HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-067-01
DN: P067-01R
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARlNGTON
REPORT
Report #:
PD-067-01
File #: ZBA 99-013
18T-99007
File # ~99'-.tJJ3
Res. # 6!ft::.57)' () I
By-law #Jco/ -/II
Meeting:
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Date:
Monday, June 18,2001
Subject:
REZONING APPLICATION AND DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: 1249981 ONTARIO LIMITED, D.G. BIDDLE & ASSOCIATES
PART LOT 30, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
FILE: ZBA 99-013 & 18T 99007
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-067-0l be received;
2. THAT the Environmental Impact Report Submitted by Gartner Lee Limited and dated
June 5, 2000 (Attachment I) be received;
3. THAT the Peer Review prepared by Beak International and dated November 2000
(Attachment 2) be received;
4. THAT no further public meetings on this application be held as the proposed changes to
the application for plan of subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment are deemed to be
minor in nature;
5. THAT the draft plan of subdivision application 18T-99007 filed by D. G. Biddle and
Associates on behalf of 1249981 Ontario Limited be recommended for approval to
Durham Region Planning Department subject to the conditions contained in Attaclnnent
5 to this report;
6. THAT the rezoning application ZBA 99-013 submitted by D. G Biddle and Associates
on behalf of 1249981 Ontario Limited be APPROVED and that the amending by-law
attached hereto be forwarded to Council for adoption;
7. THAT a by-law to remove the (H) Holding Symbol be forwarded to Council for
approval at such time as the conditions of draft approval have been satisfied; and
8. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 2
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Applicant:
1.2 Agent:
1.3 Rezoning:
1.4 Area:
2. LOCATION
D.G. Biddle and Associates
1249881 Ontario Limited
From "Agricultural (A)" and "Environmental Protection (EP)" to
"Holding Urban Residential Type Two [(H)R2]", "Holding Urban
Residential Type Two Exception [(H)R2-31]", "Holding Urban
Residential Type One [(H)Rl]" and "Environmental Protection (EP)" to
permit the development of 15 residential units, 0.159 ha of park and
0.287 ha of open space.
1.847 hectares
The subject lands are located in Part Lot 30, Concession 3, former Township of Darlington.
The lands are located immediately east of the Courtice Fire Station, north of George Reynolds
Drive.
3. EXISTING AND SURROUNDING USES:
Existing Uses:
Surrounding Uses:
East:
West:
South:
North:
The land is currently vacant.
Vacant wooded and wetland area (part ofBlack/Farewell Creek Wetland
Complex)
Courtice Fire Station
Existing Residential on George Reynolds Drive
Vacant wooded and wetland area (part ofBlack/Farewell Creek Wetland
Complex)
670
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 3
4. BACKGROUND
4.1 On March 23,1999, the Municipality ofClarington Planning and Development
Department, received an application to amend the Municipality's Zoning By-law (ZBA
99-013). A request for comments on the associated plan of subdivision (18T -99007) was
received from the Region of Durham Planning Department on March 20, 1999. This
original application proposed 20 single detached residential lots, a 0.247 ha park block
and 0.38 ha of open space (Attachment 3).
4.2 In response to an Environmental Impact Study conducted by Gartner Lee Limited, these
applications were revised by the applicant and returned to the Planning Department on
March 1, 2001. The revised plan reduces the number of residential lots by 5, and the
amount of open space and park area increased by 0.359 hectares (Attachment 4). It is this
revised application that is being considered at this time.
S. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
5.1 Within the Durham Region Official Plan the subject lands are designated Living Area
with an indication of the Environmental Sensitivity on the site. The predominant use of
land within the Living Area designation is for housing. Development within or adjacent
to, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, requires an environmental impact study to be
undertaken.
5.2 Within the Clarington Official Plan the subject lands are located within the Glenview
Neighbourhood of the Courtice Urban Area and are designated Urban Residential and
Enviromnental Protection Area. The predominant use ofland within the Urban
Residential designation is for housing. The Environmental Protection Areas identify
features of the Municipality's natural environment. Specifically, Map C- Natural Features
and Land Characteristics identifies the subject lands as being traversed by a cold water
stream, containing portions of a tableland woodlot and as being within the Lake Iroquois
Beach. The policies of Section 4 of the Official Plan require an enviromnental impact
study (EIS) to be undertaken where development is within or adjacent to any of the above
671
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 4
features. An EIS has been completed in accordance with the Official Plan and Section
9.2.1 summarizes the findings of the EIS.
5.3 Section 9.5 of the Official Plan requires the preparation of a Neighbourhood Design Plan
prior to consideration of a proposed plan of subdivision. On June 21, 1999 Council
adopted the Glenview Neighbourhood Design Plan.
6. ZONING BY -LAW PROVISIONS
6.1 The subject lands are zoned in part "Agricultural (A)" and "Environmental Protection
(EP)". The "Environmental Protection" zone is located within the north west comer of
the subject lands, where a tributary ofthe Farewell Creek traverses the property. The
remainder of the site is zoned "Agricultural". An amendment to the zoning by-law is
required to permit the proposed development.
7. PUBLIC MEETING AND SUBMISSIONS
7.1 A public meeting in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act was held on
June 21,1999. Public Notice of this meeting was given by mail to each landowner and
tenant within 120 metres of the subject lands and a public notice sign was installed on the
lands.
7.2 The application was revised in March 2001, and in staffs opinion, another public meeting
in accordance with the Planning Act was not required as the revision reduces the number
of residential lots and developed area.
7.3 A Public Information Session was held on June 7th, 2001 at Courtice North Public School.
Notice for this information session was provided to all interested parties and all
landowners and tenants located within 120 metres of the subject lands. This Public
Information Session was well attended. Generally residents were satisfied with the plan
of subdivision and were pleased that the provincially significant wetland is being
protected by a 15 m buffer. Residents did question when the park would be developed.
672
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGES
8. AGENCY COMMENTS
8.1 The revised plan was circulated to various interested agencies for their comments. The
Municipality of Clarington Fire Department and Building Division had no objections to
the application. Hydro One Networks Inc. also had no objection to the application.
8.2 The Public Works Department offered the following comments:
. All utilities located within the streets of this development must be installed
underground for all primary and secondary services.
. The applicants engineer must prepare a Grading and Drainage Plan that details the
configuration of the on-site storm sewer system (minor system) and the conveyance of
the overland flow (major system) from the site.
. The applicant must enter into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality which
includes all requirements of the Public Works Department regarding the engineering
and construction of all internal and external works and services related to this
proposal.
. All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the
Municipality of Clarington Design Criteria and Standard Drawings, provisions of the
Municipality Development By-law #92-015 and all applicable legislation and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
. The applicant is required to provide fencing for Block 16.
. The applicant must meet all the requirements of the Public Works Department,
[mancial or otherwise.
8.3 The Region of Durham Planning Department advised that an archaeological assessment
will be required as a condition of draft approval as the area is identified as having high
archaeological potential.
8.4 The Regional Works Department advised that water and sanitary sewer services are
available, but will require an extension from George Reynolds Drive at Cecil Found
Crescent to service the development. A soils report will be required as part of the first
engineering submission.
8.5 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority notes that none of the proposed
residential lots intrudes into the Black/Farewell Creek Wetland Complex and that all the
673
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 6
wetland areas are contained within the open space block and the park area. After review
of the EIS and consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the consultant,
CLOC is satisfied with the proposed buffer as identified on the plan of subdivision, but
noted that in addition to providing the buffer, the applicant will be required to implement
other mitigation measures through the conditions of draft approval. These additional
mitigation measures include:
. The applicant installing a 1.8 metre high fence along the common boundary between
Block 17, Block 16 and Lots 1-12.
. Prior to final approval an edge management plan must be prepared and submitted to
CLOC for review and approval. The plan shall address the need for planting/edge
rehabilitation within the buffer area abutting lots 1-12.
. Block 17 shall be dedicated into public ownership and zoned "Environmental
Protection. "
. All lands within the provincially significant wetland and the buffer area on Block 16
shall be zoned "Enviromnental Protection."
. A homeowner education package shall be provided by the owner to CLOC and the
Municipality of Clarington before [mal approval.
. Prior to final approval of the plan, reports describing the stormwater flow from the
site, the anticipated impact ofthe development on water quality as it relates to fish
and wildlife habitat once adequate protective measures have been undertaken, and
erosion and sedimentation plan must be provided to CLOC for approval.
8.6 The Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School
Board state that adequate provisions be made for sidewalks within this development.
8.7 Comments were not received from Durham Region Police Services or the Public and
French School Boards. The Ministry of Natural Resources was forwarded a copy of the
revised circulation for information purposes only.
674
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 7
9. IDENTIFICATION OF THE WETLAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STUDIES
9.1 Identification of the Wetland
The subject lands are located in part, within the Black/Farewell Creek Wetland Complex.
The finalized wetland evaluation, which set out the updated wetland boundaries, plus the
rationale for the boundaries and the wetland complex's designation as Provincially
Significant, was released by the Ministry of Natural Resources on August 27, 1999. In
September 2000, the Municipality, the Conservation Authority and the applicant, requested
that MNR confirm the precise limits of the wetland. In November 2000, MNR, the
Conservation Authority, the applicant and Gartner Lee met on site and staked the limits of the
wetland. These limits were then surveyed. A copy of the survey was forwarded to MNR and
the Ministry concurred with the surveyed limits of the wetland.
The survey limits of the wetland include 2 fingers of wetland that protrude much further into
the adjacent non-wetland areas. Discussion regarding buffering these areas ensued. Concern
was expressed that requiring a stringent 15m buffer around these wetland fingers would
increase the amount of "edge", having a detrimental impact on the wetland. The smoother
the "edge", the stronger the ecological unit. The Ministry, CLOC and the consultant agreed
that the buffer around these fingers of wetland should be smoothed, decreasing the amount of
"edge".
9.2 Environmental Impact Studies
9.2.1 Gartner Lee Enviromnental Impact Study
Prior to this re-evaluation of the Black/Farewell Creek Wetland Complex, an environmental
impact study was completed for the subject natural features, being portions of a tableland
woodlot, a cold water stream and the location of the site within the Lake Iroquois Beach, in
association with other land use applications in the neighbourhood. Subsequent to the release
of the BlackfFarewell Creek Wetland Complex in August 1999, the Planning Department
required re-evaluation of the EIS. This re-evaluation would determine proximity of the
wetland to the development and what revisions to the proposed development would be
necessary to mitigate or prevent impacts to the wetland. This EIS was received on June 5,
675
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 8
2000 and was prepared by Gartner Lee Limited, the consultants that prepared the original
EIS. In this study, the wetland boundary as depicted by the consultant was identified where
upland-associated vegetation with a Scots Pine overstorey changed to wetland vegetation
with an overstorey of Balsam Poplar and Eastern White Cedar. The EIS concluded that with
mitigation, a subdivision could be built on these lands. Suggested mitigation measures
included:
. A 7 metre setback from the wetland boundary, revisions to the plan of subdivision are
required to incorporate this buffer.
. Erection of a 1.5 metre chain-link fence 7 metres from the wetland boundary creating a
barrier between human activity and the natural habitat.
. Plantings of White Spruce or Eastern White Cedar in a double staggered row, on the
wetland side of the chain-link fence, along the eastern limit of the plan of subdivision.
. Infiltration of rooftop leaders for lots along the east and north limits of the plan of
subdivision
. Preparation of a landowner's education package promoting good stewardship of the
wetland through good backyard management practices
. The additional park area should be kept in a natural state, allowing it to revegetate
naturally and that uses should be limited to passive nature appreciation, reducing impacts
on the wetland and creek corridor to the west.
. Revisions to the plan of subdivision are required to provide for the recommended 7 metre
buffer between the rear lot line and the wetland boundary.
9.2.2 Summary of Peer Review
In order to ensure complete impartiality, the Planning Department required the EIS to be peer
reviewed by a third party. Beak International was hired to conduct this peer review. The
following was noted in the consultant's peer review.
. Concern was expressed with establishing stringent development setbacks from the
approximate boundary of the wetland. The wetland boundary had not been staked by the
Ministry of Natural Resources at the time the peer review was conducted. Subsequent to
the staking of the wetland boundary, the peer reviewer was provided with the surveyed
wetland boundary and concurred with the delineation of this boundary.
. Concur that development can occur on the lands, but that reconfiguration of the lots
should be conducted when the limits of the wetland are firmly delineated.
. Recommended a 10 to 15 metre buffer be required between the lots and the wetland.
676
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 9
. Suggests that the wetland boundary be smoothed, in effect reducing the wetland edge, in
particular in the vicinity of the wetland fingers.
. Agrees with the EIS that the removal of a single rare plant (Fringed Gentian) from the
site does not represent a significant impact to the population of this vegetation species
within the Region of Durham.
. Wildlife currently using the subject land and the adjacent wetland will be impacted upon
by the development.
. Agrees with and encourages establishing a fence and vegetative barrier between the
development and the wetland. However, it is suggested that rather than planting White
Spruce, Balsam Poplar or Trembling Aspen should be inter-planted with Eastern White
Cedar.
. Finds the filtering of stormwater sheet flow within the buffer as acceptable.
. Notes that the percentage of stormwater diverted from entering the wetland complex and
directed to a stormwater facility is not identified in the EIS.
. Agrees with suggestion that rooftop runoff should be infiltrated. In addition, it is
suggested that driveways be graded to the sides providing for infiltration of stormwater
into the adjacent lawn areas.
. Recommends that a trail system be integrated with the park.
9.3 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority reviewed the EIS and Peer Review and
concur that revisions to the plan of subdivision are required to eliminate development
within the Provincially Significant Wetland Complex. In the opinion ofthe Conservation
Authority, the buffer proposed by Gartner Lee, although acceptable for filtering of
stormwater, is not wide enough to provide adequate buffering for wildlife. CLOC
recommends a minimum 15 metre setback from the rear lot lines to the wetland boundary,
with the exception of smoothing of the buffer around the wetland fingers. It is also
recommended that a dense conifer planting occur along the rear lot lines within the buffer
area to create a new forest edge and to mitigate against noise, light and wind throw.
10. STAFF COMMENTS
10.1 The applicant proposes to build 15 single detached dwellings having a minimum of 12
metres frontages. The application includes 0.827 ha of open space that will be dedicated
to the municipality and 0.159 ha of park area, also to be dedicated to the municipality.
677
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 10
This park area will be added to the existing 0.2 ha park block. In total, 53% of the site,
excluding roads, will be dedicated to the municipality. The density of the proposed
development is in keeping with that which is dictated for low density residential areas in
the Official Plan. The application conforms with the Glenview Neighbourhood Plan and
Section 4 of the Official Plan requiring the completion of an EIS. This application is in
keeping with both the Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan.
10.2 This application underwent an extensive public consultation process and enviromnental
review process. The statutory public meeting was held in addition to a Public Information
Session. An environmental impact study was completed for the subject lands. With the
identification of the provincially significant Black/Farewell Creek Wetland Complex, a
peer review of the EIS was conducted. As the wetland is located on the subject lands, the
Ministry of Natural Resources, in consultation with the Conservation Authority was
requested to stake the wetland boundary providing a definitive wetland boundary.
Delineation of the wetland also enabled confident determination of impacts of
development, and the mitigation required to ensure the development does not have a
negative impact on the features and functions of the wetland.
10.3 After the wetland boundary was confirmed, the plan of subdivision was revised to
eliminate all development within the wetland and to incorporate a 15 metre buffer
between the developed area and the limits of the wetland. There are two areas where
fingers of the wetland protrude drastically to the south and west. The Ministry of Natural
Resources, the Conservation Authority and the consultant agreed that in order to reduce
the amount of "edge", the buffer around these fingers should be reduced. The buffer
between the development and the wetland in these two areas is 5.7m and 8.2 metres
respectively. The Conservation Authority is satisfied that the policies with respect to the
development adjacent to a provincially significant wetland, as contained within the
Provincial Policy Statement, have been satisfied.
10.4 The peer review suggested a trail be established from the park area northward, winding
around the proposed plan of subdivision, south to George Reynolds Drive. Staff support
this recommendation, but as some of the lands required for the trail are not within the
678
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 11
limits of this subdivision, land dedication or an easement would be required to complete
the trail to George Reynolds Drive. The establishment ofthe trail within the buffer will
have less impact on the wetland than ifthe trail was located within the wetland. It is
anticipated that a well defined trail will reduce intrusion oftrail users into the wetland.
10.5 It is recommended that the subject lands be rezoned to Urban Residential Type Two to
permit single detached dwellings on 12m frontages. Block 17 will be zoned entirely
Environmental Protection in accordance with the Conservation Authority's request. Lots
8 and 9 in the proposed plan of subdivision abut Block 17. The Comprehensive Zoning
By-law stipulates that all structures must be setback a minimum of 3 metres from an
Enviromnental Protection zone. As the provincially significant wetland is 5.7 metres
from the northern limit of Lot 9, and 14.0 metres from the northerly limit oflot 8, it is
recommended that the 3 metre setback provision be exempted and that a structure be
permitted to build within 1.2 metres of the lot line, regardless of the Environmental
Protection zoning.
11. CONCLUSION
11.1 Staff recommend to Durham Region that the application for draft plan of subdivision
18T99007 be approved subject to the conditions of draft plan approval as contained in
Attachment 5 to this report. Staff also recommend that rezoning application (ZBA 99-
013) be approved and the accompanying by-law be passed.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
~, IlLv~
o~~~
Bin Newell
Acting Director of Planning and Development
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Chief Administrative Officer
HB*BN*sh
15 June 2001
REPORT PD-067-01
PAGE 12
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
- Gartner Lee EIS - June 5, 2000
- Beak International Peer Review - November 24, 2001
- Draft Plan as originally submitted
- Revised Draft Plan
- Conditions of Draft Approval
- Zoning By-law
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Black Creek Developments
1249981 Ontario Limited
1748 Baseline Road W
COURTICE, Ontario
LIE 2T1
Michelle Comeau
Randy Ross
102 Cecil Found Cres.
COURTICE, Ontario
LIE 3E7
Glen Genge
D. G. Biddle & Associates Limited
96 King Street East
OSHA W A, Ontario
LIH 186
Libby Racansky
3200 Hancock Road
COURTICE, Ontario
LIE 2Hl
Norm Monaghan
15 Westmore Street
COURTICE, Ontario
LIE 2H8
Kerry Meydam
3828 Trulls Road N.
COURTICE, Ontario
LIE 2L3
Linda Gasser
7421 Best Road
PO Box 399
ORONO, Ontario
LOB IMO
Scott Meldrum
113 Cecil Found Cres
Courtice, Ontario
LIE 3E7
Rob Elliott
54 Padduck Street
COURTICE, Ontario
LIE 2W2
Richard Howes
22 Jane Avenue
COURTICE, Ontario
LIE 2H9
680
Gartner
Lee
Li m ited
140 Renfrew Drive
Suite 102
Markham, Ontario
L3R 683
Tel: (90S) 477.8400
Fax: (90S) 477.1456
WWW: IN'NW.gortnerlee.com
Environmental Services
(0'
Industl)! & Government
Office Locations
. Toronto
. Vancouver
. St. Catharines
. Whitehorse
. Yellowknife
. Kuala Lumpur
~!;"7
.~3-~"
June 5, 2000
}R TEccm:JJW11W~
I ~LG f LI,;,
,/ I'IN
I L '0 . n ~ 2000
"
,
J i';'iUIJll<)r'Li II Ui- L:..t',nll~Gl ON
L_~~~~-PAHnvlErJ-1
ATTACHMEINT 1
GLL 99-443
Mr. David Crome
Director
Planning and Development
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville. Ontario
LlC 3A6
Dear Mr. Crome:
Re: Draft Plan of Subdi vision 18T 99007
Gartner Lee Limited (GLL) was retained by the Municipality of Clarington to recommend
appropriate setbacks from the Black-Farewell Wetland Complex, a portion of which
occurs on property identified for residential development (Draft Plan 18T 99007) (Figure
I). The property is located in the Community of Courtice, northeast of the intersection of
Nash Road and Trulls Road, GLL submitted the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for
the Municipality with respect to these lands and those to the south and east in February
1998 (GLL 1998). Following submission of the EIS, but prior to final consideration by
Clarington Council, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) provided an
evaluation of the Black-Farewell Wetland Complex which included lands adjacent to
Birchdale Village (Draft Plan 18T 95029) in August 1999. As a result, a small portion of
the subject lands, as well as lands to the west, north and east of the Draft Plan 18T 99007
are considered to be portions of the provincially significant wetland,
The Municipality of Clarington has requested further information in order to ensure that
the proposal does not create an impact to the Provincially Significant Wetland. This
addendum was requested in order to:
a)
clarify the extent of wetland within the applicant's planning area;
and
to determine what modifications to the plan are necessary to
mitigate or prevent impacts to the wetland.
b)
The site was visited on September 27. 1999 by myself and Ron Huizer, Principal
Instructor for the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES). A second site visit was
made on November 20 to determine the characteristics of the upland vegetation on the site
and to determine the detailed wetland boundary based on the MNR mapping of 1999. Soil
samples were taken in representative units.
Most ofthe site has been disturbed, and is bare soil. Where the property slopes toward the
wetland. the water table is closer to the surface. As reported in GLL (1998), relatively
small changes in elevation, combined with the silty fine to very fine sandy soil overlain by
681
~
Page 2
Municipality of Clarington
June 5. 2000
silts and organics, tend to perch surface runoff, and impede water movement through the soil. This
results in the development of small wetland communities less than 0.5 ha in relatively small
depressions within the forest, and within the floodplain of the Farewell Creek tributary.
Natural Environment Features
I. Ve!!etation Analv,.is and Wetland
The south end of the site has been recently disturbed by recent earth-moving activity. The soil is
largely unvegetated, and even when vegetated, the plants tend to be invasive alien species capable of
colonizing disturbed areas. To the north, east and west the land slopes down to a vegetation
community that has recovered from logging and replanting with Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris)
approximately 25 years ago (Figure I, Unit 4). Pioneering species such as Trembling Aspen (Populus
tremuloides). and Eastern White Cedar (Thuja occidentalis) are volunteering into the clearings. The
groundcover is dominated by Canada Bluegrass (Poa compressus), Redtop (Agrostis gigantea), Tall
Goldenrod (Solidago altissima) and B1ack-eyed Susan (Rudbeckia hirta). These are species
characteristic of an upland community. This area could be described as a Cultural Plantation (Lee et
al. 1998), however the pines are so irregular and poorly maintained that it is more appropriate to
describe it as a Cultural Savannah (CDS) which recognizes its more open form. Either of these
cultural designations (those habitats altered by human activity and often supporting a large proportion
of non-native species) could be applied to this site.
Sensitive Fern (Onoelea sensibilis), a single Fringed Gentian (Gentianopsis crinita) and Fowl Manna
Grass (Poa palustris) occurred in one small depression just west of proposed Lot 8. All of these
species can occur on moist upland sites. Only the Fringed Gentian could be considered to be rare in
Durham Region although it occurs regularly along the Lake Iroquois beach deposits. It is an annual
plant therefore transplanting is not recommended. Seed collection could be recommended if there was
a larger community. but this is not a significant mitigation measure for a single plant because a much
larger population exists immediately to the east. A soil sample revealed very fine sand with mottling
at 25 cm depth, and is characteristic of a "moist" soil moisture regime (Denholm and Schut 1993).
This is consistent with the upland designation.
A first order stream passes across the northwest comer of the property which joins a small tributary to
the Farewell Creek just to the west of the property north of George Reynolds Drive. A series of
wetland pockets and constructed ponds follows this watercourse which have been included in the
provincially significant wetland but are not proposed for development. Only a portion of one such
unit is included on the subject lands.
The wetland unit on proposed Block 22: Open space, is a Mineral Thicket Swamp Ecosite (SWT2).
This thicket swamp is dominated by Slender Willow (Salix petiolaris), Heart-leaved Willow (Salix
eriocephalus) and Pussy Willow (Salix discolor), with Red Osier Dogwood (Cornus stolol1ifera). A
small wet meadow of Wool Grass (Scirpus cyperinus) occurs in the middle of this unit. This swamp
drains to the Farewell Creek tributary to and is clearly inundated for portions of the year.
This Ilapl:'r is mad... from
rec}'ded fibre
682
(99443)
~
Page 3
Municipality of Clarington
June 5.2000
The lands to the northeast and east of the subject lands onto which a small corner of proposed Lot 10
extends has been classified as a Mixed Swamp (SWMI) by the Ministry of Natural Resources because
it is dominated by a mixture of coniferous and deciduous tree species. Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis), Yellow Birch (Betula a!leghelliellsis), Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum) and Green Ash
(Frarinus pennsylvanicus) are most common in the overstorcy. Mountain Maple (Acer spicatum) is
found in the shrub layer, and the ground cover is dominated by Sensitive Fern (Olloclea sellsibilis).
The Ministry of Natural Resources has detlned the wetland boundary at a scale of I: 10,000. This line
is normally used to guide a site investigation to map the wetland boundary in the tleld when adjacent
land use changes are proposed. This line was approximately transposed from the wetland evaluation
map onto an aerial photograph at a scale of 1:2,000. The wetland boundary was walked in the tleld
and transposed onto the map. The line was at the point where upland-associated vegetation with a
Scots Pine overstorey changed to wetland vegetation (willows) with an overstorey of Balsam Poplar
and Eastern White Cedar. At the larger scale it is possible to achieve a more accurate delineation of
the wetland.
2. Wildlife
Due to the time of year that the site was revisited few wildlife observations were made except for the
ubiquitous Black-capped Chickadees (Parus atricapillus). Other upland-associated birds that were
recorded in 1997 in this part of the site included Mourning Dove (Zellaida macroura). Northern
Flicker (Colaptes auratus), Willow Flycatcher (Empidollax traillii), Blue Jay (Cyallocilla aistata),
American Crow (Corvus brachrhy"chos), American Robin (Turdus migratorius), Yellow Warbler
(Delldroica pensylvallica), Common Yellowthroat (Geothlyphis trichas), Northern Cardinal
(Cardillalis cardillalis), Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerilla), Song Sparrow (Melospiza me/odia),
Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgialla), Red-winged Blackbird (AgelaillS phoelliceus), Common
Grackle (Quicalus quiscula), Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater). Baltimore Oriole (Icterus
galbula) and American Goldfinch (Cardeulis tristis). All of these birds are abundant and tend to
tolerate adjacent development fairly well. Of these. only the Willow Flycatcher, Yellow Warbler and
Red-winged Blackbird are loosely associated with the wetland itself, and whose habitat is confined to
the open space block (Block 22).
Mammal observations were limited to urban tolerant species such as White-tailed Deer, Raccoon,
Grey Squirrel, Red Squirrel and Woodland Jumping Mouse. The only amphibian observed was
American Toad which is unlikely to be affected by development because it breeds in the ponds and
commonly inhabits backyards. Habitat for Green Frog. Leopard Frog, Spring Peepers and Gray Tree
frog exists in the ponds surrounding the site but not on the site. Suitable habitat for breeding
(ephemeral or permanent ponds) or foraging (meadows or woodlands) does not exist on the subject
lands. These species are not likely to be negatively affected by the adjacent residential development
because their habitat will not be removed.
Thh papt'r b madt' frum
n"Qded fibn'
683
j<J'!.t4."
~
Page 4
Municipality of Clarington
June 5, 2000
3. Corridors
On a landscape basis (scale of 1:25,000), corridors can be traced across the landscape along the valleys
of the Harmony. Farewell and Black Creeks (Figure 5, GLL 1998). A corridor is a linear feature
(usually 50 to 100 m wide or more) that connects areas of core natural habitat. Core habitats are those
that provide a wide range of plant and wildlife attributes and functions such as the Black-Farewell
Wetland Complex to the north. However, on this property, the connection through the study area has
been fragmented to the south by development along Trulls Road and Nash Road. The Farewell Creek
tributary is channeled, narrow and provides little in the way of cover or habitat opportunities. The
small wetland on the east side of the study area is connected to a turf drainage ditch lined with gabion
baskets on the Black Creek tributary which provides minimal cover for leopard frogs and little else.
South of this the tributary enters a pipe and outlets near the Black Creek. These channels and pipes
represent major barriers to wildlife movement. Therefore, no corridors exist through the property, and
connectors (a minimal function associated only with water conveyance at this site) exist only off of the
property to the east and west.
4. Summarv
Most of the upland areas on the subject lands have been recently disturbed and either remain open
with only minimal herbaceous cover, or have been sparsely replanted with Scots Pine, an introduced
species. The vegetation and wildlife associated with these areas are characteristic of small fragmented
natural areas in an urban environment.
The treed area provides some habitat for urban tolerant edge bird species. It also provides some
buffering to the wetland edge in terms of surface water filtration to aid in maintaining water quality,
and a setback for wildlife. Its effectiveness as a buffer for wildlife is small because the trees are very
open. The wetland edge itself provides better insulation for the warblers and blackbirds. In general,
the species found in the wetland at this location are not very sensitive to urban disturbances aside from
the predation from cats. This effect is already felt as the neighbourhood is well built up. The presence
of adjacent houses will no doubt contribute to the cat population, and the bird feeders will subsidize
the squirrels. both of which predate eggs and fledgling birds.
Therefore, those functions for which the development must have regard are focussed on the potential
to create an impact on surface and groundwater quality and quantity, and some limited wildlife buffer
function. The attributes that should be considered in the recommendation of setbacks from
development include:
a) the provincially significant wetland;
b) habitat for urban-tolerant, generalist birds and mammals, including upland
and wetland species;
c) habitat for a rare plant species;
d) connectivity to surface water; and
e) connectivity to groundwater.
This paper is made from
recycled fibrt'
684
199443)
~
Page 5
Municipality of Clarington
June 5, 2000
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Blackcreek Developments has proposed to build up to 20 single detached homes on the site on 0.921
ha. The remaining area is designated as open space (0.38 ha and contained almost entirely within the
wetland, and park area (0.274 ha) with 0.272 ha reserved for the road allowance. The Draft Plan 18T
99007 (D.G. Biddle, 1998. revised 1999) was overlain on the vegetation map. The wetland boundary
borders Lot 12 and crosses the comer of Lots 10 and II. Otherwise, the proposed subdivision is on
upland.
Table I summarizes the proximity of each proposed lot to the wetland boundary.
Table 1.
Vegetation and Distance to Wetland Boundary by Lot
Proposed Lot Number Vegetation Unit(s) Proximity to Wetland Boundary (m)
.... .<::y~.*,distllrbed
CUS
.....................
CUS
.."..."...........---.-..
CUS
CUS
----.......-.-.-..................".
CUS
.-.......-......._... ------ ------
. <::Y~,.<Iisturb.ed
.<::y~,distu!b~ .
CU~., disturbed
CUS. disturbed, SWM*
CUS. SWT*
.......--.--"----.----------------
CUS
........--.------.------------.....
..<::y~,dist.urlJ.".d.... .. .........
.._.<::ys,..<Iist.urlJ.ed.....
disturbed
. ... - - ------,----------~--_._._..,-".,_._._._------_.._--
disturbed
---.-- ~-------------
disturbed
................---------.------
disturbed
,-.-,-.-..............__._--
disturbed
--.._-,--.'_................"--------
disturbed
5 m within the wetland to
2 outside the wetland
._____ ._._m."....._________ __________........._...
6 m within the wetland to
1.5 outside the wetland
10
11
13
16
19
59
Note: CUS - cultural savannah
SWM - Mixed Mineral Swamp (treed)
swr - Thicket Mineral Swamp (shmbs)
Disturbed - areas where earth moving has occurred leaving the ground cover sparse and large!.}'
non-native
Impact Assessment and Mitil!ation
The sources of impact to the wetland and adjacent upland are:
a) encroachment on the provincially significant wetland surrounding the Plan of
Subdivision;
This paper is made from
r~qded fibr~
685
(9<)..\43)
~
Page 6
Municipality of Clarington
June 5, 2000
b) removal of one plant of a species rare in Durham Region;
c) potential to create an impact on the adjacent community of generalist birds
and mammals;
d) potential to impact water quality in the adjacent tributary to the Farewell
Creek;
e) potential to create an impact to groundwater; and
f) the lowering of the water table due to residential and road construction.
. Encroachment on the Provincially Significant Wetland Surrounding the Plan of Subdivision
The property lines of Lots 10, 11 and 12 border or cross the wetland boundary, and Lots 8 and 9
and part of Lot 7 are very close. These lots should be removed from the plan or reconfigured in
order to provide for a buffer around the wetland. The buffer, an area of setback from the wetland
boundary, is designed to mitigate the impacts from the proposed development on the attributes of
the natural environment that have been identified above.
MNR has commented that the surrounding forest provides a significant function with respect to
the wetland. While that is true in many areas of the large Black-Farewell Wetland Complex, it is
not an issue here specifically. The native forest on the proposed development site was removed
some time ago, and the vegetation adjacent to the wetland is dominated by widely spaced, aging
Scots Pine, with some mature Eastern White Cedar in the west within the Park area (Block 21).
Removal of some of this vegetation is unlikely to create a significant impact on the wetland or
wildlife habitat. No animals or birds were observed here that will not persist after development,
and the vegetation is open and in the north and east, dominated by non-native and old field species
under the non-native pines. Therefore its removal will create only minor impacts to the wetland
and wildlife habitat as a result of increased exposure to sun, wind and desiccation, which can be
mitigated by the planting of a row of coniferous trees. which is discussed further below.
. Removal of One Plant of a Species Rare in Durham Region
A single specimen of Fringed Gentian was observed in an isolated depression about 25 m from the
wetland boundary. This species is restricted to the Lake Ontario shoreline, and the glacial Lake
Iroquois and Lake Algonquin shorelines in Durham Region. Because of its habitat preferences,
low number of occurrences according to a database of Durham plants (Leadbeater 1999) and
separated, well-defined restricted range in Durham Region, it is considered to be rare. However,
this annual plant is well-represented in the valley of the Black Creek tributary to the immediate
east of the proposed development. Therefore, the removal of this one plant does not represent a
significant impact to the population. Furthermore, it is an annual plant. and therefore,
transplanting it would be an ineffective mitigation measure.
. Potential to Create an Impact on the Adjacent Community of Generalist Birds and Mammals
Potential for wildlife habitat is very low on most of the site due to recent earth-moving activity.
The wildlife community adjacent to the proposed development is not one especially disturbed by
This paper is mad€' from
r<<ycled fibre
686
19943.1
~
Page 7
Municipality of Clarington
June 5. 2000
adjacent residential activity. However, the potential for an unacceptable level of use of the natural
habitat should be curtailed by the creation of a barrier. Barriers can take the form of large
setbacks planted with vegetation armed with spines and/or thorns, stormwater management
facilities built in long narrow configurations that resemble a moat. or fences. As a stormwater
pond is not required for this development. and space is a constraint, it is recommended that the
barrier take the form of a fence. If a new edge were being created in a homogeneous forest
adjacent to the wetland, buffers of considerable size may be considered to provide an opportunity
to create a graduated edge. In this case. the forest is more or less open, and the removal of some
of the pines to permit housing will not create the same kind of impact, and the setback can be quite
narrow. Therefore, it is recommended that a fence be erected 7 m from the wetland boundary. In
order to seal the edge to minimize intrusion into the wildlife habitat by light, sun and wind, it is
recommended that a double, staggered row of White Spruce (Picea glauca) or Eastern White
Cedar be planted on the wetland side of the fence. This growing barrier will also help to deter
homeowners from throwing garden refuse over the fence into the wetland. This is an issue that
should be addressed in the homeowners education package discussed below.
. Potential to Impact Water Quality in the Wetland and/or the Adjacent Tributary to the Farewell
Creek
The runoff from the front of the yards and the roads should be directed to stormwater management
facilities, and therefore will not create an adverse impact on local water quality in the wetland or
the tributary. Only water draining from the backyards toward the wetland and tributary have that
potentiaL However, a setback of 7 m from the wetland boundary to the back fence has been
proposed for the mitigation of impact to wildlife, which will also filter sheet flow running
overland. This will be augmented by the minimum 7.5 m rear yard allowance to bring the total
filter strip to a minimum of 14.5 m. In view of the soils and slope at this location, this is consistent
with literature reviewing setbacks to wetlands and watercourses (Caste lie 1994, Flanagan et aL
1989, Barling and Moore 1994, Johnson and Ryan 1984, MOEE 1994, Osborne and Kovacic
1993, Wilson and Imhof. 1998). The EIS (GLL, 1998) recommended a landowner's education
package. It should include encouragement for the landowner to maintain as much natural
vegetation in the rear yards as possible to enhance this filtering function. In addition, and most
importantly. conservative use of herbicides and fertilizers should be promoted.
. Lowering of the Water Table Due to Residential and Road Construction
This site is less sensitive to any reduction of groundwater recharge (due to the construction of
impermeable surfaces) than the neighbouring Birchdale Village (draft Plan 18T 95029). This is
because of the till substrates which restrict groundwater flow and therefore do not contribute
significant baseflow to the tributary. However, to avoid shifting the shallow groundwater divide
to the east, all opportunities for infiltration of rooftop runoff should be employed on the eastern
half of the site due to the sandier soils on proposed Lots I through 11.
687
This IUIJH'r i_~ made from
rt'qded fibre
,?<}4.H)
~
Page 8
Municipality of Clarington
June 5, 2000
Conclusion and Recommeudations
1. With mitigation, a subdivision can be built within the Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99007
lands in an environmentally sound manner with only insignificant impacts to the adjacent
provincially significant wetland and forest. Mitigation measures include:
. A 7 m setback from the wetland boundary.
. A 1.5 m chain-link fence be erected 7 m from the wetland boundary in order to
create a barrier between human activity and the natural habitat. In order to seal
the edge to minimize intrusion into the wildlife habitat by light, sun and wind, it is
recommended that a double, staggered row of White Spruce or Eastern White
Cedar be planted on the wetland side of the fence to seal the wetland edge at the
rear of proposed Lots 7 through 12;
. Infiltration of rooftop leaders on proposed Lots I to 12.
. Preparation of a landowner's education package that includes:
~ encouragement for the landowner to maintain as much natural
vegetation in the rear yards as possible to enhance water quality
filtering function;
~ encourage proper disposal of swimming pool water (not into the
wetland and tributary);
~ deter placement of compost in the wetland or buffer;
~ promote landscaping with native and/or non-invasive plants and trees;
~ provide guidelines for living close to wildlife communities to prevent
negative interaction;
~ to promote the conservative use of herbicides and fertilizers, and;
~ promote stewardship of this unique provincially significant wetland
feature.
2. The Plan of Subdivision will require changes to relieve the impact to the wetland and wildlife
habitat created by the proposal and to permit the 7 m buffer between the back lot line and the
wetland boundary in Lots 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Table 2.
Changes Required to Lot Configuration
I
2
3
4
Proximity to Wetland
Boundary (m)
8
5
6
11
Required Setback from
Back Lot Line
o
2
1
o
Proposed Lot Number
This paper is made from
recycled fibre
688
(<)')4..131
~
Page 9
Municipality of Clarington
June 5. 2000
Proposed Lot Number Proximity to Wetland Required Setback from
Boundary (m) Back Lot Line
5 10 0
6 9 0
7 4 3
8 3 4
~nn 9 2 5
.. .. ..~ 10 5 m within the wetland to 2 outside 5 to 12
....... n~~ II 6 m within the wetland to 1.5 outside 5~5 to 13
. .~u~ ~.~.~.... 0
12 .. ..~~.... 7
13 13 0
14 25 0
15 38 0
......."."--------- ---~-- .'..-....-.
16 42 0
..... ......---.. ....-.-.... .-.-,,-,,'..-. _"_,,_,,.,,_._"'..n_. .. ~ ..----- ~ ~ ~ ----------- ---------- _.___._"....._..__m...........,. ----- u -.,,-......- ..----- ---------. ---"-,,
17 51 0
----- m -,-.---- - -----------.---- "'''m.''''''''_"_,,',,',,_,, ......--.......... ----"----- ------.---.
18 58 0 n
19 59 0
. . ~ .................0.0. ._,,_,,_"_"_"m_..._..m ---- . u. _________._m___ ----_._.._--,,-,,-.............,..... ------ --------
20 59 0
3. In keeping with the natural character of the site, it is recommended that Block 21 be kept in a
natural state and allowed to revegetate naturally. Uses should be confined to passive nature
appreciation and walking to avoid impact to the wetland and creek corridor to the west.
It is our hope that this review has answered the questions posed by the Municipality of Clarington
Council. We will be happy to provide further assistance, if required.
Yours very truly,
GARTNER LEE LIMITED
/14/~
Dale A. Leadbeater, B.Sc.,B.Ed.
Biologist
DALmm
689
This paper is made rrom
reC}c1l1'd fib,...
i'J')443)
~
Page 10
Municipality of Clarington
June 5. 2000
References
Barling, RC. and J.D. Moore, 1994:
Role of Buffer Strips in Management of Waterway Pollution: A Review. Environmental
Management Vol. 18, No.4: 543-558
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson and C. Conolly, 1994:
J.Environ.Qual. 23:878-882
Denholm, K.A. and L.W. Schut, 1993:
Field Manual for Describing Soils in Ontario. Ontario Centre for Soil Research Evaluation,
Guelph Agriculture Centre.
Gartner Lee Limited, 1998:
Birchdale Village Black Creek Development Ltd. Environmental Impact Study, Phase 2.
Final Report. Prepared for the Municipality of Clarington.
Johnson, P.M. and T.E. Ryan, 1984:
The Use of Vegetated Buffer Zones to Protect Fish and Fish Habitat. Prepared for Ontario
Ministry of Natural Resources.
Leadbeater, D., 1999:
Database of Plants occurring in Durham Region based on collections in the Royal Ontario
Museum Herbarium, reports and sight records of accredited botanists.
Lee, H.T., W.D. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig and S. McMurray, 1998:
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and Its
Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science
Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide F-02
M. Wilson and J. Imhof, 1998:
Riparian Zone Workshop Literature Review: Overview of the State of the Science
MOEE, 1994:
Stormwater Management Practices, Planning and Design Manual ppl27-129
Osborne, L.L. and D.A. Kovacic, 1993:
Riparian Vegetated buffer strips III water quality restoration and stream management.
Freshwater Biology. 29: 243
This paper is made [rom
recycled fibre
690
(<)').t..H)
,
.
,
20
~.
o
40
80
metres'
~
DRAFT PLAN 18T-99007, CLARINGTON
VEGETATION & PROPOSED LOT LAYOUT
FIGURE
Gartner
Lee
Phase r Environmental Site Assessment
For Link.Line Construction Ltd.
130 Thompson Road, Milton, Ontario
1
Scale 1 :2,000
Project 99-443
(99\281\DraftPlan.cdr)
2
ATTACHMEINT 2
beak
beak
international
incorporated
14 Abacus Road
Brampton,Ontario
Canada L6T 5B7
Tel (905) 794-2325
Fax (905) 794-2338
1-800-361-BEAK (2325)
November 24, 2000
W>IECCTEITWIE@
NOV 2 82000
Ms. Heather Brooks
Municipality of Clarington,
40 Temperance Street,
Bowmanville,
Ontario, LIC 3A6
MUNICIPALITY Of CLARINGTur,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Dear Ms. Brooks:
Re: Peer Review of EIS for 1ST -99007. Part lot 30, Concession 3, Former Township
of Darlington
Thank you for the fax letter dated November 24, 2000 with regard to the recently
delineated boundary of the Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) and my Peer Review
of the EIS undertaken by Gartner Lee Limited (GLL). The boundary of the wetland is
very irregular on the map and in places it is on the inside of the regional floodline and
other places it is outside. The new mapping also shows more lots affected than
previously described in the GLL (2000) report. I suggest that one smoothes the wetland
boundary line and uses a buffer width of 10 - 15 metres to provide adequate buffering to
the PSW. This would also include space for a small trail outside the proposed residential
lot lines.
I am satisfied that the rest of my comments in my Peer Review dated October 26, 2000
are still appropriate. If you have any further questions on this matter, please do not
hesitate to call me.
Yours truly,
BEAK INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
Dr. Mark E. Taylor, Ph.D., R.P. Bio.
Senior Scientist and Project Manager
692
October 26, 2000
rm '!T,:,'7'\Jj(:'-:-i \ \ ifl r:-;;)" '''Ij
JJ~;~:~~~}~, \/:::'j
I. .. J'J I ,Lll ?OUO.
! fv'iU,:!i~i,r}'-~i.I_." :jr_.,,;~.,;;i~~J,-~ I l.:J
PU-\i'J:\li!\j(,-, I 'r::rANI [V:;-,\! T
Ms. Heather Brooks
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Dear Ms. Brooks
Re: PEER REVIEW OF EIS for 18T-99007. Part lot 30, Concession 3, Former
Township of Darlington.
Beak International Incorporated (BEAK) was retained by the Municipality of Clarington
(CLARINGTON) to undertake a Peer Review of the work undertaken by Gartner Lee
Limited (GLL) on this site (Part lot 30, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington)
referred to subsequently as the SITE, and submitted in a report dated June 5, 2000. A
review of the documents provided by CLARINGTON was followed by a field visit by me
on behalf of BEAK on October 18 with you.
This review will first of all examine the GLL report on a section by section basis dealing
with the tasks outlined by CLARINGTON in their Terms of Reference. The review will
also address other points of concern identified by BEAK as a result of undertaking this
revIew.
General Site Description
While the SITE is described in some detail, the relationship of the site to the surrounding
areas and land use is not, other than a reference that a part of the SITE is part of the
Black-Farewell Wetland Complex. The lands to the south are now residential and further
residential development is planned to the south-east The large thicket swamp to the
south-east of the SITE which is part of the Black-Farewell Wetland Complex is not
referred to in this report, though it is mentioned in the earlier report by GLL (1998). The
contribution of this SITE to the overall value of the Wetland Complex is not specifically
addressed.
On the last paragraph on page 1 the SITE is described "Most of the site has been
disturbed, and is bare soil". This general description I find to be misleading, in that I had
expected to see minimal vegetation, but other than the topsoil stockpile on the southern
part of the SITE, the area is well vegetated. I do not disagree that the SITE was disturbed
in the past with the conifer plantings (25 years ago). However, the area is now
overgrown by more rapidly growing native deciduous species such as balsam poplar,
trembling aspen and sugar maple as well as eastern white cedar. Evidence of a pine
plantation is not visible in the airphoto (GLL 2000, Figure I)
693
Peer Review Draft Plan 18T-99007, Clarington
There is no description of the results of the soil samples which GLL (2000) refer to on
page 1 of their report, nor an indication on Figure 1 where the samples were taken.
Vegetation Analysis and Wetland
The descTiption of species in the report (GLL 2000) appears to be accurate, but I made no
attempt to check the species list on the short site visit. I would have thought that GLL
would have provided a list of plant species in an Appendix as was done in the GLL 1998
report. An evaluation of the site using the Floral Quality Index (FQI) (Oldham et al.
1995) could be used to indicate more objectively the value of the site from a vegetative
perspective as well as compare it to the MNR wetland evaluation.
GLL suggests that the area identified in Figure 1 as cultural savannah (CUS) is an
appropriate descriptor and that the area to its south be identified as Disturbed. I feel that
the "CUS area" is better described as cultural woodland (CUW) for the following
reasons: (i) savannah habitats are generally dry sites in which the moisture regime is low,
however GLL describes the SITE as having ground water relatively near the surface; (ii)
savannah habitats have trees and/or shrubs widely spaced given the shortage of available
water (The ELC gives 25-35% tree cover for savannah, Lee et al. 1998) while on our
SITE visit I noted the trees are close together giving a 100% cover and I believe in time,
the area would evolve into a mature deciduous to mixed woodland; (iii) species such as
sensitive fern are described by GLL occurring in this area; such species are definitively
mesic to moist species and would not be found in a savannah situation.
A first order stream is described as passing across the northwest corner of the property
joining a small tributary just west of the SITE north of George Reynolds Drive. This is
not shown in Figure I and in the field visit we did not come across it, so perhaps it is an
intermittent stream. In the MNR mapping of the wetland complex (August 1999), a
stream is shown joining the series of small ponds to the west of the identified property,
but no streams are shown on the SITE itself.
The wetland unit on proposed Block 22 (Open Space) which is a Mineral Thicket Swamp
Ecosite (SWT2) is accurately described. The small wet meadow of Wool Grass (Scirpus
cyperinus) within this swamp area is probably flooded in the spring but does not have
enough water outflow to create a clear drainage channel to the Farewell Creek tributary to
the west.
The lands to the north-east and east of the SITE have been described by the MNR as a
mixed swamp (SWMl). There is not really any evidence that this land is regularly
flooded in the spring, certainly on the lands immediately adjacent to the SITE, and
without a clear staking of the wetland boundary by the MNR, the boundary of the
wetland is not identifiable.
Wildlife
The description of wildlife on the SITE relies heavily on the Birchdale Village EIS (GLL
1998). The review for this area by GLL (2000) states "Other upland-associated birds that
were recorded in 1997 in this part of the site included Mourning Dove (Zenaida
Beak International Incorporated
694
2
Peer Review Draft Plan I8T-99007, Clarington
macroura) etc." It is not clear whether GLL recorded this new list of species during their
field visit (September 27 and November 20, 1999) or whether they were abstracted from
the list in GLL 1998 (Table A-2). This confusion arises from the suggestion that the GLL
1998 report identified particular species in particular parts of the Birchdale Village area,
and that those species observed on the present SITE were then abstracted from the report.
This may have been possible from field notes, but could not be determined from the GLL
1998 report. Also on reviewing the GLL (1998) report, the authors state in Section 3.1.2
that "A total of3l species of birds can be expected to breed on the site were recorded,
and the list can be found in Table A.2, Appendix A." If this is based on Cadman et al.
(1987) Breeding Birds of Ontario it should be given as a reference and I am sure that
more breeding species have been recorded from the area (See Durham Bird List, Bain
and Henshaw 1992, Henshaw 1996) . I suspect the authors meail that they saw 31 species
which might breed in the area. If all these species were observed during the breeding
season on territories, then the presence of wood thrush, chestnut-sided warbler, black and
white warbler, ovenbird and northern waterthrush indicates the presence of interior forest
habitat which are dependent upon larger forest blocks. This should alter the perspective
of the treatment of the SITE and the regenerating woodland adjacent to a provincially
significant wetland (for guidance see OMNR 1999a)
I agree that the bird list is composed of species which are common in suburban and rural
areas. An additional species, ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbel/us) was observed in the
SWMI during the field visit on October 19, 2000.
The same comment applies more or less to the mammal observations. While the
mammals listed in GLL (1998) are repeated without exception as occurring in the area
under consideration, the inclusion of woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis) is
not explained. Was it observed or trapped? If the species was observed directly, it
should be noted as in the case of the Fringed Gentian, and ifit was inferred, then this
should be stated explicitly.
The number of mammalian species which could OCCUT on the site is much greater than
those listed and there is no reference to the Mammal Atlas by Dobbyn (1994) which does
not show a record of the woodland jumping mouse for this area. Also, on the SITE visit
an old board had been turned over by someone revealing the presence of meadow vole
(Microtus pennsylvanicus) runways; the presence of this common species was not
recorded in either of the GLL reports.
The only amphibian recorded by GLL (2000) was an American toad (Bufo americanus).
One was observed on the site visit on October 18 by Heather Brooks. The reference in
the GLL report that habitat for green frog, leopard frog, spring peepers and gray tree frog
exists in the ponds surrounding the site but not on the site is incorrect. While breeding
pools may not occur on site, the thicket swamps and woodland provide excellent foraging
habitat for American toads, leopard frog, spring peepers and gray tree frogs as well as
providing hibernation areas (MNR 1999b, Varga, pers. com). As these amphibians spend
the majority of the year out of the water, the statement that suitable habitat for foraging
Beak International Incorporated
695
3
Peer Review Draft Plan 18T-99007, Clarington
does not occur on the SITE is erroneous. There is no mention or discussion about the
presence of salamanders in these moist woods.
Corridors
The description of corridors appears to be focussed on aquatic linkages and is based on
the GLL (1998) report which does not describe what animals the corridors are for. The
description of corridors as connecting Core Areas is correct, but there is no discussion of
what the corridors in Figure 5 ofGLL (1998) connect in the way of Core Areas. I would
interpret these "corridors" as being primarily aquatic habitat with associated riparian
areas, particularly since the majority of them follow stream courses.
I agree that the corridor function south of the site for the small tributary south of George
Reynolds Drive is probably minimal and the major functions of the SITE are probably
water retention and slow release (i.e. flood attenuation), and the provision of woodland,
and thicket habitat adjacent to a provincially significant wetland.
The fact that east-west terrestrial linkages are present in this area of the Black-Farewell
Creek Wetland Complex and may be enhanced is not discussed by GLL (2000) though
the recommendations in the MNR Wetland evaluation stress the need for restoring
woodlands and east-west terrestrial linkages (MNR 1999b). The only mention of what
sort of wildlife might use these corridors is restricted to leopard frog (page 3), which is a
rather minimalist view of the functions of corridors and the variety of animals that may
use them.
Summary
The GLL report concludes that the subject lands have been recently disturbed and remain
open with only minimal herbaceous cover or have been sparsely replanted with Scots
Pine. This suggests that the majority of the SITE is highly disturbed. Yet earlier in the
report, the pines are estimated as being 25 years old, and since native vegetation
including tree species such as poplars, aspen and cedar have colonized the area, it does
not have the appearance of being particularly disturbed. Admittedly, the topsoil stockpile
at the southern edge of the property is disturbed, but the treed area certainly provides a
buffer to the wetland.
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Blackcreek Developments has proposed to build up to 20 single detached homes on the
SITE. The majority oflots are identified as being on upland sites with only two being
close to the provincially significant wetland. Because the location of the lines for the
wetland boundary are only approximate, the actual distances suggested in Table I of the
report suggest an accuracy which BEAK does not think can be supported. The
boundaries of the disturbed area and what is identified as cultural savannah (CUS) is
problematic and does not coincide with the tree boundary shown on the plan of
subdivision. The boundary of the two areas was determined on the basis of where the
Scots Pine had been planted and where willows are now growing. It is not possible from
Figure I to identify the area where the Scots Pine is established, so the issue of the
identification of boundaries needs to be addressed in more detail.
Beak International Incorporated
696
4
Peer Review Draft Plan 18T-99007, Clarington
Encroachment on Provincially Significant Wetland
As described above, the issue of the wetland boundary needs to be discussed with MNR
and CLOCA and an agreed upon subdivision plan redrawn in light of the findings. The
suggestion by GLL that certain lots should be removed or reconfigured is appropriate.
BEAK suggests that once the wetland/woodland boundary is established more accurately,
a revised plan of subdivision can be developed.
A discussion of the term significant impact might be appropriate. While in general
BEAK does not disagree that a number of residential lots could be configured on the
parcel ofland, the impact of the residences could be reduced by providing a more
acceptable buffer between the lots and the wetland/woodland and reconfiguring the
layout of court and lots.
Removal of One Plant of a Species Rare in Durham Region
BEAK agrees with GLL that the removal of a single rare plant from the site does not
represent a significant impact to the population of Fringed Gentian in the Region of
Durham.
Impact on Birds and Mammals
The suggestion by GLL that the impact on wildlife habitat will be very low because of
recent earth moving activity is interesting. Many mammals and birds will use disturbed
land for foraging. The introduction of 20 residential units would certainly have an
impact not only on the fauna utili sing the SITE but on the fauna using the wetland.
BEAK encourages the concept of both a fence and a vegetative buffer to separate the lots
from the wetland, we would suggest their use in a different configuration than that
proposed. The proposed planting of Eastern White Cedar is to be encouraged, while
White Spruce is not, as it would introduce a species that probably never existed on the
site or in the vicinity. Rather, the use of rapidly growing Balsam Poplar or Trembling
Aspen inter-planted with Eastern White Cedar would provide a natural buffer between
the lots and the wetland.
Impact on Water Quality
The GLL report indicates that runoff water from the front of yards will be directed to
stormwater management facilities. It is not indicated where these are located and what
percentage of water will be diverted from the subdivision which would currently enter the
wetland complex from this site. The suggestion of setbacks from the wetland for
stormwater quality control seem reasonable. Because the actual location of the wetland
boundary may be different from what is shown, it would be more appropriate to use the
regional floodline mapping as the boundary for determining setbacks and buffer widths.
Lowering of Water Table
The suggestion by GLL that infiltration of rooftop runoff be infiltrated is sound and
should be included in the design specifications. It may also be possible to ensure that
Beak International Incorporated
697
5
Peer Review Draft Plan 18T-99007, Clarington
driveways be graded to the sides, allowing water to penetrate lawn areas rather than being
discharged to storm sewers associated with the roadway.
Additional Considerations
A number of additional considerations arose during the SITE visit and as a result of
examining the documents provided by CLARINGTON.
Floodline Mapping
The proposed Draft Plan for the SITE shows the detailed Regional Floodline. While
CLOCA does not have a policy for setbacks from the Floodline, Metropolitan Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA 1994) has a 10 metre setback in an ill-
defined valley plus any significant flora and fauna communities that extend beyond the
10 metre limit. It is suggested that, in the absence of accurate wetland mapping for the
SITE and the absence of policy regarding setbacks, a 10 metre setback be used.
Trails
There is no mention in the GLL report of pedestrian and wildlife trails which occur
through the SITE. On the SITE visit, I noted several trails running through the area to the
adjacent wetland.
Residential lots which back on to natural areas often result in yard waste being thrown
over fences, illegal cutting of vegetation in the natural area and the discharge of
swimming pool waters. When a public trail is provided along the back of such lots, this
type of activity is diminished or eliminated. It is recommended that the developer in
conjunction with planning staft. at CLARINGTON examine how a trail system can be
integrated with the proposed development and park. It should be possible to reconfigure
the court and lots in such a way that the lots are kept 10 metres back from the flood line
(wetland boundary) with a mixed conifer hardwood planting screening the rear property
line fence and a trail. A trail would maintain connection to existing trails within the
wetland, providing recreational opportunities, and would serve to discourage dumping
over rear fence lines.
Woodland Adjacent to Provincially Significant Wetland
Woodland adjacent to a provincially significant wetland should be considered as
contributing to the significance ofthe wetland as it provides breeding and foraging
habitat for a variety of wildlife (MNR 1999b). Because the boundary of the regenerating
woodland is a natural boundary, it should be considered as the boundary for the
significant wetland.
References
The first reference was not completely cited in the report and is:
Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size
requirements - a review. J. Environ. Qual. 23:878-882.
Beak International Incorporated
698
6
Peer Review Draft Plan 18T-99007, Clarington
The most recent MOE Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual
(November 1999) could have been referenced rather than the old 1994 edition.
Other references which could have been cited are:
Austen, M.J.W. and M.S.W. Bradstreet. 1996. Report on the effects of forest
fragmentation on woodland biodiversity in southern Ontario and recommendations
for woodland conservation. Long Point Bird Observatory, Port Rowan, Ontario.
(To generally explain the background to some on MNR position on restoring
linkages and upland corridors)
Bain, M. and B. Henshaw. 1990. Annual bird report Durham Region, Ontario.
Published by Durham Region Field Naturalists and Pickering Naturalists. (This is
an example of a local check list which would indicate the species observed were not
rare for the region).
Bakowsky, W.D. 1996. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Vegetation
Communities of Southern Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
Peterborough. 21 pp. (to explain the comnwnness of the community types present)
Cadman, M.D., P.F.G. Eagles and F.M. Helleiner. Atlas of the breeding Birds of
Ontario. University of Waterloo Press, Waterloo, Ontario. (A reference for the
commanness of the birds observed on site).
Coleman, J.S., S.A. Temple and S.R. Craven. 1997. Cats and conservation: a
conservation dilemma. Published by the University of Wisconsin, Madison
Extension service. 6 pp. (This or some other reference regarding cat predation)
Dobbyn, J. 1994. Atlas of the Mammals of Ontario. Federation of Ontario Naturalists.
Don Mills, Ontario. (A reference for the mammals on site).
Friesen, L. E., P.F.J. Eagles and R.J. Mackay. 1995. Effects ofresidential development
on forest-swelling neotropical migrant songbirds. Conservation Biology. 9: 1408-
1414. (to discuss the impacts of residential development on songbirds).
Haas, C.A. 1995. Dispersal and use of corridors by birds in wooded patches on an
agricultural landscape. Conservation Biology. 9:845-854. (This or some other
papers on corridor junction).
Henshaw, B. 1996. A seasonal checklist to the birds of Durham Region, Ontario.
Produced by Pickering Naturalists. (This is an example of a local check list which
would indicate the species observed were not rare for the region).
Housell. S, 1994. Biodiversity conservation and forest fragmentation - an emerging issue
in southern Ontario landscapes. Land Use and Environmental Planning
Department, Stations and Transmission Programs Group, Ontario Hydro.
Beak International Incorporated
699
7
Peer Review Draft Plan 18T-99007, Clarington
Unpublished report. 24 pp. (This or some other papers to discuss fragmentation of
natural habitats in southern Ontario)
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1994. Valley and Stream
Corridor Management Program. 72 pp. (provides some guidance for setbacks
from regional floodlines)
Oldham, M.J. 1994a. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Reptiles. Natural Heritage
Information Centre, Peterborough, Ontario 10 pp. (There is no mention of reptiles
from the site, but there was none for the Birchdale Village area, which seems
unusual; I would at least have expected ganer snakes to be recorded)
Oldham, M.J. 1994b. Natural Heritage Resources of Ontario: Amphibians. Natural
Heritage Information Centre, Peterborough, Ontario 10 pp. (The reference for
amphibians in Ontario)
Oldham, M.J., W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland 1995. Floristic Quality
Assessment System for Southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre,
Peterborough. 23 pp. (An evaluation of the floristic quality of the site might have
shown that it was not as disturbed based on the species present as is ponrayed)
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1993. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System
Southern Manual. 3,d, Edition 177 pp.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999a. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for
Policy 2.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement. (Suggest use of 50 metre adjacent
lands for significant wetlands)
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1999b. Provincially Significant Black-Farewell
Wetland Complex. MNR Aurora. 33 pages. (References to imponance of upland
woodl{JJ'lds for foraging and hibernation of amphibians.)
Riley, J.L. and P. Mohr. 1994. The natural heritage of southern Ontario's settled
landscapes. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Southern Region, Aurora. 78
pp.
6990~
Beak International Incorporated
8
otl~V - --. ^<:
(GIY ...... ~o
" f/,. . , . ~/."
v N 70' 44' 10' "E .z
135.201 m' "
107.1
I ;..
PROPOSED DRAFT PLAN
PART OF LOT 30,CONCESSION 3
FORMERLY IN THE TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
NOW IN THE
MUNICIPALITY OF
R GIONAL MUNICIPA ITY
-d"
. //' ........ r,l
/ \' .
---. .
--.-- .--...____.. ~ I
,
- 7"--.'
......---,
I '~
", :.-:'
,.
I' /
,r
,:
, ,
1// ,,/ /' /
, , /
1/(
'I
. I' POND
If
II L
I :
" ,
h.~',. I ._~
\,\,-, _:::_-~<-.---~/;&
--...,--,-_._--~.--
r/l .....'" 0
", ( to
'. "--
.'of'
I,
/00
\\( -
. ";Z
"'~'.
\ "
i \
\,\
\.
..
..
~
I
J
y
"""'~1 0
.......
.\~~1
aLOCK 21
,PARK ARE'A
\ \,
, ;
;
/
F./ >"
4
II ,f
: ,'/
, "
'\ l:
I )(1
I,'
"
',.
"\ ,',/
"" Jl/i
'. Ie,'
"\ II i
.iif i
t.;; .
..' / ;' "',
i ! /
/;/ Ii
.. It
. . I'
~/
-"---~4...._.
POSSIBLE FUTURE
elL OF ROAD
// .., ...,.;.. I
..'( ....,,;r.;J A. ;
,I, I /. _'
.;1'2 '/29;" I 0 ,~~
,;"/ -, ,/1 (!!
['..,),\ 1
EX1.srj.NG '"eI.X/54
J"A.flK AREA.~
....,-~----~22,6
EXISTING
elL OF ROAD
c
=
U
CAD FILE' 8XIIDP2
PLOT OA TE' MARIO/99
SUBVISSION'
SCALE- HORZ' 1'1000
DRAWN BY, B.B
DESIGN By' W.G .C.
CHECKED By, W.G .c.
DATE- MAY 1998
PROJEC T NO. 98025
ATTACH ME INT3
/.,
- .
'"',
-
57.-1
. j BLOCK 22
OPEN SPACE
\.
\.'nn
-
'i;
,
,:1)
~1,
o
':'
12"
9 "'J~l~a_.
..
8 .-.~
~G.l
- ._~
7 ':'
~G.T
/
/ /-
6 , - :!
~..s
<>
~
5 32-1
>20
<>
'"
~
13
35.7
14
15 <>
~39~1 ':'
/,f
~'" I
; ~~
~. <> l
, 2
r::! ;
<>
':'
':'
17
~
J8
/i
.5/
/ J .-.-
!':J~
(
30 G
.~
.'-.0
3
".f!"
~.
-~
~IO
~~ 0
_10 ..
Z
'.
'/
'"
. " 20 0
20' 'I";::f' "'=. >
5--.'\..... ~, <:::: ~-:;:::: ,
-"13"" \ \..RI;~ I 'I '
<>
~~
~R.5-'~
30-2
". -~
// ./ N
/
..
--'f
'"
" u__
. \
'27-1
ClARINGTON
OF DURHAM
C.G1. Biddie &. A.sDelates Limited
engIneers
consulting
96 KINe STREET EAST OSHAWA.ON LIH 166
PHONE <9051576-6500 . FAX (905)57G-97~O
DRAWING NO.
FIGURE
699002
f
"': ~1-
E
"-
<> 0'1
N N
l()
)
./
_~:-c
/",,-- "-
..---'" "
A ()
-'
,\
,/
~
o
o
~
N
,
<X)
<>
:! z
..' .'
~
':' ;: ~
;Ir'
/5-' "
-,/
PLAN AS OFIIGINALLY SUBMITTED
ATTACHMEINT 4
------
-~~-~...-
. ----....
/' -'---
( ---.
\.,......-:---
/'"..-------._- ........ ----.
'-""7 _,_.__,
-..===---- --.--
:; .j~' 'll \--- l\ \
E-' <>" \\,
" e; '\
J ,
w \ ---n
-.....- -
~
~
.
,
64,4
t""'" -,
~~(D ...
w ~
17'30'5R' -
N 37.3~rll
12.0
14.5 !~,,/ '0.
./............
~ I
l
)
/'
;/ (,
o \ \
-0 o:l "'-, ,
mr "
OZO
, n
CPU) ^
N-o
....>
\\ ~n~
" ~
'" """ ' '"
... ",,-
'" -?<,,~ "'" /
~"'",,'" ~o~~ ~~, (
" ,) "'O\.
'''\... . O""lo' \
'\ ' <:::> \
<' ~'
- ,
~\
\
)
" .--i
---
...
'"
'"
/
12.0 \
13.8
13,8
)
I
..
-----.
-
--
--
.,
\ N I 8' 2 I ' 00' W
<l~~"\o.1
ll:~ '" \ ",
"'l';
~!"~ \ 1
~~ ,
IIi ~ j ;g
III I' : P ~!:! ~a ~
J :' ~~z~U1 I
! 1111 II ~! ~~ ~:~ gj I
! , , ;; II : I F'il'I~ ~
In, (; ','. ~fl~:;!i'ii
i " g I.: 1110 IIi -l I
II ;1 ~i ~."
o ~ !,. !:j Ii r I
~ t: I:: i i ~
,
~.
.y'
':!'
l!!)!B~\l'
~ ----' (j) 0
~ -. Z.c.
T:J !;; .:'(.
-7
,
c'
'? t.
"1"'11 lib,.!. A
I.h' · lilh' '~
'II!;~! Illiil! !~i
Iii.. i I 'I ·
c I ~. ,
I ,0; I ~!!
I ~ tdllll i ~ U
il',i!:' i · ~
I: ii, - '9,0 j~'
, II .
I I
/'
E
~~
E
.
:i0:
,
Vi
~GI
"' .'
.
n
'" ~i
! !8
Hi !
REVISED PLAN
ATTACHMEINT 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN REGISTRATION
PLAN IDENTIFICATION
1. That this approval applies to draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99007 prepared by D. G. Biddle
and Associates dated (revised) February 2001, showing Lots 1-15, with 12 metre lot
frontages, Block 16 for a 0.159 ha park and Block 17 for 0.827 ha of Open Space.
FINAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS
2. That all streets within the Plan of Subdivision shall be dedicated as public highway and
shown as such on the final plan.
3. That all streets shall be named to the satisfaction of the Municipality ofClarington and
shown on the final plan.
REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
4. That the Owner shall retain a qualified landscape architect to prepare and submit a
Landscaping Plan to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and
Development for review and approval. The Landscaping Plan shall reflect the design criteria
of the Municipality as amended from time to time.
5. That the Owner shall retain a professional engineer to prepare and submit a Master Drainage
and Lot Grading Plan to the Director of Public Works for review and approval. All plans and
drawings must conform to the Municipality's Design Criteria as amended from time to time.
6. That the Owner shall retain a qualified consultant to prepare a general plan showing buffers
and tree removal areas to the Director of Planning and Development for review and approval.
The plan shall identify those areas to be preserved and fenced to prevent intrusion of heavy
machinery. Trees shall only be removed within the area directly subject to the residential
subdivision.
7. That the Owner shall dedicate Blocks 16 and 17 to the Municipality free and clear of all
encumbrances for park and open space purposes. Block 16 shall be used for park purposes.
8. Specific requirements for fencing Blocks 16 and 17 will be determined at the engineering
stage solely at the discretion of the Director of Public Works and taking into account
CLOC's requirements for fencing the common boundary between Block 16 and Lots 9 to 12
inclusive and Block 17 and Lots 1-8 inclusive.
9. The applicant's engineer will be required to prepare Grading and Drainage Plan that details
the configuration ofthe on-site storm sewer system (minor system) and the conveyance of
the overland flow (major system) from this site
69901)4
REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Cont.
10. That the following conditions be fulfilled to the satisfaction ofthe Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority:
i) That prior to anyon-site grading or construction or final approval of the plan, the
Owner shall submit to, and obtain approval from, the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority for reports describing the following:
a) the intended means of conveying stormwater flow from the site, including
use of stormwater techniques which are appropriate and in accordance with
provincial guidelines; including, the intended means of promoting on-site
infiltration and maintaining discharge into wetland areas;
b) the anticipated impact of the development on water quality, as it relates to
fish and wildlife habitat once adequate protective measures have been
undertaken; and
c) the means whereby erosion and sedimentation and their effects will be
minimized on the site during and after construction, in accordance with
provincial guidelines. The report must outline all actions to be taken to
prevent an increase in the concentration of solids, in any water body as a
result of on-site, or other related works, to comply with the Canada Fisheries
Act.
ii) The owner agrees to erect a 1.8 metre high fence along the common boundary
between Block 17, Block 16 and Lots 1 to 12 inclusive.
iii) Prior to final approval, an edge management plan shall be prepared and submitted
to CLOC for review and approval. The plan shall specifically address the need
for planting/edge rehabilitation within the buffer area abutting Lots 1 to 12
inclusive.
iv) Prior to final approval, the owner shall prepare a Homeowner Environmental
Education Information Package for review and approval by CLOC and the
Municipality ofClarington. These materials should be consistent with the
information requirement outlined in the Gartner Lee Limited EIS addendum dated
June 2000.
v) Block 17 shall be dedicated into public ownership and shall be subject to the
appropriate Environmental Protection zoning.
vi) Within Block 16 all areas identified as being within the Provincially Significant
Wetland Complex as well as those adjacent lands within 15 metres ofthe
Provincially Significant Wetland Complex shall be subject to the appropriate
Environmental Protection zoning.
vii) The owner shall agree within the executed subdivision agreement with the
Municipality to carry out or cause to be carried out the requirements of:
a) The reports required in Conditions i) and iii);
b) Conditions ii), v) and vi); and
c) The owner agrees to distribute the Homeowner's Environmental Education
Information Package to all lot purchasers within the plan.
699005
viii) A copy ofthe fully executed subdivision agreement between the Municipality of
Clarington and the owner should be submitted to Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority.
REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
11. That the Owner shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the Municipality and agree to
abide by all terms and conditions ofthe Municipality's standard subdivision agreement,
including, but not limited to, the requirements that follow.
12. That all easements, road widenings, and reserves as required by the Municipality be granted
to the Municipality free and clear of all encumbrances.
13. The location and design details for all construction access to the proposed development must
be approved by the Director of Public Works.
14. The applicant must enter into a development agreement with the Municipality, which
includes all requirements of the Public Works Department regarding the engineering and
construction of all internal works, and services related to this plan of subdivision.
15. All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the
Municipality ofClarington Design Criteria and Standard Drawings, provisions of the
Municipality Development By-law # 92-015 and all applicable legislation and to the
satisfaction ofthe Director of Public Works.
16. That the Owner shall fulfil the requirements of the Enviromnental Impact Study as prepared
by Garnter Lee and Associates (February 1998) with respect to hydrogeology including the
use ofroofleaders directed toward the downhill edge of buildings and not directed to the
storm sewer system. Multiple downspouts should be used to spread the flow over as wide an
areas possible. In addition, one metre long trench plugs located every 10 metres shall be
placed along all buried services, including services running from the individual homes where
those services exceed 10 metres in length. All trench plugs shall be constructed within the
right-of-way. A hydrogeologist shall review and be satisfied with the proposed design.
17. That the Owner shall fulfil the requirements ofthe Environmental Impact Study as prepared
by Gartner Lee and Associates (February 1998) with respect to the establishment of
foundation weepers and a third pipe system shall be utilized to direct groundwater
downstream. Weeper drains and third pipes shall not be discharged to storm sewers.
18. That all driveways be graded in such a manner that stormwater flows to the sides of the
driveway.
19. That Block 17 and those lands zoned Environmental Protection shall be left in its naturalized
state with the exception of a municipal pedestrian trail.
20. That the Owner shall pay the Municipality, the Development Charge in accordance to the
Development Charge By-law as amended form time to time, as well as payment of a portion
of front end charges pursuant to the Development Charge Act if any are required to be paid
by the owner.
699006
REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Cont.
21. That the Owner shall provide and install sidewalks, street lights, temporary turning circles
etc. as per the Municipality's standards and criteria.
22. That the Owner shall cause all utilities, including hydro, telephone, Cable TV, etc within the
streets of this development to be installed underground for both primary and secondary
servICes.
23. That the Owner shall provide the Municipality, at the time of execution of the subdivision
agreement unconditional and irrevocable, Letters of Credit acceptable to the Municipality's
Treasurer, with respect to Performance Guarantee, Maintenance Guarantee, Occupancy
Deposit and other guarantees or deposits as may be required by the Municipality.
24. That the Owner shall adhere to architectural control requirements of the Municipality.
25. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the Owner shall, through its acoustic engineer,
provide a certification to the Director of Planning, verifying that the Builder's plans are in
accordance with the Noise Control Report as approved by the Ministry ofthe Environment
and the Municipality of Clarington, if required.
26. That prior to the issuance of building permits, access routes to the subdivision must be
provided to meet Subsection 3.2.5.2(6) ofthe Ontario Building Code and, that all watermains
and hydrants are fully serviced and the Owner agrees that during construction, fire access
routes be maintained according to Subsection 2.5.1.2 ofthe Ontario Fire code, storage of
combustible waste be maintained as per Subsection 2.4.1.1 and open burning as per
Subsection 2.6.3.4 of the Ontario Fire Code.
27. The Owner agrees that where the well or private water supply of any person is interfered with
as a result of construction or the development of the subdivision, the Owner shall at his
expense, either connect the affected party to municipal water supply system or provide a new
well or private water system so that the water supplied to the affected party shall be of
quality and quantity at least equal to the quality and quantity of water enjoyed by the affected
party prior to the interference.
28. That the Owner satisfy the Municipality ofClarington Public Works Department, financially
and/or otherwise.
29. That the Owner satisfy the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and/or otherwise.
30. That the builder include a disclosure in all purpose and sale agreements advising home
buyers of municipal parking regulations.
31. That all single detached dwelling units be constructed with two (2) outdoor parking spaces.
32. That the Owner erect 1.8 metre high chainlink fence in conformity with Municipal Standards
along the side and rear yards of all residential lots within this plan of subdivision abutting
Block 16 and Block 17.
699007
REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Cont.
33. The Owner agrees to establish a geodetic benchmark in the vicinity of Trulls Road and
George Reynolds Drive which will serve as vertical control for the Glenview Neighbourhood
if not already established. The Owner will be responsible for 100% ofthe cost establishing
this benchmark.
34. That the applicant provide the Planning Department, on disk in a CAD format acceptable to
the Municipality a copy of the Plan of Subdivision as draft approved and final approved.
6990~8
ATTACHMEINT 6
THE CORPORATION OF TIlE MUNlCIP ALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY.LAWNUMBER2001.
being a By-law to amend By.law 84.63, the Comprehensive Zoning By.
law for the Corporation of the former Town of NewcastJe
WHEREAS the Cmmcil of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to
amend By-law 84.63, as amended, of the Corporation ofthe former Town of Newcastle;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section "13.4 Special Exception Urban Residential (R2) Zone", is hereby further amended by
adding thereto, the following new Special Exception 13.4.31, as follows:
"13.4.31 URBAN RESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R2-31) ZONE
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3.20 a. and 13.2, those lands zoned (R2-31) on the schedules
to this By-law shall also be subject to the following zone regulations:
Yard Requirements (minimwn)
a) Setback of all buildings and structures to Environmental Protection
(EP) zone 1.2 metres"
2. Schedule "4" to By-law 84.63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone
categories from:
"Agricultural CAY' to "Holding - Urban Residential Type One (H) RI"
"Agricultural (AY' to "Holding - Urban R.esidential Type Two Exception (H) R2-15"
"Agricultural (A)" to ''Holding - Urban Residential Type Two Exception (H) R2.31"
"Agricultural (A)" to "Environmental Protection (EP)"
3. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By.law.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of
Section 34 of the Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first time this day of
2001
BY.LAW read a second time this day of
2001
BY.LA W read a third time and finally passed this day of
2001
JOHN MlJITON, MAYOR
PATH L. BARRIE, MUNICIPAL CLERK
This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2001- ,
passed this day of , 2001 A.D.
N 70~"4'10' E
135.201 M
; j1~~j:~{~.~:;j~fij:l:l1i~:.; .
LOT ~. "-.." ',-.".:,........
~ ;:It:~~.;~.:i~;::{irn..::'.' .~.
CONCESSION' ,"""..
~ ':;;:i.;ltDU
~ ~.:?i:~~L~~~:~::'~
z :.:'~i.:.~..:.>;I.
~~~~~.
~. '. /.
!.~ :".:' .:'
1..... ,
..,....
~. 'to' .~
~ EXISTING au< 34 ~
PARK AREA ~
,
~
z
u.
,.,
~ 71~24'40' E 81.610 l"1
,GEORGE! REYNOLDS DRIVE, BLK 35
c::J ZONING TO REMAIN "EP"
~ ZONING CHANGE FROM "A" TO
~ ZONING CHANGE FROM "A" TO
J!~~~ ZONING CHANGE FROM "A" TO
m ZONING CHANGE FROM "A" TO
"EP"
"CH)R1"
"CH)R2-1S"
" CH)R2-31"
John Mutton. Mayor
30
3
~
LOT 30 LOT 29
Patti l. Barrie, Municipal Clerk
COURTICE
,
i
III n
I ,0
I !S z
'] let:: 0
I.. w Vi
'"
~[;l
"u
Oz
"0
U
... l'
.
,r'
-
f