Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-048-00 . L~ THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ,-V';' REPORT Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File#])ILJ- /rzr..-.qS!Jc2r Res. #?Pfj -));)() -0 0 Date: Monday, May 15, 2000 Report #: PD-048-00 File #: 181-95029; DEV 95-020 By-law # Subject: BLACK CREEK DEVELOPMENTS ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING FILE NO.: 18T-95029; DEV 95-020 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-048-00 be received for information. 1. INTRODUCTION On April 10th, 11th and 12th, the Ontario Municipal Board heard arguments with respect to an appeal of plan of subdivision l8T-95029 and rezoning DEV 95-020. The following is a summary ofthe Ontario Municipal Board hearing and decision.. 2. APPLICANT'S CASE 2.1 Mr. Stein, the solicitor representing the applicant (Black Creek Developments), called: Mr. Glen Genge (D. G. Biddle and Associates) to provide professional planning evidence; Ms. Dale Leadbeater (Gartner Lee) to provide professional environmental evidence; and Mr. Ron Huizer to provide additional professional environmental evidence with respect to wetland identification. 2.2 Mr. Genge provided evidence to substantiate that the proposed development applications were in conformity with the Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan and that the applications met the spirit and intent of these documents. His evidence included documentation regarding the extensive public process this application has been through and that in his opinion, the proposed development is an example of good planning. With respect to the extension of George Reynolds Drive, Mr. Genge noted that D. G. Biddle and Associates proposed alternative alignments and that the western 608 - '" ,c \.,.IO~ ~. - .. REPORT PD-048-00 PAGE 2 terminus of George Reynolds Drive is fixed due to previous development approvals and the construction of the road to the applicant's western lot line. 2.3 Ms. Leadbeater's evidence confirmed that a thorough review of the site was undertaken and an EIS was conducted. Ms. Leadbeater stated that the findings of the EIS had regard for the requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and the conclusions of the EIS stands; that the proposed development would not create any adverse environmental impacts and that the mitigation methods proposed are satisfactory. She testified that the proposed development will not negatively impact the provincially significant BlacklFarewell Creek Wetland Complex (PSW), with the exception of the disturbance to the mineral thicket swamp due to the proposed extension of George Reynolds Drive. In Ms. Leadbeater's opinion, there are two wetlands on site being the riverine wetland (Unit 3A) and the mineral thicket Swamp (Unit 3). A minimum setback of 10 metres buffers the riverine wetland from the proposed development. In Ms. Leadbeater's opinion, this separation distance is adequate to protect the wetland. The mineral thicket swamp will be bisected by the extension of George Reynolds, impacting this feature. She stated that the mineral thicket swamp is not significant in itself and there are no significant wildlife or vegetative species dependent upon the swamp. In her opinion, the north portion of the swamp will be able to survive the disruption of extending George Reynolds Drive. 2.4 Mr. Huizer teaches the wetland evaluation course to Ministry of Natural Resources staff. He visited the site with Ms. Leadbeater and helped her identify the on-site wetlands. In his opinion, the site is dominated by upland species. In his testimony, he stated that the development will not have an impact on the riverine wetland, but there will be impact on the thicket swamp. He provided evidence clearly identifying the mineral thicket swamp as a "robust" system meaning that the swamp will adapt to the development and will be able to survive. in his opinion, this development will have no adverse impact on the provincially significant wetland identified to the north of the subject lands. 3. OPPOSITION'S CASE 3.1 Mr. Norm Monaghan and Ms. Linda Gasser were parties to the proceedings. Kerry Meydam was unable to attend, requesting Linda Gasser to act as her agent before the 609 ~ ",i" REPORT PD-048-o0 PAGE 3 Ontario Municipal Board. 3.2 Mr. Monaghan spoke in opposition to the applications before the Board. His main objections to the applications were that MNR had not completed the wetland mapping, and that the proposed development is not compatible with existing neighbourhood development. 3.3 Ms. Gasser, who acting as Ms. Meydam's agent, also spoke in opposition to the proposed development. She stated that the Ministry of Natural Resources should continue the wetland mapping onto the subject lands, and that the applications be re-evaluated after the precise wetland limits have been determined. In her testimony, when asked that approval of the extension to George Reynolds Drive be delayed until such time as the assessment for, and alignment of, Adelaide Avenue has been examined. Ms. Gasser stated that the EIS had not adequately addressed cumulative impact, nor did the EIS or the addendum report provide for the monitoring of impacts in a satisfactory manner. As a condition of subdivision, she asked that the Municipality host an information session for new homeowners to make them aware of the environmental features of the site and the provincially significant wetlands (PSW). She also requested the Municipality to conduct site visits. Lastly, she asked that if the Board approves the applications, that the zoning by-law be approved with the Holding zone intact. This is contrary to the applicant's position to have the zoning by-law approved without the Holding zone. 4. REGION'S CASE 4.1 The Region of Durham was a party to the hearing but did not present any evidence at the hearing, save and except for a list of consolidated conditions of draft approval. At the instruction of Regional Planning Committee, Regional staff met with the objectors prior to the hearing to clarifY their position. As a result of this meeting, changes were made to conditions l2B and l8aa as shown below (changes shown in italics): 12 b An Environmental Construction Management Plan be prepared taking into account all recommendations of the Environmental Impact Study prepared by Gartner Lee and Associates (1998) including monitoring and mitigation measures as required. 610 ~ . ...... REPORT PD-048-00 PAGE 4 18 aa. That guidelines be prepared to establish a homeowner education program to encourage stewardship of the open space lands and to educate landowners about the unique sensitivities associated with the open space lands. Included in the guidelines shall be policies regarding disposal of garden refuse, and disposal of swimming pool water. In addition, residents should be made conscious of the significance of the wetland and its jUnctions. as well as the impact users have on the valleylands. The guidelines shall be provided to all homeowners in their purchase and sale agreement. The Owner shall erect a sign on the north edge of the property to advise residents that the adjacent wetlands are part of the provincially significant Black-Farewell Wetland Complex. 5. RESIDENT'S AND OTHER COMMENTS 5.1 The Board permitted any person who wanted, to speak. Bill Manson spoke in support of the applications and requested the Board to include a condition requiring the applicant to financially compensate his client for work previously done in the watershed (Black Creek Master Drainage Plan). Six residents participating in the hearing, speaking in opposition to the development applications (Attachment No. 1 lists the residents who spoke at the hearing). The residents concerns are summarized as follows: . the impact this development would have on the environment; . an incomplete EIS; . the proposed extension of Jane and Fourth Streets would have a tremendous impact on the neighbourhood; . increased traffic volumes generated by the development . loss of privacy; and . the potential impact of development on local wells. 6. BOARD'S DECISION 6.1 On April14'h , the Board issued a verbal decision, to be followed by a memorandurn to the Oral Decision and the Order. The Board found that the development was compatible with the Durham Region Official Plan and the Clarington Official Plan. It was noted that the application is proposing the downzoning of the subject lands, that the development will be compatible with the surrounding area, and that a substantial amount of land will be dedicated to the Municipality for the protection of natural features. The Board is satisfied with the EIS and found that the proposed development will not significantly 611 . ..r REPORT PD-048-00 PAGE 5 , I I impact the environment. The Board stated that there is no PSW identified on the site and that additional mapping will not be reqted of the Ministry of Natural Resources prior to making its decision. i , 6.2 The Board ruled that the Region of Durham ~1l be responsible for the clearing of the I conditions of subdivision approval. It was sta~ed in the Board's decision that there are 19 very stringent conditions of approval and that ~ Holding zone is unnecessary. The Board. ! approved both the Plan of Subdivision (1811-95029), for 114 units, and the rezoning application (DEV 95-020). 7. CONCLUSION 7.1 It is recommended that this report be received for information. , I 7.2 On February 28, 2000, the General Purpose jrnd Administration Committee passed the following resolution (#GP A 86-00): "THAT the delegation of Kerry Mey~am be referred to staff to make a formal request to the Ministry of Natural Rpsources to extend the wetland mapping forthwith and prior to the OMB hearin~ for Birchdale Development scheduled for April 10, 2000." ' Council subsequently tabled the above resoluti!Jn until after the hearing (#C-142-00). It i would be appropriate for Council to lift this r9solution from the table and deal with it as Council desires. I Respectfully submitted, R+viewed by, v~~~ nklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P., . ef Administrative Officer HB*BN*DJC*cc May 5, 2000 Attachment No.1 Participants in Ontario ~uniciPal Board Hearing ! 612 . . - . Jessica Markland 2377 Highway 2 Apt. 444 Bowmanville, Ontario LlC 5E2 Libby Racansky 3200 Hancock Road Courtice, Ontario LIE 2Ml Richard Howes 22 Jane Avenue Courtice, Ontario LIE 2H9 Ray Shepard 32 Jane Avenue Courtice, Ontario LI E 2H9 Peter Brampton 21 Jane Avenue Courtice, Ontario LIE 2H9 Edward Zavitsky 37 Lynwood Avenue Courtice, Ontario LI E 2H9 Participants in Ontario MuniCIpal Board Hearing i l8T-95029 and DEt 95-020 William Manson c/o Claret Investments Limited & 1351739 Ontario Limited 20 Clematis Road Toronto, Ontario M2J 4X2 613 Attachment No.1