leaders to adopt an anti-nuclear stance! We merely ask you to be critical about this matter, do a small bit of reading, and consider expressing support for a 5-year, rather than a.13-year licence. It is also important for Durham's political leaders to understand that the recent claim by Canada's nuclear regulator,the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission,that they have produced a"severe accident study"is not as straightforward as it seems. The background on this is that a very large number of intervenors at the 2012 Darlington hearing(in the wake of the Fukushima disaster) asked that the potential for a serious accident at Darlington be studied.The tribunal then directed CNSC staff to do such a study. Greenpeace learned through an Access to Information query that when"inconvenient"results were found, senior CNSC staff said the information was likely to be used"malevolently"at a public hearing,then ordered staff to re-do it,without assessing a Level 7 event. As we in DNA have learned from a careful reading of the book Fukushima—The Story of a Nuclear Disaster, information inconvenient to the nuclear industry has been being swept under the carpet ever since the Three Mile Island accident (March 1979).A pattern or precedent was set in the early 1980s,with the U.S.regulator.Basically,the mindset since Three Mile Island has been"the chances of an accident severe enough to produce such death and destruction were so slight as to be hardly worth mentioning." (from the book,page 208). • 2 10-2 1= As it happens,this unhelpful mindset is not simply a U.S.matter,but has been much in evidence around the world. Our own made-in-Canada parallels in this regard can be seen in these two ways: 1. The Ontario Cabinet called for a change in the"planning basis"for nuclear emergency planning in September 1993, i.e., in the days following the Chernobyl accident(April 1986).The.document containing this information is attached(see pages 84 to 100).The planning;basis remains unchanged to this day,22 years after the change was called for meaning that detailed emergency plans for a Level 7 accident on the International Nuclear Event Scale(IVES)—accidents like the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters—have not been formulated. 2. The recent claim by CNSC to have conducted a Severe Accident Study when in fact the study is not at all what it purports to be. j Considering the potential impacts to human life of a severe accident,impacts to the environment(including Lake Ontario as a drinking water source)—as well as effects on the economy that a serious accident at a large nuclear generating station like the Darlington NGS would lead to—we encourage your Council as a whole and/or some of you as individual I� Councillors to consider taking part in this licensing hearing process at least in the form of submitting a letter. j r We believe the involvement of Durham Region's political community would be useful in expressing that a 5-year licence would be reasonable and acceptable (as opposed to a 13-year one).Lessening public scrutiny at this time—when we know that insufficient planning and scrutiny contributed to the Fukushima disaster(officially found to be a"man-made disaster";please see quotations below)—could lead to a disaster a lot closer to home. Recent postings on the DNA Web site(link below)discuss matters of nuclear safety,health,refurbishment, insights that have been learned from the Fukushima disaster, and information about the so-called"Severe Nuclear Accident"study. Many relevant links are provided to help readers find necessary additional resources readily. is i; E For the sake of the safety and protection of the Durham Region(and Toronto)public,we ask that you consider weighing in on this matter.Recommending a 5-year licence(not a 13-year one)would be a responsible course of action geared to taking the protection of millions of citizens into account. I i . r Sincerely, i I' 1 Janet McNeill 3 10-3 DNA Coordinator Durham Nuclear Awareness (DNA) c%206 Byron St.North Whitby, ONLIN4N1. Phone: 416 792.2024 Email:.info@durhamnuclearaWareness.com Web: http:Ildurhamnuclearawareness.com/ Attached.- • CELA(Canadian Environmental Law Association)document_(regarding Ontario Cabinet 1993 recommendation to change the planning basis in;relevant pages are 84-100) • Groups' Ruling Request re: Severe Accident Study • September 101 letter to Oshawa Council • Reasons why a 13-year licence is not a good idea "The earthquake and tsunami of March 11,2011 were natural disasters of a magnitude that shocked the entire world. Although triggered by these cataclysmic events,the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster—that . could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response."—Kiyoshi Kurokawa, Chairman of The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiie rgport.Tdf (Pg. 9) "A "manmade" disaster: The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation's right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore,we conclude that the accident was clearly"manmade."We believe that the root causes were the organizational and regulatory systems that supported faulty rationales for decisions and actions,rather than issues relating to the competency 4 10-4 of any specific individual. (see Recommendation 1)"—from The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/naiic report.pdf(pg. 16) i "The Commission has verified that there was a lag'in upgrading nuclear emergency preparedness and complex disaster countermeasures, and attributes this to regulators' negative attitudes toward revising and improving existing emergency plans."—from The official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission http://www.r irs.org/fukushima/naiic report.pdf(pg. 19) r l I` I! Jr 10-5 Request for Ruling: Direct staff to be accountable and release public safety assessments related to the Darlington nuclear station August 19,2015 The Canadian Environmental Law Association(CELA), the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR), Durham Nuclear Awareness (DNA), Greenpeace, New Clear Free Solutions, Northwatch and the Sierra Club Canada hereby request a Ruling pursuant to section 20(1) of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) rules of procedure with respect to the following: Whereas the CNSC held combined hearings in December 2012 considering Ontario Power Generation's (OPG) licence renewal application for the Darlington nuclear station and the environmental review of OPG's proposal to rebuild and extend the operational lives of the four aging Darlington reactors; Whereas civil society groups and hundreds of citizens stated their concern that the environmental review did not consider the environmental effects of'a major accident or the adequacy of existing emergency measures to respond to a Fukushima-scale radiation.release at the Darlington nuclear station; Whereas Fukushima is considered a level 7 accident on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), which categorizes accidents based on the magnitude of radioactive releases with a level 7 being the highest level; Whereas CNSC staff acknowledged during the 2012 hearings that they could have assessed such a large accident in the publicly available environmental assessment,but chose not to; Whereas CNSC staff acknowledged that the public intervenors viewed such a study as necessary and committed during the 2012 hearings to assess the impacts of such accidental radioactive releases before the next licence renewal hearings; Whereas the Commission's subsequent Record of Decision on the environmental assessment stated: "CNSC staff, because of public concern, agreed to provide an information document .or equivalent assessing health and environmental consequences of more severe accident scenarios discussed by intervenors and intends on updating the Commission on this topic in fall 2013." Whereas CNSC staff responded to this commitment by releasing a report in June 2014 entitled Study of Consequences of a Hypothetical Severe Nuclear Accident and Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures; Whereas this study did not assess the consequences of a level 7 INES accident similar to Fukushima as requested by public intervenors in 2012; Whereas Access to Information(ATI) documents acquired by Greenpeace show the study in question had originally assessed a Level 7 INES accident as requested by public intervenors,but had been censored by CNSC management so that the level 7 INES accident scenario had been deleted from the published report; Whereas these ATI documents show CNSC directors instructed staff to redo the study in January 2014 after reviewing the draft study, which did examine the consequences of a Level 7 INES accident at Darlington. Whereas the ATI documents cite Francois Rinfret, Director of the Darlington Regulatory Program Division of the CNSC, giving the following justification for censoring the study: `7 have taken a quick look at the draft submitted; indeed, this will become a focal point of any licence renewal, and despite 1 10-6 II, I brilliant attempts to caution readers, this document would be used malevolent-ly[sic] in a public hearing. It's a no-win proposition whatever whatever[sic]we think the Commission requested." i Recognizing that an Environics poll of federal scientists found CNSC staff were one of the most likely to be asked to alter studies for non-scientific reasons and second most likely (57%) to be aware of cases where the health and safety of Canadians had been compromised due to political interference; Whereas no study has ever been released by the federal or Ontario governments assessing the effectiveness of offsite emergency response in the event of a level 7 INES accident or the anticipated public health and environmental consequences of such an accident; Whereas Swiss authorities modeled the impacts of a level 7 INES accident at each of Switzerland's stations to determine what new protective measures would be required to protect the health of Swiss citizens after the Fukushima accident; We request under section 20(1)of the CNSC rules of procedure that: The Commission direct CNSC staff to release the results of the uncensored Darlington accident study by September 15`s so that the public intervenors who requested this study in 2012 can consider and incorporate the study's findings in their written submissions due on September 28� 2015. Cc: Dr. David McKeown,Toronto's Chief Medical Officer of Health Hon.Kathleen Wynne,Premier of Ontario Hon.Bob Chiarelli,Minister of Energy,Ontario Mike Schiener,Leader of the Green Party of Ontario Peter Tabuns,MPP,Energy Critic,New Democratic Party of Ontario Jennifer French,MPP,Community Safety Critic,New Democratic Party of Ontario Hon. Stephen Harper,Prime Minister of Canada Gilles Duceppe,Leader of the Bloc.Quebdcois (' Thomas Mulcair,MP,Leader of the Official Opposition P Elizabeth May,MP,Leader of the Green Party of Canada Justin Trudeau,MP,Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Michael Ferguson,Auditor General of Canada Bonnie Lysyk,Auditor General of Ontario Ellen Schwartzel,Acting Environmental Commissioner of Ontario The Toronto Star,the Globe and Mail,the National Post,Canadian Press j C' i 2 I 10_7 Re: Ontario Power Generation (OPG)'s request for a 13-year licence for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (DNGS) OPG's request for a 13-year licence for Darlington is unprecedented.For the past 40 years OPG has received two-to=five year licences for the Pickering and Darlington nuclear stations. OPG says it needs this extraordinary licence so it can more easily rebuild the four aging Darlington reactors over the next thirteen years. It is unprecedented because no Canadian power reactor operator has ever been given such a long licence. It is unnecessary because the other reactor operators have rebuilt reactors with licences varying between two and five years. A 13-year licence would harm transparency, scrutiny and public participation because the public would not be able to meaningfully scrutinize OPG's operations and the rigour of the CNSC's oversight again until 2028.Regular relicensing hearings are important,because they allow the public to review OPG's operations,and to ask questions.This ensures that OPG remains accountable to its host community. By asking for an unprecedented thirteen-year licence, OPG has asked the CNSC for more than the simple approval to rebuild Darlington; it is asking the CNSC to reduce and limit public scrutiny of its operations while it rebuilds the station. Why are transparency public participation needed to maintain public safe 1y? Regular re-licensing hearings allow the public and independent CNSC commissioners to scrutinize both OPG operations and CNSC staff s oversight of OPG. Reduced public scrutiny can increase the risk of an accident if OPG and CNSC staff are not regularly-and up blicly-held accountable for their actions. Without accountability and transparency,reactor operators and regulators can become complacent,ignoring their responsibility to ensure public safety. This is often referred to as"regulatory capture." This is precisely what happened at Fukushima.The operator of the Fukushima reactors and Japanese nuclear safety regulator were aware of the tsunami risk to the station.They should have made the Fukushima reactors tsunami-resistant-but they didn't.This was the cause of the disaster. 10-8 r I Given what took place/is taking place in Japan (the Fukushima disaster is very much an ongoing one), public scrutiny of OPG and the CNSC should be.increased,not reduced. . f Additionally: Bruce Power requested (&was granted) only a five-year licence. Bruce Power, the other reactor operator in Ontario, requested a five-year licence for the 8 reactors at the Bruce nuclear site on Lake Huron.Bruce Power is also scheduled to refurbish (in their case,six) reactors over the next 1S years.While OPG says it needs a 13-year licence to cover the entire period it will take to refurbish the four Darlington reactors, Bruce Power sees no need for such a long licence for its very similar operations. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is developing and requiring new site-wide safety goals that should be reviewed at a relicensing hearing before the Darlington life-extension is completed.In response to a formal ruling request filed by Greenpeace in 2013,the Commission acknowledged a long-standing i= loophole in the CNSC's approach to limiting the risk from nuclear stations in Canada. Specifically,the Commission directed OPG to develop site-wide risk limits as well as a methodology for assessing the risk for all b reactors at the Pickering nuclear station by 2017.At present,the CNSC only regulates the risk from individual reactors.This allows Ontario's multi-unit nuclear stations to impose more risk on i surrounding communities than the single-unit Point Lepreau nuclear station in New Brunswick. The Fukushima disaster has also shown that multiple reactors can undergo simultaneous accidents,increasing the hazard to the public. There are 4 reactors at the Darlington site. OPG should not be given 13 years before being !' required to develop,submit and present the results of a site-wide risk assessment. This should be done at a relicensing hearing in five years. I CNSC Commissioners (i.e.,tribunal members) are only appointed.for a 5-year term. If OPG is granted a 13-year licence,the result will be that many CNSC Commissioners will never participate in the relicensing of the Darlington nuclear station.This means the institutional knowledge held by Commissioners will erode. CNSC staff will de facto become the final arbiter of safety. This is exactly counter to the lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster, which have clearly illustrated that more oversight, not less, is utterly essential to protect the safety of the public. j i i i i 10-9 NIL DURHAM NUCLEAR AWARENEsa Council Members of the City of Oshawa 50 Centre St. South Oshawa, Ontario L1H 3Z7. September 10, 2015. Re: "Severe Accident"Study& Upcoming-Darlington Relicensing Hearing Dear Members of Oshawa Council: Durham Nuclear Awareness (DNA) feels that public safety in Oshawa has been undermined by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)'s decision to conceal information on the possible impacts of a major accident at the Darlington nuclear station. To ensure public safety, DNA urges Oshawa to call for greater transparency and accountability from the CNSC. At the CNSC hearing.in 2012, and in light of the Fukushima accident, DNA (along with many other groups and individuals) asked CNSC to conduct a study into potential accident impacts from a serious accident at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station(NGS). The CNSC tribunal ordered its staff to conduct a study,which they released in draft form in June 2014. Public comments were sent in by August 2014, and DNA (among many groups and individuals) gave feedback expressing a lack of satisfaction with the study—primarily because it had quite clearly not in fact considered the impacts of a severe accident. Greenpeace learned through a Freedom of Information request that when CNSC staff conducting the study found information that was inconvenient(that might be used"malevolently"at a public hearing), that information was suppressed, and staff ordered to rein in the study to look at a less severe scenario. DNA -recently joined seven other groups to call on the CNSC to release the suppressed information. (The information-packed 14-minute August 20th news conference can be watched here htt_ps://goo.g_l/B3x58k). The groups'ruling request is attached with this letter. Considering Oshawa's close physical proximity to the Darlington NGS, we believe it will be of concern to you (and especially to the city's residents) that while Ontario Power Generation is asking for a licence more than twice as long as any previously received—and which would result in considerably less scrutiny and oversight of the plant's operations than would be the case with a shorter licence— Canada's nuclear regulator is demonstrating that it cannot be trusted to protect Canadians appropriately and to operate in a truly transparent fashion. Studies containing inconvenient information being hidden are not*a new phenomenon. In Japan, inconvenient information about earthquake and tsunami risks was swept under the carpet, assuring that enhanced sea wall protection did not take place, something that might have caused the Fukushima situation to proceed differently. (The work was perceived to be expensive 10-10 i r f and inconvenient to the plant operator, and higher earthquake/tsunami risks were not considered "realistic"by TEPCO.) In the U.S., the federal regulator (Nuclear Regulatory Commission or NRC) sat on a study after the Three Mile Island accident (March 1979) that "estimated the consequences for human health and the environment of severe accidents for every nuclear power plant site in the United States. The NRC staff had drafted a report on the study for public consumption,but the commission had been sitting on it for over six months." (from Fukushima — The Story of a Nuclear Disaster, Chapter 10, page 206; this was the so-called CRAC2 study.) Forced to release the study after media attention, NRC did not include "the worst-case results, offering a rationale that would become familiar over the years: the chances of an accident severe enough to produce such death and destruction were so slight as to be hardly worth mentioning." (pg. 208) History seems to be repeating itself! But lack of transparency from the industry and the regulator does not inspire confidence or trust, especially when OPG is asking for an exceptionally long licence. In reviewing hearing transcripts and staff comments in response to the public's comments about the inadequate "severe accident study" (the severe accident study that is actually not a severe I accident study), there is a simple phrase that succinctly expresses what the nuclear industry and j regulator said in Japan before the Fukushima accident. And what the nuclear industry and regulator have been saying for decades now in the U.S.—ever since the March 1979 Three Mile Island accident.And what CNSC is saying,here. "It can't happen here." (; Yet it could happen here.The only responsible course of action is to be appropriately prepared. We ask that you keep these circumstances in mind during any discussions, consultations or considerations regarding OPG's request for an unprecedented 13-year licence. I encourage you to read a recent Greenpeace essay in which the unfortunate trajectory of the CNSC's modus operandi during the Harper era is explained.It's here http://goo.gl/yYhb7a I The DNA Web site (link below) has a number of recent postings on the topics of nuclear safety, nuclear emergency exercises, important human health agreements involving nuclear and human health that are not widely known,and issues around refurbishment that are not widely understood. Issues of trust and transparency are central here ... as are the safety and protection of Oshawa's citizens. 1 Sincerely, Janet McNeill DNA Coordinator Durham Nuclear Awareness (DNA) clo 206 Byron St.North Whitby, ONLIN4N1. Phone: 416.792.2024 i Email. info @duihamnuclearawareness.com Web: http://dairl7aninucleai-awarenem.coml I 10-11 Fleming, Cindy From: Janet McNeill <mcneillJanet @gmail.com> Sent: September-17-15 1:10 PM To: Clerks Department Outside Cc: MayorsExternalMailGroup; Woo, Willie; Traill, Corinna; Neal, Joe; Partner, Wendy; Hooper, Ron; Cooke, Steven; Janet McNeill Subject: DNA Letter: Darlington Hearing; OPG Request for a 13-year licence (relevant materials attached) ----2nd message (planning basis change) Attachments: CELA Supplem-Bruce-Apr'15.pdf; ATT00001.htm This is the document containing the Cabinet's 1993 recommendation to change the planning basis for nuclear emergency planning. Pages 84-100 are the relevant pages. 1 10-12 Canadian Environmental Lary qa Association EQUITY.JUSTICE. HEALTH, March 20, 2015 Louise Levert Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater St., P.O. Box 1046 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5S9 F Sent via a-mail Re: CNSC Hearing 2015-H-02 CELA Report, "confidential" document Dear Ms. Levert: The 1993 Cabinet submissions labeled "confidential" (Appendix 4 of our report) are now available to the public. CELA received the document from Greenpeace, which had itself received them in public'disclosure under Section 12(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If you have any further concerns with this document or anything else in CELA's submissions, please do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail at ieremy.dixonCcela.ca or by phone at 514-718-7698. Best regards, I E; j' Jeremy Dixon • r r Canadian Environmental Law Association E+ T 416 960-2284 • F 416 960-9392 • 130 Spadina Avenue,Suite 301 Toronto,Ontario M5v 2L4 •cela.ca i i 10-13 Canadian Nuclear Commission canadianne t Safety Commission de sOrete nuoleaire CMD I S-H2.122A File/dossier : 6.01.07 Date: 2015-04-07 Edocs: 4714221 Supplementary Information Renseignements supplementaires Oral presentation Expose oral Submission from the Me,moire de Canadian Environmental I'Associati6n canadienne du droit Law Association de Penvironnement In the Matter of A 1'egard de Bruce Power Inc. Bruce Power Inc. Application to renew the Power Demande concernant le renouvellement Reactor Operating licence for the Bruce A du permis d'exploitation pour les centrales and B Nuclear Generating Stations nucleaires de Bruce A et B Commission Public Hearing Audience publique de la Commission April 13 to 16, 2015 13 au 16 avril 2015 Gfflaaa 10-14 Revision of SubmisSton dated Cabinet S u b m 8 s s Q o i Data c Onrarw September 30, 1993 i t P i . i'. CS- r OFRCE ?993 i I. E NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND PREPAREDNESS F SEPTEMBER 30, 1993 f i ' f< I, G. . c I 7546-1080(Rev.07189) CONFIDENTIAL,DOCUMENT - Cabinet Su b m i s s 8 o n Revision of Submission dated Proposal and Recommendation Date �- ontano September 30, 1993 Page t of 3 1. Key issue Whether the Province should change the basis for nuclear emergency planning to include more severe accidents, and implement consequential measures for increasing public safety. 2. Background Ontario's Nuclear Emergency Plan was approved and promulgated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in June 1986. The measures prescribed in the Nuclear Plan are designed to deal with nuclear accidents up to a certain level of severity. This level assumes a delay in the emission of radioactivity from the station to the environment, and precludes any early health effects among the public living around the station. Proposed measures to increase levels of public safety developed by Provincial Working Group #8 include expansion of the planning zones; the availability and distribution of potassium iodide pills; the need for early warning systems for the public; the need for adequate medical facilities to deal possible acute radiation exposure and the advisability of restricting construction near any new nuclear facilities. 3. Proposed Direction Major Poncy ❑ Minor Pollcy ❑ Program Change The Ministry is seeking approval to expand the technical basis of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan to cover accidents beyond the current design basis and implement consequential measures for increasing public safety. 4. Benefits and Possible Adverse Consequences Public safety in the event of a nuclear accident at nuclear facilities will be significantly enhanced. Nuclear planning and preparedness measures will include measures which may prevent early health effects resulting from accidents beyond the current design basis, Adverse consequences The introduction of changes to the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan may raise some initial concerns regarding current nuclear emergency preparedness planning and response procedures. 5. Alternatives Considered Retain the existing basis of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan with no changes or additional preparedness measures undertaken. Expand the planning basis to the include the worst credible.emission level of severity. Expand the planning basis to take into account more severe accidents than is currently the case and implement enhanced planning and preparedness measures. 6. Assumptions Expanded nuclear planning and preparedness measures will significantly enhance public safety in the areas surrounding nuclear stations. 7 tse - Rev.07189) CONFIDENTIAL.DOCUMENT Cabinet Submssion RevistonofSabmissfondated i 30, Proposal and Recommendation ate September 1993� On+ono Papa 2 of? j 7. Related Concerns Anti-nuclear interest groups are unlikely to be satisfied and would still criticize the measures as inadequate. 8. Financial implications($000) CurrentYear Next Year Fully Mature[Total Cost Operating Capital Expenditure _ Total Revenue/Cost Sharing/offset Funding requirements beyond existing ailocaiion Staffing Implications(full-time equivalents) 9. Consultation Record(Y•Consulted and satisfied IN-Consulted and significant concerns unresolved) �r�`��� Ag& Cab Corr Fin Lab MNR Rev Y Transp Charter Premier's L—! Food Oifice Sory lost Office I I Gen ❑ Clk ] EduO tr Hill) El M6C tF Y1 Manes ❑ Skills ❑ T&� ❑" Disabled ❑ Race f.❑! C.C.R. ❑ Comm t re ❑ Hous ! Y I MGS �I Vt� Aftn ❑ Gen I_�t Franco- ❑ Sor8a5 ❑ QS,S 1 I Cold& ❑ Env ❑ iT&T 1 1 MIA ❑ N.Dev I i Raor b ❑ � Native ❑ Women's i-.-..--i L_..J 111......VVV ...tit i' Unresolved Concerns i' 4 10, i_egislationlReguiation required Statute Other Statutes affected w No ❑ New ❑ Amendment 11. Communications Decision message Public safety is of paramount concern to the Government of Ontario. Public safety policies, programs, and practices must be responsive to local needs, • is Decision announcement The Minister will make an announcement in the Legislature. Also, a public announcement will ' be made by the Minister. A media release anti backgrounder will be issued to media throughout Ontario. 12. Committee Sequence Cabinet Housing& Native ❑ Race (t Development❑ ❑ � Community P Indicate in numerical F] Drugs ❑ Justice ❑ Northern ❑ Regulation order,the sequence (' this proposal is to 1:1 foitow. Economic&Environment Legislation Policy&Priorities Social' Education,Training ❑ &Adjustment Management Board ❑ ❑ Deputy Minister's Signature 76aalo9o-a(ftev,ioras) — CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT 10-17 . is Cabinet S u b m R ss E o n Revision of Submission dated Proposal and Recommendation Date oao September 30, 9953 Page3of3 13. Conclusion and Recommendation THE MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES RECOMMENDS THAT: THE PROVINCIAL NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PLAN SHOULD BE AMENDED TO ADOPT PROVISIONS FOR NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS BEYOND THE CURRENT DESIGN BASIS TO INCLUDE MORE SEVERE ACCIDENTS. AN APPROPRIATE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM SATISFACTORY TO THE MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE. EVACUATION PLANS FOR PRIORITY MOVEMENT AND MONITORING/DECONTAMINATION OF PEOPLE FROM WITHIN THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE RE UPGRADED, ARRANGEMENTS SATISFACTORY TO THE MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES BE MADE FOR THE PREDISTRIBUTION OF POTASSIUM IODIDE PILLS IN THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE. ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF PERSONS FROM THE ZONE WHO COULD SUFFER EARLY HEALTH EFFECtS BE ESTABLISHED. PERSONS LIVING AND WORKING IN THE CONTIGUOUS ZONE WILL BE INSTRUCTED AS TO PROPER RESPONSE TECHNIQUES IN THE EVENT OF SUCH AN ACCIDENT. * UPGRADES OF THE LEVEL OF PREPAREDNESS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE MEASURES PRESCRIBED IN PROVINCIAL AND MUNICIPAL NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PLANS BE MADE. R THE CONTROL INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED TO MANAGE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR EMERGENCY BE ENHANCED, PROCEDURES AND ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE UTILIZATION OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE TO AUGMENT PROVINCIAL RESOURCES BE ESTABLISHED. THE PRIMARY ZONE SURROUNDING BOTH THE DARLINGTON AND BRUCE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS BE EXPANDED FROM 10 KILOMETRES TO 13 KILOMETRES: Minister's Signature 040-1)6-C FIDENTIAL DOCUMENT Cabinet Submission S b g s s i o n Revis ion of Submission dated A n a l y pp s a d Date Sepgenbee 30, 8~ 953 Page I Ontano Policy Optionsi! INTRODUCTION In recognizing the need for improved Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, .there is a commitment to preventing early health effects resulting from accidents beyond the scope of predictable engineering or human failure (design basis), * As a means of addressing this need for improved planning a variety of measures are recommended for implementation. Some of the factors considered in developing these recommendations include: - the report of Provincial Working {Group #8; - the recommendations of the Ontario Nuclear Safety Review (Hare Commission); -- public opinion and impact; - international practice; - recent studies of severe accidents, including the Atomic Energy Control Board's; and resource requirements for implementation of the recommendations. ISSUE: Whether the Province should change the basis for nuclear emergency planning to include more severe I' accidents, and implement consequential measures for increasing public safety. i PROPOSED DIRECTION: Approval is sought to expand the technical basis of the Provincial. Nuclear Emergency Plan to cover accidents beyond the current design basis and, as a consequence, include the following measures/changes in j the Plan: f` Planning Basis The Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan currently considers only design basis accidents. However accidents beyond design basis, though very unlikely, are not physically impossible. Such accidents, could result in significantly higher offsite doses of radiation; with the possibility of early health effects in the area contiguous to the nuclear site. . I It is recognized that the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan should include provisions for nuclear accidents greater in scope than design basis and should prescribe appropriate additional measures to preclude or minimize early health effects in the Contiguous Zone (3-4 kilometres radius) of each nuclear station, r 7540-1080•D(Rev,07189) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT IM Cabinet Submission Revision of Submission dated Analysis and Date Ontario ®8 f Options September 30, 9993 Page Preparedness Measures To protect people.in these Contiguous Zones from the effects of accidents beyond design basis, the following measures'should-be prescribed in the Provincial Nuclear Plan: a). Installation of an early warning system that can, in a timely fashion, alert people in the zone to the occurrence of an accident. Such a system could be based on tone-alert radios, automatic telephone dialling, power pulse alarms or, mobile or fixed sirens as found to be appropriate. A thorough analysis will be undertaken to determine the most appropriate method of early warning to be implemented. b) Provision of unproved evacuation plaps for priority movement and monitoring/decontamination of people from within the Contiguous Zone. c) Predistrbution of potassium iodide pills to ensure the timely availability to the affected population in the Contiguous Zone, d) . Establishment of arrangements for the medical treatment of persons from the zone who could suffer early health effects. e) Provisions for persons living and working in the Contiguous Zone to'be instructed as to proper response techniques in the event of such aril accident. Prlmary and Secondary Zones The effects of an accident beyond design basis will impact on areas beyond the'Contiggous Zone, though less.severely. To address these effects, it is necessary to update the level of preparedness in these areas. Accordingly, the following measures are required in the Ptimary and Secondary Zones: a) Comprehensive upgrading of the level of preparedness to implement the measures prescribed in Provincial and Municipal Nuclear Emergency Plans. b) Enhancement of the control. infrastructure (operations centres, telecommunications, computer facilities, etc.) required to manage a serious nuclear emergency. c) Establishment of procedures and arrangements for utilization of national and international assistance to augment provincial resources. 70ao•o(RRev.071891 CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT i Ca b e pees„„t S� g b m i s s g o� Revision of Submission dated zw'- Analysis and 9 Date pntAno Po 8 i cy Options $e tember 3fl, 799s �a�e h P I; Planning Zone ExpaYnsion i Some planning zones are proposed to be expanded beyond the current 1.0 km radius. The current 10 km zone for Darli ngton is impracticable as it includes only a portion of the City of Oshawa. The Primary Zones surrounding Darlington and Bruce should be extended to reflect the recommendations of Working Group i#8. The Primary Zone around Pickering will remain unchanged as its expansion was not technically supported but was recommended by the Working (croup ptimarily for the purpose of consistency with Darlington and Bruce. BACKGROUND: I Provincial Nuclear EmergencPlan Ontario's Nuclear Emergency Plan was approved and promulgated by'the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in June-1986. A. nuclear emergency, in the context of this plan, is an emergency at a nuclear facility which poses a radiation hazard to people or property offsite, A nuclear facility is defined.within, the context of this plan as a nuclear reactor, a*sub-critical nuclear reactor or a plant for the separation, processing, reprocessing or fabrication of fissionable substances from irradiated fuel. It also includes all land, buildings and equipment that are connected or associated with these reactors and plants. Offsite refers to the area outside the boundary fence of a nuclear facility. L The plan requires the area around each nuclear facility to be divided into two zones a Primary Zone and a j Secondary Zone. The Secondary Zone, which encompasses and extends beyond the Primary Zone, is the radius around the reactor for which measure's against radioactive contamination of the food chain and the consumption of contaminated food and.water are prepared. For Ontario-based reactors, the Contiguous Zone is 3-4 km iii radius, the Primary and Secondary Zones are currently 10 ton and 50 km respectively. For Fermi 2 these zones are 21.5 km and 80 km respectively. i The measures prescribed in the plan are designed to deal with nuclear accidents up to a certain level of seventy. This level assumes a delay in the emission of radioactivity from the station to the environment, and precludes any early health effects among-the public living around the station. Jt also-determines the size•of the area (called the Primary.Zone) around the reactor for which detailed plans, including evacuation plans, are prepared to protect people against the effects of direct exposure to radiation emitted during a nuclear accident. -Chernobyl, U.S.S.R. I' In 1986, a major nuclear accident occurred in the Soviet Union at the Chernobyl nuclear station. The cause and severity of the accident were due, among other.things, to basic design weaknesses in the reactor and criminal negligence by the plant staff. This accident was much more severe than the level used as the basis for the Ontario Nuclear Emergency Plan, and resulted in the evacuation of the population out to 30 km around the station. 7540.1080-D(Rev,07189) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT a b i n e t S u b m i s s i on Revlsioe of Submission dated Analysis and Date ;W-- - Policy September 30, ts93 Page Ontario Following this accident, Ontario established the Ontario Nuclear Safety Review (to review the safety of Ontario Hydra's CANDU reactors and their associated emergency planks) and Provincial Working Group #8 (to review the technical basis of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan). Ontario Nuclear Safety Review The Ontario Nuclear Safety Review was established to examine and report on the safety of nuclear power stations in Ontario, and the emergency planning being done to deal with possible accidents. The Ontario Nuclear Safety Review submitted its report to the Province on February 29, 1988. Provincial M orking_Group #8 Provincial Working Group #8 was constituted to reexamine'the technical basis for nuclear emergency planning in Ontario anal to ;make recommendations based on the review. Its chairman was Dr. K. G. McNeil of the University of Toronto and its six members drawn from the Ministries of the Solicitor General and Labour, Ontario Hydro, the Atomic Energy Control Board, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the University of Toronto, Provincial Working Group #8 submitted its report to the Province on June 30, 1988. The Working Group recommended that the Primary Zones for the Ontario Hydro nuclear stations at Bruce, Darlington and • Pickering be increased to 13 kin and that the radius for Chalk River remain at 10 km. An examination of the calculations done by the Working Croup indicates That the recommendation to increase the size of the ' Pickering Primary zone was due to a desire to achieve uniformity with the proposed increase for the Darlington and Bruce zones. The Pickering reactors are much smaller in size than those in the other two stations and technically the numbers themselves do not support an increase of the Pickering Zone. The Working Group's report also recommended that the Province should take appropriate measures, in light of its recoxnmendations, in the following areas: the availability and distribution of potassium iodide pills; the need for early warning systems for the public; the need for adequate medical facilities to'deal with possible acute radiation exposure-and the advisability of restricting new housing construction near nuclear facilities. The report of Working Group #8 was circulated for,comment to over 65 groups and individuals including federal departments, Ontario ministries, municipalities, interest groups, Ontario Hydro, Detroit Edison (operator of Fermi 2), Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and the Atomic Energy.Control Board. The vast majority of the respondents concurred with the recommendations made. 7540.1080•D(Rev.07189) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT r Revision of Submission dated C ab`n e t Submission Page Analysis and Date Sepfemher 80, 1993 J Ontario P®l Q e Y Options i' Should the Province accept the recommendations of the Nuclear Safety Review and Provincial Working Group #8 and adopt a planning basis that goes beyond the current basis to include more severe accidents? It is understood that the present basis for nuclear emergency planning is inadequate. The worst case emission basks proposed by Working Croup #8 causes considerable difficulty in obtaining a consensus on the numerical values for such an emission and its effects. This is because these quantifications are affected by the many assumptions that go into the calculation. Considerable divergence can exist among technical opinion on what assumptions can or cannot be appropriately made. The Working Group itself drew attention to the dependence of its calculations on the assumptions it had made. An intermediate position is to include in the planning basis accidents more severe than the ones now used which result in a large and immediate emission of radioactivity that could cause early health effects in the area near the nuclear station. Such a planning basis would stW enable the undertaking of practical measures required to enhance public safety. Both the Nuclear Safety Review and Provincial Working Group concur with this intermediate position, What'consequential measures flow from the intermediate position of enhanced nuclear emnergency planning and preparedness recommended? h If the existing basis for nuclear emergency planning were to be retained as is, then no additional,planning and preparedness would be required beyond that already being carried out, To go beyond the current planning basis the measures outlined in the proposed direction would need to be undertaken. The chair of Working Group*#8 fully supports the proposed measures and concurs that this level of enhanced preparedness meets the concerns'identified by the Working Croup and the Ontario Nuclear Safety Review. The definition of the area near the nuclear facility within which the enhanced preparedness should take place is also,,subject to review. 'The.Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan has demarcated around each of the Ontario Hydro nuclear stations a Contiguous zone, approxixnnately 3-4 km in radius. Their purpose is to provide an increased level of emergency planning and preparedness within this area, compared with the rest of the Primary zone because of its proximity to the potential nuclear hazard. These already demarcated zones provide reasonable and generally accepted areas within which to implement the intermediate position. r i . h 0- 75ao.9o$0�D(Rev.07189) CONFIDENTIAL DOCU M ENT �� Ca bq p n e t Submission p $ Revision of Submission dated Analysis and bate 4n September 30, [993 Page Policy Options ' Public Support and Interest In Nuclear Emergency Planning and Preparedness Measures Remain Him In suiveys conducted by Ontario Hydro in the 10 km zones around them Darlington, Pickering and Bruce stations, Decima Research were asked to measure awareness and recall of nuclear emergency planning; to assess the reactions to the booklet "Plaiming for an Emergency"; to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of the plans and the need or desire for more information; and to assess impressions on Ontario Hydra's communications with the community. Resident's living in a nuclear station community in general indicate a high level of confidence in the people who run the plant (over 90% in each location); believe Hydro is concerned about safety (over 85% in,each community); and do not believe that an emergency situation is likely to occur in the next few years. Among the questions asked were some directly related to the proposed changes in the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan. Respondents (Darlington 95%, Pickering 92%, and Bruce 84%) overwhelmingly believe it is "very" or "somewhat" important that there should be additional procedures or information for people living within. 3-4 km of the plant. When asked about proposed additional procedures (including special procedures for evacuation, KI pills placed in their homes, or an early warning system) the majority of respondents believed that such measures would either-have no effect on or improve the quality of life in the area. As the Province has recognized the need for improved Nuclear Emergency Preparedness through a commitment which may prevent early health effects resulting from accidents beyond the scope of predictable engineering or human failure (design basis), the proposed changes to the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan represent a proactive and timely response in support of continued preventative measures in this vital area of public safety. Predistribution of II Pins in the Contiguous Zone The issue of the use of stable iodine compounds during a nuclear emergency in Ontario was studied by a Provincial Working.Group which reported in 1984, Representatives from the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labour, Health and Welfare Canada, Ontario Hydro and St. Joseph's Health Centre formed. Provincial Working Group #2. In.its report the Working Group*concluded that RI's "side effects are minimal", and recommended that "KI tablets should be predistributed to those who may be required to tape them in an emergency." A Provincial Policy on the use of stable iodine in a nuclear emergency was approved by Cabinet in early 1986 and promulgated. Many jurisdictions throughout the world have predistxibuted KI in areas around nuclear facilities, including the Province of Nevi, Brunswick. While the Ministry of Health has expressed some minor concerns (such as shelf life), the ministry does not have major public health concerns about the appropriateness of predistribution of stable K1 to the residents within 3-4 km of the immediate perimeter of a nuclear facility. 7540•SO80•D{Rev,47t89} CONFIDE-NTiAL DOCUMENT Revision of Submission dated C msb i n e t Submission i Analysis and P c� bate pnlano ®l i cy Option September 30, 1993 Page i i- i While both the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services and Ontario Hydro agree on the benefits in the prevention of early health effects provided by KI.pills, opposing views remain on the level of pre-distribution. Ontario Hydro has expressed the view that medical opinion is divided on the risks of pre-distributing KI pills. Ontario Hydro feels that sufficient pre-distribution has been achieved through deliveries to local schools, police stations and other designated pick-up points while not raising undue alarmist concerns. i The Ministry of tkie Solicitor General and Correctional Services feels that given the purpose of the Nuclear Emergency Plan, that is, to deal most effectively with the effects of an accident should one occur, the need for the widest scope of predistributian is clear. In order to protect the public from the hazards arising from a severe accident.resulting in an early emission of significant quantities of.radioactivity,, the need to ingest stable KI would be immediate. Such an emission is likely to contain significant amounts of radioiodine, The people nearest the nuclear stations must be able to immediately ingest KI pills while taking other appropriate action such as evacuation or sheltering. If the Contiguous Zone is subject to significant radiation fields, residents will not be able to leave their shelters to go and collect KI from distribution points. It is also beyond reasonable expectation that emergency personnel would be able to distribute KI in the radioactive area on a door to door basis. Pre- distribution is the only way to ensure that immediate ingestion of KI pills is achieved. 4 There are three potential options to resolve the issue of predistribution of potassium iodide pills. j IL Option A: Proceed with the status quo of predistribution to local schools, police stations and other designated pick-up points. Option B: Make satisfactory arrangements for the general predistribution to the population in the Contiguous Zone. Lion C: Make satisfactory arrangements for the selective predistribution of potassium iodide pills to those persons in the Contiguous Zone who wish to receive them. The Ministry f the Solicitor General and Correctional. Services feels that each of the options resent some rY p P benefits and difficulties. However from a public safety perspective, -and in keeping with the measures needed to mitigate the effects of an accident should one occur, general predistribution to the population within the Contiguous Zone is the preferred option. The selection of any other option for predistribution will fall far short of the requirements of an effective nuclear emergency plan. j E i RECOl�Il1I1�TI®l Lion B: Make satisfactory arrangements for the general predistribution to the population in the Contiguous Zone. i f 7640.1080-D(Rev.07189) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT QT95 Cabinet flb m p s s p®n Revision of Submission dated Analysis and Date Policy September$0, 1993 Page $ Ontario Options OPTYONS FOR THE PROPOSED DIRE CTION: OPTION I The existing basis of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan be retained without any change, and no additional preparedness measures be undertaken. Advantages No additional measures are required and Ontario hydro would incur no additional costs. Disadvantages The Province would be rejecting a generally held.concern that this existing basis is inadequate. Anti-nuclear groups lobbying would be most dissatisfied with a decision not to pursue any changes to the nuclear emergency plan. If an accident were to occur which was more severe than the plan.basis, -public safety would be jeopardized and.the province would have failed in its duty to protect life. OPTION 2 The planning basis take into account more severe accidents which could result in immediate radioactive emissions that could cause early health effects, and the enhanced measures outlined above be implemented within the existing Contiguous zones. Advantages Public safety would be significantly enhanced over the existing situation. Scarce resources would be applied in a rationalized and economical manner. The choice made is defensible on both technical and pragmatic grounds. This position would satisfy and be supported by most interested parties and stakeholders. Disadvantage * While anti-nuclear interest groups are rely to feel that the intended measures address many of their concerns, some groups may still view these measures as inadequate. 7B4 10-26 CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT ° ° Revision of Submission,dated - Cabinet Submission Analysis and Date Ontario Policy Options September aa, 1993 page 9 OPTION 3 The worst credible emission recommended by Provincial Working Group #8 be included in the planning basis and the enhanced measures outlined above be implemented in the area derived from the Working Group's numbers. E Advantages Public safety would undoubtedly be enhanced in the areas around nuclear power stations in j case of an accident. (; i Disadvantages ' Considerable expenditure of resources would be required.to achieve the required measures and, Ontario Hydro would incur these additional intended costs. * It would be difficult to justify this large expenditure of resources since the grounds for it are controversial and not fully defensible. RE CONDMNDATION The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services recommends Option 2 which supports the proposed direction outlined above(pages I and 2), expanding the technical basis of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan to include more severe accidents beyond the current design basis. I+ ANCIIAL DUPLICATIONS In 1988 Ontario Hydro agreed to support 50% of the cost of the nuclear emergency preparedness and � planning program, up to a maximum of$500,000. The Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services currently spends approximately $600,000 each year on the nuclear program in Emergency Planning Ontario. Therefore, approximately $300,000 is returned each year to the Consolidated Revenue Fund for nuclear emergency preparedness by Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydra has agreed to bear the costs of an upgraded early warning system for the Contiguous zones around its nuclear facilities. The issue of funding medical arrangements and the Provincial Operation Centre will be dealt with separately when the plans for Acute Radiation Exposure and the new Provincial Operations.Centre are finalized. i L 10-27 7540-1080-D(Rev.07189) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT W Cabinet S fl A b m p s sj o n Revision of Submission dated Analysis and Date r a SE��E1117EY�4 '(3�'3• Pa98 �� Ontario Policy Options In addition Ontario Hydro has agreed to work in partnership with Province to upgrade existing plans; a) Ontario Hydro will pay 100% of the costs of individual projects that have been jointly approved. These costs will be recovered from the funds set aside for the existing cost- sharing agreement. Ontario Hydro will increase the maximum contribution from $500,000 to $600,000 annually for the three years necessary to complete the upgrade. After the 3 year period, general, funding will revert to the existing 50% funding arrangement, with a Ontario Hydro cap of$500,000, b) Ontario. Hydro has also agreed to assist affected municipalities with their nuclear emergency upgrade programs by funding projects through a joint approval process involving a partnership of the Province, municipality and Ontario Hydro. This.will include a one time total expenditure of$250,000 for capital projects and an available total sum up to $150,000 per year for the maintenance costs associated with municipal nuclear preparedness. The enhanced levels of nuclear preparedness proposed therefore requires no additional. Provincial funding. WORKFORCE HVIPLICAnON8 The implications for the workforce stem from the minor program changes identified in this submission. The opportunity to provide an effective Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan will extend effective public safety measures and preparedness across Ontario. Ontario public service employees will require training and education as to their responsibilities for response to a nuclear emergency. An education process as to the contents and procedures -of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan should be undertaken. The effective use of the plans once developed requires training for Ministry employees with direct responsibilities as well as an educated awareness of the plans for other ministry employees. The scope of this impact will also extend to municipalities involved in nuclear emergency planning and preparedness and the details of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency Plan. The initial communications strategy will notify these communities as to contents and availability of copies of the plan. Should any follow-up be required, an information package and contact for consultation will be available through Emergency Planning.Ontario. As a result some increased demands for information and training assistance may be placed on this office. COAIliIMCATiONS PLAN In announcing the new measures, it is recommended that this package acknowledge the support of Ontario Hydro. The new measures will ensure that offsite emergency preparedness is at as high a level as that of the on-site safety systems and procedures. The communications plan will. demonstrate the commitment of the Province of Ontario to safeguard the health, safety,-and welfare and property, of the citizens in the event of an emergency through the increased measures being proposed. 10-28 754Q•1o8o-5(Rev.ow89) CON F1DEN7IAL DOCUMENT r Revision of Submission dated teab i n e t Sub s g o p w Analysis and Date Ontano Policy Option septambet 30, 1993 Page is COMMUNICATIONS ANALYSIS 1. Public and Media Environment There is heightened awareness of and concern for nuclear emergency preparedness. Media coverage of natural disasters and other emergencies - such as the Hagersvill-e fire - have focused on the preparedness of authorities to react to and deal with these situations. ]Public education in such areas as fire and crime prevention stress the wisdom of preventative actions and readiness as the best means to combat the effects of unwanted events and occurrences. I 2. Communic ifions Objectives i r To create an environment of acceptance for the Government's initiatives. To facilitate ongoing consultations with the target audiences as the initiatives develop. To ensure a timely, co-ordinated and consistent Ministry and Government response to public and media reaction. To ensure balanced coverage of key messages. is To provide positive and helpful follow-up communications with government partners and the general public. To facilitate the coordination of inter-ministry and intergovernmental communications and initiatives. 3. Key Messages Public safety is of paramount concern to the Government of Ontario and Ontario Hydro. - Public safety policies, programs, and practices must be responsive to local needs. - Coordination of expertise and resources is essential. to effective nuclear emergency r preparedness planning and response. The partnership of the Ministry of the Solicitor.General and Correctional Services and Ontario Hydro demonstrates their continued leadership and commitment to public safety through the enhancement of the Provincial Nuclear Emergency plan. 7540.1080-D(Rev.07M) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT Cabinet Sg 0 b m j s s p o gyp Revision of Submission dated Analysis and U ll p G Date Ontario Policy Options September 30, 'i998 page 12 4. Target Audiences Ontario Government ministries responsible for emergency planning Municipal, county, regional, and municipal governments and officials Public safety/emergency response professionals in the above areas Residents of the above areas around nuclear facilities Emergency Preparedness Canada, Health and Welfare Canada and other federal agencies involved in emergency response Association of Municipalities of Ontario The general public, media. Other public safety and emergency preparedness professionals and planners COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM 5, Immediate Strategy Pre-announcement coordination of information will be extended to Ontario government partners. - An announcement for reading by the Minister in the Legislature will be prepared. .A public announcement will also be developed. A media release and backgrounder will be issued to local media. - Follow-up contact with the Minister will be arranged upon request. Regional media will be targeted for interviews, &. Interministry Coordination Communications initiatives will be coordinated with the Premier's Office, Cabinet Office, and the ministries. Agriculture and Food Community and Social Services - Environment and Energy - Health - Municipal Affairs - Natural Resources Northern Development and Mines In addition, communications with the Ontario ministries of Labour and Transportation, and the Solicitor General Canada will be established and maintained. 1591099(19ev,07189) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT Rev(slon of Submission dated C a b i n e t Submission Analysis and � Date g�j y September 30, 1933 Page Ontano � Options i 7. Evaluation G Media monitoring, ongoing analysis of public inquiries to the Ministry, and assessments of public reaction. Input and correspondence with municipal, county and regional officials, government partners as well as emergency preparedness representatives will also be assessed. _ C c f i i' 1 7540.1080-0(Rev.07189) CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT F r Clarbgtan Planning Services Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. I i Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: October 5, 2015 Report Number: PSD-049-15 Resolution: E Pile Number: S-C-2015-0002 and ZBA 2015-0014 By-law Number: Report Subject: An Application by 2265719 Ontario Inc. to permit 70'single detached dwellings Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD-049-15 be received; I' 2. That the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and to amend Zoning By-law 84-63, submitted by 2265791 Ontario Inc. for the development of 70 single detached dwellings continue to be processed and that a subsequent report be prepared; 3. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-049-15 and Council's decision; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-049-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. ' ! r I` c= 1 2-1 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-049-15 Page 2 Report Overview The Municipality is seeking public comments on the applications submitted by 2265719 Ontario Inc. proposing to permit a 70 unit plan of subdivision on the east side of Regional Road 57, approximately one kilometre from the intersection of Regional Road 57 and Concession Road 3 in Bowmanville. The lands are currently designated for Urban Residential development in the Clarington Official Plan and within the Northglen Neighbourhood Design Plan. The proposal will require a Draft Plan of Subdivision and an amendment to Zoning By- law 84-63. 1 . Application Details 1.1 Owners: 2265719 Ontario Inc., Richard and Trudy Bouma, Derek Bastmeyer 1.2 Applicant: 2265719 Ontario Inc. 1.3 Agent: Tunney Planning Inc. 1.4 Proposal: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision: The proposed plan of subdivision includes 70 lots for single detached dwellings. Rezoninq: To rezone the lands from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to an appropriate zone to_permit the uses presented in the proposed draft plan of subdivision. 1.5 Area: 3.97 hectares 1.6 Location: The subject lands are located on the east side of Regional Road 57, approximately one kilometre north of the intersection of Concession Road 3 and Regional Road 57 being within Part of Lot 14, Concession 3, Bowmanville (see Figure 1). 1.7 Within Built Boundary: No 1�`�2 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-049-15 Page 3 Figure 1: Property Location a !a a y+ .Quarry Lakes 3 , _ Golf Course Y! Jr - Subject Site ,� S-C 2095-0002 Estate Residential+ a � __•,I�si+'� ri ►w----�-a— r O - sp 14 HARRY LEE CRESCENT HIGHAM DRIVE s, OOd o W - :R - I+ # ! - I j l l j l � 1 I � j l-'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 g•- � TAUNUSCT -� { i ' , �1 1 yl i 1 �a I', i ( i _ ^ _ _L.� L � S—i1-9-L_ 1 1 71, '1 I Draft Approved_plan of Suhdlws,on( park•''r i ( (� 1 C 2007 0004),—ry L-r__ i_) i f -- W 1— • • I�-." p 1 1_ly_�i'J F'1—!W�__1_L�_LJ_�.._Z__-/ 1_l l 1•.I 1 �__ �-1 L —T IT"T , ; p=`l i11J_I.'l,l 'I 1'Q 1 1,. _1 % ; ( / -�� --/1T_---•1 Ii 0 Estate 0? 'i i..;;; ' ;?j '1� O Residential ii, 1 L I 1___J O �, n 1_�_S_L�_.�j=-J---�/ ;t—�_�Lliyi 1 i/;•^� 1 / /rte` `�..� I / 1'Ti i i (" 3 �! i i i'A O ' 01 1 l i r-- U . 3 LL' -1 __J rPhase2j ''_� • �; fit'? ,1) - til s a r---r---i �--s- 1 1--' I- r--r -� �- -(--i L---r--� — Park, ! GAUD GATE 1 I ------ -- f:. NORTHGLEN BOULEVARD - Phase: J �1- r3_�.1^�.,�-,{j.1111 1 /.•�,1 • I-I 1 - _ P - LI_l r . RICHARD DAVIES CR ROBB'IANE U a • _ f I j O U ' - ``maimsuare_ 2. Background 2.1 In March 2008, the Director of Planning Services issued Draft Approval of Plan of Subdivision S-C 2007-0004 in the Northglen Neighbourhood: This subdivision has multiple owners and is being developed in multiple phases. Phases 1A and 1 B, were registered in 2013 and 2014 respectfully by the owner of 2265719 Ontario Inc. The same owner is now working towards the registration of Phase 2 which is anticipated early 2016. 12-3 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-049-15 Page 4 Two other owners, Akero (Kemp) and 2084165 Ontario Limited (Halminen) are working towards the registration of two other phases which front onto Middle Road. 2.2 In 2014, 2265719 Ontario Inc. approached the owners of 3425 Regional Road 57 (Bastmeyer) to purchase all of their lands and the owners of 3499 Regional Road 57 (Bouma) to purchase the southerly portion of their lands. These lands make up all the lands in the proposed draft plan S-C-2015-0002. The subject lands are included in the Northglen Neighbourhood Design Plan and are identified for residential development. 2.3 Studies Submitted The following studies have been submitted in support of the applications and are currently under review. • Traffic Impact Brief; • Phase One Environmental Site Assessment; • Noise Report; • Site Servicing Report; • Archeological Assessment; • Butternut Survey; and • Functional Servicing Plan. 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The lands subject to the applications were assembled from two parcels with frontage on Regional Road 57. The subject lands are relatively flat. The larger parcel is currently being cultivated (Bouma). The smaller, southerly parcel currently supports a single detached dwelling which will be demolished (Bastmeyer). See Figures 2 and 3 below. i ti r Figure 2: Bouma Lands Figure 3: Ba-stmeyer Lands 12-4 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-049-15 Page 5 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North: One single detached dwelling and cultivated lands South: Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision S-C 2007-0004 and residential unit dwellings under construction East: Woodlot West: Estate Residential 4. Provincial Policy 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy livable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment, recreational and open space uses to meet long term needs. New development shall occur adjacent to built up areas, taking advantage of existing and planned infrastructure, and shall have compact form, and a mix of uses and densities. The development allows for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services. The proposed draft plan of Subdivision is within the Northglen Neighbourhood Design Plan which offers a range of housing types and densities. The subject applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. 4.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) The Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas. Growth is to be accommodated by building compact, transit- supportive communities in designated greenfield areas with a region-wide density of 50 jobs and persons per hectare. Growth shall also be directed to areas that offer municipal water and wastewater systems. The subject applications are consistent with the Growth Plan. 5. Official Plans 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan 5.1.1 The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Area. Lands designated as Living Area permit the development of communities with defined boundaries, incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socio-economic factors. The proposed.development is permitted within the Living Area. 5.1.2 The Regional Official Plan provides for a type C arterial road along the north limit of the Bowmanville urban area. This road allowance has not been provided for in the proposed draft plan. 12-5 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-049-15 Page 6 5.2 Clarington Official Plan 5.2.1 The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands Urban Residential. The lands are within the Northglen Neighbourhood, which has a population allocation of 6500 and a housing unit target of 2175 including 1500 low density units, 525 medium density units, 100 high density units and 50 units for intensification. 5.2.2 The Low Density designation allows a density of 10 to 30 units per net hectare and the predominant form of housing is single and semi-detached units. 5.2.3 An east-west Type C Arterial is designated at the north limit of the urban boundary of Bowmanville from Regional Road 57 to Liberty Street. This road intended to serve development in the urban area. This road is not shown on the proposed Draft Plan. 5.2.4 The subject lands are within the Northglen Neighbourhood Design Plan which was approved in 2008. A north-south collector (John Taylor Street) should extend to the Type C Arterial. Provision for the connection to the Type C Arterial has not been made. 6. Zoning By-law 6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands "Agricultural (A) Zone". A Zoning By-law amendment is required to implement the proposed amendment to draft approval. 7. Public Notice and Submissions 7.1 A Notice of Public Meeting was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject property and a public meeting notice was installed on the property on September 14th, 2015. 7.2 As of the writing of this report, there was one inquiry from a resident who resides on Old Scugog Road. They had general comments on the proposed draft plan and questions regarding the construction activity related to Phase 2 which is currently underway on the site. 6. Agency Comments 8.1 Hydro One offered no objection. 9. Departmental Comments 9.1 Engineering Services ® Functional Servicing The applicant has not submitted the required Functional Servicing Report for this application. The lands abut lands which have been draft approved but for which there are no detailed engineering drawings. The Preliminary Servicing Plan which was submitted with this plan has changed since it was approved in 2007 and does 12-6 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-049-15 page 7 not provide sufficient detail for review. The Functional Grading Plan which was submitted with this plan includes grading on proposed lands external to this site which have not been submitted by that developer. • Traffic The applicant has submitted an updated Traffic Management Brief. These lands were included in the original Traffic Impact Study, and only very minor changes have occurred since the original study (e.g. extension of John Taylor Street). The update concludes that "the proposed subdivision development can be accommodated by the adjacent road network as previously demonstrated." • Phasing The development of these lands is premature until the lands between the subject lands and SC 2007-0004 — Phase 2 have been developed in full including road, sidewalk and servicing connections. • Parkland Dedication The applicant must provide an appropriate cash-in-lieu contribution for parkland. • Extension of John Taylor Street John Taylor Street must be extended to the north limit of the proposed subdivision and must be constructed to a full urban standard. In accordance with the Clarington Official Plan, the applicant must provide for a future Type "C"Arterial 26 metre wide right-of-way to the north of the subject lots. ® Soils Management Plan A Soils Management Plan outlining haul routes, construction schedule, source of material, satisfactory quality test results, mud and dust control program among other requirements must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Every effort must be made to minimize importing and exporting material on this site. 9.2 Emergency and Fire Services The Emergency and Fire Services have no objection. 100 Discussion 10.1 The lands are located in the furthest north portion of the Northglen Neighbourhood Design Plan. The Draft Plan does not conform with the Region of Durham Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan. The transportation maps in both Official Plans identify an east-west Type C Arterial at the north boundary of the urban area between Regional Road 57 and Liberty Street. The Type C Arterial is not shown on the draft plan. 12-7 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-049-1 5 Page 8 10.2 The Draft Plan is not consistent with the approved Neighbourhood Design Plan. A north- south collect road, (John Taylor Street) should connect to the Type C Arterial. The Draft Plan shows two lots for single detached dwellings (Figure 4). The lots in the Neighbourhood Design Plan are either 15 metres or 13.5 metres, whereas the proposed Draft Plan shows, 13.5, 12.0 and 11.3, 10.0 metres which is similar to the earlier phases. Further discussion with applicant will be required. Figure 4: Proposed Draft Plan S-C-2015-0002 _ _ N TYpeC Arterial Road Lols 16816 deleted and - replaced with Collector Roatl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 15 ifi 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 , 30 HARRY LEE CRESCENT HIGHAM DRIVE 31 57 46 43 33 32 58 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49 47 44 42 41 40 T�111. TV36 34 O 46 45 35 59 61 62 63 64 65 I f 70 69 68 67 66 l I ��� TT ITT T I—F t r ---� 1 r r ----- — SC2015-002 10.3 The Engineering Services Department requires additional information from the owner before detailed comments are provided. 11 . Conc0usion 11.1 The purpose'of this report is to provide background information on the proposed 70 unit subdivision submitted by 2265719 Ontario Limited.for the Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue processing the application including the preparation of a subsequent report upon resolution of the identified issues. 12-8 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-049-15 Page 9 Submitted by: ;�' - ' 'f Reviewed by: ''/-la�%t� D'avid_J: Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services .J f Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Cynthia Strike, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2410 or cstrike(a)cla rington.net List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is on file in the Planning Services Department. The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Kevin Tunney Richard and Trudy Bouma Diederick Bastmeyer 2265719 Ontario Inc. (Domenic Tassone) Hannu Halminen CS/CP/jp/ah/df 12-9 r j' i Clarington Planning Services Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: October 5, 2015 Report Number: PSD-050-15 Resolution Number: File Number: ZBA 2015-0016 By-law Number: i Report Subject: An application by Cowan Buick GMC on behalf of Gerr Holdings Ltd. to permit the Temporary Use of a vacant lot for employee parking Recommendations: I 1. That Report PSD-050-15 be received; 2. That the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by Cowan Buick GMC be approved and the by-law be adopted as contained in Attachment 2 to Report (' PSD-050-15; 3. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-050-1.5 and Council's decision; and , 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-050-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. G G' r. j. i 12-10 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-15 Page 2 Report Overview Cowan Buick GMC has used the vacant property at 18 Brown Street as an employee parking lot for several years. Clarington Council has twice passed By-laws supporting this temporary use. Cowan Buick GMC has submitted this Rezoning application, on behalf of the property owner (Gerr Holdings Ltd.), to continue the temporary parking lot for an additional three years. The planned use for this property, as described in the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan, is that it will inevitably be redeveloped to support a commercial or mixed-use development (commercial with apartments above). The temporary use of the property as a parking lot will not inhibit its future redevelopment. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner: Gerr Holdings Ltd. 1.2 Applicant: Cowan Buick GMC 1.3 Proposal: To permit the temporary use of a vacant lot for employee parking. 1.4 Area: 1,705 square metres 1.5 Location: 18 Brown Street, Bowmanville 1.6 Within Built Boundary: Yes 2. Background 2.1 In November, 2006, Cowan Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd., on behalf of Gerr Holdings Ltd., submitted a rezoning application on the subject property. The application proposed a temporary parking lot, for a maximum period of three years. The original use of the parking lot was to accommodate the overflow parking needs of the Cowan automotive dealership while they undertook renovations to their building and site. 2.2 A Temporary Use By-law to permit the use of the subject lands as a parking lot was approved in March, 2007, and was valid for a period of three years from the date of the Public Meeting. This By-law expired on January 22, 2010. 2.3 In March, 2010, Cowan Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd., on behalf of Gerr Holdings Limited, submitted a second rezoning application to continue the use of a temporary parking lot on the subject property. 2.4 A second Temporary Use By-law was approved in May, 2010. This By-law expired in January of 2013. 12-11 Municipality of Clarington Report PS®-050-15 Page 3 2.5 In June of 2015, it came to the attention of the Municipality that Cowan's was continuing to use the subject property as a parking lot. Cowan Buick GMC was advised that the previous Temporary Use By-law had expired and that they must either vacate the property or request another Temporary Use By-law. 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The subject property is generally flat with trees along the south side of the property and two mature trees near the northwest corner of the property. There are no buildings or structures on the property. For the past eight years the property has been used as a temporary parking lot by the staff of the Cowan Buick GMC automotive dealership. 3.2 The site is located within an established neighbourhood which includes a medium- density residential building to the south, single detached dwellings to the north, a commercial/residential mixed-use plaza to the west and the Cowan Buick GMC automotive dealership to the east. Figure 1: Property Location r c. 4: 14: Vr I a- i SUBJECTPROPERTY itay fi l i e�A+ rye* 3 ^r •f ¢ Ilk 71 id 1 COWAN AJ ZBA2015-0016 try. 1 12-12 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-15 Page 4 Figure 2: Site Photograph 4. Provincial Policy 4.1 The proposed development is not in conflict with the Provincial Policy Statement or the Growth Plan. Temporary use of this property is appropriate until the property. can be developed in keeping with the policy framework outlined in the Growth Plan. 5. Official Plans 5.1 Temporary use of the site is not in conflict with the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan or Clarington Official Plan. 5.2 The long-term permanent use of sites located either along King Street or in the immediate area of King Street are intended for commercial, recreational or mixed- use (commercial with apartments above). 12-13 11 F j, If, Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-15 Page 5 5.3 The extension of the temporary parking lot use for an additional three years will not inhibit the future development of this site in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan. The Official Plan states that temporary uses must not adversely affect local traffic or the natural environment. Temporary uses must have a limited impact on the site such that the use can be removed and the site may be restored to its original condition. 5.4 The Official Plan states that temporary uses shall not generally be permitted to extend beyond a period of ten years. 6. Zoning By-law j 6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands "General Commercial (Cl)". The "Cl" zone permits the operation of commercial parking lots (paid lots available to the public) but not specifically a private parking lot used in conjunction with an j automotive dealership (motor vehicle'sales establishment). The Applicant requires the approval of a Zoning By-law amendment in order to permit the proposed temporary parking lot. t 7. Public Notice and Submissions 7.1 Public notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject site. A public meeting sign was installed on the property. No inquiries concerning the application were received from the public at the time of the writing of this G report. 7.2 There have been ongoing concerns from the neighbour to the north with respect to the use of this property as a parking lot, which is detailed in Section 9.3. i 8. Departmental Comments 8.1 Engineering Services The Clarington Engineering Services Department has no objection to its continued use as an employee parking lot. 8.2 Finance Department The Finance Department has confirmed that the taxes on this site are current. 12-14 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-050-15 Page 6 9. Discussion 9.1 Cowan Buick GMC has used the subject property as an employee parking lot for many years. At this time, Cowan Buick GMC continues to require the use of the subject lands for employee parking due to the lack of sufficient off-street parking on their primary site and lack of on-street parking in the area. The Owner (Gerr Holdings Ltd.) has stated that it is not their intent to seek the permanent establishment of a parking lot on this site. 9.2 As noted, the subject property is designated as "Street-Related Commercial" within the Bowmanville East Town Centre Secondary Plan. The long-term.use.of this property as a surface parking lot would not support the objectives contained in the Secondary Plan.- However, until the property owner (Gerr Holdings) is prepared to proceed with the construction of a new building, the.temporary parking lot will continue to support the needs,of an established downtown business. In the meantime, the Municipality and the public should expect that the property will be maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact the surrounding area. Part of the ongoing maintenance of this property will include the preservation of the existing, mature trees. These trees assist in providing a buffer between the parking lot and the residential neighbours. 9.3 This past summer, the Municipal Law Enforcement Division received complaints regarding: • The maintenance of the subject property (grass cutting and the need to remove a dead tree); and • Excessive dust created by people trespassing on the property with recreational vehicles after hours. The property maintenance issues were resolved (the grass was cuff and the dead tree was removed) and no additional property standards complaints have since been received. Cowan Buick GMC are aware of-the afterhours trespassing on the property and spoke to the individuals involved. This appears to be an isolated incident. They also advised that they are installing video surveillance so that they can monitor activity on the lot. 9.4 In general, the Applicant's responsible use and maintenance of the site over the years support the continued use of the property as a temporary parking lot. 10. Concurrence Not applicable 12-15 r Municipality of Clarington j Report PSD-050-15 Page 7 11. Conclusion 11.1 The proposed use of the subject property for a temporary parking lot will continue to serve the parking needs of an existing commercial business, for a period not to exceed three years. The temporary parking lot will not inhibit the future development of the subject lands from occurring at any time. 11.2 In consideration of all comments received, it is respectfully recommended that the applications to permit the temporary use of a vacant lot for employee parking be approved. 12. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable I Submitted by: Reviewed by: Da id j. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Paul Wirch, Planner II, 905-623-3379 extension 2418 or pwirch(a)-clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 — Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is on file in the Planning Services Department. i Gerr Holdings Ltd. Cowan Buick GMC Durham Regional Planning Department Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) I F Is 12-16 Attachment 1 to Report PS®-050-15 Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2015- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 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 2015-0016; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 16.5.52 to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by revising the date of expiry from January 22, 2013 to October 13, 2018. 2. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act. By-Law passed in open session this day of , 2015 Adrian Foster, Mayor C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk 12-17 CZ aington Planning Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and.Development Committee Date of Meeting: October 5, 2015 Report Number: PSD-051-15 Resolution: File Number: ZBA 2015-0019 By-law Number: 2013-0027 Report Subject: Application for Removal of Holding Symbol Applicant: Claret Investments Limited and 1361189 Ontario Limited Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council the following: i 1. That Report PSD-051-15 be received; 2. That the application submitted on behalf of Claret Investments Limited and 1361189 Ontario Limited to remove the Holding (H) symbol be approved and that the attached By-law to remove the Holding (H) Symbol be passed; i! 3. That Council's decision and a copy of Report PSD-051-15 be forwarded to the Region of Durham and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-051-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. �! �rr I, L r c I I E 12-18 I Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-051-15 Page 2 Report Overview The purpose of this application is to remove the Holding Symbol for 12 residential lots on the south side of George Reynolds Drive. 1. Application Details Owner: Claret Investments Limited and 1361189 Ontario Limited Applicant: William D. Manson Proposal: Removal of Holding (H) Symbol from the "Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H) R1-74) Zone"; and "Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H) R2-78) Zone" on the subject lands. Area: 0.551 hectares Location: Blocks 100 and 101 of Plan 40M-2364, Part Lot 27, Concession 3, for Township of Darlington Within Built Boundary: Yes 2. Background 2.1 The subject lands were consolidated in a 2013 Land Division decision which conveyed a parcel of land severed from the lot at 3252 Hancock Road to meld with Block 100 and 101 of Registered Plan 40M-2364. Block 100 is located on the north side of the lot at 3252 Hancock Road. Block 101 is located on the south side of the lot at 3252 Hancock Road. The subject lands were rezoned by ZBA2013-0027, placing the lands intended for residential lots in an Urban Residential Zone and zoning the majority of Block 101 as Environmental Protection (EP) to act as a buffer to the Provincially Significant Wetland to the south. The northerly 2.0 metres of Block 101 were zoned to complete the rear lots facing George Reynolds Drive. 2.2 The necessary consent and part lot control applications to create the lots have all been considered and all conditions have now been satisfied. 12-19 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-051-15 Page 3 Ili Figure 1: Property Location Map GEORGE Block 100 I Subject5ite --- _`-` REYNOLDS DR .......... .... ...... . AM... 3258 Hancock Rd M.-M S Q: W.-An go NO UP ® a-r—I&I 16 tLJ IN r Block 101 O 0 0 ZBA 2016-0019 3. Staff Comments 3.1 The Holding (H) symbol is a provision enabled by the Official Plan to ensure that certain obligations have been considered prior to development and redevelopment of the lands. This includes: servicing, access, protection of natural areas, measures to mitigate the impact of development, submission of required studies, execution of agreements and any other requirements as may be deemed necessary by Council including the implementation of the policies of this plan. 3.2 The Subject property is zoned "Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H) R1-74) Zone"; and "Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H) R2-78) Zone". Council must be satisfied that the provisions of the Official Plan are met prior to removing the Holding symbol and no building permits can be issued. The applicant has entered into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality and there are no concerns with lifting the 'H' symbol. 12-20 Municipality of Clarington Report No.: PSD-051-15 Page 4 3.3 All property taxes have been paid in full. 4. Concurrence Not applicable 5. Conclusion 5.1 In consideration of the comments noted above, approval of the removal of the "Holding (H)" symbol on the subject lands to enable the development of 12 single detached lots as shown on the attached By-law and schedule (Attachment 1) is recommended. 6. Strategic Plan.Application 6.1 Not applicable Submitted by: Reviewed by: D aatiigj: Crome, MCIP, RPP Fr AWlin Wu, Director of Planning Services L Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Amanda Watson, Planner I, 905-623-3379 ext. 2420 or awatson @clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 —Zoning By-law Amendment to Remove 'H' Symbol The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Gwendolyn Thiele 1361189 Ontario Ltd. Claret Investments Ltd. Glenn Genge Bill Manson AW/CP/FL/df 12-21 4 Attachment 1 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-051-15 Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2015- being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 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 to permit the development of twelve residential lots on the subject lands; I I Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1'. Schedule "3" (Bowmanville)" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: I "Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H) R1-74) Zone" to "Urban Residential Exception (R1-74) Zone"; and "Holding-Urban Residential Exception ((H) R2-78) Zone" to "Urban Residential Exception (R2-78) Zone" i as illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto. 2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of the By-law. t 3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. i By-Law passed in open session this day of , 2015 i ' C Adrian Foster, Mayor C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk _ 12-22 This is schedule "A" to By-law 2015- , passed this . day of , 2015 A.D. o a - I!r ' y a R n s L ! t t 4 _.—_RCCGI:EAt RAN -0u 954.— --I i lS lyd:r GEORGE RUYNOLDS DR '! � �'' — — x;a --- 41 Y• f v;f �� i U --f _ �- -- — -...- —'�—�. x Zoning Change From "(H)R2-78"To"R2-78" N Zoning Change From "(H)R1-74"To"R1-74" Adrian Foster,Mayor C.Anne Greenfree,Municipal Clerk CEO EREYNOLDS DR z LIV GE rc OR RErnOLE,, V IDX SMIER CT GLENVIEW RO pQ V � • � OM A N'ESThtORE STREET - - 111__�BE T TABS DID y- URT'CE NASHROAD NASHROAD ZBA2015-0019 1 SCHEDULE4 v Clarington E i Planning Services Report r. If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. r Report To: General Purpose and Administration Committee I 4 Date of Meeting: October 5, 2015 Report Number: PSD-052-15 Resolution: ! File Number: PLN 26.14.1 By-law Number: Report Subject: Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review, Annual Update Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD-052-15 be received; and i 2. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-052-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. r ; I` c r, j !i E' l 12-24 i' Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-052-15 Page 2 Report Overview Council accepted funding from Hydro One to retain a hydrogeologist to peer review the Surface and Groundwater monitoring program imposed as part of the approval of the Environmental Assessment by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. The Municipality's hydrogeologist is providing his annual update on the peer review. 1 . Background 1.1 Clarington Council and staff have been very involved with the proposed Clarington Hydro Transformer since March of 2012 including public information meetings, the Environmental Study Report review, and numerous discussions. The Minister of Environment approved the project in January of 2014 after consideration of the objections/comments of various agencies, Clarington Council and residents. 1.2 To address ongoing concerns from community members and residents, Hydro One proposed to Clarington to fund a peer review of their Surface and Groundwater monitoring program. Council accepted this offer at their meeting of June 16, 2014 by Resolution C-267-14. The peer review consultant, Mr. Steven Usher of SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. was retained in accordance with the Purchasing By-law and has been working with the residents, staff and Hydro One consultants since late October, 2014. 1.3 Council also approved a road use agreement contingent on the drilling of a deep monitoring well. In November/December of 2014 the deep monitoring well was drilled to bedrock (beyond the Thorncliffe Aquifer). The hydrogeologists (CLOCA, G360 Group, Stantec, SLR)jointly agreed that the MWA 5 site on Hydro One property was the most relevant location for this borehole and monitoring well. The MW5-14 site already has monitors at 4 metres, 7 metres and 40 metres; the deep borehole monitor at 112 metres and another monitor at 52 metres were a result of drilling the deep borehole. This provides multi-level monitoring (or a nested cluster of boreholes and monitors). 2. Summary of the Peer Review Findings 2.1 The SLR report reviews the present state of the existing information and purposely does not address the process by which it was achieved. Their review included information from all parties, including Hydro One, Stantec, G360 Group, Enniskillen Environmental Association, the Conservation Authority, Clarington, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition YPDT-CAMC. The results are outlined below, their more detailed report is Attachment 1. 2.2 Drilling of the deep borehole confirmed the absence of a shallow sand lens at location MW5-14 which to the_east hosts local wells. It also showed,that the dense aquitard soils extended down some 76 m to the Thorncliffe Aquifer where several local wells draw their water. An intermediate layer of sand was found in the aquitard at 52 m, and is consistent with the depths of a second grouping of local 12-25 i Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-052-15 Page 3 wells. A groundwater monitoring well was placed in this layer. The borehole was extended into bedrock, found (as predicted by CAMC-YPDT) at about 129.5 rn depth. 2.3 The Site Conceptual Geologic Model was refined as further drilling information was obtained. Figure 1 in Attachment 1, page 4, shows the current understanding. Based on the deep borehole it is now clear that there is a thin secondary aquifer . embedded in the Newmarket Till and tapped by several residential wells in the area. The difference between the SLR conceptual model and the one proposed by Stantec in their Addendum Report#2, is that the consistent layer of sand lenses is connected. The work by 360 Group on the assessment of formational boundaries r would be a helpful input but it has not yet been received. 2.4 The deep Thorncliffe aquifer, and the thin embedded sand layer in the Newmarket Till host many local wells. These aquifers appear to get their water from a greater distance to the north, probably the Oak Ridges Moraine. These deep wells are E' protected by the thick low permeable Newmarket Till, as anticipated by Hydro One, and are not at risk from the Transformer Station. i 2.5 The more shallow Mackinaw wells derive their water locally, and not from the moraine. This is based on their depth, and the now documented tritium levels in the two sampled wells from this layer. Based on the water well records, wells tapping this layer are present along Winchester Road, and along Langmaid Road, but none exist south of the TS site. Further to this, cored boreholes drilled by Stantec show this layer is not present west and south of the site. The presence of a strong groundwater divide exists between the site and the closest Mackinaw wells in the Farewell Creek tributary near Langmaid Road. SLR concludes those wells are not at risk, and has suggested further monitoring will confirm this. 2.6 The ground and surface water monitoring program is comprehensive and typical of other programs in similar settings. 2.7 The water balance presented in the Addendum 2 to the Baseline Report by Stantec has been derived by acceptable methods. It has determined that the bulk of recharge water moves laterally through a surficial sand and the weathered till soils at surface. Thus discharge to surface water in low lying areas is important to continue to monitor. 2.8 The Permit to Take Water process put in place a rigorous daily water monitoring program for water handling procedures, with weekly reporting mechanisms. SLR has reviewed these results as they became available. Water quantities have been much lower than anticipated, and very little ground water contribution has been seen. SLR also conducted a site visit on September 11, and reports that water handling procedures are operating as anticipated with no obvious signs of vegetative distress or uncontrolled discharge. I 3e Concurrence Not applicable. 12-26 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-052-15 Page 4 4. Conclusion 4.1 The purpose of retaining a peer review consultant was to assist with understanding the technical information and to have an independent advisor monitor the practices and methodologies being employed during the construction of the Clarington Transformer Station. To date, the observations, recommendations and conclusions by Mr. Usher of SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. have required additional work by Hydro One and their consultants to demonstrate that the conclusions of the Environmental Assessment and Permit to Take Water are reasonable and conservative. 4.2 Council and residents were concerned for the safety of private residential wells in the vicinity of the transformer construction and Farewell Creek. To date the transformer construction has had no adverse impact on residential wells and discharge to the creek as demonstrated by the recent monitoring report. 4.3 Much has been learned about the hydrogeology of the site over the past year, providing additional scientific knowledge for the G360 Group researchers, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Coalition, YPDT-CAMC. 5. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. ! Submitted by: Reviewed by: F oot David-Jrome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects, 905-623-3379 ext. 2407 or flan maidRclarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 — Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Brad Bowness, Hydro One Clint Cole, Enniskillen Environmental Association Drs. John Cherry and Beth Parker, Group 360, University of Guelph Dr. Rick Gerber, YPDT-CAMC Chris Darling, CLOCA Steven Usher, SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd DJC/FL/sn/df 12-27 Municipality of Clarington Attachment 1 _ - to Report PSD-052-15 September 28, 2015 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 Attn: Faye Langmaid RE:SLR PROJECT NO: 209.40269.00000 CLARINGTON TRANSFORMER STATION PEER REVIEW 1.0 INTRODUCTION SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. (SLR) has been retained (November 2014) by the Municipality of Clarington (Clarington) to provide peer review services of the Hydro One Clarington Transformer Station (TS) ground and surface water monitoring programs. SLR also provides technical advisory services to.Clarington staff and Council, and for the local residents as well. The TS was approved by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in January 2014 and pre-construction of roads and tower relocations began in the autumn of 2014. As part of the background information, Hydro . One provided both the Enfield TS and Clarington TS EA documentation, however a peer review of that information is beyond the scope of SLR's contract. There are several groups of stakeholders, with which SLR has had close contact as part of reviewing the monitoring program. Hydro One retains Stantec to provide technical expertise. The Municipality of Clarington has jurisdiction over the road allowances, but does not have approval authority over proposed site activities. The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) has provided technical review as the site falls within their jurisdiction. Local residents fall into two groups, neighbours who are part of the well monitoring programs, plus those affiliated with the Eniskillen Environmental Association (EEA), a group of concerned citizens including both neighbours and local people concerned with the potential effects of the facility. The EEA retained Group360 of the University of Guelph (Dr. John Cherry) as a hydrogeological peer reviewer. CLOCA has also relied on Dr. Rick Gerber of the Oak Ridges Moraine Hydrogeology Program (YPDT-CAMC) to provide regional hydrogeologic information. The MOECC is the approving authority of the environmental assessment (EA) and other approval instruments, such as the Permit to Take Water (PTTW). Mr. Steven Usher, P.Geo., P.Eng, a senior hydrogeologist with over 35 years experience in Ontario and specifically this terrain, has been the primary reviewer for SLR on behalf of Clarington. Ms. Dale Leadbeater, B.Sc.,R.P.Bio, a senior ecologist, has provided support on ecological issues. Mr. Usher has been the primary contact with the stakeholders. SLR Consulting(Canada)Ltd. 200-300 Town Centre Boulevard,Markham,ON L3R 5Z6 T:905.415.7248 F:905.415.1019 www.drconsolflng.com 12-28 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 2.0 METHODOLOGY SLR was retained on October 30,2014' As a preliminary step, the existing technical documentation was reviewed to become familiar with the site specific information and that in the immediate vicinity. This included the following documents: 2013 EA Application documents by Stantec s 2013,2014 correspondence between MOE (now MOECC) and the proponent A 2014 EA approval, dated January 2014. ® November 2015 Updated hydrogeological technical appendix ® EEA submissions • Group 360 technical review by John Cherry 2012 CLOCA review ® 2014 Addendum 1 to Baseline Conditions (Stantec) ® 2015 Addendum 2 to Baseline Conditions (Stantec) ® 2014 PTTW Application (Stantec) This information was reviewed on an ongoing and as-received basis from November 2014 to date. Five formal meetings were held with the public stakeholder group, and at least six visits to people's homes were conducted, two of which included well or plumbing inspections. A total of nine site visits were undertaken with Hydro One, plus one "windshield survey" with local residents to identify pertinent features. SLR has made two appearances in front of Council, and one in front of the Durham Joint Committee. SLR also participated in three meetings with the MOECC, representing Clarington technically on the review of the PTTW application. Finally, we have participated in several technical meetings by teleconference as the different field programs were conducted by Stantec and Group360. 3.0 SCOPE This review is focused on the Clarington Transformer Station. It is intended to deal with the information as it stands to date. Early in the process there were many questions raised, and many of these were addressed with further works. It is beyond the scope of this review to comment on process, or the regulatory approvals given. The focus has- been on understanding the hydrogeologic setting and understanding the implications of this facility on this setting, the natural environment, and the local groundwater uses such as private wells and watercourses. 4.0 EA REVIEW The 2007 and 2013 EA submissions were reviewed to gain historical.context and to understand the level of hydrogeological and ecological technical detail. This was not a formal peer review. The hydrogeologic submissions were based on a review of regional information such as geology maps and local water well records, coupled with on-site geotechnical drilling results. No hydrogeological drilling or groundwater testing was initially completed. As the approval process proceeded, onsite hydrogeological work SLR 2 12-29 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 was carried out with the installation of groundwater monitoring wells in late 2013. Further drilling and testing in response to Clarington and MOECC enquiries has been carried out in 2014 and 2015 subsequent to MOECC approval of the EA in January 2014. The EA submission concluded that the site was characterized by a very thick layer of dense sandy silt till with unconnected sand lenses. The site design went forward on this basis and includes a level transformer station created from cutting the east side of the site down and using that soil material to backfill the west side. An underdrain system is planned that will collect all surface water and any groundwater and convey it to the existing watercourses. Monitoring of water quality is part of the plan. Spill controls are planned to contain any should transformer leaks with time or accidental breaches. The EA submissions did not present any form of conceptual hydrogeologic model, which is typically used to direct site investigations. Through the review process many questions have been asked and Hydro One has responded by drilling on an as-needed basis. Upon retainer by Clarington, SLR presented a conceptual model based on the information collected to date in November 2014 to staff, Council and the public. As the various drilling programs added information, particularly a 129.5 m deep corehole to bedrock at MW5-14, the conceptual model has been updated and is presented in the following section.' It should be noted that the November 2014 Baseline report by Stantec provided a conceptual hydrogeologic framework utilizing the recent drilling results to date at that time. This was updated in Addenda 1 and 2, as further drilling results became available and in response to questions on the water balance for the site. 5.0 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL To help put the site in context the following conceptual site model has been prepared based on the on-site data, local water well records and our knowledge of the regional geology. This is presented to provide a framework and terminology within which to understand the site. The conceptual model most recently presented by Stantec is subtly different and will be discussed in the context of the following framework. Regionally, the geology of the south slope of the Oak Ridges Moraine is quite consistent over the almost 200 km of its length. The underlying shale and limestone bedrock is covered by a series of layers that are as identifiable here as they are in Pickering or Brampton or Northumberland. Indeed the deep corehole drilled at this site to the bedrock at MW5-14 identifies these layers consistently in comparison to others in the region. Figure 1 on the following page shows the conceptual geologic model for the site. All well locations are shown on Figure 2 on page 13 of this letter report. SLR 3 12-30 Municipality of Clarington Project No.:209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September,2015 f\Y TRANSFORMED— 1011rN S WING � lie dm Ab a o —_ HAlTON TILL DEEP I i —NIACI(INA4^III) i HOLE NE4VM AP,KET dfcl ��NLINE nu r NEWMARKET •\ TILL \ 1 \ �p \ m THORNCLIFFE _ AQUIFER SCARBOROUGH QUIFER„ 1, BLUE _ MOUNTAIN SHALE.LIMESTONE Figure 1. Conceptual Geologic Model SLR 4 12-31 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 The stratigraphy is described from the bottom up. A silty sand aquifer called the Scarborough aquifer (orange layer on Figure 1) lies directly on the bedrock (found at a depth of 127.8 m and shown in blue at the base of the conceptual model in Figure 1). The Scarborough aquifer is protected by the Sunnybrook drift (red layer on Figure 1). The deep corehole at MW5-14 found the Scarborough was about 16 m thick at the site. The Sunnybrook drift is a 7 m thick interebedded clay and silt. These deep deposits are older than, and underlie the Thorncliffe Aquifer (yellow layer on Figure 1), a sand aquifer of substantial thickness which grades finer with depth to silt. The upper part of the Thorncliffe is a regional aquifer covering many 100's of square kilometers in southern Ontario. Many of the private wells in the study area tap the top of the Thorncliffe Aquifer. At MW5-14 it is 29 m thick, and the upper less silty portion is about 17 m thick. The confining layer to the Thorncliffe is a diamict called the Newmarket till shown in light green on Figure 1. This very dense and low permeability material is a sandy silt till, and is regionally extensive. It in fact underlies the Oak Ridges Moraine to the north of the site. In the conceptual model shown on Figure 1 it is sometimes at surface, and sometimes overlain by the Halton Till (dark green layer on Figure 1) where present. Drilling at MW5-14 shows ,Y that the Newmarket has three distinct components. The lower till is a mixture of dense diamict with silty and sandy lenses. There is a 3 m thick layer of sand and silty sand at a depth of 52 m (shown as the thin yellow layer in the light green Newmarket Till on Figure 1). This unit is seen in several local wells and has been known to exist 10 km or more from the site. The upper 48 m is a very dense and uniform sandy silt till of very low permeability, and represents a very competent and thick protective layer for the deeper aquifers. It is pictured at left on this 50 mm -- sample. At the ground surface, there is a discontinuous skiff of sand shown in a photograph of the excavation at left. In addition, the glacial till o' (where exposed at surface), exhibits a shallow weathered horizon 4_ where freeze-thaw cycles, reduction and oxidation, root penetration :. and a lack of overburden weight have enhanced the permeability. This is conventionally taken to be 3 to 5 metres in depth, however physical observations in recent excavations suggests this is less A than 3 m at this site. SLR 5 12-32 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 The weathered zone, coupled with the surficial sand is a significant shallow pathway for lateral groundwater movement. • _ dip The photograph at leftt shows the surfaces of the fractures in the weathered zone that are highlighted b Y iron oxides where the water table fluctuates seasonally. To the north of the site, the Newmarket till is blanketed by the Halton Till. At the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) the Halton Till overlies the moraine directly, but the ORM deposits pinch out to the south towards the site. The contact between the two tills is often occupied by thin layers of sand and gravel or sand, called the Mackinaw deposit (shown in bright yellow on Figure 1). At this site, the Mackinaw was not observed in the deep corehole, nor in the boreholes at the western portion of the site. A deposit like the Mackinaw is seen in several boreholes on site, particularly to the east, but is not differentiated in the Stantec borehole logs as such, They do lie at similar depths. To the east of the site, towards Langmaid Road, there is strong evidence of the Mackinaw in that Farewell Creek is groundwater fed where its channel incises the till, and there are many wells that draw water from about 10 to 15 m depth. The most recent conceptual model presented by Stantec in their 2nd Addendum to the baseline report, does not acknowledge the Mackinaw, and is explicit in refuting the presence of the Halton Till. The sand deposits are all stated to be discontinuous and local and embedded in the Newmarket Till. Regardless of the naming convention of the tills, there is a consistent horizon of these sand lenses, and without proof that they are not connected, it would be wise to examine this possibility. SLR proposed the use of a pumping test during the review of the PTTW application but both the MOECC and Stantec did not believe it was necessary. The EEA had suggested, through Dr. Cherry of Group360 that tritium be used to help date the groundwater to examine this possibility. Hydro One has elected not to do this. (The EEA did this on selected private wells in the summer of 2015, which will be discussed below.) To be prudent, this report adopts the conceptual model presented above and shown on Figure 1. 6.0 PTTW REVIEW In order to excavate the site and fill it to make a level site area for the transformer station, Stantec conservatively estimated that the construction would generate more than 50,000 L/day during:the first months of construction. This amount triggers the need to have a Permit To Take Water (PTTW) Clarington was given the opportunity to review this application, which SLR did on their behalf. Seven issues were raised with the application and Hydro One had Stantec drill additional boreholes as well as modify the design in places for water control. (Specifically, a lined ditch was added along the top of the excavation to capture surface water from entering the excavation.) During the review SLR asked what the implication of the Mackinaw would be on ground water control at the site. We identified that BH7A-D, drilled for geotechnical reasons SLR 6 12-33 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 where the transformer foundations were planned, showed significant sand at 7 to 13 m depth (BH7B, BH7D). Stantec drilled Borehole MW8-15 in January of 2015 and encountered a sand and gravel unit at 13.3 to 14.2 m. This is listed on their borehole log but not identified as a separate unit. The groundwater monitor constructed in this borehole exhibited a hydraulic conductivity of 7 x 10-6 m/s, which indicates a sand. If the sand is unconnected this is not an issue for the site, however if it were close to surface where the deep oil/water separator tank is to go, then a connection to depth could inadvertently be created. The MOECC agreed that there was potential and requested a borehole directly at the tank location. Stantec drilled BH9-15 in late March to a depth of 10.1 m, well below the tank bottom. No sand was found. During the PTTW review process, SLR and Clarington met with the MOECC on three occasions to review the issues and proposed resolution. The concern for a connected presence of the Mackinaw from the east side of the site towards wells along Langmaid Road was raised. SLR recommended an additional monitoring well.between the residents and the site, however the MOECC felt the present monitoring program at MW1 would suffice as an early warning location. In addition, the MOECC did not agree with the recommended pumping test in the Mackinaw sand, reasoning that the wells were too remote, and if a problem did occur the shallow well (PW16) in question could be deepened. The PTTW was approved in late May. As of this writing the excavation is almost complete. Hydro One has been issuing weekly summaries of their pumping and discharge monitoring, and Stantec has provided monthly summaries of the groundwater monitoring. SLR reviews these summaries each week and was invited to inspect the site and just recently completed this site visit. The water is collected at the north and south ends of the excavation by gravity sumps, and pumped into decant tanks. As the tanks near capacity, the clear decant water is pumped to a shallow engineered pond with filters. As of this writing, 144,000 L has been collected on the north side, and 13,000 on the south side. No discharge has been needed on the south side, and about 100,000 L has been released on the north side. The turbidity of the discharge is measured by automated meter, and has generally been less than 1 NTU, well within the required criteria. No significant groundwater inflows have been identified and most of this water is surface water generated by precipitation. 7.0 GROUNDWATER BALANCE The EA documentation did not present a water balance. The baseline report did, however the mixture of units (mm/yr, L/s and m3/yr) made it difficult to interpret and when tallied it did not add up. In particular, more than half of the recharge water was . unaccounted for, and indeed this initial attempt did not include either the Mackinaw or surficial weathered till or sand pathways. This was discussed in meetings with Stantec, and in Addendum 2, an integrated water budget was presented. We have reviewed the formulation and mathematics and find the methodology acceptable. The following table summarizes the water balance prepared by Stantec. SLR 7 12-34 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 Component Annual Water Movement (m3/r) Recharge 12,504 Lateral movement in surficial sand -9,548 Lateral movement in the weathered glacial till -1,535 Downward leakage to deeper aquifers through glacial till -1,958 Difference -537 This is a reasonable result if one assumes that the surficial sand is connected at surface, and where it is not, the weathered till can convey water from the surficial sand. Since Stantec has assumed that all deeper sand lenses are unconnected, there is no pathway considered in the Mackinaw if it were present. The implication of a connected Mackinaw, is that it may provide an additional lateral pathway that could also balance the "water in —water out", should there not be enough connectivity in the surficial sand. Since it is unaddressed in any of the documentation, it is prudent to examine this possibility and significance. Evidence of a Mackinaw layer is seen in the following boreholes: Location Thickness Depth Elevatio Rationale (m) (m) n (mast) MW1- 0.9 9.5 253.1 Hydraulic Conductivity = 9x10- m/s, typical 13D of sand, reported as distinct layer. MW8-15 0.9 13.3 241.1 Same general location as BH7A-D Hydraulic Conductivity = 7x10"6 m/s, typical of sand Washed out core, not reported as distinct layer BH6 2.1 11.7 244.0 Geotechnical hole, reported as distinct layer, no groundwater monitor BH2 1.6 5.7 247.3 Geotechnical hole, reported as distinct layer, no groundwater monitor BH11-12 1.8 13.7 238.6 Geotechnical hole, reported as distinct layer, sli ht artesian condition BH12-B 1.5 8.7 230.8 Near Langmaid road. Farewell Creek gains groundwater in this area, and other private wells (e.g.PW1) tap this same layer around 230 masl. 2 Hydraulic conductivity is a term used to describe the ability of the soil to conduct water. Aquifers generally have a hydraulic conductivity of greater than 10-6 m/s, and aquitards are less than 10-6 m/s. SLR 8 12-35 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 Location Thickness Depth Elevatio Rationale (m) (m) n (mast) BH4 Not >10 m <242 Geotechnical hole, reported wet sand Determined seams, no groundwater monitor It is also important to understand where there is no evidence of Mackinaw sand. Location MW5-14 was fully cored borehole with no presence of sand. MW3 and MW4 were also core holes with no presence of sand. These three wells are west and south of the transformer station. MW6, MW7 and 131-19-15 were too shallow to encounter sand if it were at the Mackinaw horizon. Several geotechnical holes did extend far enough down, BH3, BH5, BH12-12, in this vicinity, but were only split spooned sampled so any layer less than 1.2 m thick between samples could have been missed. Of some interest, all the wells that exhibited sand (or are inferred here to possibly have sand) have a head that is near ground surface, similar to the shallow monitor at each location. All the wells that did not see sand, where there was a groundwater monitor, had a head at depth indicating a very strong downward gradient and quite typical of glacial till in our experience. This implies that recharge for a sand layer comes from the ground surface, likely laterally from nearby hills. BH11-12 was decommissioned to permit tower foundation construction. Based on the earlier reports, and anecdotal evidence from the public, Hydro One and Stantec, this groundwater monitor was artesian with a head a few centimeters above the top of pipe. Estimates of flow were in the order of 0.1 to 0.5 L/min. For this well (which was down by the wetland north of the site) to be artesian, the water would not be able to drain laterally away. This is consistent with the absence of sand to the north (BH12-12) and west (MW3-13, MW5-14), and ultimately to the south (MW4-15D). However to have a head above ground also means that it is connected to something with a higher head, likely to the east (MW1-13) and immediately to the south (BH2, BH6, MW8-15). To examine if this is reasonable, one may calculate what area of a connected Mackinaw sand lense would be needed to generate up to 0.5 L/min. To calculate the rate of recharge, the vertical downward gradient at MW1 of dh/dL = 0.4/5.3 = 0.075 rti/m is used, along with the unweathered till hydraulic conductivity of K = 7x10-9 m/s. By Darcy's principle the flow per unit area is: Q/A = K x dh/dL = 7x10-9 m/s x 0.075 m/m = 5.25x10-10 m/s, or 3.15x10-8 m/min SLR 9 12-36 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 Rearranging this equation to determine A, and knowing the flow of 0.5 L/min = 0.0005 m3/min: A = Q /3.15x10-$m/min = 0.0005 m3/min /3.15x10"8 m/min = 15,875 m2, or just under 1.6 ha To get an idea of the sensitivity of this calculation, a stronger downward gradient would reduce the calculated area. Similarly a higher hydraulic conductivity would also reduce the calculated area. The area encompassed by the boreholes showing evidence of Mackinaw sand is about 6 ha. One would therefore expect much more water than was observed. Based on this analysis, it does not appear that the connected part of the Mackinaw sand is laterally extensive. This is consistent with the observations around the site periphery to the west and south. The presence of groundwater contributions to Farewell Creek just west of Langmaid Road, is consistent with the elevation of the Mackinaw seen in some of the local wells, and implies connectivity in that area, east of the site. 8.0 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN The Environmental Assessment identified the nature of the materials on the site once it is up and running. The insulating oil for these transformers is planned to be mineral oil, which has become the industry standard as an inert compound for this purpose. Through the Group360 review, residents raised the concern of what this oil might impact if released to the environment, the EA did not explore that in any detail, but rather relied on several levels of contingency. The transformer station is designed with spill containment of which the containment volume exceeds the volume of oil on site. Slow, progressive or catastrophic leaks will typically be captured. If this system fails, it is most likely by slow leaks, and the material would enter the underdrain system. Fluid follows the path of least resistance and much of the oils would be captured by the underdrain, however they would come into contact with the glacial till soils below. Since excavation of the underdrain beneath the transformer is impractical, the assessment should focus on the ground and surface water pathways in the till, and the effects of the contaminants there. Where unweathered soils are of very low permeability, and as long as they are not connected to any of the deeper Mackinaw sand, where present, the travel times are low and there is sufficient time to detect and remediate any groundwater threats. For example, the average linear ground water velocity in the glacial till soils is a function of the hydraulic conductivity (K) of the soil and lateral hydraulic gradient (dh/d L), and may be calculated from the simple relationship: V = (K x dh/dL )./ n, where n is the soil porosity. SLR 10 12-37 I i Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 These parameters have all now been measured at the site, and assuming the highest j measured K for the unweathered till soils of 7x10"9 m/s, the maximum measured j horizontal gradient of 0.45, and the measured porosity of 16% (n=0.16) for the unweathered till, the average linear groundwater velocity is about 0.6 m per year. Most of the underdrain lies on the unweathered till, or compacted till soils. Should contaminated water reach the unweathered till at the perimeter of the facility, the same calculation can be made. Here, the hydraulic conductivity is 1x10-6 m/s, the maximum measured gradient is still 0.45, and the measured porosity is higher at 21% (n=0.21). The ensuing average linear groundwater velocity is just under 70 m/yr. In both cases j there is sufficient time to remediate. This point has been made in the Hydro One documentation and is an acceptable approach in many applications in industry today, provided sufficient operational monitoring and perimeter groundwater monitoring is undertaken. The residents have also raised the possibility of catastrophic explosive failure, spreading contaminants through complete meltdown of the facility. This is beyond the scope of our retainer to assess, but we do note it is not covered in the existing documentation: Typically such things are addressed through risk assessment based on the performance of other similar facilities, and the design of the current facility. j r 9.0 PRIVATE WELL SAFETY i The Hydro One documentation concludes that private wells are not at risk from the construction or operation of this facility. Members of the Enniskillen Environmental Association continue to,express concern about the safety of their wells. For the past year they and other members of the public have been participating in a well monitoring program. SLR has met privately with six local residents to review the monitoring results for their wells. There have been issues with bacteria in several wells, and one home had low but measureable benzo(a)pyrene in the well on one occasion. The meetings were confidential and the specific details will not be discussed here. In many cases, the documentation provided by Stantec to the homeowners concluded that localized issues with the wells (e.g. well construction, land use and well operation) were not caused by the TS site. SLR did not conduct well inspections, but was able to put the individual issues into the context of our experience with local wells. What was not well expressed in the well reports were the reasons why Stantec did not believe the site was at fault. To aid in future assessment, we take this opportunity to apply the conceptual model presented above (Figure 1) to put each aquifer into context is with respect to groundwater flow to or from the site. This is done from the lowest aquifer, progressively up to the aquifers closest to the surface. The Thorncliffe aquifer, shown as a wide band (coloured yellow) on Figure 1, is utilized by almost half-the local wells in the area. It is typically 70 to 90 m below ground surface. Regional modelling of this aquifer (CLOCA, 2012) shows that it has a groundwater flow direction that is southerly in direction, and it is commonly held that its water originates at the Oak Ridges Moraine (6 km north of the site). In the SLR presentation to Council in December 2014, it was stated that our own assessment of ff` t I-. SLR _11 12-38 �' Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarirgton Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 water levels in the private wells in this aquifer confirmed CLOCA's inferred direction of groundwater flow. We used specific capacities determined from the well records to estimate aquifer hydraulic conductivity, and then applied that and the measured gradient to determine that the rate of groundwater flow was about 100 m per year. We also showed that only about 20 mm/yr of leakage per square metre moves downward through the overlying Newmarket Till aquitard. On this basis we conclude that those wells that derive their water from the Thorncliffe Aquifer, are using water that has originated from the ORM to the north and not from under the site. Assuming the wells are secure (that is, no leaking casing), there is very little risk of being affected by the operation of the Transformer Station. The Conceptual model also identifies a 3 m layer of sand within the Newmarket Till, but at a depth of 50 to 60 m. It is inferred that this layer too extends locally (within 10 km) and will also be deriving its water from the ORM. For the same reasons as above, there is very little risk of wells in this unit being affected by the operation of the Transformer Station. Recently, the results of Tritium testing conducted by members of the EEA were made available. These results are discussed briefly below, and it is shown that they reinforce the interpretation that the deep aquifers are not threatened by the facility, as the water appears to be many decades old. There are several wells which derive their water from the Mackinaw layer, particularly near and along Langmaid Road (MOE Well numbers 7157947, 1903520, 1903352). The layer seems to be absent south of the site (MOE Well numbers 1912622, 1918378, 7208110), but can be seen again in wells along Winchester Road in Oshawa Oust west of Townline, MOE Well numbers 4600450, 4600451, 1905326). Given the discontinuity of this layer (as demonstrated at the site and in the local well records) it is unlikely to be recharged by the ORM to the north. Certainly the theoretical analysis presented above on this layer showed it would not take much extent (1.6 ha) to derive it's water locally there. The tritium results discussed below reinforce that. The Mackinaw would have to be near surface and close to the weathered till and surficial sand to receive sufficient recharge. Given that the Mackinaw (where present) may derive its recharge from surface, then the direction of groundwater flow in the unit is important, to understand which wells may be downgradient from the site. In the PTTW application, Stantec presents a map (Figure 7) of the measured water levels in wells screened down to 16 m below ground surface, reproduced below as Figure 2. The yellow shaded area has been added by this author and represents the downgradient area from the site. Only well PW22 (MOE No. 1918378) is directly downgradient, but is screened in the deep sand layer embedded in the Newmarket till at the 48 m depth, and not'in the Mackinaw, which was not present in the driller's log for the well. The Mackinaw wells to the east are protected by a groundwater divide under the hill running north-south, east of the site (shown as a dashed yellow line, added by this author to Figure 2). Groundwater does not flow SLR 12 12-39 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 across a groundwater divide. The Mackinaw wells along Winchester Road are potentially downgradient, and we understand that PW13 (MO no. 4600451) is part of the monitoring program3. It is important to note that MW3-13, MW4-15, and MW5-14 are intermediate between the site and PW13, and do not have any Mackinaw present. •�� PW=15 1 r�, ,♦PW_ 7 : y p '1 TPW 16 J 250 , MW&14 I i + '® R e 260.4, �,r`"� DP2 13,;DP2 14 P3a14$+1 A:P,W .�ti• 249 9 SVV2 +BH1'I=1214 MW1!3 c ,r7 sf� 1 x_261.8 'o` h TP2-141%V • `� 1�. , s' 2503 l = 71-14 MW7 i &BH7A 262:0 j o i l . PW3 1 DP3'14 2 39 � MW3113 MW5.14 i r "• 213.21 .250.3 ,l •,o, 9: =� � ♦�' •`+• c Yi i 2�J Oi 4 h ,J • 11 8H9-.12 $BH2-12 �.. �; 22471 .t y .,i ni . 1 4: SW4. PW-oil 230 * 237.2 DP4-'13' M38 1 •. ""r• PW 03. Y+ ♦ -233%• 8 �t1 t _ .. . ♦'PW 04 r••r•if ts, r 'i 'PW-20 M P_W —� 235'1 1 ♦I?W 02:• ♦ 'W 05. X219:9 , 1 m a .� 0 ,-Padt1 AA ♦M�PIN21 ♦ +�'. s\ PyW-27 G-an�es Figure 2. Reproduction of Potentiometric Surface in Shallow (<16m deep) Wells. Derived from Stantec, 2014, with modification by SLR (addition of yellow shade, and dashed yellow line, described in text above). Finally, the surficial sand (where present) and weathered till has been known to be the source of water for shallow dug wells. These are rare in this area, and none seem to exist downhill of the site. PW1 is 3.6 m deep, but is so productive it is likely tapping the Mackinaw where it is near surface. PW16 is 5.2 m deep, but has a 0.3 m bed of gravel providing the water. A shallow dug well also exists at PW03, but its source is unknown. These wells are in the Farewell watershed and are not downgradient of the site. PW16 is closest to the groundwater divide shown on Figure 1. If dewatering draws the water 3 Unfortunately PW13 is not shown on Figure 2, but is found south of Winchester Road, off the figure to the left. SLR 13 12-40 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 table down near the crest of the hill, there is a chance some laterally flowing water may be intercepted however it is unlikely groundwater divide would dissipate as recharge would continue to happen there. To test this conclusion, it will be important to compare their hydrographs (record of water level) against that for the site during dewatering, once they become available this autumn. In summary, from a well safety point of view we have concluded that no private wells are presently threatened by the construction or operation of the transformer station. 10.0 TRITIUM SAMPLING In August 2015, members of the EEA conducted some well sampling at PW1, PW2 and PW10 for the purpose of tritium testing. Tritium is a rare isotope of hydrogen, with a half-life of about 12.3 years. (That is, for example, a concentration of 100 Tritium Units ' (TU) would be reduced to half(50 TU) in 12.3 years.) Tritium is present in rain water and has been elevated since the 1950's when atmospheric testing of nuclear devices drove up the natural values (a maximum value of about 3000 TU was recorded in 1964). A record has been kept of atmospheric tritium since 1953, and provides a unique tool for the age dating of water. Tritium is not a contaminant, but due to its known rate of decay makes an excellent tracer for dating water. Although tritium from this source has dropped dramatically since this atmospheric testing was stopped in the early 1960's, levels still have not.returned to background (pre- nuclear testing) levels and are around 14 TU. In recent decades, nuclear plants, which use lake water for cooling, have low levels of tritium release. This second source means that background levels will remain above pre-nuclear testing levels. Figure 3 shows the historic record of average annual values (shown in black) and current background levels (67 TU in 2012) from an OPG monitoring station 6 km from this site (shown in red). All data are publically available. 10000.0 Seriesl Series2 —p--tAEA Ottawa(annual avg,mac,min) Precip In Clarington North 1000.0 100.0 10.0 1.0 1953 1958 1963 1968 1873 7978 1983 1988 ' 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 3H(TU) Figure 3. Atomospheric Tritium Concentrations with Time. SLR 14 12-41 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 The following values were measured from the wells by the EEA. The sampling protocols for these samples have not yet been reviewed, and our analysis assumes the results are valid. The sampling protocols were stipulated by the laboratory, the Andre E. Lalonde AMS Laboratory at the University of Ottawa. Table 1 below tabulates the results against the geologic horizon each well draws from. Table 1. Reported Tritium Concentrations, Enniskillen Environmental Association Well and depth Aquifer Tritium Concentration PW1 — 3.6 m deep Shallow dug well 47 TU mackinaw PW2 — 19 m deep Mackinaw 38 TU PW10 — 79 m deep Thorncliffe Aquifer 21 TU Given that the results were only just received, and that sampling protocols are not yet understood, only a preliminary assessment can be made at this point, assuming all things are at face value. The pathway to the deep aquifer can occur in two ways. First there is the vertical pathway, where the ground water moves about 0.05 m/yr downward. The water discharging to the Thorncliffe, some 75 m below the weathered till, would be 1,500 years old, and would have background concentrations of about 7 TU. The second pathway would be laterally from the ORM, some 6,000 m away. By working backwards to 1958 from a concentration of 21 TU in 2015, a source concentration would have to be 526 TU. The 1958 levels on Figure 3 above were about 500. The travel time would then be 57 years, giving an average linear ground water velocity of 6,000 m in 57 years, or 105 m/yr. This agrees remarkably well with the calculation of Thorncliffe travel times first presented to Clarington in December 2014 by SLR. There are many limitations to this calculation, and this conclusion has yet to be tested, however it is consistent with the observed conditions. By contrast, the concentration in the Mackinaw is almost twice as high at 38 TU, showing much more recent water. A similar calculation to that presented above for the vertical pathway to the 19 m depth in PW2 also shows the water should be near pre- 1950's levels and it is not. This implies lateral recharge with a near surficial source. Well PW1 is very productive but it is shallow. This is consistent with a shallow expression of the Mackinaw sand. The measured tritium of 47 TU in PW1 shows even more recent water. Using hydraulic conductivity values for the weathered till as measured by Stantec (3.7 x 10-7 m/s), a vertical downward gradient of 0.05 m/m and a porosity of 21%, a vertical downward average linear velocity of about 2.3 m/yr is calculated. Assuming a 2 year travel time, a source concentration of 53 TU may be back calculated. This is somewhat less than the 67 TU last measured in precipitation in 2012, however that location is 6 km south of the site and values should be lower further north from Lake Ontario. It can be concluded that this is indeed recent water, and consistent with a nearby recharge source. SLR 15 12-42 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 The preliminary implications of these results is that the deep Thorncliffe aquifer provides older water from the north and not from the site. The more shallow wells derive their water locally. This is consistent with the assumption made above that the sand on the east end of the site also is recharged locally. The tritium sampling conducted by the EEA has provided useful information. A more complete picture of the site itself could be made if tritium sampling were conducted in the onsite monitors as well. Here the Mackinaw is deeper and the water may be older. In addition it would be useful for the rotosonic work to proceed to allow tritium sampling of the aquitards. By waiting until construction is complete, the diffusion of tritium from the other boreholes that were drilled with tritiated water may with time cloud the results. In addition, it is expected that if the preliminary analysis bears out, that the aquitard tritium results will further support the case of site integrity. If they do not, then this is important to understand as well. 11.0 ADEQUACY OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM The current ground water monitoring program includes continuous water level recording (hourly) on all site groundwater monitors still in place, and in all private wells part of the current program. Water quality sampling is done quarterly on site and twice annually in private wells. There was early concern from the residents that the well water quality results were not representative of background pre-construction conditions. However, the water taken from these wells had an origin that predates the construction and can be considered background water quality and may be relied on. In particular well PW6 in the Thorncliffe aquifer had an initial measured benzo(a)pyrene concentration of 0.02 ug/L, very close to the detection limit, taken from the kitchen tap after water had passed through the home filtration system. Some of the shallow site wells also had measureable concentrations. Stantec reportedly revised their sampling protocols as they inferred that sampling materials may have introduced this. Subsequent sampling of the raw water in PW6, or the site wells did not repeat this result. Given the depth and source of the water from the Thorncliffe aquifer in PW6, the apparent lack of connection to the site, and the subsequent lack of measureable concentrations, it is reasonable to conclude that benzo(a)pyrene is not present in the groundwater. The well monitoring program being undertaken by Stantec on behalf of Hydro One is consistent with industry practice, and indeed is more inclusive than many in similar settings. SLR 16 12-43 Municipality of Clarington Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review September, 2015 We trust this report adequately summarizes our findings to date at the Clarington TS. Should you or any technical reviewer have any questions, please feel free to contact the Yours sincerely, SLR Consulting (Canada) 1 IJr �.1 Steven Usher, M.Sc.,P.En ,P.GW'I*CC Senior Hydrogeologist i ��fi 4e undersigned. SU:sh SLR 17 12-44 Ciarhwa Planning Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: October 5, 2015 Report Number: PSD-053-15 Resolution Number: File Number: S-C-2005-0002 By-law Number: Report Subject: Request for Extension of Draft Approval by Far Sight Investments Ltd. Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD-053-15 be received; 2. That the request to extend the lapsing date for draft approved Plan of Subdivision S-C- 2005-0002 be supported to November 27, 2018 for Phase 1 and November 27, 2022 for any subsequent phase; 3. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-053-15 and Council's decision; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-053-15 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 12-45 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-053-15 Page 2 Report Overview .Far Sight Investments has submitted a request for extension of their Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision initially Draft Approved August 11, 2010. 1 . Application Details 1.1 Applicant/Owner: Municipality of Clarington 1.2 Proposal: To extend the lapsing date for draft approved Plan of Subdivision S-C-2005-0002 five years for phase 1 and ten years for any subsequent phases. 1.3 Area: 46.041 ha 1.4 Location: The subject lands are east of Soper Creek, south of Concession Street East, north of Durham Highway 2 and west of Lambs Road. The property is contained within Part Lot 7, Concession 1, former Township of Darlington 2. Background 2.1 On July 12, 2010 Council considered the application for proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2005-0002 and supported issuing draft approval for a total of 541 units. The draft approved plan consists of 273 single detached dwelling lots; five blocks for 29 street townhouse units; 2 blocks for 239 block-townhouse units; open space blocks, which includes lands associated with the main branch of the Soper Creek as well as tributary to the Soper Creek; a stormwater management block; and a park block. See Figure 1. 2.2 A provision within the conditions of draft approval indicates that if Final Approval of the plan is not given to Phase 1 within five years of receiving Draft Approval and within seven years for any subsequent phase, Draft Approval will lapse and the file shall be closed. However, reasonable extensions to Draft Approval may be granted by the approval authority. These provisions are authorized under the Planning Act, where approval authorities may provide that the approval of a draft Plan of Subdivision lapses after a period of no less than three years. The approval authority may extend the approval for a time period specified by the approval authority and may further extend it. No extension is permissible if the approval lapses before the extension is given. The approval for draft Plan of Subdivision S-C-2005-002 will lapse on November 27, 2015, if an extension is not granted. 12-46 Municipality of Clarington Report PS®-053-15 Page 3 Figure 1 — Draft Plan of Subdivr ss on jCONCESSION STREET I 6 I— ��7.J F - �t! — t l�xan�--csi o- ,t •11.� / Iz r•Z_1 � -. �rff E I I E J 41 Lw� Ltz-I �' - +iaar E': 4€' `l '`a•i� " it 1'S L_ Ic�H�c'JI T 1 (/ �:u��J1^� •- -.�•`.i..'sl II I � �J1 E w ° •R w u �� .� I E��r E r Vt;nc - IIb,ar_ y N BOWMANVILLE4, ZOO-_,_ ' `. / - �'" `= ���°�" T- � r�)Ww- 44-Wvs j l F. rr--- I F� '1�\..�;,i°gt �\—_ .•(+T !o. 4 �.fir I '- Elf 1'��4.,':•� i� q �.�-,�a.��84z I�. SC 2005-0002 12-47 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-053-1 5 Page 4 3e Staff Comments .3.1 The purpose of this report is to consider whether the conditions of draft approval for S-C-2005-002 should lapse on November 27, 2015 as scheduled, or should be reasonably extended. 3.2 The applicant has advised that Final Approval for the first phase of the plan was not possible due to sanitary sewer capacity constraints at the Port Darlington Water Pollution Control plant. The applicant has requested a 5 year extension for the registration of phase 1 and an additional 5 years for any subsequent phases. 3.3 A servicing agreement with the Region of Durham is not in place for the subject lands. Servicing restrictions on the Port Darlington Water Pollution Control Plant, since early 2010, means that the subject lands could not proceed to Final Approval as a result of a lack of sanitary service capacity. . The Municipality had approved a detailed engineering drawings for Phase 1 in 2011. Construction on the plant expansion is nearing completion and the expanded plant is expected to be operational early in 2016. 3.4 In June of this year Council approved a temporary rezoning for a sales pavilion related to the subject Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision at the corner of Highway 2 and Lambs Road. At this time the.applicant has not finalized the site plan drawings associated with the sales pavilion 3.5 Staff support the extension of the Draft Approval, however, in consideration of the fact that the Port Darlington Water Pollution Control Plant-expansion is almost complete and will be operational early.in 2016; detailed engineering drawings were previously approved; and that Council has already approved a rezoning for the sales pavilion; staff believe an extension of 3 years for Phase 1 and additional 4 years for any subsequent phase is sufficient. Up to 239 unit townhouse units could be contained within two blocks which will be subject to site plan approval, therefore, registration of these blocks is possible well in advance of the blocks being serviced or available for building permit. 3.6 Both the Region of Durham Planning Department and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority staff have no objection to the extension of Draft Approval. 4. Conclusion 4.1 In consideration of the comments noted above, Staff recommends supporting the extension of draft approval until November 2018 for Phase 1 and November 2022 for any subsequent phase. 12-45 Municipality of Clari ngton Report PSD-053-15 Page 5 Submitted by: Reviewed by VV �`. �, - David X/Crome, MCIP, RPP A Fra'014fin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Carlo Pellarin, Manager of Development Review, 905-623-3379 ext. 2408 or cpellarinoclarington.net Attachment: Attachment 1 - Conditions of Extension of Draft Approval List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Far Sight Investments Limited Lorne Morton Sernas Associates Lyndsay Luckhardt Allison Lester Margaret Quinney Anne Caroline Wilson Mark &Cheryl Rigby Bernie Hirseland Marlene Amos Bert Newtel Mary Mogford Betty Marti Matt & Marianne Yeatman Dave & Shelley Winkle Michael Hackenberger (Bowmanville Zoo) Deborah Patrick Mike Domovich Derrick Stein Peter Klose Dr. Wendy Korvar Rhonda Hooper Frank Lockhart. Richard Mostert Julie Mackenzie Shirley Amos John O'Toole Shirley Johnson Tom Campbell 12-49 Attachment 'I to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-053-15 CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-C-2005-002 PART LOT 7, CONCESSION 1, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON The conditions of Draft Approval for S-C-2005-002 as originally issued on September 10, 2010 are hereby amended as follows: 1. That note 1 to the conditions of Draft Approval be deleted and replaced with the following NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL 1. If final approval is not.given to Phase 1 of this plan within 3 years (November 27, 2018), and within 7 years (November 27, 2022)for any subsequent phase ofthe draft approval date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file shall be CLOSED. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is submitted to the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date. 12-50 Unfinished Business 14.1 The following Resolution #PD-015-15 was tabled from the September 14, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Meeting: Clarington `transformer Station Resolution #PD-015-15 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded.by Councillor Traill Whereas the Environmental Site Report ("ESR") submitted by Hydro One to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change (the "Minister") for the Clarington Transformer Station ("CTS") was based on a desktop study prepared by Stantec, and which has been refuted by the site concept model developed by SLR Consulting, prepared based on actual hydro-geological results; and Whereas recent tests have indicated the presence of elevated levels of tritium in three residential wells which had been selected for testing by SLR Consulting; Now therefore be it resolved that: 1. Clarington is requesting that the Minister require that Hydro One submit a new ESR based on the site concept model developed by SLR Consulting, and to include the results of the studies referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, and that the Minister consider making a Part II Order for the CTS; 2. Clarington is requesting that Hydro One pay for comprehensive tritium tests, including helium 3 testing, on all affected residential wells, and to be analyzed at a neutral testing lab; 3. Clarington is requesting that Hydro One provide access for and waive any management fees for, Group 360 for the drilling and monitoring of the sonic deep well. 4. This resolution be forwarded to MPP Granville Anderson, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Hydro One, Durham Region, Enniskillen Environmental Association and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Carried 14-1 Clarington Memo Clerk's Department If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. To: Mayor Foster and Members of Council From: Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk Date: October 2, 2015 Subject: Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda — October 5, 2015 — Update File: C05.Planning & Development Committee Meeting Please be advised of the following amendments to the Planning & Development Committee agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, October 5, 2015: 8 Delegations See attached Final Agenda - Attachment#1 � ne G tree; ty Clerk CAG/cf c: F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads Final ATTACHMENT #_I _ TO UPDATE MEMO ciffbooll Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Michelle Chambers, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at mchambers@_claCington.net. Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. 1 Audio Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio record of Planning and Development Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a Planning and Development Committee meeting, the Municipality will be audio recording you and will make the recording public by publishing the recording on the Municipality's website. Copies of Reports-are available at www.clarington.net i i i GaEWM Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 1 Call to Order 2 New Business — Introduction 3 Adopt the Agenda 4 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest 5 Announcements 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 6.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of September 14, 2015 6-1 7 Public Meetings 7.1 Application for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 7-1 Applicant: 2265719 Ontario Limited Report PSD-049-15 7.2 Application to Permit a Temporary Parking Lot 7-3 Applicant: Cowan Buick GMC/Gerr Holdings Ltd. Report: PSD-050-15 8 Delegations 8.1 Delegation of Bonnie Martin Regarding the Rezoning of a Property Located at 2385 Maplegrove Road 8.2 Delegation of Sally Hillis, Enniskillen Environmental Association, Regarding Resolution PD-015-15, Clarington Transformer Station, Tabled at the September 14, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Meeting 8.3 Delegation of Jim Sullivan, Enniskillen Environmental Association, Regarding Resolution PD-015-15, Clarington Transformer,Station, Tabled at the September 14, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Meeting i i Page 1 C(ar*W11 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 9 Communications - Receive for Information 1 - 1 Manish Nayar, President, Oya Solar Inc. — Hybridyne Power Generation 9-1 Site A Solar Farm — Notice of Public Information Centre Regarding the Construction of a Communication Tower 10 Communications — Direction D - 1 Janet McNeill, DNA Coordinator, Durham Nuclear Awareness — OPG's 10-1 Request for 13 Year Licence for Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (Due to Volume, Only Pages 84-100 of the Submission of the Canadian Environmental Law Association are Included) (Motion for direction) 11 Presentations Presentation of Steve Usher, SLR Consulting Canada, Regarding Report PSD-052-15, Clarington Transformer Station, Annual Update 12 Planning Services Department Reports 12.1 PSD-049-15 An Application by 2265719 Ontario Inc., to Permit 70 Single 12-1 Detached Dwellings 12.2 PSD-050-15 An Application by Cowan Buick GMC, on Behalf of Gerr 12-10 Holdings Ltd., to Permit the Temporary Use of a Vacant Lot for Employee Parking 12.3 PSD-051-15 Application for Removal of Holding Symbol 12-18 Applicant: Claret Investments Limited and 1361189 Ontario Limited 12.4 PSD-052-15 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review, Annual 12-24 Update 12.5 PSD-053-15 Request for Extension of Draft Approval by Far Sight 12-45 Investments Ltd. i Page 2 l Clar*W,U Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: October 5, 2015 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 13 New Business - Consideration 14 Unfinished Business 14.1 Resolution # Clarington Transformer Station [Tabled from the 14-1 PD-015-15 September 14, 2015 Planning and Development Committee Meeting] 15 Confidential Reports No Reports 16 Adjournment Page 3 Clar*wji Memo Clerk's Department If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. To: Mayor Foster and Members of Council From: June Gallagher, Deputy Clerk Date: October 5, 2015 Subject: Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda — October 5, 2015 — Update File: C05.Planning & Development Committee Meeting Please be advised of the following amendments to the Planning & Development Committee agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, October 5, 2015: 10 Communications — Direction I D-2 - Dr. John Cherry, Comments on Tritium Results from Homeowner Wells and Related Matters Concerning the SLR Report dated September 28, 2015 (Motion for direction) D-3 - Dr. Ian Clark, Comments on Tritium Results from Homeowner Wells (Motion for direction) D-4 - Karen & Mark Paplinskie, Correspondence Regarding a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, Report PSD-049-15, An Application by 2265719 Ontario Inc., to Permit 70 Single Detached Dwellings (Motion to refer the correspondence from Karen & Mark Paplinskie, regarding Report PSD-049-15, An Application by 2265719 Ontario Inc., to Permit 70 Single Detached Dwellings) une Gallagher, Deputy Clerk J EG/mc c: D. Crome, Director of Planning Services D-2 Comments on 'Tritium Results from Homeowner Wells and Related Matters Concerning the SLR Report dated September 28, 2015 Prepared by John Cherry, October 4, 2015 Distinguished Emeritus Professor, University of Waterloo PRIMARY MESSAGE Without a proper tritium survey of homeowner and monitoring wells at the Clarington Transformer Station site, it will not be possible to draw conclusions using well established science about the nature and degree of vulnerability of the homeowner wells and the aquifers. Without this survey there will remain important uncertainties about the impact of the Clarington Transformer Station on groundwater and therefore the MOECC and Hydro One will not have discharged their duty for responsible care of the environment and respect for the citizens who live in the area. INTRODUCTION I am a retired hydrogeology professor who continues to be active with research and engineering consulting. Also, I volunteer time to review results and provide advice on the groundwater aspects of the Hydro One Clarington Transformer Station project. I respond, when I have time, to requests for assistance from wherever they may come, whether from the Enniskillen Environmental Association (EEA), Municipality of Clarington, the MOECC, the media or others. Concerning the Clarington site, in addition to my informal role as a volunteer advisor, I am a member of a research team based at the University of Guelph in collaboration with McMaster University and with Dr. Rick Gerber of the Moraine Hydrogeology group. This large team is engaged in a study of the hydrogeology of the site based on the deep cored hole that was drilled at the site in June, 2015. This team is planning to install a multilevel monitoring system near the deep cored hole location in November, 2015. However, the opinions I express at this time on anything to do with the Clarington site are my own. SUMMARY Concerning the issue of tritium, I am responding to a request from the EEA. This request pertains to a report by Mr. Steve Usher of SLR issued on September 28, 2015 to the Municipality of Clarington and a letter sent to the EEA by the MOECC on October 1, 2015. More specifically, this request concerns the meaning of tritium analyses done on three homeowner wells. I believe that I have sufficient expertise to comment on tritium data at this site. I was one of the first hydrogeologists in Canada to publish papers on use of tritium to study groundwater in the 1970's and have published many papers since that use the tritium method. This does not mean that I am always correct in my opinions on tritium. It just means that I am qualified to participate as an expert along with other tritium experts to seek a consensus assessment of tritium data. It is my opinion that the hydrogeological interpretation of the tritium results as presented in the SLR report and by the MOECC is likely not representative of the actual site conditions. This is because too many simplifications and assumptions were used. There are alternative explanations that are more likely valid. It is also my opinion that the MOECC is wrong in its view that there is no need to proceed with tritium- helium analyses. The tritium results are not consistent with what is stated about the site hydrogeology in the October 1 letter from Ms. Dolly Goyette. It is not evident that the MOECC has the expertise to pass scientific judgement on the value of the tritium- helium method for complex hydrogeologic circumstances such as the Clarington site. RECOMMENDATION No. 1: My first recommendation is that this report, in its present form, be withdrawn and re- issued after there has been rigorous and broad peer review and discussion of the tritium and other results as they relate to the homeowner wells and the site hydrogeology. Or, as an alternative, it should be fully acknowledged that it is an interim report with need for further review to assess the meaning and implications of the tritium results and revise the understanding of the hydrogeology accordingly. It would be best if the re- issued and peer reviewed final version of this report is done after more tritium/helium data are obtained and after the tritium/helium data area obtained, they are used to improve the understanding of the groundwater flow conditions. RECOMMENDATION No. 2: My second recommendation, as I recommended more than a year ago, when the homeowner well sampling program was set into motion, is that all or nearly all of the homeowner wells around the site and also monitoring wells at the site be analysed for tritium, and on samples taken at the same time, there be analyses of other indicators of vulnerability including: electrical conductance (EC), chloride, nitrate and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and coliform bacteria. This sampling should be done immediately. A subset of the wells should be analysed for tritium- helium. It is widely known in the hydrogeological community that tritium is an essential tool for assessment of well and aquifer vulnerability because it shows the age of groundwater and this can indicate travel paths. The multilevel system soon to be installed in the sonic drilled hole will provide important new data about the site hydrogeology but it will take several months after installation for the new data to begin to arrive. In the meantime, the most important step that can be taken to better understand the site hydrogeology would be the tritium and tritium helium data that would result from my second recommendation. The SLR report should not be viewed as a full peer review report until it has been peer reviewed by Dr. Rick Gerber and myself with interaction with Mr. Steve Usher. This is not meant to be critical of Mr. Usher. On the contrary, this criticism instigated by the tritium results is an outcome from the flawed process for use of the Hydro One funds imposed by Hydro One on Clarington Municipality. A broad process of peer review should have been set up in the first place. Hydro One should have provided the funds to Clarington Municipality with no imposition of a ban on tritium sampling. These issues are particularly important given the record that the MOECC has established on this project; this government entity has rubber stamped whatever is provided to it about the site hydrogeology with no evidence of the MOECC doing rigorous independent scientific analysis. BACKGROUND The use of tritium as an indicator of well vulnerability is common in most industrialized countries. Long ago, I recommended to Hydro One and to Clarington Council that atmospheric tritium be used in the groundwater study, including the sampling of many homeowner and monitoring wells be sampled for analysis of tritium. This recommendation was rejected by Hydro One based on advice from their consultant, Stantec. Eventually, local residents used their own financial resources to follow up on my recommendation; they paid for tritium analyses on samples from three domestic wells: shallow, intermediate and deep (Thorncliffe aquifer). All three of these wells show very high tritium values. When I was asked to comment on these results a few weeks ago, I stated that the results are " surprising" and left it at that because I was travelling at that time and could not write a report explaining why the results are surprising to me. The Clarington Transformer Station project needs application of the tritium method as I originally recommended for various reasons, one of which is that this project has much hydrogeologic complexity and the changes to the landscape and hydrology imposed by the Transformer Station warrant the use of this method to better understand the hydrology. It is not that Hydro One, in response to public pressure and embarrassment, has not allocated some funds towards groundwater studies: Hydro One provided Clarington Municipality with $250,000 for the Usher study but this study was restricted to assessment of particular types of data and mostly to existing data rather than acquisition of new data. Full application of the tritium method would have been a low cost endeavor relative to many of the other ways in which money has been spent by Hydro One on groundwater studies at this site and on the Hydro One public relations campaign. The fact that Hydro One has imposed such resistance to a comprehensive tritium study is a reason for suspicion of their motives. OBLIGATIONS The MOECC and Hydro One have the ethical obligation to answer all reasonable questions raised by citizens concerned about the impacts and environmental implications of the Clarington Transformer Station project. This includes questions raised by the property owners near the site with private wells that they rely on. Answers need to be provided concerning: 1. The relationships of the private wells to the local hydrogeology; 2. The transformer site hydrogeology as it relates to the land and water use changes imposed by the project and; 3. The relations between the site hydrogeology and the hydrogeology governing the private wells near the site. COMMENT ON THE THREE TRITIUM RESULTS As a general rule, when a well shows such high tritium values the standard and most reasonable response is that the well shows strong evidence of relatively high vulnerability to contamination from surface and near surface contaminant sources. The specific degree of vulnerability depends on the type of contaminant and other local factors. The finding that wells have high tritium does not necessarily mean that the aquifers in which these wells are situated are also vulnerable. There is need to differentiate between wells and aquifers. The wells may I show high tritium because of problems with the wells rather than a high degree of aquifer vulnerability due to the hydrogeological conditions My purpose here is not to provide a detailed critique of the SLR report but rather to draw attention to the main issues around the tritium results. The 'present- day' background for old groundwater at the site ( i.e. for" pre- bomb test" tritium) is not 7 as indicated in the SLR report. Before bomb tritium fallout began in the early 1950's, the background number was most likely about 2-4 TU's and perhaps a bit higher such as 7. Seven is not the issue. Since that time (early 1950's ) more than 60 years ( about 5 half-lives ) have passed. Given that the decay half-life for tritium is 12.4 years, water that had about 2-4 TUs 'background' in the early 1950's now has tritium below the detection limit (e.g. below 0.2 TU's). Therefore, the deep well with its tritium value of 21 TU's is far above the "old water" background. In the 1970's the tritium values in the Clarington region became elevated due to emissions from the nuclear power plants nearby along Lake Ontario. This elevated tritium from the nuclear power plants discharging into the local rainfall since the 1970's is mostly likely the origin of all of the tritium found in the three homeowner wells: However, if the water in the deep aquifer is from recharge 6 kilometres distance, then the tritium values would be strongly decreased during the travel time over the 6 km distance. I see almost no reasonable possibility that the high tritium in the deep.aquifer can be reasonably accounted for by travel along this proposed tritium migration pathway. More direct paths with fast moving groundwater are more likely. This puzzle will not be solved until more tritium data are obtained along with some tritium helium analyses and other hydrogeological information. CONCLUDING REMARKS The unfortunate fact that there are tritium results at this late stage of the Clarington Transformer Station project that call into question the understanding of the groundwater conditions at the site is due to a failure in the way that the MOECC discharges its responsibilities and in the way that Hydro One perceives its responsibilities as a corporate citizen of Ontario. With the decision by Hydro One to locate the Clarington Transformer Station on the moraine in an area with many wells, the MOECC should have demanded that Hydro One use the best available science and Hydro One should have made a commitment to the local residents and Clarington Municipality to do the proper scientific studies needed for the local.water groundwater users and the community - at - large to be fully informed about the nature and vulnerability of their wells to contamination of any type and to contamination that could arise from the transformer site during construction and from any accidents that could occur on the site in the future. Given the uncertainty raised by the tritium results, I have to conclude that Hydro One has not yet fulfilled its ethical obligation to the community to provide "good science" and the MOECC continues to avoid responsible engagement in judging the information submitted to it. i D-3 Chambers, Michelle From: Keyzers, Heather Sent: October-05-15 2:47 PM To: Chambers, Michelle Subject: FW: Comments on Tritium Results from Homeowner Wells Attachments: Letter from Ian Clark.pdf From: Ian Douglas Clark [mailto:idclark @uottawa.caj Sent: October-05-15 2:46 PM To:John Cherry <cherryj @uoguelph.ca>; MayorsExternalMailGroup <mayor @clarington.net>; Woo, Willie <wwoo @clarington.net>; Neal,Joe<JNeal @clarington.net>; Partner,Wendy<WPartner @clarington.net>;Traill, Corinna <CTraill @clarington.net>; Hooper, Ron <rhooper @clarington.net>; Cooke, Steven<SCooke @clarington.net>; Sally Hillis<gphillis @aol.com>; doug Tay1or3 <Tdoug1as1940 @gmaii.com>; Clint Cole <candcfamily @sympatico.ca>; stancore @hotmail.ca; RT Pellerin<rtpelly @gmail.com>; sacredhen1956 @gmaii.com; clsullivan @rogers.com; Ormsby, Mary<mormsby @thestar.ca>; Rodney.northey @gowlings.com;John Cherry-D <Cherryja09 @gmaii.com>;James E Smith <smithja @mcmaster.ca>; Beth Parker<bparker @g360group.org>;Jana Levison<jlevison @uoguelph.ca>; Emmanuelle Arnaud <earnaud @uoguelph.ca>; kwynne.mpp @liberal.ola.org; gmurray.mpp @liberal.ola.org; minister.moe @ontario.ca; dolly.goyette @ontario.ca;ganderson.mpp.co @liberal.ola.org; chair @durham.ca; contactus @ajax.ca; brock @townshipofbrock.ca;service @oshawa.ca; customercare @pickering.ca; mail@scugog.ca; info @town.uxb ridge.on.ca; clerks @whitby.ca Subject: Comments on Tritium Results from Homeowner Wells Mayor Foster and Members of Clarington Council: I have become involved in discussions regarding the age of groundwater in the Thorncliffe aquifer, with respect to potential impacts of the Hydro One substation being built in the Clarington area. As a Professional Geoscientist and professor in the area of isotope hydrology, I feel obliged to provide comments to avoid the misinterpretation of tritium isotope data that are being used-to estimate.the age of this groundwater. Please find attached my letter concerning this matter, Respectfully submitted, Ian Clark Professor University of Ottawa i University d'Ottawa University of Ottawa DM Faculty des sciences I Faculty of Science Sciences de la Terre et de Penvironnement I Earth and Environmental Sciences Complexe de la Recherche Avanc6e I Advanced Research Complex 25 Templeton Street,Ottawa ON Canada KIN 6N5 u O tta Y V C.,{_ n- x6824 A 613-562-5192 idclarkeuOttawa.ca October 5, 2015 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON LIC 3A6 Attention: Mayor Foster and Members of Council Re: SLR Project No: 209.40261.00000 Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review Mayor Foster and Members of Clarington Council: I am a professor in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. My research interests revolve around the use of environmental isotopes and geochemistry in groundwater and paleoclimate studies, I wrote the textbook on the subject Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology and have been studying,teaching and practicing isotopes for 35 years. As you may be aware, our laboratory, the A.E. Lalonde AMS Laboratory at University of Ottawa,recently conducted tritium testing on three residents' wells near the vicinity of this site. I am in receipt of the report submitted by Mr. Steve Usher dated September 28, 2015 concerning the Clarington Transformer Station project. There are several inaccuracies in Mr. Usher's report that I believe should be brought to your attention, regarding the recharge sources and age of the groundwater in the Thomcliffe aquifer. I have used the conceptual model that Steve Usher used,which assumes very simplistic plug flow, and it indeed gives an age close to what he has suggested, of about 65 years. However,his model assumes no mixing along the flow path. That is to say that a certain volume of water from one year of recharge would flow through the aquifer to the well without mixing with the water recharged the year before or the year after. Groundwater mixing along a flow path is a well-documented component of hydrogeology called hydrodynamic dispersion that John Cherry wrote about over 40 years ago. Groundwater with an average age of 57 years will have a span of ages,probably including recharge over a 10 to 20 year range, due to mixing. With the complexities of the peaked tritium curve he shows for precipitation,with a maximum in 1963,makes it very difficult to have 21 TU in water. With a standard amount of i I I dispersion,my computer modeling of tritium in this flow system cannot account for the higher tritium measured in this well. Therefore,the flow system feeding the Thomcliffe aquifer must be more complex than represented in his report. In my opinion, Steve's interpretation of the deep well tritium, 21 TU, requires an understanding of recharge and dispersion in groundwater flow. He does say that his interpretation has limitations,but he finds it consistent with the observed conditions. I would say that it is simply incorrect and misleading to suggest that the groundwater in that well recharged in 1958, This is a flow system that needs to be better analyzed and modelled to make any reasonable interpretation. If the deep aquifer is being counted on for a secure supply of groundwater for those whose shallow wells become contaminated, then more work is warranted to demonstrate that they are indeed protected from the site. Therefore, I fully endorse the recommendations included in Dr. John Cherry's letter dated October 5, 2015 where he recommends as follows: RECOMMENDATION No. 1 My first recommendation is that this report, in its present form, be withdrawn and re- issued after there has been rigorous and broad peer review and discussion of the tritium and other results as they relate to the homeowner wells and the site hydrogeology. Or that it be fully acknowledged that it is an interim report with need for further review to assess the meaning and implications of the tritium results. It would be best if the re-issued and peer reviewed final version of this report is done after more tritium data are obtauied and also after tritium/helium data are obtained and assessed. RECOMMENDATION No. 2 My second recommendation, as I recommended several years ago when the homeowner well sampling program was set into motion, is that all or nearly all of the homeowner wells around the site and also monitoring wells at the site be analysed for tritium, and on samples taken at the same time, there be analyses of other indicators of vulnerability including: electrical conductance (EC), chloride,nitrate and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and bacteria. This sampling should be done immediately.A subset of the wells should be analysed for tritium-helium. It is widely known in the hydrogeological community that tritium is an essential tool for assessment of well and aquifer vulnerability. I am certainly willing to be involved in the discussion that Dr. Cherry proposes with Dr. Gerber and Mr. Usher and himself I Si .cerelyl Dr. Ian D Clark,P.Geo. Professor i 2 I D-4 Chambers, Michelle From: Strike, Cindy Sent: October-05-15 1:55 PM To: Chambers, Michelle Cc: Gallagher,June Subject: FW:IMPORTANT: Development Proposal - File Number S-C 2015-0002 &ZBA 2015-0014 Michelle, Can you please distribute this email to members of Committee, for tonight's meetings.. Thank you Cindy From: kapaplinskie @rogers.com [mailto:kapaplinskie @rogers.com] Sent: October-05-15 12:40 PM To:Strike, Cindy<cstrike @clarington.net> Subject: IMPORTANT: Development Proposal- File Number S-C,2015-0002 &ZBA 2015-0014 Cynthia, We understand there is a public meeting this evening with respect to the above proposed development. We live on Craig Court and we have major concerns and would like these questions raised and studies completed before there are any further approvals on this development in Bowmanville: 1. We do not have town water and rely on our well for water usage/consumption. The ground water impact (water table) as a result of this expanding development is of concern and we would like to ensure that 2265719 Ontario Limited conducts water well studies for each household in our neighbourhood. If there are any changes to our water supply, we will hold the Municipality responsible. (We raise this concern because we've been through this before in Oshawa at our previous address where a new subdivision/development occurred. We were informed by the developer and City of Oshawa that there would be no impact to our supply of water as the development would not impede the water table. WRONG - Within one year of the new development, our wells went dry). 2. The highway infrastructure for Bowmanville -- what are the intentions of the Planning Committee/Roads Department (Durham Region and Clarington) to develop and improve the infrastructure in Bowmanville? Highway 57 is currently the only roadway for use by all traffic in this vicinity except for people using a 'shortcut' via Old Scugog Road. Causing major traffic congestion. We now see people travelling at high rates of speed through our neighbourhood instead of using Highway 57 and there is no Load Restriction to Old Scugog Road with transports/18- wheelers coming through our neighbourhood instead of using Highway 57. 3. Volume of traffic - Due to the construction activity in this area and the increased volume of traffic, is there consideration/proposal to have the speed limit on Highway 57 from Concession Road 4 southerly reduced to 60 kph (it is currently set at 80 kph) or turning lanes added/improved? Speed is a major factor at the intersection of Hwy 57 and Old Scugog Road - very dangerous due to the i i increased volume of traffic, the high rate of speed, and truck volume. Consider increasing the distance of the right turning lane (northbound) into the development (northbound) - turning left from 57 onto Old Scugog Road is an accident waiting to happen -- increase margin/distance of the right turning lane or add in a centre turning lane and get us out of the line of northbound speeding traffic. And, REDUCE speed limit at this area. 4. Clarington conducted roadway improvement of Old Scugog Road over the past two years and we are finding more and more traffic using this roadway through our neighbourhood. In so doing, the shoulders of this road were minimized and in some areas totally gone and we now find that we have to walk on the road and this is now posing a very dangerous walk. At the culvert they put in just north of Buttery Court, the weeds are so bad that I've stopped on my walks to pull them out so that I can get through that area without being hit by a vehicle. With the increased volume of traffic through our neighbourhood and north, Clarington needs to add shoulders to this road and maintain it. We would appreciate our concerns raised at the meeting tonight. Thank you, Karen & Mark Paplinskie 2 Handouts/Circulations Planning & Development Committee Meeting Application By: 2265791 Ontario Inc. PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT TO PERMIT 70 SINGLE DETACHEDRESIDENTIAL UNITS FILE NO. : S-C 2015-0002 & ZBA 2015-0014 Clarington Planning Services Department Property Location Northglen Neighbourhood Design Plan The Proposal 70 single detached • units 10.0, 11.3 12.0 and • 13.5 metre frontages Public and Agency Comment Public Input Agency & Departments Engineering Services • Outstanding • Comments Comments Type C Arterial • Extension of John • Scott Street to the Type C Arterial Thank you Application By: Cowan Buick GMC (on behalf of GerrHoldings Ltd.) To permit a temporary parking lot. 18 Brown Street, Bowmanville Clarington Planning Services Department Background Temporary Use By-law (2007) • Temporary Use By-law (2010) • Proposed Temporary Use By-law (2015) • Comments Comments Vqz, , JW1, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLAW —3 Vqz, , JW1, t�k ..OFF Ar t �, Good evening, My name is Bonnie Martin. Thank you for letting me address Council. I am here, today to oppose the re-zoning of my property from Hamlet -Agricultural to Hamlet- Environmentally Protected. I have lived in Clarington for over 15 years and in Durhani Region for most of my life, living, at iny C> current address 2385 Maple Grove Road for the past 6 years. When I bought the house and the land I bought it for an investment as Clarington is a growing community and I recognized the future potential. For that reason, I went to CLOCA to check out zoning and land use before I bought the property. Of my 4.55 acres, the front acre is in the Hamlet of Maple Grove and 3.55 acres is agricultural in the Municipality of Clarington. In May of this year I went to the public information session on the proposed changes to the Clarington official plan which I read about in the local newspaper. I wanted information as to where Longworth Avenue and Ross Wright Avenue would be going through to Maple Grove Road and if it would affect my property. That was when I discovered Clarington is planning to change my zoning to environmentally protected not only on the agricultural land but also in the Hamlet part of my property. I have never received any notification other than that meeting concerning this matter of re-zoning. Since then I have had several conversations with Lisa Backus from the planning department. I have also sent an email stating I am opposed to these changes because it would decrease the value of my land. Lisa advised me that I was better off than my neighbors to the north of me because they are zoned greenbelt, which never can be changed. Mine being environmentally protected can be changed. Lisa sent me maps to show me where Longworth and Ross Wright Avenues are in comparison to my property. Lisa said that Ross Wright Avenue would not be going through to Maple Grove Road for several years as they do not need any more housing development in Clarington at the present time. I asked Ms. Backus why the zoning was being changed.to environmentally protected. Basically she said that Clarington was trying to save the forest/trees. I decided to call Niblett Environmental for an assessment on my property to see if there were any rare trees, wildlife, birds etc. that would merit changing the zoning. Niblett said that.1 would be wasting my money as Clarington is using the forest conservation bylaw to make it environmentally protected. This is legislation that the Province brought in and the Municipalities are enforcing. I called Lisa again and asked her about the bylaw, she told me it was already in effect and that I was not allowed to cut down any trees on my property. I asked her why then the zoning change when the bylaw was already in effect. She said it was for extra protection. (?) I have told Lisa from the beginning of our conversations that the zoning is being changed for Jeffery Homes F who is advertising forested lots. The same thing happened.in Courtice Woods subdivision in Couitice. All the land around the subdivision is protected. I see no other reason for the zoning change. Is it environmentally protected land or not? Because, if this change occurs it will affect the value of my property. This a temporary plan to protect forests. When Ross Wright Avenue is extended to Maple Grove Road the area will have to be re-zoned again. And since the forest conservation bylaw is in place I would think that the zoning change is not required. I find it interesting, as you can see on the map,that the subdivision has stopped at my property line, obviously they are waiting to continue building after the zoning change is complete. If the municipality wants to save the environment that's one thing but changing land zoning for builders to sell more expensive houses because they are in a forest setting is wrong, especially when they don't own the forest. If Jeffery Homes wants to buy my land that they want deemed as environmentally protected then fine. Otherwise, leave the zoning as it is: Hamlet - Agricultural. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. T2�26 I� F 26 11 2 591 1 2 &2 �n � R ;.. 257 II t tI ' 2551 ! {sl ( 2525 (�-- I �! 2538 1 2495 _% \, 2385 Maple Grove r LU LU � w 2429 � W 4 _ r U) U) I 2415 m } � O w r— 2401 �, 23 } Y 0 �� f 23g0 2385 0 < < 2364 2369 ' /} 2352 2353 l es e z ��Q« ` e m ROSS WRIGHT AVENUE ,� V�I 2342 0 2343 (��° 2334 0 2329 Environmental Protection Area 2326 m ` N �. "�\ W 2317 6, m > RIVE^ 58 CO n m a w m ` Q P ea °° Natural Heritage System " 15 J so 41 38 N o /r i 2276 < 2277 H c� ll '2 0 AR�F Imo" " 2265 ;, y✓ONF 2251 co 2237 N N '0 v 2 Bowmanville Urban 3j593 O� ���R�RFS� No r N r �qy I Area Boundary N N 2226 r� 2 N N 2184 R CI�FS N `1 2174 2181 2167 — 2162 N ` �v° «' N S 2152 2153 BROOkl1l `SOUz (8 unread) - antiquesbonniernartin-Yahoo Mail ................................__...................................................................., Ff4)i�1<: bonnie s 1+ fi r.i'IE:t.: ��i.Gia' 'i'iiL'^.. i Mt:CC' ''✓ ea. Collapse All x .. RE-' Proposed Official Plan Changes (4) Bonnie Martin <antiquesbonniemartin@ ahoo.ca> 1 tun I_, at 2:13 nri To ^EE'X%lr"ir1Fj laflr'S 3iU'Pi.3'seA',; CC. N7.%1i? ,;; :-i'€'i n Ci"ton net, i}c�!:!C:rS:`tiCft r'(ngti.]n.tltz? w I am opposed to the changes in zoning to my property at 2385 Maple Grove Rd. Bowmanville. The sr„t pr'opr}sed official plan has my property k;eing changed from Hari)let-Agria?Itural to Harnle(- Environmentally Protected. I spoke to CLOCA before I purchased this property to ensure the property was not environmentally protected. It is not!!! I have since spoked to them and they have given me the same answer. I bought this property as an ZiP Detail Crepe Jacket a... investment and changing the zoning to environmentally protected will decrease the value significantly. I see no reason for the changes in zoning and I am strongly opposed to it. $315 _......._..___..........._....... Bonnie Martin ng 905 697-1.271. e eWly, Repily All or F-or'!i!>rd °✓pure Bac @sus, Lisa ..;i!::;, 1"a k -ou fo:" .!r .E£,,,i? �,ov,e•;:er I am out of<t1•e. Jun_i' z 7 at 2:1.. I(y9 €in .`S al t. Silver Franey Vintage De... ;. Zarnbri, Niiraie Hi Bonn€e7, Thank you`. : subrri?t ';€.rC(7l?lr�tertts<3 rt-?( c�. •� q 7” :€ n- 7 at .. :.lib. +5!17!2015 (1 unread) - antiquesbonnien-iartin-Yahoo Mail ................ ........................................................_....................... ........_ ...... Yore Fii.. % X . L.Cssitpt-5'r.: akw,, �G rHli� ()r�iete Nlmve v pane v o0o tvlOr:; � � rnessage one of'two 13815, MapleUrove Road Bowmarlville N EW `Y a Drafts(10) INN _W Y Sent Backus, Lisa Jun 1 C 'El Spam. To 'Bonnie Martin' yy A�w3.S I Trash (12) xx Hi Bonnie, our staff have prepared two maps for you. One showing the relationship of your Smart Views property to the current extent of Ross Wright Avenue and the second, at a scale where you can see $� � Unread your property in relation to the current location of Longworth Avenue.The files are quite large so I y s Starred will send thorn in two messages. �it ! l,z People r p As we discussed at the Meeting,the extension of Ross Wright Avenue from its current terminus Social westward to Maple Grove Road,is not conternplated between now and the year 2031. The xHa� Travel extension of the road is not contemplated because the Bowmanville Urban boundary is not proposed to be expanded either before 2031. Although we do not propose to extend the road Shopping within this timeframe,we do need to plan for future connections. $SQ.( Finance Regarding Longworth Avenue. Also as we discussed at the meeting, the alignment of Longworth > Folders Avenue.as it approaches Maple Grove Road has not been determined. The Environmental Covere > Recent Assessment,which would assist in determining the final alignment has not been prepared. Expedia' $ Sponsored I apologize for not getting back to you before the end of last week, but unfortunately the rice L Llc preparation of the maps took longer than I had expected. Once you have a chance to look at p.< �6 them, if yo u would like to discuss thern,we can either talk over the phone or I can meet with you. t Have a nice day, 1. ValleyCare Health System of Lisa Ohio Lisa Backus, MCIP, RPP Thought you wen too t Dung "':-," c;:4p dic for joint replacement? Senior Planner Community Planning and Design Municipality of Clarington 905--623-3379 ext.2 .13 Toll Free: 1-800-563-1195 "Local Planning for Global Stewardship" ---.--Original Message...---- antiquesbonnie€nartin-Yahoo Mail ................................. ........._ ......... :' rrc 70 3ar n€ le* an x Y € C builders ;10) Backus, Lisa Am),14 at 12:06 K-A 1"o `bonnie Martin' 12} Hi (j,"?nnie, as .jou requested, Let me know if you need can`,,ti?€ng further. �/IE41'S Cj€ /f L2ri:Jt mil), "•.iii' is iCli'r5 on es 1€?Ci West"s5t I 1r'xrn(3nC'i. 3d ) a eti On €-Orsey Larne; tie' b0l,.I(:�r iS ;'qty i••i011 teS. )le PI )Ping nc ,S it From: Backus, Lisa >ored Sent: August-12-15 12-.19 FM <> To: 'Bonnie Martin' <antiquesbonnie€nartiii@yahoo.ca> r Subject: RE: n-;essage two of two 10/1/2015 Site Plan I Courtice Woods Communities I Jeffery Homes wy � �w � „„,,....'^s i ' / x �F � M/��✓ice. N 3 sus` m r. M A / M- r �i r /% / 2 s /' r i!' r i 5 Ok M / 4r / "Ile tii �g Fw wg- 42 IN N j,.. / x' .1' / '.M/ r j N iii %�� �q .� L 6 , i 27 F F, ral Ni f. F r / / // r f / o D� .. ,,.6 .. r j /,e / / / / / A r // ,a e ,b/ // r//jr Q% / , .p� ' _ / / L , % r M r // A�/ /go; s /y e /k Af V http://www.jefferyhomeS.COm/COInmunities/courfice woods/Siteplan.htm 2/3 1 ' , fry. �J HINLSfP_ MID � i r , , , r� 1 � I r � * t f� ENNISKILLEN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATION PROTECT OUR WATER Dr. John Cherry G360 University of Guelph TRITIUM September 15 ,2014 • September 22, 2014 • September 29, 2014 • TRITIUM “…one of the purposes of it is, if it is present in the water , you know the water was recharged sometime after the 50’s and if there is no tritium in the water, you know the water has entered the ground prior to the 50’s.” Craig Johnston, Stantec “Recently recharged water is vulnerable to contamination from local land use activities.” Dr. Ian Clark, University of Ottawa TRITIUM Wells selected by Mr. Usher Shallow, intermediate, deep  Good alignment to site  Adequate well information  Assumption that deep well is protected  Test results Shallow47.1 TU  Intermediate38.3 TU  Deep21.2 TU  Modern natural background is 15TU • A.E. Lalonde AMS Laboratory University of Ottawa Dr. Ian Clark CALL FOR SUPPORT Course of action • Connectivity-pump test • He3 test • PROTECT OUR WATER CALL FOR SUPPORT Course of action Connectivity- pump test He3 test f Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review Annual Update Presentation to Council by: Steven Usher, P.Geo. October 5, 2015 Peer Review Objectives •To assist the municipality, residents and stakeholders in clearly understanding current and ongoing findings. Tonight’s Objectives •Update Council on Activitiesand convey preliminary conclusions contained in recent update report Activities Since April •Continued liaison with public, MOECC, Hydro One, and Clarington •PTTW issued and monitoring underway •Ecologic Field Visit •EEA Tritium sampling of 3 wells •Sept 18 Site Inspection •Interim Update Report Reporting •Reviewed EA for information •Additional investigation by Hydro One •Prepared Conceptual Geologic Model •Used EEA Tritium to assess CGM •Discuss Water Balance •Assess Monitoring Programs Site Conceptual Geologic Model Deep Hole Groundwater Flow Pathways Water Balance Recharge from rain 12,504 m 3/yr Surficial Sand 9,504 m 3/yr Weathered Till 1,535 m 3/yr Leakage to depth 1,958 m 3/yr Lateral Flow at Lateral Flow at Depth Depth 503,000 m 3/yr 1,958 m 3/yr NewmarketSand Horizon, Deep Thorncliffe Aquifer Hosts 10 of ORM 23 local wells Direction of Groundwater Flow •NM Sand horizon 52 m deep •Thorncliffe Aquifer 77 m deep •Fed from north by ORM, 6 km away •Protected by NewmarketTill Aquitard Tritium and the deep aquifer 19591967 Mackinaw sand •Present under part of site at about 13 m. •Hosts 9 of 23 local wells •Groundwater calculations show it is discontinuous. •Tritium testing by EEA suggests it is locally recharged. •However, no wells downhill of the site in the Mackinaw as it pinches out in this direction. Tritium and the Mackinaw 47.1 TU at PW1 Mackinaw Distribution Direction of groundwater flow in weathered Till and surficial sand Area Downhill of TS Permit to Take Water Monitoring •Permit issued in late May •Site construction commenced in June •Private well monitoring in place •Groundwater monitoring in place •Weekly water volume summaries to MOECC and Clarington •Monthly reporting of water levels •Water collected and tested prior to discharge, including continuous Turbidity measurements •220,323 LitresCollected Monitoring Results •134,820 LitresDischarged •Turbidity < 1 NTU •No groundwater seeps seen Conclusions •Conceptual Geologic Model fits •Mackinaw layer exists, but not at risk •Residential wells are not at risk •Groundwater and surface water monitoring programs are acceptable •Water control at site is working well •EEA Tritium testing very helpful •Rotosonicdeep hole should proceed, to independently confirm these findings Questions ? WN,NEST@ R"An v CD a coo � v � Opp 1 w �. cn co rn Questions . TRANSFORMER ��VU SITE Ln o� ti m DEEP / HOLE �LTILL ACKINAW(?) NEWMARKET TILL -____-_-- -- O �\ NEWMARKET TILL \\ TH \\ oRNCLIPPE _ AQUIFER SUIVNYBR©_`oI�IEL � � _ a SCARBOROUGH AQUIFER 7 BLUE_ MOUNTAIN SHALE, LIMESTONE / / / / / r/