Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2016Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: June 6, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario i Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Michelle Chambers, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at mchambers(&-)clarington.net. Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Audio Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio record of Planning and Development Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a Planning and Development Committee meeting, the Municipality will be audio recording you and will make the recording public by publishing the recording on the Municipality's website. Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non -audible mode during the meeting. Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net Claringt011 Planning and Development Committee Agenda 1 Call to Order 2 New Business — Introduction 3 Adopt the Agenda 4 Declarations of Interest 5 Announcements 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 6.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of May 16, 2016 7 Public Meetings Date: June 6, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers M 7.1 Application for a Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning 7-1 By-law Amendment Applicant: Modo Bowmanville Towns Ltd., Fifty Five Clarington Ltd., and Devon Daniell (Kaitlin Corporation) Report: PSD -042-16 8 Delegations 8.1 Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington, Regarding Report PSD -043-16, Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) — Comments 9 Communications - Receive for Information There are no Communications to be received for information. 10 Communications — Direction 10.1 Christopher Harris, Town Clerk, Town of Whitby— Planning and 10-1 Development Department Report, PL 45-16 Request for Region of Durham to Amend the Regional Official Plan Regarding Places of Worship (Motion to Endorse) Page 1 ClariVOR Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: June 6, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 10.2 Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington — 10-13 Regarding Report PSD -043-16, Durham Region Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) — Comments (Motion to refer Correspondence Item 10.2 from Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington to Report PSD -043-16, Durham Region Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) - Comments) 11 Presentations No Presentations 12 Planning Services Department Reports 12.1 PSD -042-16 Applications by Kaitlin Corporation for a Draft Plan of 12-1 Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit Medium Density (Townhouse) Development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre, Bowmanville 12.2 PSD -043-16 Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 &9A.2.10 12-13 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) - Comments 12.3 PSD -044-16 Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in 12-45 Courtice 12.4 PSD -045-16 Applications by Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc. to Amend 12-51 Phase 2 of a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision for 24 Residential Units and a Future Development Block for Medium Density in the Apple Blossom Neighbourhood, Bowmanville Page 2 ClariUOOH Planning and Development Committee Agenda p g Date: June 6, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 12.5 PSD -046-16 Application by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. to 12-78 Develop Between 237 to 301 Unit Residential Plan of Subdivision in the Brookhill Neighbourhood of Bowmanville [Attachment #3 to Report PSD -046-16 to be distributed under separate cover] 13 New Business — Consideration 14 Unfinished Business None 15 Confidential Reports No Reports 16 Adjournment Page 3 Clarjasqon Planning and Development Committee Minutes. May 16, 2016 Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on Monday, May 16, 2016 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. Present Were: Mayor A. Foster, Councillor S. Cooke, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor W. Partner, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor W. Woo Staff Present: D. Crome, J. Gallagher, C. Fleming, L. Benson, C. Pellarin, C. Salazar 1 Call to Order Councillor Woo called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. 2 New Business — Introduction There was no New Business introduced under this Section of the Agenda. 3 Adopt the Agenda Resolution #PD -074-16 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Cooke That the Agenda for the Planning and Development Committee meeting of May 16, 2016 be adopted. Carried 4 Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest Councillor Hooper declared an interest in Report PSD -037-16 regarding an Application by Veltri and Son Limited to Permit the Creation of One Single Detached Dwelling lot on Borland Court, Bowmanville. 5 Announcements Members of Committee announced upcoming community events and matters of community interest. -1- 6-1 Planning and Development Committee ClaringtonMinutes May 16, 2016 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting Resolution #PD -075-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning and Development Committee, held on April 25, 2016, be approved. Carried 7 Public Meetings 7.1 Application for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment Applicant: 988925 Ontario Ltd. (Otto Provenzano) Report: PSD -035-16 Paul Wirch, Planner II, made a verbal and electronic presentation to the Committee regarding the application. Arlene Greenfield spoke in opposition to the application. She questioned the age of the aerial photo and felt it might be an outdated map as many of the trees in the photo have been destroyed or damaged by recent ice storms.. Ms. Greenfield is concerned with the height of the buildings as they will appear to residents of Parkwood Village, located on the other side of the ravine, as six -storey buildings and will compromise the sunlight getting to the trees. She is also concerned with the design of the building to include rental apartments with balconies due to the associated noise. Ms. Greenfield expressed concern with the potential of the development to devalue the condominiums in Parkwood Village, stating many of.the residents paid a premium for their homes overlooking the ravine to enjoy the serenity of the surroundings and the natural environment. She is also concerned with the integrity of the soil in the ravine being compromised and questioned whether an environmental study has been conducted. Ms. Greenfield stated that the retail establishments will create more traffic with deliveries, noise from large transport trucks and increased pollution. She is also concerned with the safety of vehicles trying to turn left from the development onto Highway #2, due to the configuration of the road. Ms. Greenfield stated that Courtice is in need of more affordable senior housing and feels there are better locations in Courtice for this type of development. Cindy Bosy spoke in support of the application. Ms. Bosy stated she has resided next to the proposed development for the past 28 years and feels the applicant has done their due diligence including any environmental studies. Ms. Bosy stated the development is also quite a distance from the area the previous speaker was referring to and that the development would have the most impact on her family. Ms. Bosy acknowledged development is the future of the area, the location is appropriate, and she is in favour of it. -2- 6-2 Planning and Development Committee Cla rbgt o a Minutes May 16, 2016 Valerie Cranmer, Valerie Cranmer & Associates, Consultant for the applicant, advised she has reviewed Report PSD -035-16 and will be working with staff and the architect to finalize the site plan and building design. She noted that once completed, she will submit the site plan application and address the comments received. Ms. Cranmer stated that all studies undertaken are available for public viewing, including an environmental study that determines the required distance the buildings must be from the ravine. Ms. Cranmer confirmed an additional report will be done once the final site plan is complete. 8 Delegations 8.1 Dan Kahraman, Regarding Report PSD -038-16, Regarding Municipally - Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Properties Fronting on Tooley Road in Courtice Dan Kahraman addressed the Committee concerning Report PSD -038-16, a Municipally - initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for properties fronting on Tooley Road, expressing concern with the amendment to the by-law to revise the frontage on Tooley Road for a single detached dwelling from 15 metres to 17 metres. He advised that he has resided at 3270 Tooley Road since 1995, enjoys the area and his neighbours, and the location allows him to access all the services he requires. Mr. Kahraman indicated that he is nearing retirement age and was relying on the creation and sale of a single building lot to allow him the financial means to remain in his home. He acknowledged that his property has a little over 34 metres on Tooley Road, where he could create two building lots, but to do so would require demolition of his home and cause him to move out of the area. Mr. Kahraman requested that the Committee not to approve the by-law attached to Report PSD -038-16 as it will cause him financial harm and force him out of the community. He indicated a 15 metre frontage will still be compatible with existing development on Tooley Road and narrower lots will comply with Provincial requirements for intensification in the urban area. 8.2 Clifford Curtis, Regarding Report PSD -038-16, Regarding Municipally - Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Properties Fronting on Tooley Road in Courtice Mr. Curtis addressed the Committee concerning Report PSD -038-16, a Municipally - initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for properties fronting on Tooley Road. Mr. Curtis indicated he resides at 3280 Tooley and owns a land -locked parcel of land at the rear of 3270 and 3280 Tooley Road. He stated that he was before Committee to support Dan Kahraman in his desire to create a 15 metre -wide lot on the south side of his existing house and also to express a few concerns with the proposed zoning by-law on Tooley Road. Mr. Curtis stated that the property at 3270 Tooley Road does not have 17 metres of frontage so it will become a legal non -conforming use after the new by-law comes into effect, noting his wife is concerned with the stigma that may be attached to the dwelling when she decides to sell it. -3- 6-3 PlClaringtonanning and Development Committee Minutes May 16, 2016 Mr. Curtis also expressed concern with the Municipality being more restrictive in minimum lot sizes and the use of the environmental protection zone. Mr. Curtis stated there needs to be a mix of accommodation in the area and he enjoys the diversity of residents on Tooley Road. Mr. Curtis also expressed concern, on behalf of a few his neighbours who were interested in obtaining severances on their lots, for the Municipal requirement to free dedication of lands considered to be environmentally -protected. Mr. Curtis stated that the proposed by-law is greatly expanding the environmental protection area and this will impact development opportunities particularly on the east side of Tooley Road. Mr. Curtis requested to be advised of when the by-law is approved and to be provided with a copy. 8.3 Eleanor VonGunten, Regarding Report PSD -038-16, Regarding Municipally - Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for.Properties Fronting on Tooley Road in Courtice Eleanor VonGunten addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -038-16, a Municipally -initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for properties fronting on Tooley Road. Ms. VonGunten advised that she is a long-time resident of 3253 Tooley Road. She stated that the majority of residents of Tooley Road are in support of the first half of the proposal to keep any future development on infill lots to conform with existing homes, as smaller lots will look out of place. Ms. VonGunten requested the definition of the word "near" as referenced in the staff report and relating to the lands in proximity to "...the future intersection of Tooley Road and Adelaide Avenue, which would permit, in addition to single detached dwellings, linked townhouses ...". She stated "near" means nothing legally and leaves the proposal open to whatever someone wanted to build. Ms. VonGunten thanked those involved in trying to resolve the issues on Tooley Road. 9 Communications - Receive for Information There were no Communications to be received for information. 10 Communications — Direction 10.1 Tara Stephens, Acting City Clerk, City of Welland— Registration, Licensing and Setting of Provincial Standards for Private Supportive Living Accommodations Resolution #PD -076-16 Moved by Mayor Foster seconded by Councillor Neal That the resolution from the City of Welland, with respect to legislation concerning Private Supportive Living Accommodations, be received for information. Carried 6-4 11 Presentations No Presentations. Planning and Development Committee Minutes May 16, 2016 12 Planning Services Department Reports 12.1 PSD -035-16 An Application by 988925 Ontario Inc. to Permit Two, Five -Storey Mixed Use Buildings in Courtice Town Centre Resolution #PD -077-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Cooke That Report PSD -035-16 be received; That the applications to amend Zoning By-law 84-63, submitted by 988925 Ontario Inc. to permit two, five -storey, mixed-use buildings, continue to be processed and that a subsequent report be prepared; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -035-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 12.2 PSD -036-16 Draft Zoning By-law for the Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan Area — East of Farewell Creek Resolution #PD -078-16 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Cooke That Report PSD -036-16 be received for information. Carried -5- 6-5 Planning and Development Committee ClaringtonMinutes May 16, 2016 12.3 PSD-037-16 An Application by Veltri and Son Limited to Permit the Creation of One Single Detached Dwelling lot on Borland Court, Bowmanville Councillor Hooper declared a pecuniary interest in Report PSD -037-16, An Application by Veltri and Son Limited to Permit the Creation of One Single Detached Dwelling lot on Borland Court, Bowmanville, as a member of his family lives directly across from the subject property. Councillor Hooper left the room and refrained from discussion and voting on this matter. Resolution #PD -079-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal That Report PSD -037-16 be received; That the Zoning By-law amendment application submitted by Veltri and Son Limited be approved as contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD -037-16; That a by-law to remove the (H) Holding Symbol be forwarded to Council once all the requirements of the Clarington Official Plan are satisfied including a clearance letter from the Region of Durham regarding site contamination; That the Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD -037-16 and Council's decision; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -037-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried Councillor Hooper returned to meeting. 12.4 PSD -038-16 Municipally -Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Properties Fronting on Tooley Road in Courtice Resolution #PD -080-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal That Report PSD -038-16 be received; That the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved as contained in Attachment 1 of Report PSD -038-16 with the exception that the southerly 14.8 metres of the lot at 3270 Tooley Road be zoned with a special exception permitting a minimum interior lot frontage of 14.5 metres but containing all other provisions of the R1-95 zone. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department be forwarded a copy of Report PSD -038-16 and Council's decision; and M . ., Planning and Development Committee Cla-ringtoll Minutes May 16, 2016 That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-038-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. (See following motions) Councillor Neal subsequently withdrew his seconding of Resolution #PD-080-16. Resolution #PD-081-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Cooke That Report PSD-038-16 be received; That the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved as contained in Attachment 1 of Report PSD -038-16 with the exception that the southerly 14.8 metres of the lot'at 3270 Tooley Road,be zoned with a special exception permitting a minimum interior lot frontage of 14.5 metres but containing all other provisions of the R1-95 zone. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department be forwarded a copy of Report PSD -038-16 and Council's decision; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -038-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried Later in the meeting (See following motion) Resolution #PD -082-16 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill That Report PSD -038-16 be referred back to staff to advise all residents of the ability to request an exception to the proposed Zoning By-law. Motion Lost The foregoing Resolution #PD -081-16 was then put to a vote and carried. 12.5 PSD -039-16 Upcoming Release of Draft Official Plan Amendment for the Comprehensive Official Plan Review Resolution #PD -082-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper That Planning Services Report PSD -039-16 be received for information. Carried -7- 6-7 PClaringtonlanning and Development Committee Minutes May 16, 2016 12.6 PSD -040-16 Co-ordinated Provincial Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan Summary of Proposed Changes Resolution #PD -083-16 -- Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Mayor Foster That Report PSD -040-16 be received for information. Carried 13 New Business — Consideration There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. 14 Unfinished Business There were no items considered under this section of the Agenda. 15 Confidential Reports There were no Confidential Reports scheduled under this Section of the Agenda. 16 Adjournment Resolution #PD -084-16 Moved by Councillor Partner, seconded by Councillor Traill That the meeting adjourn at 8:30 PM. Carried Chair Deputy Clerk PUBLIC MEETING PSD -042-16 MUNICPALITY OF CLARINGTON lea zyz;taaeFUay Mctr* of jpubHc Onfarmatnn Centra HoUce of FlubHc MaeUng If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 005-623-3379 extension 2102. j he Municipality of Clarington has received complete applications for a proposed Draft ?la; of Subdivision and an amendment to Zoning By-law 84-53. Council is seeking public comments on these applications before making a decision. AppHcant: Modo Bowmanville Towns Ltd., Fifty Five Qlarington Ltd. and Devon Daniel[ (Kaitlin *Corporation) ProposM: To allow the creation of 3 blocks (4.7 ha) for mediurn density (townhouse) development having a maximum density of up to 60'units per hectare (up to 284 units.). The plan also includes a block for future high-density development and the extension of Clarington Boulevard Property: 1535 and 1569 Green Road, located on the east side of Green Road, south of 'Prince William Drive, Bowmanvill- He Number: S-0-2016-0001 and ZBA 2016-0010 Pubilic Information Centre -he Applicant will be hosting a Public Information Centre on: DATE: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 T11ME: 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. PLACE: Holy Farnfly Epementary School, Gymnasium 125 Aspen Springs Drive, Bowmanvifle, Ontario- Statutory Public Meeting Council will receive input on the applications on: DATE: Monday, June 6, 2016 TWE: 7 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers, MunicipaAdministrative Centre,. 40 Temperance Street, BowmanviHe, Ontario 0: LL Z < Z. ry� Existing ommercial Us 0 x r' Z; —PPiKirr- XA11 0 LEVARD 't. :Existin_0'GO ' Site Proposed C . Virvelop meat of Subdivision and Limit of Dr Plan UP. 0.1138 units) -9 Rezoning L Site'' EXTEN IS ON _F CLARINGTOh BLVD ,a "�� UiT 7S �Urg Higk Density . . ... De761opmeFit i 7E flEgpos6d, Apprq)�eL,�pa�rnenti z r T> Under.Constructic�n_ �=Tqtn house Town -Development (up to 145 unit ti 3 FkArtRE� Ul, A'M .., � A, 01'6M 10 0, Any person that cannot attend the PuNic Meeting may write to the Pianning Services Department through the pm annex contact listed [mellow: If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written submission to the Municipality of Clarington before the proposed applications are approved,.the person or public body: i) is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Region of Durham to the Ontario Municipal Board; and ii) may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so Addiitionai information and PlIanner (contact: Additional information relating to the application is available at the Planning Services Department, or by calling Anne 7ayGor Scott (905) 623-3379, extension 241114 or by e-maill at atay1orscott(aD_cVarington.net The personal information accompanying your submission is being collected under the authority of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.7P.13, as amended, and can form part of the public record which may be . released to the public. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Clerk's Department at 905-623-3379, extension 2102. Dated at the Municipality of Clarington this 10th day of May 2016. •I David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP 40 Temperance Street Director of Planning Services Bowmanville, Ontario Municipality of Clarington Ll C 3A6 N r f o� OF TxEr . Town of Whitby heti,• Office of the Town Clerk 575 Rossland Road East, Whitby, ON L1 N 2M8 www.whitby.ca May 12, 2016 Debi Wilcox, Regional Clerk Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road E. Whitby ON L1 N 6A3 Re: Planning and Development Department Report, PL 45-16 Request for Durham Region to Amend the Regional Official Plan Regarding Places of Worship Please be advised that ata meeting held on May .9, 2016, the Council of the Town of Whitby adopted the following recommendation: 1. That Planning Report PL 45-16 be received for information; 2. ' That Council request, for reasons outlined in Report PL 45-16, that the Region of Durhaminitiate a Regional Official Plan Amendment to delete the reference to "places of worship" in Regional Official Plan Policy 8C.2.2, as outlined on Attachment #1; 3. That the Region of Durham be requested to initiate the proposed amendment separately from, and in advance of, a municipal comprehensive review of the Durham Regional Official Plan; and, 4. That the Clerk forward a copy of Council's resolution and this report to the Whitby Efhno-Cultural & Diversity Committee, the Region of Durham and all local area municipalities within the Region of Durham.4" ;. _.s•ti�, •";:w.,ta-_,. Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 905-430-4302. - :- -- u ' T Christopher Harris Town Clerk /ck Copy: Ethno-Cultural & Diversity Committee, c/o Sarah Klein, iUanagerof Recreation M. de Rond, Director, Legislative Services/Clerk; Townof Ajax T. Gettinby, Chief Administrative Officer/Clerk, Township of Brock A. Greentree, Municipal -Clerk, Municipality of Claringtofi--'••--•... _ _.._.._... _.__..........__ _.__ . S. Kranc, City Clerk, City of Oshawa D. Shields, City Clerk, -City of Pickering 10-1 N. Wellsbury, Municipal Clerk, Township of Scugog D. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge R. Short, Commissioner of Planning /attach. D1ST1�,1�UT1®11 REVIEWED BY ,4 1 original To: • File • Council Direction • GG Direction ❑ PD Direction ❑ Councltlnformation • GG Information ❑ PD Information Copy To: • Mayor • Members of • Ward Councillors ❑ Other: Municipal Clerk's File 1Q-2 Page.,.2 of 2 0 Council • CAO ❑ Clerks • Communications •Community •Corpprate •EmeraeRcy. Services Services Services • Engineering •Finance • legal Services Services •Operations � Planning Services ❑ Other: Municipal Clerk's File 1Q-2 Page.,.2 of 2 0 Town of Whitby Report _......:.. .... ..... ........... ... . _ ... ........... Report to: Planning and Development Committee Meeting Date of meeting: April 25, 2016 Department: Planning and Development Department Report Number: PL 45-16 File Number(s): Not applicable. Report Title: Request for Durham Region to Amend the Regional Official Plan Regarding Places of Worship 1. Recommendation: 1. That Planning Report PL 45-16 be received for information; 2. That Council request, for reasons outlined. in Report PL 45-16, that the Region of Durham initiate a Regional Official Plan Amendment to delete the reference to "places of worship" in Regional Official Plan Policy 8C.2.2, as outlined on Attachment#1; 3. That the Region of Durham be requested to initiate the proposed amendment separately from, and in advance .of, a municipal comprehensive review of the Durham Regional Official Plan; and 4. That the Clerk forward a copy of Council's resolution and this report to the Whitby Ethno-Cultural & Diversity Committee, the Region of Durham and all.local area municipalities within the Region of Durham. 2. Executive Summary: The Town of Whitby Planning and Development Department has been experiencing an increase in inquiries -related to sites for the development of places of worship. Over the past ten (10) years, Durham Regional Official Plan policies have become increasingly restrictive on where places of worship can be located within the Region. Planning Staff are requesting that the Region of Durham initiate a Regional Official PlanAmendment, as outlined on Attachment #1 to this report, in advance of the Report to: Planning and Development Committee. Meeting Report number: PL 45-16 Page 1 of 8 10-3 next comprehensive review of the Durham Regional' Official Plan to remove places of worship from the list of prohibited uses in Policy 8C.2.2 in order to allow for them to be considered in Employment Areas, where appropriate, by a local municipal official plan or zoning by-law amendment, This would allow places of worship to be considered in the same ways as certain other institutional uses including daycare.facilities and hospitals which are not explicitly prohibited in Policy 8C.2.2.The proposed amendment is consistent with the approach of other upper -tier municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area. 3. Origin: The report originates from the Planning and Development Department regarding places of worship within industrial areas. 4. Background: Several incremental policy changes at the Regional Official Plan level since 2006 have had the effect of progressively restricting locations where places of worship can be considered within the Region of Durham. . Prior to 2006, cultural facilities, including -places of worship, we're encouraged to locate within urban areas and were permitted in any land use designation with the exception of agricultural lands. Policy 5.2.1 in the Durham Regional Official Plan, 2001 read as follows: "5.2.1 Cultural facilities for such purposes as education as recognized by the Ministry of Education, the arts, heritage and religion, health facilities for such purposes as hospitals, and community facilities for such purposes as daycare centres are encouraged to locate within urban areas and shall be permitted in any designation except for the Permanent Agricultural Reserve and the General Agricultural Area. These uses shall be directed to locations that are visible and accessible to the Region, preferably in close proximity to existing and future transit routes." Regional Official Plan Amendment 114, 2006 In 2006, ROPA 114 amended policy 5.2.1 to restrict the location of these facilities to the urban area and, if appropriate in scale, in hamlets: "5.2.1 Cultural facilities for such purposes as education as recognized by'the Ministry of Education, the arts, heritage and, religion, shall be permitted in Urban Areas, and if appropriate in scale, in Hamlets. Within the Oak Ridges Moraine, such uses may only be permitted in Settlement Areas and Hamlets, subject to the provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Health facilities for such purposes as hospitals shall only be permitted in Urban Areas. Cultural and health facilities shall be directed to locations that are visible and accessible -to the Region, preferably in close proximity to existing and future transit routes." Report to: Planning and Development Committee Meeting Report number: PL 45-16 10-4 Page 2 of 8 Regional Official Plan Amendment 128 Growing Durham, 2010 In 2010, policy changes through ROPA 128, included places of worship in the definition of sensitive uses: "Sensitive Uses: means such uses as residences, nursing and retirement homes, elementary & secondary schools, day care facilities, provincial hospitals, places of worship and other similar institutional uses, and recreational uses which are deemed by an area municipality to be sensitive." In addition, ROPA 128 further restricted the location of certain cultural and health facilities, including places of worship, by prohibiting them in Employment Areas. "5.2.1 Cultural facilities for such purposes as education as recognized by the Ministry of Education, the arts, heritage and religion, shall be permitted in Urban Areas, and if appropriate in scale, in Hamlets. Within the Oak Ridges Moraine, such uses may only be permitted in Settlement Areas and Hamlets, subject to the provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. 'Health facilities for such purposes as hospitals shall only be permitted in Urban Areas. Cultural and health facilities shall be directed to locations that are visible and accessible to the Region, preferably in close proximity to existing and future transit routes. Cultural and health facilities that are deemed to be sensitive uses shall generally be discouraged from locating in.the Employment Areas designation, subject to Policy 8C.2.2. " In.2009, Regional Council adopted policy 8C.2.2 as follows: "8C.2.2 Residential- uses shall not be permitted in Employment Areas. Other.sensitive uses may be permitted as an exception, subject to applicable policies in area municipal official plans." At that time, the City of Oshawa commented in Report DS -09-2'00 that the use of the term "as an exception" implied that a rezoning, at a minimum, would be required at the area municipal level and indicated that even this "may be too onerous for some uses which are included in the definition of sensitive uses, such as places of worship". Modifications by the Province removed the exception clause and added a number of uses, including places of worship, as uses not permitted in Employment Areas. Policy 8C.2.2 currently reads as follows: "8C.2.2 Residential uses, nursing and retirement homes, elementary and secondary schools, and places of worship shall not be permitted in Employment Areas. Other sensitive uses may be permitted as an exception, by amendment to an area municipal official plan or zoning by-law subject to compatibility. Report to: Planning and Development Committee Meeting Report number: PL 45-16 Page 3 of 8 10-5 5. Discussion/Options: Policy Framework Provincial Policy Statement Section 1.3.1 of the PPS related to Employment directs that planning authorities promote economic development and competitiveness by providing for an' appropriate mix and range of employment and institutional uses to meet long term needs. In addition, that planning authorities provide opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range and choice of suitable ,sites for employment uses which support a wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses, and take into account the needs of existing and future businesses. The 2014 PPS defines Employment Areas as "those areas designated in an official plan for clusters of business and economic activities, including but not limited to, manufacturing, warehousing, offices, and associated retail and ancillary facilities:" The 2014 PPS does not provide specific direction on institutional uses, including places of worship, in employment areas. Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Province's Growth Plan directs where and how growth should occur and promotes the creation of compact; vibrant, and complete communities that are transit supportive,. pedestrian friendly, and reduce dependence on the automobile. The Growth Plan.cails for intensification of the existing built up area, with a focus on centres, nodes and corridors, as well as major transit areas, brownfield sites, and greyfields (Places to Grow, Section 2.1) Section 2.2.6 of the Growth Plan pertaining to Employment Lands directs municipalities to promote economic development and competitiveness by providing for an appropriate mix of employment uses including industrial, commercial, and institutional uses to meet long-term needs, as well as to provide opportunities for a diversified economic base, including maintaining a range and choice of suitable sites for employment.uses which support a wide range of . economic activities and.ancillary uses, and take into account the needs of existing and future businesses. The Growth Plan does not provide specific direction on institutional uses, including places of worship, in employment areas. Greenbelt Plan The -Greenbelt Plan identifies where urbanization should not occur in order to protect agricultural lands and natural heritage and hydrologic features and functions as well as provides support for culture, recreation and tourism associated with rural communities. Report to: Planning and Development Committee Meeting Report number.: -PL 45-16 1 ., Page 4 of 8 With the exception of hamlets and existing uses, institutional uses, including places of worship, are not permitted in the Greenbelt Protected Countryside Area. Durham Regional Official Plan One of the goals of the Durham Regional Official Plan is "to provide opportunities for a variety of cultural, health and community services". In accordance with Section 5 of the Durham Regional Official Plan, cultural and community facilities, including -places of worship, are permitted within the Urban Area and Hamlets, where appropriate in scale, and shall be directed to locations . that are visible and accessible to residents of the Region, preferably in close proximity to existing and future transit routes. Cultural and health Jacilities that are deemed to be sensitive uses shall only be permitted to locate in'the Employment Areas designation in accordance with Policy 8C.2.2.. r However, Policy 8C.2.2 of the Durham Regional Official Plan states: 'Residential uses, nursing and retirement homes, elementary and secondary schools, and places of worship shall not be permitted in Employment Areas. Other sensitive uses may be permitted'as an exception, by amendment to an area municipal official plan or zoning by-law subject to compatibility." Sub -Section 15A of the Regional Official Plan defines Sensitive Uses as "such uses as residences, nursing and retirement homes, elementary and secondary schools, day care facilities, provincial hospitals, places of worship and other similar institutional Uses, and recreational uses which are deemed by an area municipality to be sensitive." Lower -tier municipal Official Plans must be in conformity with the Regional Official Plan. Town of Whitby Official Plan Consistent with the Region's Official Plan, places of worship are only permitted in areas designated .Residential, Commercial, or Institutional in the Town of Whitby Official Plan. Within the current policy context, applicants wishing to locate a place of worship on lands designated "Prestige Industrial" in Whitby would require a Regional Official Pian Amendment and Whitby Official Plan Amendment in order to be considered. If successful in those applications, proponents would also require a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval. Planning and Development Department Comments The Town's Planning and Development Department has been experiencing an increase in inquiries from religious groups seeking locations. for the development of places of worship in the Town of Whitby. Some of the considerations around Places of Worship being observed by Town Planning Staff include: Report to: Planning and Development Committee Meeting Report number: PL 45-16 Page of 8 10-7 Changing resident demographics and needs; an increasing demand for suitable lands for places of worship; Increasing policy restrictions in recent years, as outlined in Section 4 of this report, limiting the locations where places of worship can be considered and developed; • Limited availability and affordability of lands designated commercial, residential and institutional for these uses; • Greater availability and affordability of lands in Employment Areas; and • Compatibility issues for locating larger places of worship that serve a regional community within the established community. Places of worship at this scale pose challenges from a neighbourhood perspective 'in regard to parking. From a policy context, the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe do not appear to provide specific direction on institutional uses, including places of.worship, in Employment Areas. However, the Advisory Panel for the Coordinated Provincial Plan Review released a number of. recommendations in late 2015 upon which forthcoming recommended changes to the four provincial land use plans will be based. Recommendation #3 addresses planning for institutional uses: "Recognizing that the PPS and the four plans encourage planning for institutional uses as part of complete communities, continue to work with municipalities to ensure that property tax treatment, .capital funding formulae and other regulatory requirements are -not creating unintended barriers to the viability of institutional uses in intensifying communities". Town Planning Staff have conducted a preliminary analysis of the policies of other selected upper and lower -tier municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area as they relate to Places of Worship. While Regional and local level policies can be more restrictive than provincial policy, it would appear that -the Region of Durham is the only regional municipality within the Greater Toronto Area that specifically prohibits places of worship from being considered in Employment Areas. Further; Official Plans for York Region and Peel Region provide more flexibility in that they do not delineate Employment Areas at the regional official plan level to the same extent and leave designation of employment areas largely to lower -tier municipal official plans. Similar to the, Region of Durham, Halton Region delineates Employment Lands in their Official Plan, and prohibits residential and other non -employment uses including major retail uses in Employment Areas, however, -provides an exception for institutional uses. identified in a Local Official Plan where a detailed study has been conducted that sets limits and criteria for such uses based on principles contained in the Regional Official Plan (i.e. lower -tier to consider whether to allow them). With respect to lower -flier municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area, in Peel Region, the City of Mississauga Official Plan permits "Community Infrastructure", which includes places of worship, in all designations except for Greenlands and Parkway Belt West. Policy 7.3.2 of their Official Plan indicates the preferred Report to: Planning and Development Committee Meeting Report number: PL 45-16 HIM, Page 6 of 6 location of community infrastructure is within the Downtown, Major Nodes, Community Nodes, and Corridors. Where appropriate, community infrastructure may also be located with in'Neighbourhoods and Corporate Centres. The policy goes on further to state "community infrastructure will generally not be located within Employment Areas. Where permitted within Employment Areas, these uses will be located along the periphery of Employment Areas" i.e. allows them in certain areas and directs them to certain areas. The Town of Wh itch u rch-Stouffville in York Region has recently undertaken a comprehensive study on Places of Worship with an emphasis on Employment Areas. Community of Stouffville Places, of Worship .Study: Future Directions Report (January 2016), prepared by Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., recommends that the Town require an official plan amendment for proposals for places of worship in their "Industrial Area" designation, and that the Town continue to permit places of worship in their "Business Park Area" designation, subject to criteria and a zoning by-law amendment i.e. enables consideration through zoning by-law amendment. Planning Staff recommend that Town Council request, the Region of Durham initiate a Regional Official Plan amendment, consistent with the approach of other upper -tier municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area, to remove"places of worship" from the listed uses not permitted in Employment Areas in Policy 8C.2.2, and that this be done in advance of the next comprehensive review to the Regional Official Plan. This would enable consideration of places of worship in Employment Areas through an amendment to the Town's Official Plan or Zoning By-law, where appropriate, similar to other institutional uses including daycare_ facilities and hospitals, which are not explicitly prohibited in Policy 8C.2.2. Attachment #1 is a -draft proposed amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan which would address this request. 6. Public Communications/Plan: Public.consultation would take place in accordance with the Planning Act through the Regional Official Plan Amendment process. 7. Considerations: 7.1. Public The proposed amendment to the Regional Official Plan would provide greater opportunities for the location of places of worship in the community by '. allowing the Town to consider applications for places of worship for lands designated Prestige Industrial in the Town of Whitby Official Plan, as well as address the needs of religious groups and land use compatibility issues. 7.2. Financial Not applicable. 7.3. Impact on and input from other Departments/Sources Not applicable. Report to: Planning and Development Committee Meeting Report number: PL 45-16 Page 7 of 8 . t� ' 7.4. Corporate andlor Department Strategic Priorities Places of Worship are important community infrastructure. The proposed amendment to the Regional Official Plan would support Whitby Council Goal #7, in particular, "to remain the community of choice for families and become the community of choice for seniors and job creators." 8. Summary and Conclusion: Planning Staff recommend that Town Council request, the Region of Durham amend the Regional Official Plan by deleting the reference to places of worship in policy 8C.2.2 to enable lower -tier municipalities to consider whether to permit places of worship in Industrial Areas by amendment to a local official plan or zoning by-law. 9. Attachments: Attachment #1:, Proposed Durham Regional Official Plan Amendment For further information contact: Kristy Kilbourne, Ext. 2272 Original Approved and Signed. Robert B. Short, Commissioner of Planning, x4309 Original Approved and Signed. Robert Petrie, Chief Administrative Officer, x2211 Report to: Planning and Development Committee Meeting Report number: PL 45-16 Page 8 of 8 PL 45-16 Attachment #1 Proposed Amendment No. XXX to the Durham Regional Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the reference to places of worship in Policy 8C.2.2 in the Regional Official Plan (ROP) to allow for the consideration of places of worship in Employment Areas by local municipal official plan or zoning *by-law amendment. Location: This amendment applies to all lands that are within the Region of Durham. Basis: One of the goals of the Durham Regional Official Plan is "to provide opportunities for a variety of cultural, health and community services". Policy changes to the Durham Regional Official Plan since 2006 have further restricted locations where places of worship can be considered within the Region of Durham. This amendment: Responds to changing resident demographics and needs and an increasing demand for suitable lands for places of worship; • Supports planning for institutional uses as part of complete communities as directed by the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; Enables consideration of places of worship within Employment Areas through an amendment to area municipal official plans or zoning by-laws, where appropriate, similar to other institutional uses including. daycare facilities and hospitals; which are not explicitly prohibited in Policy 8C.2.2; and • Is consistent with the policies of other Regional Official Plans in the Greater Toronto Area, as approved by the Province, with respect to allowing the consideration of places of worship in Employment Areas. Amendment: The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1) Amending Policy 8C.2.2 by deleting ",and places. of worship", such that it reads: "8C.2.2 Residential uses, nursing and retirement homes, elementary and secondary schools, anter plaGes of wepship shall not 10--11 be permitted in Employment Areas. Other sensitive uses may be permitted as an exception, by amendment to an area municipal official plan or zoning by-law subject to compatibility." Implementation: The provisions set forth in the Durham -Regional Official Plan regarding implementation of the Plan shall apply in regards to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official Plan regarding the interpretation�of the Plan shall apply in regards to this Amendment. 10-12 24 May 2016 Brian Bridgeman, Commissioner Planning and Economic Development Region of Durham 605 Rossland Road East, PO Box 623 Whitby, ON LIN 6A3 Dear Brian: Re: Review of Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) (20'16-P-18) The members of the Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC) congratulate you on your recent appointment as Commissioner. We took forward to working collaboratively with Regional Planning and Economic Development staff on the issues faced by agricultural businesses that will help us continue to grow and'prosper. We appreciate the work that Regional Planning does to protect agriculture from incompatible adjacent uses. Equally we appreciate the work the Region has done to broaden its view of economic development to include the agricultural sector. And the ongoing partnership between the Region and Durham Farm Fresh is unique and highly valued by the agricultural sector. As the largest economic activity in Durham but as a very limited percentage of the population, we often feel that our message is not being- heard. f=arming is a business; our business much like others is continually evolving. We need to maintain flexibility and be'able to address the assets we purchase in a business -like manner.. Severing an existing residence that is not required for the farm operation is a business decision for us, it is an asset we can sell to make the property purchase affordable or use the funds realized to purchase other land and/or equipment. One of the underlying themes in the report on the severance policies was the longterm and big picture goal that Planning is trying to protect against fragmentation. Our perspective is that severances are addressing the existing residential buildings, potentially protecting heritage resources and eliminating the need for farmers to be land lords. Given that the residence already exists there is no additional fragmentation. 10-13 Another underlying theme in the report is the concept that there is a major difference between abutting and non -abutting. It would be ideal to have contiguous lands; and most farmers try to purchase properties in close proximity. However, the history of the lot and concession pattern established when Lord Siincoe began providing land grants in 1792 is haw the real estate market has evolved. Given the evolution that has happened with the real estate industry and farm operations, it is not unusual for a farmer to work numerous properties many of which are not contiguous. However, eliminating the non -abutting severance policy just because a property is on the other side of the road, or a kilometer away is not logical, it removes the flexibility .that a farmer needs to address their business. The agricultural community is willing to work with Planning to develop a more predictable and streamlined process that would rely on regional land division and local zoning amendment. This could accomplish what is currently being done with 4 applications (the previously mentioned ones plus a regional -and local Official Plan amendment). Clarington Planning Services has already recommended eliminating their OP amendment requiremen#, based on the strength of the Provincial Policy Statement. The AACC members are very willing to meet with Regional Planning staff or have you attend one of our meetings to further discuss our perspectives on Policies 9A.2.9 and 9A.2.10. We do not support the recommendation to eliminate 9A.2.10, rather many of our comments are similar to those provided by the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee as outlined in their minutes of January 12, 2016 (attached). Yours sincerely Brenda Metcalf Chair AACC Cc: Mayor and Members of Council (Clarington) Sheila Hall, CBOT Attachment: DAAC - Recap of Discussion, January 12, 201E 10-14 .--"'Attachment: DAAC — Recap of discussion, January 12,.2016 Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies Presentation Recap of Discussion: January 12, 2016 • Land Division Committee should see comments about lot configuration from DAAC. • 'Land owners don't want to deal with landlord/tenant issues, it's easier -to sever and self the dwelling. The Region should not be more restrictive than the Province. ® The'lack of infrastructure is the reason livestock operation numbers are. decreasing, not MDS setback requirements. The same company with "abutting" .properties should not be able to go through the non-abuffing process. . The years of 2013-2015 experienced a short term Increase in non -abutting surplus'form dwelling applications due to the increased price of corn and soy beans. This trend should not continue. The retained vacant parcels/retained land created through these applications could be used to grow livestock feed (e.g. hay). • In reviewing these ROP policies, It's very important to protect the policy that states that 'the dwelling was in existence as of December 16, 2004". • "Viability" is not a set acreagelsize, different types of farms have different land needs. • The non -abutting surplus farm dwelling policy is a tool used by the agriculture professionals to grow their business (e.g. land/equipment purchases), • Need to strengthen the policies in the ROP to tighten the loopholes making it harder for "non -farmers" to abuse the policy, • Should have a stronger definition for what qualifies as a "non- abutting" surplus farm dwelling severance. * Farmers need to think of the long term impacts of these policies for future generations, • Farmers should be able to rebuild a demolished louse without having to pay development charges (including the increase due to inflation)., • Concerned about the land use conflicts between non-farm rural residents and the surrounding farm use (on the retained lands). • The "Right to Farm" needs to be protected. Suggest putting a clause on the deed of the severed lot to notify the buyer of surrounding land uses acid protect the farmer from complaints, Farmers want the optlon to sell their land to another farmer and retire in their house. Concerned about the long term Implicatibns if the zoning on the retained land is reversed and more h9uses are permitted in the rural area. • Deed to use common sense when considering the lot configuration for the severed dwelling., For instance, can a tractor fit between the new lot line and the retained property boundary? ® Outbuildings/barns should be rezoning to prohibit keeping livestock instead of tearing them down. They could be used for equipment storage and heritage buildings are being lost. 10-15 Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and Development Committee , Date of Meeting: June 6, 2016 Report Number: PSD -042-16 Resolution Number: Pile Number: S -C-2016-0001 & ZBA 2016-0010 By-law Number: Report Subject: Applications by Kaitlin Corporation for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to permit Medium Density (Townhouse) development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre, Bowmanville Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD -042-16 be received; 2. That the application for a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (S -C-2016-0001) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA 2016=0010) continue to be processed including the preparation of a subsequent report; and 3. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -042-16 and any delegations. be advised of Council's decision. 12-1 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -042-16 Report Overview This is a public meeting report to provide an overview of the applications by Modo Bowmanville Towns Ltd., Fifty Five Clarington Ltd. and Devon Daniell (Kaitlin Corporation). The proposed draft plan of subdivision would create 3 blocks (4.7 hectares) for medium density (townhouse) development having a maximum density of up to 60 units per hectare (up to 284 units). The plan also includes a block for future high density development and would provide for the extension of Clarington Boulevard. The rezoning application proposes to place these lands in appropriate zones to permit the requested townhouse development. 1. Application Details 1.1. Owner/Applicant: Modo Bowmanville Towns Ltd., Fifty Five Clarington Ltd. and Devon Daniell (Kaitlin Corporation). 1.2. Proposal: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision To allow the creation of 3 blocks (4.7 ha) for medium density (townhouse) development having a maximum density of up to 60 units per hectare (up to 284 units); the extension of Clarington Boulevard; a future high density block (0:41 ha); and road widenings. Rezoning To rezone the lands from the existing Agricultural (A) zone to appropriate zones that permit the requested townhouse development. 1.3. Area of Draft Plan of Subdivision: 6.254 hectares 1.4. Location: 1535 and 1569 Green Road, located on the east side of Green Road, south of Prince William Drive, Bowmanville (Part of Lot 16, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington) 1.5. Roll Number: 1817 010 020 16900; 1817 010 020 16800; and, 1817 010 020 17280 1.6. Within Built Boundary: Yes 2. Background 2.1. The subject applications were deemed complete on May 9, 2016. 2.2. The site is located in the south west corner of the Bowmanville West Town Centre. The lands are to the south of the existing commercial and retail uses where Loblaws and the former Target store building are the major anchor stores. Currently, subsidiaries of the Kaitlin Corporation own three parcels as shown on Figure 1. 12-2 Municipality of Clarington Report PS®®042-16 Page 3 Figure 1 — Ownership of Subject Lands — Kaitlin Corporation 12-3 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -042-16 J: %"6 _ a BLOCK 2 . teini.-aazbc7 � . gra :.'` Al�tSIN;!'T f(li. .•..: !�(EE'!/,CJ mxx� xrwaaunav �,. •. �� r t' = f BLOCK ala a w. s�[v�a+l BL 1K�4 \ �.rorr `•t :.y i 1 4 � ✓� x' ✓ - � I s f BLACK 1 hancu>w_ _rrMen -- k _ OFSUBDIVISION J Df1d(Y lb_®etriLL - ;; PART Of LOT 16, CONOFSMN I `y�Y:air FDI�vi1C.Y W 7HE TOTe:tMH VUVtt140i0N . w 111E %"6 3 _ a BLOCK 2 . teini.-aazbc7 � . gra :.'` Al�tSIN;!'T f(li. .•..: !�(EE'!/,CJ mxx� xrwaaunav �,. •. �� r t' = f BLOCK ala a w. s�[v�a+l .3 \ �.rorr `•t :.y i 1 4 � ✓� x' ✓ - � I s f hancu>w_ _rrMen -- k _ OFSUBDIVISION PART Of LOT 16, CONOFSMN I `y�Y:air 3 Page 4 qd f�3 .fir NC US S^RW12 rss, wren! ..,a'v— vms. V.I _ a BLOCK 2 . teini.-aazbc7 � . gra mxx� xrwaaunav ssuMmcs crmvrwx r ` ala a w. s�[v�a+l towavt �m sh \ �.rorr `•t :.y i 1 4 � ✓� x' ✓ - � I s f hancu>w_ _rrMen -- k _ Page 4 qd f�3 .fir NC US S^RW12 rss, wren! ..,a'v— vms. V.I BL4rMNra Oeu 911 es [lry aa,�. 1 ,X 11575: .� 4`.a- DP -1 Figure 2 — Proposed Draft Plan of subdivision 2.3. The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (Figure 2) would create blocks for medium density residential development (Blocks 1, 2 and 4). The plan also provides for the , completion of Clarington Boulevard between Green Road and its terminus just south of Prince William Drive, and the widening of Prince William Boulevard to its ultimate width along the frontage of the subject lands. Block 3 is a High Density block and would be developed together with adjacent lands owned by Fifty Five Clarington Ltd. and which lands would require rezoning and site plan approval prior to development. 2.4 The following studies were submitted and circulated for comments: • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment • Functional Servicing Report • Traffic Impact Study • Noise Study • Energy Conservation and Sustainability Plan • Urban Design Plan • Archaeological Assessment 12-4 mxx� xrwaaunav ssuMmcs crmvrwx r ` ala a w. s�[v�a+l towavt �m sh \ �.rorr ` \ u, T?iJi+V ]J,�JI( exuwr r4 hancu>w_ _rrMen -- DRAFT PLAN OFSUBDIVISION PART Of LOT 16, CONOFSMN I FDI�vi1C.Y W 7HE TOTe:tMH VUVtt140i0N . w 111E ' MUNICIPALITY OFCLARINGTON ; uw'. VNJFI' Or DlRal4N 7a—t BL4rMNra Oeu 911 es [lry aa,�. 1 ,X 11575: .� 4`.a- DP -1 Figure 2 — Proposed Draft Plan of subdivision 2.3. The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (Figure 2) would create blocks for medium density residential development (Blocks 1, 2 and 4). The plan also provides for the , completion of Clarington Boulevard between Green Road and its terminus just south of Prince William Drive, and the widening of Prince William Boulevard to its ultimate width along the frontage of the subject lands. Block 3 is a High Density block and would be developed together with adjacent lands owned by Fifty Five Clarington Ltd. and which lands would require rezoning and site plan approval prior to development. 2.4 The following studies were submitted and circulated for comments: • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment • Functional Servicing Report • Traffic Impact Study • Noise Study • Energy Conservation and Sustainability Plan • Urban Design Plan • Archaeological Assessment 12-4 Municipality of Clarington Report PS® -042-16 Page 5 2.5 On May 6, 2016, Kaitlin submitted an application for Site Plan Approval for Block 1 only. The application is being reviewed for completeness. 2.6 A Public Information Centre was held on May 25, 2016 at Holy Family School. Twelve neighbouring residents attended the Public Information Centre. An overview is provided in Section 7 of this report. 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The subject lands are relatively flat, and predominantly vacant except for the dwellings and buildings at 1535 and 1569 Green Road. The buildings at 1535 Green Road are in the process of being demolished. A line of mature trees exist along a portion of the Green Road frontage, however no significant environmental features are present on or near the site. Figure 3 — Key Map of the Subject Lands 12-5 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -042-16 _ - Page 6 3..2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North Existing commercial and retail development South CP Railway; Existing low-rise apartment buildings along Aspen Spring Drive East Vacant lands (future High Density site) and municipal park; Existing Apartment Buildings West Municipal park and existing single detached residential dwellings 4. Provincial Policy 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement identifies settlement areas as the focus of growth. Land use patterns shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses that efficiently use land, resources and infrastructure. Opportunities for redevelopment and intensification must be promoted. Municipalities must provide a variety of housing types and densities, and a range of housing options that are affordable to the area residents. Healthy and active communities should be promoted by planning public streets to be safe, meet the needs of pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity. Compact and diverse developments promote active modes of transportation such as walking and cycling. 4.2 Provincial Growth Plan The subject lands are within the defined Built Boundary. Population and employment growth will be accommodated by directing a significant portion of new growth to the built up areas through intensification and efficient use of existing services and infrastructure. The development of complete communities is encouraged by promoting a diverse mix of land uses, a mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services. New transit -supportive and pedestrian -friendly developments will be concentrated along existing and future transit routes. A minimum of 40 percent of all residential development occurring, annually -within each upper tier municipality will be within the built up area. 5e Official Plans 5.1 Durham regional Official Plan The subject lands are within a Regional Centre. Regional Centres provide a full array of institutional, commercial, major retail, residential, recreational, cultural, entertainment and major office uses. Regional Centres function as places of symbolic and physical interest for the residents, and shall provide identity to the area municipalities within which they are located. 12-6 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -042-16 Page 7 Regional Centres shall support an overall, long-term density target of at least 75 residential units per gross hectare and a floor space index of 2.5. Development in Regional Centres shall be based on the following principles: • Compact urban form which is transit -supportive; . • Provides a mix of uses and opportunities for intensification; • Follows good urban design principles with focus on public spaces and pedestrian connections, with parking sited to the rear or within buildings; and • Enhances grid connections for pedestrians and cyclists. Green Road is identified as Type B Arterial Road and private access points are generally spaced a minimum of 80 metres apart in Urban Areas. As the site is adjacent to an arterial road and the railway, noise and vibration impacts must be mitigated in accordance with Ministry of Environment guidelines. As the lands are within the Built Boundary, on an annual basis, urban areas across the Region shall be planned to accommodate a minimum 40 percent of all residential development occurring annually through intensification within built-up areas. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the lands as a Town Centre. The lands are designated Town Centre and are within Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan area. The West Town Centre has a housing target of 1900 units, including 1500 high density units and 400 medium density units. The Bowmanville West Town Centre will be planned and developed as a centre of regional significance providing the highest level of retail and service uses and are the primary focal point of cultural, community, recreational and institutional uses in Clarington. Town Centres provide a mix of uses, encourage active street life, and develop in a manner that supports transit and pedestrian connectivity. The urban design policies of the Town Centre designation are implemented through the review and approval of development applications. Green Road is identified as an arterial road consistent with the Durham Regional Official Plan. 5.3 Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan The subject lands are designated as Medium Density Residential in the Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan. The designation allows for residential development having a density between 31 and 60 units per hectare. Permitted dwelling types include townhouses, stacked townhouses, and low rise apartment buildings not exceeding three storeys in height. 12-7 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -042-16 Page 8 In addition to the Urban Design and Town Centre policies that give direction to site plan design, the Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan contains detailed Urban Design policies, including an Urban Design Guideline, and policies specific to residential buildings and site layout. 6. Zoning By-law Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands Agricultural (A) Zone. A rezoning is required to implement the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. The rezoning application would apply to lands north and south of the extension of Clarington Boulevard, however a future rezoning application would be required for the future high density block which will be developed with adjacent lands. 7. Public Notice and Submissions 7.1 A combined notice of the Public Information Centre and Public Meeting was mailed on May 11, 2016 and details of the application were also included in the Planning Services Department E -update. 7.2 The Public Information Centre was held May 25, 2016 at the Holy Family Elementary School on Aspen Springs Drive in Bowmanville. Twelve neighbouring residents attended. Display material included a 3.d digital model which assisted in depicting the proposed development. 7.3 At the time of writing this report, concerns raised relate to: • Traffic, construction traffic and intersection improvements; • Built form, height and design of units; • Phasing of development; • Impacts to remaining property at southeast corner of Green Road and Prince William Boulevard; • Privacy and overlook from terraces; • Protection and preservation of mature trees on Green Road. 8. Agency Comments 8.1 At the time of writing this report, comments from the Region of Durham, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and several other agencies have not yet been received. 8.2 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board has no objections. Students would attend Ross Tilley Public School and Clarington Central Secondary School. 8.3 Canada Post Canada Post has no objections and has provided technical comments for consideration during the detailed design process. um Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -042-16 Page 9 9. Departmental Comments 9.1 Engineering Services Engineering Services has provided the following preliminary comments: • Traffic The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study in support of this application. The study is currently under review, and staff will work closely with the traffic consultant to determine necessary road improvements required for this development to proceed. It is the intent of the Engineering Services Department to construct a roundabout in future at the intersection of Clarington Boulevard and Green Road: • Grading, Drainage and Stormwater Management The applicant has submitted a Functional Servicing Report in support of this application. The report is lacking a great deal of information including any consideration of grading. It will be necessary for the applicant to submit a more detailed study including a preliminary grading plan which is compatible with the proposed Clarington Boulevard extension profile. The Functional Servicing Report will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services, the Region of Durham and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. • Road Improvements The applicant will be 100% responsible for the construction of the Clarington Boulevard extension from the existing western terminus to Green Road to a full urban standard. The road section will match the existing road section for Clarington Boulevard. The first submission of engineering drawings for the extension have been submitted to the Municipality and are currently under review. Clarington Boulevard is subject to a Development Charge oversizing refund based on the width of the travelled portion greater than 10 metres. The owner will also be responsible for the reconstruction of Prince William Boulevard to a full urban standard across the frontage of these lands consistent with the section of Prince William Boulevard east of these lands. Entrances Prior to final approval of the draft plan, the Engineering Services Department requires the. applicant to submit an overall plan of these lands and the residential lands to the east depicting a concept of the location of all future entrances. This will ensure that the number of entrances off Clarington Boulevard is appropriate, that the entrances align with one another, that they be shared where necessary, that they each have sufficient visibility and that no entrance conflicts occur in future. The final entrance configuration may also impact the Servicing Plan and the location of service stubs off Clarington 12-9 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -042-16 Page 10 Boulevard. This plan will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services. Phasing The applicant must submit a phasing plan for the development of these lands which will be subject to the approval of the Director. The Clarington Boulevard extension must be built in conjunction with Phase 1, and the Prince William Boulevard improvements must be built in conjunction with the development of the lands fronting on that street. 9.2 Emergency and Fire Services No concerns with the proposed plan of subdivision and rezoning. 10. Discussion 10.1 This site is located within the Bowmanville West Town Centre. The development would implement land uses of the Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan and integrate with existing and planned uses as provided for in the Secondary Plan. The site will also function as a transition between mid -rise high density buildings to the east and existing low density development on the west side of Green Road. 10.2 The draft plan of subdivision proposes a density of approximately 60 units per hectare and would be consistent with the direction of the Regional Official Plan, the Clarington Official Plan and the Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan. However the site plan recently submitted for Block 1 proposes a total of 76 units on 1.85 hectare for a density of 41 units per hectare. Attachment 1 contains a preliminary site plan for Block 1 of the proposed Plan of Subdivision. 10.3 Following the initial review of the application by staff and agencies, staff see the most critical areas as: Urban Design and Built form Phasing of Development of adjacent lands The possibility of higher densities to take advantage of opportunities around the transit hub. The applicant has prepared a digital model of the lands, the proposed lands and surrounding uses to assist in understanding the proposal. 10.4 The purpose of the public meeting is to provide an opportunity for further public input. These public comments will be compiled, discussed with the applicant and addressed in a subsequent staff report. 10.5 Once the principle of development can be supported, draft conditions of approval and a zoning by-law amendment would be recommended for Council's consideration, following which, the concurrent site plan application could be finalized. 12-10 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -042-16 11. Concurrence Not applicable. 12. Conclusion Rage 11 The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the applications submitted by Modo Bowmanville Towns Ltd., Fifty Five Clarington Ltd. and Devon Daniell (Kaitlin Corporation) for the Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue processing the applications including the preparation of a subsequent report upon resolution of the identified issues. 13. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. Submitted by: David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services Reviewed by: �t Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Anne Taylor Scott, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2414 or ataylorscott(a�clarington.net Attachment 1: Preliminary Site Plan for Block 1 The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Enzo Bertucci Sam & Corinne Marmara Caren Muir Jayne Daniel Bill & Marg Todd Rob & Amy Wilson Pauline Cuccio Edith Roy ATS/CP/tg 12-11 Municipality of Clarington (5.Om ROAD WIDENING) OEM, MIS N i HIM Attachment 1 to iort PSD -042-16 0 - Planning Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: June 6, 2016 Report Number: PSD -043-16 Resolution Number: File Number: PLN 2.10 Dy -law Number: Report Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abuttina and Non-Abuttina Surplus Farm Dwellinas) - Comments Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD -043-16 be received; 2. That Clarington support the severance of surplus farm dwellings from abutting or non - abutting properties through the Regional Land Division process contingent on a local municipal rezoning which restricts the farm parcel from obtaining a residential building permit; 3. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and all lower tier municipalities in Durham be forwarded a copy of Report PSD -043-16 and Council's decision; and 4: That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -043-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 12-13 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -043-16 Report Overview Page 2 The Region of Durham is undertaking a review of its Official Plan policies related to the severance of surplus farm dwellings (policies 9A.2.9 and 9A.2.10) as outlined in the Region's Report No. 2016-P-18. The Region requested comments by June 30, 2016. Clarington staff recommend the continuation of allowing for the severance of surplus farm dwellings and that the process be streamlined to a Regional land division contingent on a local rezoning. 1. Background Protection of the agricultural land base is important to maintain a viable agricultural industry in the Region. Agriculture continues to be the largest economic activity in the Region. The number of farmers is decreasing while the acreage farmed is stable. For farmers to remain viable as economic entities they are continually evolving their farming practices and processes. The land use policies of Ontario are designed primarily around the 40 hectare (100 acre) farm. While this is the way lands were historically subdivided, it is not the way farmers farm any longer. The ongoing trend is for farmers to work more acreage on a number of properties. This is possible because of mechanization, technology and crop yield. The Region 'is presently undertaking a review of its Official Plan policies related to the severance of surplus farm dwellings (i.e. Policies 9A.2.9 - abutting and 9A.2.10 — non - abutting). Provincial Plans currently permit the consideration of surplus farm dwelling severances. The Region has historically supported more restrictive policies that protect the land base against fragmentation and the introduction of incompatible uses. The Region is seeking input on whether further restrictions should be placed on the ability to sever existing rural residential homes from non -abutting farms when they are purchased by farmers. The Region is considering deleting policy 9A.2.10 as set out in Report No. 2016-P-18 (Attachment 1). Currently the process requires four applications. While it is possible to make concurrent applications for Regional Official Plan Amendments and Regional Land Division; Regional staff place the land division application on hold until the Regional Official Plan amendment has been finalized. Typically farmers do not make local Official Plan and local rezoning amendments without knowing the result of the Regional process. The Regional Land Division is contingent on the local Official Plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment. Each process includes the requirement for a pre -consultation meeting with staff, committee report and public meeting. All of these applications can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. 12-14 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -043-16 2. Policies 2.1 Provincial Policies Page 3 Provincial policies are generally restrictive toward lot creation in agricultural areas. This includes policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014), the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and the Greenbelt Plan (GBP). The most recent update to the PPS in 2014 includes specific goals with respect to the protection of the agricultural land base. The elimination of retirement lots for farmers occurred in the 2005 update of the PPS. The PPS presents minimum standards, and does not prohibit planning authorities from being more restrictive than the minimum standards established, in specific policies, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of the PPS. The provincial policies, until 2005 allowed for retirement lot creation in the rural area with certain restrictions. Because retirement lots were allowed the policies of the Regional and Clarington Official Plans required OP Amendments to allow for an additional residential lot if a retirement lot had already been allowed. 2.2 Regional Policies The Region in their Report 2016-P-18 identified issues related to farm severances as: land fragmentation, potential for land use conflicts with non-farm residents, and long term implications of zoning challenges for the retained parcels. Regional staff are concerned that policy 9A.2.10 is allowing for too many severances and have recommended that policy 9A.2.10 be deleted from the Official Plan. Policy 9A.2.10 Notwithstanding Policy 9A.2.9, the severance of a farm dwelling rendered surplus as a result of a farmer acquiring a non -abutting farm may be allowed, by amendment to this Plan, provided that: a) the dwelling is not needed for a farm employee; b) the farm parcel to be acquired is of a size which is viable for farming operations; c) within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt Plan Area, the dwelling was in existence as of December 16, 2004; and d) the farm parcel to be acquired is zoned to prohibit any further severances and the establishment of any residential dwelling. No further severances shall be permitted from the acquired farm parcel. Regional staff indicate that the necessary rezoning at the time of severance could at a future date be changed. While possible, the Region is notified of all zoning amendments made by local municipalities and has the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if provincial and/or regional policies are not being adhered to. 12-15 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -043-16 3. Comments 3.1 Clarington Official Plan Policy Paae 4 Currently the severance of an existing residence from an agricultural parcel requires farmers to apply for a land division (Region), a Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) and a local Official Plan Amendment (COPA) and zoning bylaw amendment. As part of Clarington's Official Plan Review, it was determined that given the changes which further restrict how agricultural lands can be used, specifically the elimination of the retirement lot policies from the PPS in 2005, that it was no longer necessary to require an Official Plan Amendment for abutting and non -abutting farm severances. The draft Clarington Official Plan eliminates the need for a local Official Plan Amendment, rather it relies on the Regional Land Division process subject to a local rezoning as the process to ensure the goals established under Policy 9A.2.10 are adhered to. The zoning enacted at the time of severance prohibits agricultural lands from further severance and building of non-farm structures on agricultural lands. Clarington staff believe rezoning the parcel is sufficient to achieve the policy objective. Clarington properties listed in the Official Plan or where zoning restrictions as the result of Regional land division applications have been enacted are shown in Attachment 2. 3.2 Economic Development Clarington has the greatest agricultural area of the lower tier municipalities in Durham, with 22,260 ha (55,000 acres) of farmland. Agriculture is the largest economic activity for both the Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington. Removal of policy 9A.2.10 would alter the feasibility of property acquisition for local operators, and impact the rural residential community in the long term. To ensure that farms remain in agriculture productivity the economic viability of farmers has to be considered. The benefits of allowing local farmers to grow and improve their operations outweighs any minor abuse that might have occurred with the existing policy. Removal of the policies allowing for abutting or non -abutting severances would have major impacts on farmers and their.ability to purchase land and expand their businesses. Farming has evolved over the past several decades, additional dwellings on agricultural lots are no longer needed for farm help. Many farmers own numerous parcels and live on the home farm. Farming will further evolve over the coming decades and land use policies need to remain flexible and adaptable to local farmers' needs; within the overall context of the Provincial Policy Statement. Allowing for the severance of surplus residential buildings has a positive economic effect. It means that these homes are purchased rather than rented or abandoned. Typically the assessed value of the residential property is higher for owned single residential properties because of the maintenance, expansion and upkeep by property owners. 12-16 Municipality of Clarington Report PS® -043A6 Page 6 Demand for rural properties continues to grow with population growth. The elimination of "estate residential" subdivisions in the rural area by the 2005 PPS increased the demand for rural lots. Removing the non -abutting policy may increase the number of abandoned houses in the rural area if farmers are unable to sever the surplus dwelling or do not wish to become landlords. In the long term, the restriction on the supply of rural homes is resulting in an increase in demand for rural residential living opportunities. Increased demand for rural properties ultimately increases rural residential property values, forcing some buyers to purchase much larger parcels of land, commonly referred to as the 100 acre estate lot. This can lead to the demolition of the existing' house many of which are heritage homes and the loss of the land. from agriculture production. 3.3 Agricultural Community The majority of the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC) felt the existing policies are tools used by the agricultural industry to grow their businesses, avoid landlord/tenant issues and provide a housing option when they retire. The Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington (AACC) support the comments made by DAAC. Our committee members indicated that the impacts of eliminating the severance option for existing surplus residences may result in: • forcing farmers to be landlords; which in turn could mean the dereliction and demolition of rural homes, many of which are heritage resources; • further loss of rural population and housing options has a domino effect on the fabric of the rural community, support for hamlet stores, .churches and community halls; • limiting how farmers expand their businesses by eliminating the revenue from the sale of the dwelling to offset the cost of land purchase and/or equipment; and • promoting ownership by larger, often non -local corporations. The AACC members believe that the severance of abutting and non -abutting farm residences should be treated in the same manner. Further they support the staff opinion that requiring 4 applications to obtain a severance is cumbersome and confusing. if the process could be stream -lined and costs reduced through the elimination of certain applications they should be. Committee members indicated that one of the uncertainties when purchasing a property is whether the severance will be allowed and worry that the length of time required to process the applications is not conducive to real estate transactions. 4. Recommendations Clarington staff met with Regional Planning staff and provided comments prior to the Region's Report No. 2016-P-18. Clarington Planning Services.staff recommended the continuation of the policies allowing for severing of non -abutting agricultural lots. Further,. Clarington staff having already recommended the elimination for the local Official Plan Amendment and suggested that the Region do so as well to help stream -line the process. Staff suggested that while the Region may choose to continue to list severed properties in 12--17 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -043-16 Page 6 the Official Plan, if the policy established that a severance is contingent on rezoning there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that lands cannot be rezoned in future. Staff believe the changes to Provincial Policies in 2005 combined with the policies of the Greenbelt Plan sufficiently protect agricultural land from fragmentation. Requiring OP amendments given these provincial safeguards is an added financial burden on farmers when purchasing property. A Regional land severance which is contingent upon a local rezoning could have a higher application fee to account for the staff time needed to review these types of applications. A two tiered system much like the major/minor definitions that Clarington uses for variance and rezoning applications could be established for the Regional fees for land division. Land fragmentation concerns may be addressed by using the farm corporation number (as part of the land severance application) as a way of avoiding a farm entity from taking advantage of the non -abutting severance policy. Land use conflicts through introduction of non-farm residents can be mitigated with acknowledgement of farm uses as a condition of severance, enshrined on the property deed. 5. Strategic Plan The recommendation of this report conform to the strategic plan, in particular Section 1.1, expansion of existing businesses and support for agriculture. 6. Conclusion The Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington, the agricultural community and staff support the severance of surplus farm dwellings from abutting or non -abutting properties through the Regional Land Division process contingent on a local municipal rezoning which restricts the severed farm parcel from obtaining a residential building permit. It is recommended that Council not support the proposal by Durham Region to eliminate policy 9A.2.10 from the Regional Official Plan and thus restrict non -abutting farms from obtaining a severance for surplus residential homes. Alternatives to steamline the severance process should be explored by the Region to make the process, more timely, affordable and predictable. 12-18' Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -043-16 Page 7 Submitted by: Reviewed by: David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Tranklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects 905-623-3379 ext. 2407 or flangmaid@clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 — Report No. 2016�P-18 Attachment 2 — Map of Clarington Surplus Farm Dwelling Severances The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Clarington Agricultural Advisory Committee Clarington Board of Trade FL/HD/tg/ah 12-19 Municipality of Clarington Attachment 1 to Report PSD -043-16 If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564 The Regional r Durham Report DURHAM REGION To: The Planning & Economic Development Committee From: Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Report: #2016-P-18 Date: March 22, 2016 Subject: Review of Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) File: L35-04 Recommendations: That the Planning & Economic Development Committee recommends to Regional Council: A) That staff be authorized to consult with the Area Municipalities, the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, the farming community and other interested stakeholders on the Durham Regional Official Plan: Policy Review — Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies Discussion Paper; and B) That a copy of Commissioner's Report #2016-P-18 be forwarded to the Area Municipalities, Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, the Durham Federation of Agriculture and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.' Report: 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to present the Discussion Paper entitled Durham Regional Official Plan: Policy Review — Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies (Attachment 1) and to seek authorization to consult with the Area Municipalities (AMs), the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC), the farming community and other interested stakeholders. 12-20 ort #2016-P-18 2. Background Page 2 of 6 2.1 The Region has been experiencing an increase in the number of non -abutting surplus farm dwelling severance applications in recent years. Issues related to farm related severances include: • Land fragmentation; • Potential for land use conflicts; and • The long term implications of zoning the retained parcels to prohibit the construction of a dwelling in perpetuity. 2:2 In response to the growing number of these applications, on November 10, 2015 the Planning and Economic Development Committee directed: That staff prepare a report analyzing the issues and implications of surplus farm dwelling severances, including the current situation, future implications and suggested policy changes. 2.3 This report provides an overview of the research and analysis, initial consultation and proposed approaches to address the identified issues. 3. Initial Consultation 3.1 As part of the background work, preliminary consultation was conducted with internal departments, AMs and DAAC. Through this initial consultation, the following alternatives were discussed: • No changes or modifications to existing surplus farm dwelling severance policies; • Prohibit severances for non -abutting parcels and continue to permit severances for abutting parcels; • Amend non -abutting policies to be more restrictive; • Prohibit severances for both abutting and non -abutting farm parcels. 3.2 The following provides an overview of the discussions on potential alternatives, by issue area: a. Policies related to abutting farm parcels • Overall, no concerns were raised about the abutting severance policies; and • It was suggested that there should be more clarity to ensure abutting parcels are required to merge for farm operations. 12-21 Report #2016-P-18 Page 3 of 6 b. Policies related to non -abutting farm parcels • From an economic development perspective, farm businesses may use the sale of the dwelling to help fund the purchase of farmland; • Deleting the non -abutting policy may increase the number of abandoned houses in the rural area if farmers are unable to sever the surplus dwelling; • The majority of DAAC felt these policies are tools used by the agricultural industry to grow their businesses, avoid landlord/tenant issues and provide a housing option when they retire. As such, they would support further restricting these policies, but not deletion; • A number of comments acknowledged the significant challenges these applications may cause in the future-(e.g. if the zoning on the retained lands is reversed); • The northern AMs were generally supportive of restricting or investigating the removal of the non -abutting policy; • Strengthening the non -abutting policy language may reduce a few severances, but a large number will still qualify; • The requirement to prohibit any future dwellings on the retained lands ultimately undermines the flexibility of the farm parcel in the future; • The elimination of this policy would protect existing farm infrastructure from premature destruction (due to Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback requirements); and • It was suggested that the requirement for a Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA) should be removed, to make the application .process less cumbersome and expensive for farmers seeking to sever surplus farm dwellings. 4. Overview of Discussion Paper Durham's Agricultural Industry 4.1 Protection of the agricultural land base is important to maintain a viable agricultural industry in the Region. Agricultural production in Durham generates significant returns and is the main economic activity in the rural area. Provincial Policy Review 4.2 Provincial policies are generally restrictive toward lot creation in agricultural areas. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), Greenbelt Plan (GBP) and Oak Ridges 12-22 Report #2016-P-18 Page 4 of 6 Moraine ,Conservation Plan (ORMCP) include the following policy directions related to the consideration of farm related severances: • Lot creation may only be permitted in specific circumstances; • MDS compliance, is required; • New dwellings are to be prohibited on the retained parcel; and • The policies represent minimum standards for lot creation. Further, the Provincial Plans do not distinguish between abutting and non -abutting farm severances. 4.3 In February, 2015 the Province initiated a co-ordinated approach to reviewing four provincial land use plans (i.e. the Growth Plan; GBP; ORMCP; and Niagara Escarpment Plan). The Review is ongoing and the Province anticipates proposed amendments will be released for input in late spring, 2016. Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 4.4 The Regional Official Plan (ROP) aims to protect and maintain the agricultural land base for future generations. Lot creation policies within the ROP for rural areas have traditionally been more restrictive than the Provincial Plans. 4.5 Since 1991 the ROP has differentiated between abutting and non -abutting farm parcels. The 1991 ROP permitted retirement and surplus farm dwelling severances (abutting and non -abutting), subject to certain criteria. 4.6 The ROP Review in 2000 (ROPA 114) addressed farm -related severance issues in the context of the updated Provincial Policies and the Regional experience. ROPA 114 had the effect of: Removing the provisions to allow retirement lots; Retaining the provisions to allow the severance of surplus dwellings for abutting farm parcels; and Retaining the provisions to allow the severance of surplus farm dwellings for non -abutting farm parcels. However, prior to the approval of the GBP, the recommendation was to delete the non -abutting policy because it was deemed to increase fragmentation, restrict the location of new farm -related buildings and potentially increase the number of dwelling units in agricultural areas. 12-23 Report #2016-P-18 Page 5 of 6 Existing ROP - Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies 4.7 Policies 9A.2.9 and 9A.2.10 address surplus farm dwelling severances for abutting and non -abutting farms respectively. a. Abutting Farms (Policy 9A.2.9): The ROP continues to encourage the consolidation of farms, wherever possible, provided the farms are merged into a single parcel. Policy 9A.2.9 permits the consideration of the severance of a habitable farm dwelling rendered surplus as a result of consolidation of abutting farms, without amendment, subject to certain criteria. The result of such severances is the creation of larger farm parcels through the merging of farms and no new parcels are created. This type of severance creates opportunities for more viable farm operations, and assists in protecting the agricultural land base. However, to ensure that land consolidation proceeds as intended, the policy should be amended to clarify that in circumstances where a "farm operation" owns two or more abutting farm parcels, the abutting parcels should be merged in order to ensure that no new parcels are created. Accordingly, it is appropriate to retain the abutting farm severance policy, with appropriate revisions to apply to "farm operations". b. Non -Abutting Farms (Policy 9A.2.10): Policy 9A.2.10 permits the consideration of the severance of a farm dwelling rendered surplus as the result of the consolidation of non -abutting farms, by amendment, subject to certain criteria. Although this policy may provide a financial benefit to farmers, the fragmentation of the agricultural land base is of paramount concern from a land use planning perspective. In addition, the other concerns raised in the 2000 ROP Review remain, including: Loss of land for food production; Potential land use conflicts; Restrictions on the ability to locate new farm related buildings due to MDS criteria; and Notwithstanding the provisions of the GBP that attempt to ensure that no new residential dwellings will be permitted, on the retained farm parcel, there is no solid legal basis to ensure that zoning restrictions will not be overturned in the future. 12-24 Report #2016-P-18 Page 6 of 6 In order to restrict the further fragmentation of the agricultural land base through the creation of non-farm parcels, consideration should be given to deleting Policy 9A.2.10. 5. Conclusions and Next Steps 5.1 This exercise reviewed the appropriateness of the ROP's surplus farm dwelling severance policies and confirmed previous concerns raised in the 2000 ROP Review. Given the level of fragmentation in the rural area, the existing supply of vacant rural parcels and the rural development'potential, it is prudent to place further restrictions on the ability to create additional non-farm rural residential lots. 5.2 It is recommended that staff be authorized to consult with the Area Municipalities, the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, the farming community and other interested stakeholders on the Durham Regional Official Plan: Policy Review — Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies Discussion Paper. 5.3 Following consultation on the Discussion Paper, staff will.provide final policy recommendations and if appropriate, seek authorization to initiate an amendment to the ROP. 5.4 This report has been prepared in consultation with the Corporate Services Department, Legal Services Division. 6. Attachments Attachment #1: Durham Regional Official Plan: Policy Review — Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies Respectfully submitted, V44,W 8WO fema�,c Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Recommended for Presentation to Committee G.H. Cubitt, MSW Chief Administrative Officer 12-25. DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN (ROP): POLICY REVIEW SURPLUS FARM DWELLING SEVERANCE POLICIES DISCUSSION PAPER March, 2016 12-26 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Purpose.............................................................................................1 2.Background.........................................................................................2 2.1 Overview of Durham's Agricultural Industry .................................................2 2.2 Durham's Contribution to Ontario's Economy ........................................... ..3 2.3 Existing Rural Parcels.........................................:...................................4 3. Provincial Policy Review... ............................................................................ 5 3.1 Provincial Policies...................................................................................5 3.2 Co-ordinated Provincial Plan Review.........................................................6 4. Durham Regional Official Plan Policies............:......................................7 4.1 ROP Policy Directions............................................................................7 4.2 1991 ROP Policies..................................................................................7 4.3 2000 ROP Review..................................................................................9 4.4 Existing ROP — Surplus Farm Dwelling Policies...........................................11 5. Conclusions........................................................................................15 6. External Information Source.................................................................16 W 12-27 t PURPOSE The Region has been experiencing an increase in the number of non -abutting surplus farm dwelling severance applications in recent years. Issues related to farm related severances include: land fragmentation; potential for land use conflicts; and the long term implications of zoning the retained parcels to prohibit the construction of a dwelling in perpetuity. In response to the growing number of these applications, on November 10, 2016 the Planning and Economic Development Committee directed: That staff prepare a report analyzing the issues and implications of surplus farm dwelling severances, including the current situation, future implications and suggested policy changes. The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to provide an overview of the research and analysis, initial consultation and proposed approaches to address the identified issues. The focus of this exercise is to evaluate the appropriateness of the Regional Official Plan's (ROP) surplus farm dwelling severance policies: 9A.2.9 (abutting) and 9A.2.10 (non - abutting). These lot creation policies have a history of being a complex matter in Durham. From a land use planning perspective the creation of new rural residential lots presents the following issues: • Creation of vacant (potentially undersized) agricultural parcels, zoned to prohibit the construction of a dwelling in perpetuity; • Viability of the retained agricultural lands if farming trends change over time; • Lack of flexibility for future generations'of farmers; • Fragmentation of the agricultural land base; • Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback requirements may prohibit the expansion or construction of a livestock barn on the retained lands; • Potential for land use conflicts through the introduction of non-farm residents; and • The long term effectiveness of zoning retained parcels to restrict the construction of new residential dwellings. From an. agricultural industry (economic) perspective, the ability to sever surplus farm dwellings addresses the following issues: • Avoids tenant/landlord issues; • Expands the farm operation by using the revenue from the sale of the dwelling to purchase land and/or equipment; • Restrictive zoning on the retained lands helps to moderate the cost of agricultural parcels; • Allows for estate or retirement planning; and • Provides housing options in the rural area. 12-28 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Overview of Durham's Agricultural Industry Protection of the agricultural land base is important to maintain a viable agricultural industry in the Region. The rural area plays a significant role in supporting large blocks of agricultural land for food production and the predominance of good soils, proximity to markets and a relatively long growing season supports a prosperous agricultural industry. Agricultural production in Durham generates significant returns and is the main economic activity in the rural area. According to Statistics Canada, the value of gross farm receipts (GFR) has risen constantly over time. Between 2006 and 2011, GFR grew by approximately 14% from $240 million in 2006 to $273 million in 2011. While the returns in agriculture are increasing in Durham, the number of farms and the acreage farmed is decreasing. This is partially due to the ongoing trend of farm amalgamations with individual operators farming larger areas. Table 1 identifies the number of farms by type, in 2006 and 2011. The farm type with the largest increase over the period was "Cash Crops', which experienced a 60% increase worth $27,090,478 (GFRs by Commodity). Table 1: Number of Farms by Farm Type SOD — — — 45n f-- 4 W -- Sun � a50 E 100 = 150 100 60 0 Dairy j Cattle a 2006 -- i47 384 M 7.011 I 104 226 Durham Region, Number of Farms by Type 2006 and 2011 Itog Poultry iF 14 51 3 .- - - - - 46-- I _ Cash Crops Fruit I Velletah[e 61iscellaneou Eivestock s Specialty lCornhinatim, 408 55 43 471 62 _446 42 37 }_ _418 69 Source: Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance, 2014 Other Total nmhtnafilnn 51 1666 F;1 Anse The proportion of cash crop operations increased from 24 percent in 2006 to 31 percent in 2011. Cash crop operations generally require large acreages to be viable in the current agricultural economy. Therefore, cash crop operations account for an increasing proportion of the prime agricultural land base in Durham. Additionally, although the number of dairy and cattle operations is decreasing, they also represent a considerable proportion of the total number of farms and require large land holdings, for feedstock, pasture, and nutrient management purposes. 2 12-29 Durham has experienced a decline in farmland acreage between 1981 and 2011. Total farm land area declined 20% from 151,195 ha (373,611 acres) in 1981 to 120,475 ha (297,702 acres) in 2011. 2.2 Durham's Contribution to Ontario's Economy In 2014, the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance (GHFFA) prepared an economic impact analysis of the agriculture industry. The report entitled, "Agriculture and Agri -Food Economic Profile for the Golden Horseshoe" indicates that agriculture in Durham contributes significantly to the economy of the Province. According to the GHFFA.report, in 2011, Durham's Gross Farm Receipts (GFR) generated: • $179 million of direct impacts; • $487 million of indirect impacts; • $332 in induced impacts; • An employment impact of 6,485 jobs; and • GDP impact of $460 million. Durham's total annual economic contribution to the provincial economy in 2011 was $999' million. 12-30 2.3 Existing Rural Parcels Table 2 provides an overview of rural parcels by size that are not government owned (including Conservation Authority and Ontario Power Generation lands) and not committed for other specific non-farm uses (e.g. resource extraction areas and rural settlement areas). The results indicate that there are a significant number of rural parcels under 40 hectares (100 acres) in size (13,431 parcels). Most importantly, there are almost 8,000 parcels under 4 hectares (10 acres) in size. This indicates that a significant amount of fragmentation has occurred in the rural area. Table 2: Number of Rural Parcels by Size (Acres) Source: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Table 2 also identifies that there are over 1,400 rural parcels over 40 hectares (100 acres) in size. In total there are 2,032 vacant lots of record in the rural area. Therefore, there is considerable existing rural development potential in the Region. /} 12-31 Number of Rural Parcels by Size (Acres) 7000 -- - -- 6000 5000 -- 4000 3000 _— 2000 -- - - 1000 0 A 0 - 5 5-10 10-25 25-50 50-100 100-200 200+ Parcel Size (in acres) Source: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Table 2 also identifies that there are over 1,400 rural parcels over 40 hectares (100 acres) in size. In total there are 2,032 vacant lots of record in the rural area. Therefore, there is considerable existing rural development potential in the Region. /} 12-31 3.. PROVINCIAL POLICY REVIEW 3.1 Provincial Policies Provincial policies are generally restrictive toward lot creation in agricultural areas. This restrictive approach was introduced in 1997 when the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) removed the ability to sever intra -family lots and restricted retirement lots to those farmers who were actively farming prior to January 1994. The 2000's introduced new planning reforms including new provincial plans and policies through the 2002 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP); 2005 PPS, and 2005 Greenbelt Plan (GBP). The PPS was most recently updated in 2014. These plans include specific goals with respect to the protection of the agricultural land base. Provincial Policy Statement (2005 and 2094) The 2005 PPS removed the ability to sever retirement lots regardless of when the farm was established. However, the PPS retained the ability to sever a surplus farm dwelling. Section 2.3.4.1 of the 2014 PPS addresses lot creation in prime agricultural areas. The creation of new lots is discouraged and may only be permitted for a residence rendered surplus to a farming operation as a result of farm consolidation. The PPS further clarifies that the new lot must be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the use and appropriate sewage and water services; and that new residential dwellings are prohibited on any remnant parcel of farmland created by the severance. According to Section 4.9, the policies of the PPS.represent minimum standards. The PPS does not prevent planning authorities (i.e. the Region) from being more restrictive than the minimum standards established in specific policies, unless doing so would conflict with any policy of the PPS. The PPS also requires that new land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities, shall comply with the minimum distance separation formulae (MDS). The lot creation policies of the PPS do not distinguish between abutting and non - abutting farm parcels. Greenbelt Plan Policy 4.6.3 of the GBP addresses lot creation within specialty crop and prime agricultural areas. Within these designations of the GBP, the severance of a residence surplus to a farming operation as a result of a farm consolidation can be considered under the following circumstances: the residence was an existing use as of December 16, 2004; • the planning authority must ensure that a residential dwelling is not permitted in perpetuity on the retained (farm) lot; and 12-32 ® the severance should be limited to the minimum size needed to accommodate the dwelling, including sewage and water services. The policies of the GBP are consistent with the PPS, with the added restriction.of the date the residence was in existence. Section 5.3 of the GBP also states that there is nothing in the Plan that limits the ability of decision makers (i.e. the Region)to adopt policies that are more stringent than the requirements of the GBP, unless doing so would conflict with any of the policies or objectives of the Plan. The GBP specifically identifies "lot creation policies" as an area where official plans and zoning by-laws may contain more restrictive provisions. Consistent with the PPS, the GBP also requires new land uses, the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities to comply with MDS. Additionally, the lot creation policies of the GBP do not distinguish between abutting and non -abutting farm parcels. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Section 32 of the ORMCP addresses lot creation within the Plan area. The ORMCP policies permit severances for farm retirement lots and surplus farm dwelling lots. However, only one such severance is permitted for each rural lot and all consents granted on or after January 1, 1994 are included in the calculation of the cumulative total. However, consistent'with the PPS and GBP, the ORMCP does not prevent municipalities from adopting official plan policies and zoning by-law provisions that contain more restrictive lot creation policies. Additionally, the lot creation policies of the ORMCP do not distinguish between abutting and non -abutting farm parcels. 3.2 Co-ordinated Provincial Plan Review In February, 2015 the Province initiated a co-ordinated approach to reviewing four provincial land use plans: the Growth Plan; GBP,-ORMCP; and Niagara Escarpment Plan. The Region's submission (Commissioner's Report 2015-P-37) included the recommendation that the GBP and the ORMCP be amended to remove permissions for non -abutting farm related severances, and that the ORMCP be further amended to remove permissions for farm retirement lots. The Co-ordinated Review is ongoing. The Province anticipates that proposed amendments will be released for input in late spring, 2016. 12-33 4. DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES 4.1 ROP Policy Directions The ROP aims to protect and maintain the agricultural land base for future generations. The Region recognizes the importance of supporting a healthy and productive agricultural industry as an important element to the Region's heritage, identity and economy. Additionally, the ROP aims to limit land use conflicts by requiring new land uses, lot creation and new or expanding livestock facilities to comply with MDS. Lot creation policies within the ROP for rural areas have traditionally been more restrictive than the provincial plans. The ROP policies discourage the fragmentation of the agricultural land base by encouraging the consolidation of agricultural parcels, protecting the minimum lot size for agricultural uses, prohibiting retirement lots and only permitting surplus farm dwelling severances in specific circumstances. These policies apply to both the ROP's Prime Agricultural and Major Open Space Areas designations. 4.2 1991 Regional Official Plan Policies Since 1991 the ROP has differentiated between abutting and non -abutting farm parcels. Surplus Farm Dwellings - Abutting Farms The 1991 ROP encouraged the consolidation of farms, wherever possible, provided that the farms were merged into a single parcel. Severance of a farm dwelling rendered surplus as a result of consolidation of abutting farms could be granted provided that the farms were merged into a single parcel and that such a dwelling was not needed for a farm employee. Figure 1 illustrates a common abutting surplus farm dwelling severance situation. The applicant owns farm parcel 'B', which contains a farm dwelling and is acquiring farm parcel `A', which also contains a farm dwelling. To sever the surplus dwelling from parcel A, the applicant must merge the two farm parcels into one. 12-34 Figure 1: Abutting Surplus Farm ®welling Severance Surplus Farm Dwellings - Non -Abutting Farms The 1991 ROP permitted the consideration of the severance of a farm dwelling rendered surplus as a result of a farmer acquiring a non -abutting farm, provided that such dwelling is not needed for a farm employee, the farm to be acquired is of a size which is viable for farming operation, and no further severances would be permitted from the acquired farm. In this case, farm consolidation (merging) would not take place. Figure 2 illustrates a common non -abutting surplus farm dwelling severance situation. The applicant owns the "non -abutting" parcels outlined in yellow, in addition to the subject parcel. The application would see the farm dwelling severed from the retained agricultural parcel in this instance. 12-35 Figure 2: Non -Abutting Surplus Farm ®welling Severance Slaacor Cc rti - Subject Site �Q e 1 ;Lake stmcoe ;-BeaM on `r -� _ Thed Oe.qulm Rtt�� It ih,rhC alm Rd _ -a I 9 1 ,f11onY Onms�/RNt� L S Q.&C__u .Fwu Recognizing that these policies had the potential to increase the number of dwelling units in the rural area, attempts were made by the Region to prevent the construction of new dwellings on the retained farm parcel. In the 1990's, the Region requested one -foot reserves be placed on retained farm parcels to control site access and restrict new residential access (i.e. driveway) permissions. This method proved to be ineffective once ownership changed on the retained parcel. As such, in early 2000, it was the Region's practice to include a zoning condition to prohibit the construction of a residential dwelling on the retained farm parcel. 4.3 2000 ROP Review The 2000 ROP Review (ROPA 114) addressed farm -related severance issues in the context of the updated Provincial Policies and the Regional experience. Retirement Lots The research and analysis completed through the 2000 ROP review identified that the majority of retirement lots created over the period from 1991-2000 were not used for retirement purposes. As such, the policy permitting them was found to be contributing to the fragmentation of the agricultural land base and allowed the introduction of potentially incompatible land uses into active agricultural areas. Accordingly, the policy was deleted. 12-36 9 Surplus Farm Dwellings - Abutting Farms The research and analysis completed through the 2000 ROP Review identified that over a 10 year period (1991 to 2000), 7 surplus farm dwellings were severed as a result of the consolidation of abutting farms. While the severance of the surplus farm dwelling may have contributed to fragmentation of farmland and potentially incompatible new land uses (non- farm residential use), no additional land parcels were created (i.e. 2 parcels remained). The overall effect was the creation of larger farm parcels through the merging of farms. This created opportunities for more viable farm operations, and assisted in protecting the agricultural land base. In addition, since no new land parcels were created, there was no potential for an additional farm or non-farm residence to be developed. This policy resulted in larger farm parcels being created, which in turn provided good protection to farming activities and supported the agricultural industry. As such, it was proposed that no changes be made to the abutting farm severance policy. Surplus Farm Dwellings - Non -Abutting Farms The research and analysis completed through the 2000 ROP Review identified that over a 10 year period (1991 to 2000), the ROP was amended to permit the severance of 13 surplus farm dwellings, resulting from farmers acquiring non -abutting farms. In these instances, a single farm parcel was divided into two separate parcels: one for farm use and the other for a non-farm residential use. 'Recognizing that the non -abutting severance policy had the potential to increase the number of dwelling units in agricultural areas, attempts were made by the Region to prevent the construction of new dwellings on the retained farm parcels. As previously noted, the Region's practice had been to include a zoning condition to prohibit the construction of a residential dwelling on the retained farm parcel. It was recognized that the new non-farm residential lots had the potential of creating land use conflicts with the surrounding agriculture use. It contributed to fragmentation of the agricultural land base and resulted in the loss of land for food production. Also, the retained farm parcel surrounding the newly created non-farm residential lot became subject to MDS, which restricted the location of new farm -related buildings and/or structures on the retained farm parcel. Even though the Region had adopted the approach of requiring a zoning condition to prohibit the construction of a new residential dwelling on the retained parcel, it was recognized that the opportunity existed for that provision to be overturned in the future. As such, the original recommendation proposed that the policy, which provides for the consideration of the severance of a surplus dwelling from a non -abutting farm by amendment be deleted. However, when the GBP was released, it did provide for the consideration of surplus farm dwellings for non -abutting farms (i.e. no distinction between abutting or non -abutting). It further required that a residential dwelling would not be permitted in perpetuity on the retained farm parcel. As such, the final recommendation was amended to permit non - 10 12-37 abutting farm dwelling severances under those conditions. 4.4 Existing ROP a Surplus Farm Dwelling Severance Policies Abutting Farms (Policy 9A.2.9) The ROP continues to encourage the consolidation of farms, wherever possible, provided the farms are merged into a single parcel. Policy 9A.2.9 permits the consideration of the severance of a habitable farm dwelling rendered surplus as a result of consolidation of abutting farms, without amendment, subject to the following criteria: • the farms are merged into a single parcel; • the dwelling is not needed for a farm employee; • within the Protected Countryside of the GBP Area, the dwelling was in existence as of December 16, 2004; • the retained parcel is zoned to prohibit any further severances and the establishment of any residential dwelling; and • that no further severances from the retained farm parcel shall be granted. Consultation Preliminary consultation was conducted with internal departments, AMs and DAAC. Key comments arising from the discussion related to abutting farm parcels include: • Overall, no concerns were raised about the abutting severance policies; and • It was suggested that there should be more clarity to ensure abutting parcels are required to merge for farm operations. Policy Discussion As noted in Section 4.3, 7 surplus farm dwellings were severed between 1991 and 2000. Since 2000, 38 non-farm rural residential lots have been created through the consolidation of abutting farms. Consistent with the previous ROP Review, the result of the more recent severances was the creation of larger farm parcels through the merging of farms and no new parcels were created (i.e. 2 parcels remained). This has created opportunities for more viable farm operations, and assisted in protecting the agricultural land base. In addition, since no new land parcels are created, there is no potential for an additional residence to be developed. However, the recent research has identified a situation whereby farm operations retain separate individual ownership of adjoining parcels to prevent the parcels from merging, while seeking to sever surplus farm dwellings from the individual parcels. Figure 3 below illustrates an -example of this type of application. The applicant owns Parcel 3, which includes the farm dwelling to be severed. Parcels 1 and 2 also form part of the same farm operation, but are registered in different names on title. 12-38 11 Figure 3: Exception to Policy 94.2.9 Subject Site 1 3 2 To ensure land consolidation proceeds as intended in Policy 9A.2.9, provisions should be added to the ROP to clarify that in circumstances where a "farm operation" owns two or more abutting farm parcels, the abutting parcels should be required to merge in order to ensure that no new parcels are created. Accordingly, it is appropriate to retain the abutting`farm severance policy, with appropriate revisions to apply to "farm operations". Non -Abutting Farms (Policy 9A. 2.10) Policy 9A.2.10 permits the consideration of the severance of a farm dwelling rendered surplus as the result of the consolidation of non -abutting farms, by amendment, subject to the following criteria: • the..dwelling is not needed for a farm employee; • the farm parcel to be acquired is of a size which is viable for farming operations; • within the Protected Countryside of the GBP Area, the dwelling was inexistence as of December 16, 2004; • the retained parcel is zoned to prohibit any further severances and the establishment of any residential dwelling; and • that no further severances from the retained farm parcel shall be granted 12 12--39 Consultation Key comments arising from the preliminary consultation related to non -abutting farm parcels include: • From an economic development perspective, farm businesses may use the sale of the dwelling to help fund the purchase of farmland; • Deleting the non -abutting policy may increase the number of abandoned houses in the rural area if farmers are unable to sever the surplus dwelling; • The majority of DAAC felt these policies are tools used by the agricultural industry to grow their businesses, avoid landlord/tenant issues and provide a housing option when they retire. As such, they would support further restricting these policies, but not deletion; • A number of comments acknowledged the significant challenges these applications may cause in the future (e.g. if the zoning on the retained lands is reversed); • The northern AMs were generally supportive of restricting or investigating the removal of the non -abutting policy; • Strengthening the non -abutting policy language may reduce a few severances, but a large number will still qualify; • The requirement to prohibit any future dwellings on the retained lands ultimately undermines the flexibility of the farm parcel in the future; • The elimination of this policy would protect existing farm infrastructure from premature destruction (due to MDS setback requirements); and • It was suggested that the requirement for a ROPA should be removed, to make the application process less cumbersome and expensive for farmers seeking to sever surplus farm dwellings. Policy Discussion As noted in Section 4.3, the ROP had been amended to permit the severance of 13 surplus farm dwellings between 1991 and 2000. Since then, an additional 33 non-farm rural residential lots have been created through this policy. Table 3 illustrates the number of lots created per year since 2000. There has been a noticeable increase in the last 5 years (23 lots). 12-40 13 Table 3: Number of Lots Created (Non -Abutting) 2001-2015 8 Number of Lots Created (N•on-Abutting) 2001-2015 7 -- - 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 - 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Durham Region Planning and Economic Development Department. Although this policy may provide a financial benefit to farmers, the fragmentation of the agricultural land base is of paramount concern from a land use planning perspective. In addition, the other concerns raised in the 2000 ROP Review remain, including: • loss of land for food production; • potential land use conflicts; and • restrictions on the ability to locate new farm related buildings due to MDS criteria. Finally, notwithstanding the provisions of the GBP that attempt to ensure that no new residential dwellings will be permitted on the retained farm parcel, there is no solid legal basis to ensure that zoning restrictions will not be overturned in the future. In order to restrict the further fragmentation of the agricultural land base through the creation of non-farm parcels, consideration should be given to deleting Policy 9A.2.10. 14 12-41 5. CONCLUSIONS This exercise reviewed the appropriateness of the ROP's surplus farm dwelling severance policies and confirmed previous concerns raised in the 2000 ROP Review. Given the level of fragmentation in the rural area, the existing supply of vacant farm parcels and rural development potential, it is prudent to place further restrictions on the ability to create additional non-farm rural residential lots. Although Provincial Plans currently permit the consideration of surplus farm dwelling severances, the Region has historically supported more restrictive policies that protect the land base against fragmentation and the introduction of incompatible uses. . It is acknowledged that the existing policies provide a financial and operational benefit to farmers. However, the long term implications of further fragmenting of the agricultural land base is of paramount concern. The concerns outlined in the previous ROP Review in 2000 and through the updated research completed for this subsequent review are consistent. 12-42 15 7. EXTERNAL INFORMATION SOURCE Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance (2014). Agriculture and Agri -Food Aconomic Profile for the Golden Horseshoe, A Profile of Agriculture in the Region of Durham. Project Coordinated by: Planscape in collaboration with: North-South Environmental Inc., Regional Analytics, and TCI Management Consultants. 16 12-43 r m LEAS ROAD C11 03 LANG. AID AAD _- O � � t to �-n — z}_ REGION L ROAD 34 (ENFIELD OAD) o �e O O D— O m co D. Ln m z o SOLINA ROAD -- — _ >1 D 2 IZ z s-_ o O_ o 2 io O J Y HOLT. O______ ti LD SC GO ROA - i'� \ REGIONA ROAD 57 - UGO OLO -- - P O - _ ----MIDDLE ROAD m C) Cl)y� S�it'i h cmn LIBERTY STREE — cn , J t o BETHESDA ROAD D -n �, ♦ o i BRAG3ROAD mLn --- - - a� EGIONAL R AD 42 ti G SON RO L � A ((D _ _ __ __ O- Z OCKHART R AD > !� ' M -- - LESKARD ]3511 OD nCDU)z cn H n 0 -- - z -- - - m A G1 o - D °rri p D tO -- cn < D ca --- -- -- Z to ---- I Irn O _J - ---- - ---- O D o Z o m y � Z a7 D � O � cn � I NEWTONVILLE R AD \ NEWTONVILLE F OAD cn CDN 0 CD M Wh N' CD O 1'2-42; Report If. this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: June 6, 2016 Report Number: PSD -044-16 Resolution Number: File Number: PLN 8.6 Bylaw Number: Report Subject: Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice Rec®mmendations: 1. That Report PSD -044-16 be received; and 2. That Staff be authorized to undertake a neighbourhood study for the subject area and initiate an amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63 to address severance potential within the subject area, which may restrict future severances. 12-45 Municipality of Clarington Resort PSD -044-16 Report Overview Paqe 2 As a result of a motion approved at the April 25, 2016 Planning and Development Committee meeting concerning the southeast corner of the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice, Staff are reporting back regarding the appropriateness of a review or study of the subject area and the passing of an Interim Control By-law for the subject area. Staff recommend that an Interim Control By-law is not necessary but that it would be appropriate to undertake a study of the subject area reporting back to Committee and Council in the Fall. 1. Background 1.1. At the Planning and Development Committee meeting on April 25, 2016, following motion was passed: Be it resolved that, in consideration of recent severances on Westmore Street, staff be directed to report to Committee at the June 6, 2016 Planning and Development Committee meeting with regard to the appropriateness of Council directing a review or study be undertaken of the land use planning policies with respect to preserving the existing character in the area of Westmore Street, Jane Avenue, Glenview Road and Lynnwood Avenue and the passing an Interim Control By-law for such area. 1.2 Severances in the area of the streets named in the motion have been occurring for many years. In the past five years, -four lots have been severed, potentially adding a total of nine additional dwellings to the neighbourhood. Most recently, an application was approved to sever a lot for linked dwellings at 4 Lynwood Avenue. In 2015, a lot was severed from 4 Jane Avenue. In 2013, two lots were severed from 12 Glenview Road and in 2012 acid 2013, four lots were severed from 3068 Courtice Road. 1.3 Some residents in this neighbourhood have expressed concerns with some of the recent lot creation around them. Objections to the above noted severance were voiced while the various applications were.in progress. In 2015, the decision of the Durham Region Land Division Committee to approve the severance of a lot at 4 Jane Avenue was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by neighbouring residents. The appeal was based on character of the neighbourhood: The decision of the Land Division Committee was upheld and the severance was allowed. 2. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 2.1 The subject area (see Figure 1) is located in the southeast corner of the Glenview neighbourhood in Courtice. This area of the neighbourhood is characterized by many older homes on large lots by today's urban standards. Over the past 15 years, new homes have been constructed in subdivisions at the periphery of the subject area on Fourth Avenue, Jane Avenue and Skinner Court. Between approximately 15 to 25 years ago, lots located on Nash Road and Courtice Road were severed creating redevelopment and infill opportunities. 12-46 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -044-16 Page 3 Figure 1: Subject Area 2.2 Typical lots towards the interior of the subject area have approximately 32 metres of frontage each with the range being from 20 metres to 49 metres. A few of these lots have a lot depth of up to 60 metres. The lots on the newer portion of Fourth Avenue within the Plan of Subdivision typically have 15 metres of frontage. Lots fronting on Courtice Road have approximately 26 metres of frontage with the exception of two 15 metre wide lots and' one approximately 43 metre wide lot. Lots fronting on Nash Road range from less than 8 metres of frontage to 32 metres of frontage. 3. Provincial Policy 3.1 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy liveable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential dwelling types while being sensitive to the characteristics of the neighbourhood. 12-47 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -044-16 3.2 Provincial Growth Plan The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas such as the Courtice Urban Area. Municipalities. are encouraged to create complete communities that offer a mix of land uses, employment and housing options, high quality open space, and access to stores'and services. The subject area is mainly within the Built-up Area of the Growth Plan, with the exception of the homes on the north and west sides of Fourth Avenue. The Growth Plan includes policies to direct development to settlement areas, and provides direction for intensification targets within Built-up Areas. 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Areas. Lands designated as Living Areas permit the development of communities with defined boundaries, incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living accommodations that address -various socio-economic factors. 4.2 Clarington Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates this area Urban Residential. The lands are within the Glenview Neighbourhood, which has a population allocation of 3100 and a housing unit target of 1110, including 25 units for intensification. The Urban Residential designation allows a (low) density of 10 to 30 units per net hectare with the predominant form of housing being single and semi-detached dwellings. Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands Urban Residential Type One (R1) with exception of the homes on Fourth Avenue that are within plan of subdivision 40M-2213, and zoned Urban Residential Exception (R1-44) which permits single detached dwellings - only on minimum 15 metre lots. The maximum frontage required in the R1 Zone is 15 metres for single detached dwellings and 18 metres for semi-detached or linked dwellings (9 metres for each dwelling). Many of the newer homes.at the east end of Westmore Street and along Nash Road are linked dwellings. 530191S10717101 1 6.1 Current Infill and Redevelopment Opportunity Under the current R1 zoning for the subject area, all interior lots with the exception of a 49 metre wide lot on Glenview Road, would be eligible for a maximum of one severance each. In most cases, this would require the demolition of the existing dwelling to make way for two new dwellings. Lots within the subject area having less than 18 metres of frontage would not be eligible to be severed. Corner lots would be eligible to be severed into more than one lot given available frontage. Any application for severance must 12-48 demonstrate how the new and existing lots will be serviced. Not all of the streets within Municipality of Claringtou Report PSD -044-16 Page 5 the subject area have municipal services available. Extension of those services would be required as a condition of approval for any lot not currently having access to municipal water and sanitary sewer services. Further development on private services would not be permitted. 6.2 Interim Control By-law Section 38 of the Planning Act empowers a municipality to pass an Interim Control By-law for a period not exceeding one year to allow the Municipality to freeze development until it has had the opportunity to undertake a review or study of land use planning policies in a defined area. Extensions of the Interim Control by-law are possible up to a maximum time of 2 years total. It is the opinion of Staff that an Interim Control By-law is not needed in this case and that a scoped neighbourhood study can be undertaken expeditiously for the subject area. A Public Meeting can be scheduled for September should a Zoning By- law amendment be deemed appropriate for all or part of the subject area. 7. Concurrence Not Applicable Over the past number of decades, this corner of the Glenview neighbourhood has slowly evolved. The original large lots were located in a then rural area based on private services. With Provincial Policy directives for intensification. and full municipal services either existing or nearby, there will continue to be pressure to further develop the subject area. In consideration of this and Council's request for a report, it is respectfully recommended that Staff be authorized to undertake a neighbourhood study for the subject area and initiate an amendment to Zoning By-law 84-63 to address severance potential within the subject area, which may restrict future severances. Staff would report back to Committee and Council in the Fall. Not applicable. 12-49 Municipality of Ciarington Report PSD -044-16 Submitted by: David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services Reviewed by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Mitch Morawetz, Planner 11, 905-623-3379 ext. 2411 or m m o rawetz(cr_ cl a ri n gto n. net Attachments — None There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision. MM/CP/tg 12-50 1 If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102 Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: June 6, 2016 Report Number: PSD -045-16 . Resolution: File Number: 18T-95030, ZBA 2014-0033 Bylaw Number: Report Subject: Applications by Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc. to amend Phase 2 of a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision for 24 residential units and a Future Development Block for medium density in the /apple Blossom Neighbourhood, Bowmanville Recommendations: That Report PSD -045-16 be received; 2. That the application for amendment to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision submitted by Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc. for 24 residential units and a Future Medium Density Residential Block on the north side of Elephant Hill Drive be supported subject to conditions as contained in Attachment 2 of Report PSD -045-16; 3. That the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc. be approved as contained in Attachment 3 of Report PSD -045-16; 4. That once all conditions contained in Zoning By-law with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved; 5. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD -045-16 and Council's decision; and 6. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -045-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 12-51 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 Page 2 Report Overview This report is recommending approval of an application by Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc.. to amend Phase 2 of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and rezoning to permit 2 single detached dwelling and 22 street townhouse units and a 1.66 hectare block for future medium density development on those lands located on the north side of the future extension of Elephant Hill Drive in Bowmanville. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner: Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc. 1.2 Proposal: Amendment to Draft Approval Revise boundary of the draft plan to include Block 97 from registered plan of subdivision 1 OM -830 to the west and allow for the development of two single detached dwelling lots with 10 metres of frontage, four blocks for 22 townhouse units and a 1.66 hectare block for future medium density development. Amendment to the Zoning Dy -law To increase lot coverage from 50% to 55% for townhouses; ii) To allow various changes in the setbacks: 6 metres to the garage, 4 metres to the dwelling and 2 metres to the porch for exterior and front yards; 1.3 Total Area: 2.7 hectares 1.4 Location: West side of Mearns Avenue, abutting the south side of the Canadian Pacific Railway, being Part Lot 9, Concession 2, former Town of Bowmanville (See Figure 1). Roll No: 1817-020-060-10805 1.5 Within Built Boundary: Yes 12-52 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-10 - Rage 3 . Figure 1: Property Location of Entire Draft Plan 2. Background 2.1 In August 19, 1996 the Region of Durham issued approval for a draft plan of subdivision for 192 units, consisting of 118 single detached dwellings, 42 semi/link units and 32 street townhouse units. The Region of Durham did not include expiry dates in conditions of draft approval (see Figure 2). 2.2 In 2000, the Region of Durham delegated authority to the Municipality of Clarington with respect to plans of.subdivision. In 2011, the conditions of draft approval were amended by only adding an expiry date of three years to October 2014. 12-53 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 2.3 Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc. acquired the lands just prior to the October 2014 expiry date for the draft plan. Under delegated authority, the Director of Planning Services extended draft approval and amended the draft plan by including an alternate second access onto Mearns Avenue which changed some lots and placed all the lands north of Elephant Hill Drive in a Future Development Block. This reduced the number of units to 152. The conditions of draft approval were also amended to include current study requirements, notices and warnings. 2.4 The applicant was able to purchase triangular blocks of land abutting the west limits of the proposal on either side of Elephant Hill Drive and incorporate them in. the draft plan limits. The blocks were created through the registration of plan 10M- 530. These lands have always been intended to be developed in conjunction with the subject lands. ! �L 'A' ------------- - -19 i`J jFT ME y W �4 L)i H mill / SPRUCEWOOD CF: € II€ ! t1 MADDEN PLACE � i 1 MADDEN PLAC CT AivfPLING�-�-- (�w` (^^H -[F . UTON PLACE f, mui LL ILI /-X \ 1. I - - HUTTON PLS IRELAND STREET -- --) Figure 2: Original Draft Approved Plan -1996 12-54 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 Page 5 2.5 On December 22, 2014 Averton submitted applications for further amendments to draft approval and rezoning for only those lands south of Elephant Hill Drive, Phase 1. On April 26 of this year, the phase 1 lands were draft approved for a total of 150 lots consisting of 129 single family dwellings and 21 townhouse units. Due to the steep road grades within the development the road pattern was revised to remove a portion of street between Lyle Drive and Elephant Hill Drive and replaced it with' a pedestrian walkway and green space. 2.6 A Public Meeting for the phase 2 subject lands was held March 16, 2016. At that meeting the proposal was for a total of 57 lots consisting of 2 single detached dwelling lots, 55 street townhouse dwelling lots and a crescent shaped street on the north side of Elephant Hill Drive (See Figure 3 below). Based on the concerns expressed in the staff report the application has been amended to replace the . crescent shaped street and units with a Future Medium Density Development Block to be developed through site plan approval (See Figure 4). U Figure 3: Limits of Phase 2 Subject Lands and proposed subdivision layout at public meeting 12-55 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 z - N -- Y m m ELDAD Future Development Block J� Phase 2 Amendment To Draft Plan "6:,- z 0a -:, ELEPHANT HILL DRIVE Gad .• _;;.;..L..��;. LYLE DRIVE Lands Added To Draft Plan Limit LYLE DRIVE W rr CAMPLIN� IU G J T � LYLE DRIVE I I I I Page 6 SPRUCEWOOD Phase 1 Draft Approved HUTTON PLACE I I L 1 — HUTTON PLACE IRELAND STREET -F�i r HIE -- �f�T_ - -- — 1_ Iz�wao1noo . Figure 4: Proposed Amendments to Draft Approved Plan for Phase 2 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The lands are at a significantly higher elevation at the north-west and abutting the railway and existing Elephant Hill Drive and slope downward to the south-east corner. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Canadian Pacific Railway and beyond Urban residential South - Urban residential East - Urban residential West - Urban residential 12-56 LYLE DRIVE W rr CAMPLIN� IU G J T � LYLE DRIVE I I I I Page 6 SPRUCEWOOD Phase 1 Draft Approved HUTTON PLACE I I L 1 — HUTTON PLACE IRELAND STREET -F�i r HIE -- �f�T_ - -- — 1_ Iz�wao1noo . Figure 4: Proposed Amendments to Draft Approved Plan for Phase 2 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The lands are at a significantly higher elevation at the north-west and abutting the railway and existing Elephant Hill Drive and slope downward to the south-east corner. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - Canadian Pacific Railway and beyond Urban residential South - Urban residential East - Urban residential West - Urban residential 12-56 Municipality of Clarington Report PS® -045-16 Page 7 4e Provincial Policy 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy livable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment, recreational and open space uses to meet long term needs. Some relevant policies are: New housing is to be directed to locations where infrastructure and public services are or will be available. A full range and mix of housing types and densities shall be provided to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. Infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost effective manner. 4.2 Provincial Growth Plan The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas, such as the Bowmanville Urban Area. Municipalities are encouraged to create complete communities that offer a mix of land uses, employment and housing options, high quality open space, and access to stores and services. In particular: • Growth is to be accommodated in transit=supportive communities to reduce dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed use, pedestrian -friendly environments. • Growth shall also be directed to areas that offer municipal water and wastewater systems. • Municipalities should establish an urban open space system within the built up areas. • Municipalities must accommodate residential development within the built up area. 4.3 This plan of subdivision is on a vacant parcel in the urban area. It is surrounded by other residential development, schools, parks and commercial uses. Water, stormwater and sanitary services are constructed to the site's perimeter. The development allows for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services. The subject applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan. 12-57 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 Page 0 5e Official Plans 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Region Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Area. Lands designated as Living Area permit the development of communities with defined boundaries, incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socio- economic factors. The proposed development is permitted within the Living Area designation. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands as Urban Residential, with a Medium Density Symbol at the north east corner of Elephant Hill Drive and Mearns Avenue. The lands are within the Apple Blossom Neighbourhood, which has a population allocation of 4750 and a housing target of 1650, including 225 medium density units and 125 units for intensification. The Low Density designation allows a density of 10 to 30 units per net hectare and predominant form of housing are single and semi-detached units. The Medium Density designation allows for density of 31 to 60 units per hectare while the predominant form of housing are townhouses, quadraplexes and triplexes or low rise apartments. This is the last significant development parcel within the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood currently has approximately 1320 existing units. Phase 1 and 2 will add 174 units in two Draft Approved plans, plus a Future Medium Density Block. The application is deemed to conform 6. Zoning By-law Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands "Holding -Urban Residential Type One ((H) R1)", "Holding -Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-20), "Holding Urban Residential Type One ((H) R3)", "Holding -Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-8). Zoning By-law amendments are required to implement the proposed amendments to draft approval. 7. Summary of Background Studies Reports were submitted by the applicant in support of both Phase 1 and 2 amendments to Draft Approval, and are summarized below: 12-58 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 Page 9 7.1 Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, SPL Consultants Limited, November 7, 2014 ' This report was prepared for the entire land parcel and determined based on observations, information collection and present land use, the site has a low level of concern from an environmental contamination perspective. 7.2 Traffic Impact Study, JD Engineering Inc., September 16, 2014 and Mearns Avenue Access Review, October 20, 2014 This report was also undertaken for proposed amendments to Phase 1 and 2. The Traffic Impact Study assessed the impact of the traffic generated from the proposed subdivision on the surrounding road network specifically the intersections that were in the immediate vicinity of the subdivision. Based on the original road configuration of the draft plan and assumed traffic distribution at the existing intersections all operate at an acceptable level of service. The revision to the road network in 2014 provided an additional access to Mearns Avenue at the future Lyle Avenue. This change provides more options to disperse traffic from the new development and was determined to have minimal impact of the adjacent intersections. 7.3 Update Environmental Noise Assessment Mearns Avenue and CPR Line, Valcoutics Canada Limited, February 29, 2016 Noise impacting the development is generated from train traffic on the Canadian Pacific Railway and vehicular traffic on Mearns Avenue. A 3.0 metre high acoustic fence on top of a 2.5 metre high berm is required at the rear of both the single detached dwelling lots and all the townhouse blocks. These dwellings will all be set back a minimum of 30 metres from the railway property line and require mandatory air conditioning, since they will receive noise from the railway. The future development block will be reassessed through a future.site plan application, should this application receive draft approval. The appropriate warning clauses will be required in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale advising homeowners of potential noise generated by traffic on Mearns Avenue and the CP Railway, including train whistles. 7.4 Functional Servicing Report, -Condeland Engineering Ltd. 2014 The Functional Servicing Report concluded that the site can be serviced by municipal sanitary sewers; peak flows can be conveyed to the existing trunk sewer system on Mearns Avenue. The site can be serviced with municipal water by looping the water distribution system from Elephant Hill Drive to Mearns Avenue. 12-59 Municipality of Clarington Resort PSD -045-16 Paae 10 Adequate storm drainage and stormwater management facilities for both quantity and quality can be provided within the development area to neutralize the impact of urbanized run off. 8. Public Notice and Submissions 8.1 The applicant hosted a Public Information Centre on Thursday February 26, 2015 at John M. James Public Elementary School located on Mearns Avenue in Bowmanville. The entire draft plan was the focus of the Public Information Centre. The applicant and their consultants attended the meeting as well. as staff from the Planning Services Department and Engineering Services Department. A total of six area residents attended the meeting. 8.2 A Public Meeting for Phase 2 was held on March 14, 2016. Notice of Public Meeting for the Phase 2 proposal was given to each land owner within 120 metres of Phase 2 lands and Public Meeting Notice signs were installed along the frontages of Mearns Avenue and Elephant Hill Drive. No one spoke at the public meeting other than the applicant's consultant and staff have not received any inquiry regarding Phase 2. 9. Agency Comments 9.1 Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department stated that the lands are designated Living Area. The phase 2 lands together with the balance of the subdivision will provide a variety of built housing forms and comply with the intent of the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan. The Environmental Noise Assessment and recommendations were reviewed and are acceptable, as was the Phase One Environmental Site Assessment. The Region will require a Regional Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance as a condition of Draft Approval. The recently amended conditions of draft approval will require minor revisions to address the requirements for the phase 2 lands. 9.2 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority does not have any objections to the principle of the development for Phase 2 of the Averton proposed subdivision 18T- 95030. CLOCA advised that their conditions of draft approval requested for the Phase 1 lands remain applicable for Phase 2 of the subdivision. 9.3 The proposed development is located adjacent to the CP Rail principal main line. Canadian Pacific Railway is not in favour of residential developments adjacent to their right-of-way as this land use is not considered compatible with railway operations. However, CP Rail provided conditions of draft approval to mitigate impacts from the CP Railway, including the requirement for a safety berm on the adjoining property parallel to the railway right-of-way, the installation of fencing or walls, a minimum setback for dwellings of 30 metres and various warning clauses regarding noise and vibration. 12-60 Municipality of Ciarington Report PSD -045-16 Page I I 9.4 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, Rogers,'and Enbridge Gas have no objection to the applications. 10.1 Emergency and Eire Services The Emergency and Fire Services Department offers no objection. 10.2. Engineering Services The phase 2 lands were reviewed in context of the overall subdivision application. Grading for these lands will require a couple of rear yard catch basins, but is generally not as challenging as the balance of the site. Requirements for stormwater management plans being consistent with the recommendations of the West Branch of Soper Creek Master Drainage Plan are generally addressed through the development of the Phase1 lands that include the extension of Elephant Hill Drive. As with Phase 1, every effort should be made to minimize import or exporting of fill material. The applicant will be required to ensure the berm and noise attenuation fence at the rear of the blocks transitions to match the existing noise attenuation fence to the west of the development, while still satisfying CP Rails current requirements. The applicant will be required to provide an appropriate cash contribution in lieu of normal parkland dedication. 11. Discussion 11.1 The subject lands were part of a plan of subdivision that received Draft Approval in 1996 for 192 units. Averton acquired the property in September 2014 and began working with staff to bring the plan into compliance with current policy and regulatory requirements. In order to facilitate an amended draft approval more expeditiously, the owners. agreed to place all the lands north of the Elephant Hill Drive in a Future Development Block. The original draft approval contained townhouses and the semi-detached/link dwelling units on a cul-de-sac abutting the west side of Mearns Avenue, as well as semi-detached/link dwelling units fronting onto the north side of Elephant Hill Drive. Development of the Phase 2 lands is constrained by the established alignment for Elephant Hill Drive, the railway and the need for an acoustical berm and fencing adjacent to the railway, a large road widening to accommodate a future grade separation at Mearns Avenue, and the grades of the lands. Averton agreed to place the lands in a Future Development Block to explore design alternatives. 11.2 The submission for amendment to draft approval eliminated the cul-de-sac in favour of a crescent shaped road containing only townhouse units. This proposal did not conform to the policies of the Official Plan which states that townhouses across from townhouses are generally not supported due to on -street parking issues. The. configuration also created unusually large side yards for the two lots 12-61 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 Page 12 flanking the railway corridor. Given the berm requirements, with little usable land area staff did not support the proposal. 11.3 The applicants have further revised the plan, choosing to create a Future Development Block intended to be developed with a townhouse condominium development through site plan approval. The applicants continue to propose townhouse housing for the block, however with a private road there will be more design flexibility to deal with the constraints of the site. 11.4 At the first public meeting for this development, a resident made a comment that although the existing Elephant Hill Park has a full playground and baseball diamonds, it should be updated, especially if all the units in Phases 1 and 2 of Averton are built out. In response to these comments, the applicant's agent offered to contribute to improvements to the existing Elephant Hill Park. No improvements to the park were contemplated by the Operations or Engineering Services Department. More recently the applicant confirmed they will donate the construction of sun shelter, having a minimum size of 16 ft. x 16 ft. to the existing park. 11.5 Similar to Phase 1, the applicant is seeking to amend the zoning which was originally approved in 1996 to reflect current design standards, with increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks to the interior side yard and to the street, specifically 2 metres to the porch, 4 metres to the dwelling and 6 metres to the garage. These standards have been accepted in newer neighbourhoods. Also similar to Phase 1, the applicant has requested the height of dwellings be permitted to increase to 11.0 metres as opposed to the typical 10.5 metres. The Zoning By-law accommodates this for the townhouse units. 11.6 The applicant has provided concurrence with the attached amended Conditions of Draft Approval. 11.7 All taxes payable to the Municipality of Clarington have been paid in full. 12. Conclusion In considerationof the findings of all supporting studies, agency and resident comments and based on review of the proposal, staff recommend that the revisions to draft approval for phase 2, including amended Conditions of Draft Approval (Attachment 2) and Zoning By-law amendment (Attachment 3), be approved. 13. Strategic Plan The recommendation in this report conform to the Strategic Plan. 12-62 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 Submitted by: David J/Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services Paae 13 Reviewed bV� Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Cynthia Strike, Principal, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2410 or cstrike clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1: Draft Plan Attachment 2: Conditions of Draft Approval Attachment 3: Rezoning By -Law The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Brad and Lindsay Wright Vince Baffa Justin Malfara Anthony Biglieri . Lawrence Wesson Garrett and Amber Dawn Duncan Carlene Robinson Shawn Mclean Craig Gulas 12-63 Municipality of Clarinqton Attachment.I to epp 14 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION OF BLOCKS 95 AND 97 PLAN IOM -830 AND t' PART OF LOT 9, O CONCESSION 2 (GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON) (FORMERLY TOWN OF BOWMANVILLE) 'Y MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Y� REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM = ; SCALE 1:1000 b aY dTrtA4 RFDY-PIXiIX & EDWABD 5JflY2Y1H0 LTD., O.LS. v DISTANCES AND COORDINATES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE IN METRES AND CAN BE CONVERTED TO FEET BY SLSE pr.'f OWING BY 0.3048. ' A \\ a ads N)0a1M[ � a KEY PLAN (NOT TO SCALE) Dy' 16 ° , PROPOSED LAND USE: e� a PHASE 1 TOW D NF SIM 4 DETAfaAWFll NGS: G•\ �'• t 10.81M FRONTAGES -LOTS 27 TO 32, 127 AND 128 (0 LO>jrltTS 4 gVTACEs-UNII$7 07.01• 1075 9 TO 26, JS 70 61, 65 TO 96, 09 0 i2s y°' (107 LOTS/ 007 LINOS) ' ©G BLOC( 143 Q .5h M FRO,4TAOE5-LOTS 1 TO 6 fSULTYPROCNTIA1-LOTS .V\ W AND 9N 52. 03, 54 MU 129 (8 LOTS / 6 URNS) MEDIUM DENSITY: y \ \\ (•. y t . . a� \ tl RTRFFT TDAVHDIIR[• i32 7o IJS \ UMTsB)LOCKS (4 BoM aEg/ 21 - TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS; ydT'� a \ 5 � ufl 150 UNITS TOTAL RE9DENBAL AREAHO \\ t ' ELEPHANT $\ HILL DRIVE �sy.ay•� A 7,°7 a ..........................................6.314 tl" y .. \\.\4\N111 a,. y yf qtG �i a — a' a r ,w ,a» nn • , a �0 0.30 RESERVE -BLOCKS 152 AND 151..-.._.._ ....................0.009 Ha STREET WDEN40-BLOC(0..._.150 AW 151.__.-._ _.. ._ ......._.0.631 Hv ..................................... _._.0.134 H0 PARK BLOCK 13._..._._... ... e u I1 ROADS...____._.._....,._.._.._ -..._....._,.._...•._.._.._.230 No FUTURE DE1f10PYINT-BLOCKS I36 A40 137.._......__ ....... -.O.ODB No \ TOTAL AREA OF PHASE 1 SUBDINSION .....................0.337 H0 11 113 112 til ° 9 �`s 'e � `'n �� e r '"»„ 110 107 108 107 108 105 Io{ a» , » „'a PHASE 2 0� a� .,�" ,ara u» ,: 99N 100 fol 102 Kos I 914 x 1I •�8�7 'r+At> �t'� tr<�rlXy LOW DENSITY, Z`Y4 ` 9 tK`j'�R�3p'y • 4 l�. 1Y tO1• YG 10.8+ M f2ONTA SS-• LOTS 130 AND 131 a!Yp. .q P 11I1Ia g 5.�li11i111 (2 LO15/ 2 UNITS) uiIllOI MOIUMDENSITY nS m 08 . LM DRIVE '•vj� `r LP. vYUOLOCRS 139 To 142 •f (S BLOCKS/ 22 UNITS) ,)t t 11 r t 4ta7l YOB 94 ` f � t g,a4 � x � S � `�" � � � x Q'4�LOC'K IJ3 ;t: 0 �-,' a TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS• 24 UNITS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BLOCK �,ydTtVi� eaaf t4 •., y5 1 �`iK'�yXyc'� v.0 aa» 94 SIJ 92 91 90 e9 as i ai� W a8 e6 as a� rti $¢ -f U! f I T07A. Re9DFHnu MEA ................................................ .Dst Ha NyV'gR3°�� Jt° N r,A G, b9 r 70y 71 72 73 7S 70 78 77 79 of 82 el 01 "• 'Z 9 uo TOTAL AREA OF PHASE 2 SURWASION ............ p.,,...2716 Ha KtID 580 TOTAI. AREA OF SUBDINSIGN .............................1 2.053 HO ^y;aay} a» ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS REQUIRED UNDER »9 '7: SECTION 51 (17) OF THE PLANNING ACT: t LYLE DRIVE PHASE 1 127 ru A- SEE PIAN t 9 . HrI 10+75 `'°�;A120 v» , an n n» Si Lal C _ B. PROPOSED NEW STREETS SHALL BE HAVER IN CO SULTAMUN WTN THE UOVCPAUTY. \'1V �t �� R6ib t J2 § gg 4L J3 g x d x E A g 1 Ir I I A 6 k I41.v,y��y51 ff p M. O ri C. SEE PUN E PURPOSE PROPOSED LOTS x.41 -DETACHED MV TO'lAi{OUSE RE9DEliBAL , K) f J{ JI»� 9' x66 87 66 65 61 03 62 61 60 64 de i i 7• A b7 04 65 i 1 1 1 A P SEE KA„o%�� U. SEE PLM ' LOTn1t-0")s JS a ,an 29 i b'"� 34 40 S) 42 S3 SS 45 i8 47 48 » uv um nm uy SSI by 51 52 53 b4 o• H. PWL CLAY LOM ROPOSED WATER SUPPLY: UVNWAL WAl7AUALVS SEE K, J d 2 d S'y 1 3 Y Y 1� z d sER%lOESL TO BE INSTALLED BY THE DE\ELOPERt NAL URBAN SERHCEs. 1. THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIVE C05TNA T5 O4 EASwvils AEFiCBHO TH6 PRDPERTY. 7 PA J P k y0p`otar » _ g 27a» a '�' "� a� • ' SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE: LYIE DRIVE �Y IOI� 16 y OCX�1 B uI I HEREBY CERTEY MAT Ila: BWNOARES OF THE MD TO BE SUBDINDEB AHO TiETR RELAVONSHP To ADMIRIO LINOS ME AMITATELY AND CORRECTLY SIR)MI ON PUN. .a , ua an , x� aa9 » J» ” w INS t ° ,,f t 'y RM1froi a'E» 6toi i 1 DATE JANUARY ] , 2016 /lj{,Gj.�• e e e e gy •-• \� P : E k 4 i I 8 8 1 t t 't• `i 7 y y 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 10 15 14 TJ 12 It i 10 0 PART 2, O P. EDWARD, OLS. RAOY-POIR( & EDWARD WMET1NO LTD. h 7� all 'lu U.v7A d'ji Aa9'NI IY'� >aY , Itss:j 1 �� ",'» tw' a» "w �» "" PPDINsIOR-oImDN 1 I '3 1 '6� '7 OWNERS' CERTIFICATE 2» 33N IL,•}Af ,y I 1 w + FSyI I N 4 q'5 8 t 1 AS REPSIEAm OriNEIt of THE PROPERTY, 1 HEREBY, AUTNOIUSEO THE SVB1U590'I, OF ails PLAN FOR ORXFT APPROYAL � 7 g N STI=flET hy�l�L.tt (B R+et4,su-oi16 O H Y j DATE , 2016 PETER 0•AVBR090. PR som °ti+�0l 68) PLt AVSRToN HWES (BOWVAW.UE) NO, -;'-"i-'-F--- 1 �'--------------T---T " LOT LOT 23 I Loi 22JIDT 211LOT 21�L0T 191LGT 1 LAT 1711L LOT 151 LOT IJLOT 131L0T --- T---;-BLOdC l01 021 LOT ❑ILDi lO� LOT 81 t(iP 1 ' (� RADY^PENTETS &EDWARD SURVEYING LTD, I 1 I ! 1 I 1 1 I i I 1 1 7i 11 ONTMIO fAAO SVRVEICfi1 643rd0pa6L 1 11 i 7 W'oe�rld9r, Ov1aM UL eA3 Td[115 615-5000 Fva 416 63S -SOOT (905�2bi-2099 Td.(90512bS-0D01 Fva I.<a DRAWx:xavt-P ORA•MD SL CID; JOB Nv. I4-124 CADFILE Ha14124-0RIa 9 AA -AY 17 1 2010 14:16:11 Attachment 2 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -022-16 CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL File Number: 18T-95030 Date: May 20, 2016 The Conditions of Draft Approval for 18T-95030 issued on August 19, 1996 and amended on October 26, 2011, October 27, 2014, and April 26, 2016 are hereby amended as follows as they apply to the Phase 2 lands of the April 26, 2016 Amendment to Draft Approval: Part 1 -PLAN IDENTIFICATION The Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of the approved revised draft plan of subdivision by Rady-Pentek & Edward Surveying Ltd. dated January 7, 2016 which illustrates in Phase 2 only, 2 single detached dwelling lots, 4 blocks for 22 townhouse lots, blocks for road widening and reserves and a block for future development, Phase 2. The redline revisions are: (1) Remove all references to Phase 1, being all lands south of and including Elephant Hill Drive; and (2) Add a 0.3 metre reserve along the east boundary of Future Development Block 143. . Part 2 - GENERAL 2.1 The Owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (the "Municipality") that contains all of the terms and conditions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement respecting the provision and installation of roads, services, drainage, other local services and all internal and external works and services related to this plan of subdivision. A copy of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement can be found at http://clarington.netidocuments/planning/subdivision-agreement-feb2O14.pdf 2.2 The Owner shall name all road allowances included in the draft plan to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the Regional Municipality of Durham (the "Region"). 2.3 All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Municipality's Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings. Architectural Control 2.4 (1) The Owner shall be 100% responsible for the cost of the "Control Architect" to review and approve all proposed models and building permits; to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. Page 11 12-65 (2) No residential units shall be offered for sale to the public on the draft plan until such time as architectural control guidelines and the exterior architectural design of each building has been approved by the Director of Planning Services. (3) No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building on any residential lot or block on the draft plan, until the architectural control guidelines for the development and the exterior architectural design of each building and the location of the building on the lot has been approved by the Director of Planning Services. Marketing and Sales 2.5 (1) The Owner shall prepare a Land Use Plan which shows the draft plan and surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan shall be in a format approved by the Director of Planning Services. (2) The Owner shall erect and maintain a sign on the development site and/or in the sales office which shows the Land Use Plan as approved by the Director of Planning Services. (3) The Owner shall submit its standard Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the Director of Planning Services which includes all warning clauses/ notices prior to any residential units being offered for sale to the public. Site Alteration 2.6 Draft plan approval does not give the Owner permission to place or dump fill or remove fill from, or alter the grade of any portion of the lands within the draft plan. The Owner shall be required to obtain a permit from the Municipality under Site Alteration By-law 2008-114, as amended, for any such work. If any portion of the lands are within an area regulated by a conservation authority, the Owner shall obtain a permit from the conservation authority in addition to obtaining approval from the Director of Engineering Services regarding the intended haulage routes, the time and duration of the site alteration work and security relating to mud clean up, dust control and road damage. After registration of a subdivision agreement, the provisions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement shall apply to any proposed site alteration on the lands covered by the subdivision agreement. Part 3 - FINAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 3.1 The Owner shall transfer to the Municipality (for nominal consideration free and clear of encumbrances and restrictions) the following lands: (a) Reserves • A 0.3 metre reserve to be red -lined on the draft plan. 12-66 Page 12 Part 4 —PLANS AND REPORTS REQUIRED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT/FINAL PLAN REGISTRATION 4.1 The Owner shall submit the following plans and, report or revisions thereof: Phasing Plan (1) The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Municipality and the Region for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. The Phasing Plan must show how the roads and associated infrastructure within each phase are intended to connect to subsequent phases of development, including the provision of temporary or transitional works such as temporary turning circles, external easements for temporary turning circles, and associated frozen lots. The Municipality shall require the. preparation of a subdivision agreement for each phase of development. Noise Report (2) The Owner shall submit to the Director of Engineering Services, the Director of Planning Services and the Region, for review.and approval, an updated noise report, based on the preliminary noise report entitled "Update Environmental Noise Assessment Mearns Avenue and CPR Line Phase 2, prepared by Valcoustics Canada Limited, dated February 29, 2016", Functional Servicing (3) The Owner shall submit an updated Functional Servicing Report satisfactory to the Director of Engineering Services and Central Lake Ontario Conservation. The intended means of controlling and conveying stormwater flow from the site to an appropriate and acceptable location without impacting private property, including use of stormwater techniques which are appropriate and in accordance with the provincial guidelines. [The stormwater management facilities must be designed and implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Soper Creek West Branch Master Plan]; Environmental Sustainability Plan (4) The Owner shall submit an Environmental Sustainability Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. Such plan shall identify the measures that the Owner will undertake to conserve energy and water in excess of the standards of the Ontario Building Code, reduce waste, increase recycling of construction materials and utilize non-toxic, environmentally sustainable materials and finishes. The plan shall include the location of a shade tree, or provision for a voucher from a local nursery to allow the purchaser to acquire a shade tree to provide passive solar gain during the various seasons. Page 13 12-67 Soils Management Plan (5) Prior to final registration, the Owner shall provide a Soils Management Plan for review and approval by the Director of Engineering Services. Such plan shall provide information respecting any proposed import or export of fill to or from any portion of the Lands, intended haulage routes, the time and duration of any proposed haulage, the source of any soil to be imported, quality assurance measures for any fill to be imported, and any proposed stockpiling on the Lands. The Owner shall comply with all aspects of the approved Soils Management Plan. The Director may require the Owner to provide security relating to mud clean up, dust control and road damage. Part 5 —SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT Parkland 5.1 The Owner shall pay the Municipality an amount in lieu. of conveying land for park or other public recreational purposes under section 5.1. of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. The Owner acknowledges that this amount shall be based on the value of the Lands as of the day before the approval of draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-95030. 5.2 The Owner shall be 100% responsible for the installation of a sun shelter, being a minimum of 4.8 metres x 4.8 metres, within Elephant Hill Park to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Noise Attenuation 5.3 (1) The Owner shall agree in the Municipality of Clarington subdivision agreement to implement the recommendation of the report, entitled "Update Environmental Noise Assessment Mearns Avenue and CPR Line Phase 2, prepared by Valcoustics Canada Limited, dated February 29, 2016", which specifies noise attenuation measures for the development. The measures shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement and must also contain a full and complete reference to the noise assessment (i.e author, title, date and. any revisions/addenda) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the study. (2) The Owner shall not make an application for a building permit for any building on the Lands until an acoustic engineer has certified that the plans for the building are in accordance with the Noise Report. Part 6 — AGENCY CONDITIONS 6.1 Region of Durham (1) The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan �= j 12-68 that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Region. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. (2) Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. (3) The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services. (4) The Owner shall submit a signed Record of Site Condition (RSC) to the Region, the Municipality and the Ministry. of Environment and Climate Change and Climate Change. This Record of Site Condition must be to the satisfaction of the Region, including an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Record of Site Condition by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. 6.2 Conservation Authority (1) Prior to any on-site grading or construction or final registration of the Plan, the Owner shall submit and obtain approval from the Municipality of Clarington, and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for, reports describing the following: (a) The intended means of controlling and conveying stormwater flow from the site to an appropriate and acceptable location, including use of stormwater techniques which are appropriate and in accordance with the -provincial guidelines. [The stormwater management facilities must be designed and implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Soper Creek West Branch Master Plan]; (b) The intended means of providing water quality treatment for the site in accordance with provincial guidelines; (c) The means whereby erosion and sedimentation and their effects will be minimized on the site during and after construction in accordance with the 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; and 12-69 (d) The Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater and erosion and sediment control structures and measures operating and in good repair during the construction period in a manner satisfactory to the Conservation Authority and the Municipality of Clarington. (2) The Owner shall satisfy all financial requirements of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. This shall include Application Processing Fees and Technical Review Fees as per the approved Authority Fee Schedule. 6.3 Canadian Pacific Railway (1) A 2.5 metre berm high berm meeting CP requirements must be constructed along the north lot line of the proposed lots and block. Said berm and noise attenuation measures must transition to match the existing berm and noise fence abutting the west limits of the development to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and the CP Rail. (2) The recommendations of the Environmental Noise Assessment Update prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd. dated February 29, 2016 and the recommendations of the Railway Vibration Analysis prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd. dated July 16, 2015 must be implemented. (3) The setbacks of all proposed dwelling units must satisfy CP's standard 30 metre setback. (4) Clauses shall be inserted in all offers of purchase and sale or lease, and be registered on title or included in the lease for each dwelling advising: (a) That any berm, fencing, or vibration isolation features implemented are not to be tampered with or altered, and further that the owner shall have the sole responsibility for and shall maintain these features. (b) Prospective purchasers or tenants of the existence of the Railway's operating right-of-way; the possibility of alterations including the possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents notwithstanding the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the.subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities and/or operations. 6.4 Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport The Owner shall carry out a cultural heritage resource assessment of the subject property and mitigation and/or salvage excavation of any significant heritage resources to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. No grading or other soil disturbance shall take place on the subject property prior to a letter of clearance for the Ministry. 12-70 6.5 Canada Post Corporation The Owner shall satisfy the following requirements of Canada Post Corporation and the Municipality with respect to the provision of mail delivery to the Subdivision Lands and the provision of community mailbox locations, as follows: (1) The Owner shall advise Canada Post as to the excavation date for the first foundation/first phase as well as the date development work is scheduled to begin. (2) If applicable, the Owner shall ensure that any street facing installs have a pressed curb or curb cut. (3) The Owner shall advise Canada Post as to the expected first occupancy date and ensure the site is accessible to Canada Post 24 hours a day. (4) The Owner will consult with Canada Post and the Municipality to determine suitable permanent locations for the Community Mail Boxes. The Owner will then indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans. (5) The Owner agrees, prior to offering any units for sale, to display a map on the wall of the sales office in a. place readily accessible to potential homeowners that indicates the location of all Community Mail Boxes within the development, as approved by Canada Post. (6) The Owner will provide a suitable and safe temporary site for a Community Mail Boxes upon approval of the Municipality (that is levelled with appropriate sized patio stones and free' of tripping hazards), until curbs, sidewalks and final grading are completed at the permanent locations. Canada Post will provide mail delivery to new residents as soon as the homes or units are occupied. (7) Owner agrees to provide the following for each Community Mail Boxes and to include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans (if applicable): i) Any required walkway across the boulevard, per municipal standards; and ii) Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access, with an opening of at least two meters (consult Canada Post for detailed specifications). 6.6 Utilities (1) The Owner shall coordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan that allows for the safe installation of all utilities including the separation between utilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. (2) All utilities will be installed within the proposed road allowances. Where this is not possible, easements will be provided at no cost to the utility provider. Proposed easements are not permitted on lands owned by the Municipality Page 17 12-71 unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other alternative. Such easements must not impede the long term use of the lands and will be at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. (3) The Owner shall cause all utilities, including hydro, telephone, and cable television within the streets of this development to be installed underground for both primary and secondary services. Part 7 — STANDARD NOTICES AND WARNINGS 7.1 The Owner shall include a clause in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots informing the purchaser of all applicable development charges in accordance with subsection 58(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, C.27. 7.2 The Owner shall include the notices and warnings clauses set out in Schedule 3 of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots or Blocks. 7.3 The Owner shall include the following notices and warning clauses in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the Lots or Blocks to which they apply: Noise Report (1) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots and Blocks:. "Purchasers are advised that sound levels due to increasing road and rail traffic development may interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels will exceed the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change's noise criteria." "The dwelling unit located on this lot has been equipped with a central air conditioning system which will allow windows and exterior doors to remain closed, thereby ensuring that the indoor sound levels are within the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change's noise criteria." "This dwelling unit was fitted with a forced air heating system and the ducting etc. sized to accommodate a central air conditioning unit. The installation of central air conditioning by the homeowner will allow windows and exterior doors to be kept closed, thereby achieving indoor sound levels within the limits recommended by the Ministry of the Environment. (Note: The location and installation of the outdoor air conditioning device should be done so as to comply with noise criteria of Ministry of Environment and Climate Change publication NPC - 216, Residential Air Conditioning Devices and thus minimize the noise impacts both on and in the immediate vicinity of the subject property)." Page 18 12-72 (2) The Owner shall include the following warning clause in agreements of purchase and sale for All Lots: "Canadian Pacific Railways or its affiliated railway companies has or have a railway right -of —way within 300 metres from this dwelling unit. There may be alterations to or expansions of the railway . facilities of such right-of-way in the future, including the possibility that Canadian Pacific Railways of its affiliated railway companies as aforesaid, or their assigns or successors may expand their business operations. Such expansion may affect the living and business environments of the residents, tenants and their visitors, employees, customers and patients in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating features in the design of the development. Canadian Pacific Railways of its affiliated railway companies as aforesaid, or their assigns will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operation on. Over or under the aforesaid right-of-way." Noise Attenuation Fencing The Owner shall include the following notice in the agreements of purchase and sale for all Lots and Blocks 139 to 142 inclusive: "Noise Attenuation Fencing —Noise attenuation fencing is a required feature for this lot to assist in reducing the noise levels to comply with Ministry of the Environment Climate Change standards. This fencing must be located on the private property portion of the lot and must be designed and constructed in compliance with the recommendations of the noise attenuation report prepared by Valcoustics Canada Limited dated December 10, 2014. The maintenance of this fencing is the responsibility of the owner of the lot after the developer has been released from any further responsibility for the fence." 4 Catchbasins . The Owner shall include the following notice in agreements of purchase and sale for Blocks 140, 141, 142 and 143: "Catchbasin — A catchbasin and associated underground piping has been installed on this block. The catchbasin is designed to accept drainage from this lot and adjacent lots. The property owner must not impede or alter the catchbasin or the drainage patterns in anyway." . 12-73 Canada Post Corporation The Owner shall include the following notice in the agreements of purchase and sale for all lots: "Mail Service - Purchasers,are advised that Canada Post intends to service this property through the use of community mailboxes that may be located in several locations within this subdivision." Part 8 — CLEARANCE 8.1 Prior to final approval of the plan for registration, the Municipality's Director of Planning Services shall be advised in writing by, (1) the Region how Conditions 1, 2.2, 4.1(1), 4.1(2), 5.3. 6.1, 6.4 have been satisfied; (2) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, how Conditions 6.2 have been satisfied; (3) Canadian Pacific Railway, how Conditions 6.3 have been satisfied; (4) Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport how Conditions 6.4 have been satisfied; (5) Canada Post how Conditions 6.5 have been satisfied; Part 9 - NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL 9.1 Terms used in these conditions that are not otherwise defined have the meanings given to them in the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement. 9.2 As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 9.3 If final approval is not given to this plan within three (3) years of the draft approval date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file shall be closed. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is submitted to the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date. 9.4 Where an agency requirement is required to be included in the Municipal subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agency in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are: (1) Durham Regional Planning Department, 605 Rossland Road -East, P.O. Box 623, Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 (905) 668-7721. 12-74 (2) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, 100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa, Ontario LIH 3T3 (905) 579-0411. (3) Canadian Pacific Railway, 1290 Central Parkway West, Suite 800, Mississauga, Ontario L5C 4R3. (4) Canada Post, .Metro Toronto Region, 1860 Midland Ave: 2nd Floor Scarborough ON, M1P 5A1 Page 111 12-75 Attachment 3 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 Corporation of The Municipality of Clarington By -Law Number: 2016-. being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation*of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2014-0033; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 14.6.47 Urban Residential Exception (R3-47) Zone be amended by adding the following: "d. Building Height (maximum) 11 metres" 2.. Schedule 1" to By-law 84-63 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: Urban Residential Exception (R1-20) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-47) Zone"; Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-20) Zone" to "Holding - .Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-47) Zone"; 2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. By -Law passed in open session this day of , 2016 Adrian Foster, Mayor C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk 12-76 This 9s Schedule "A" to By-law 2016_ , passed this day of , 2016 A.D. O 6 O � < IT - AGO . z U � z o z C/) ry z w � z - O� ------------- CAMPLING . CT Existing Zoning To Remain ® Zoning Change From '(H)R1-20' To '(H)R3=47' Zoning Change From 'R1'-20' To'(H)R3-47' l N selection Adrian Foster, Mayor Bowmanville 0 ZI34 2014P0033 m Schedule 3 C. Anne Greentree, Munici a I on, Gariasqi Planning Services Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: June 6, 2016 Report Number: PSD -046-16 Resolution Number: File Number: S -C 2011-0002 & ZBA 2011-0012 Bylaw Number: Report Subject: Application by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. to develop between 237 to 301 Unit Residential Plan of Subdivision in the Brookhill Neighbourhood of Bowmanville Recommendations: That Report PSD -046-16 be received;. 2. That Council request the Ontario Municipal Board to approve: a) the application for Draft Plan of Subdivision S -C 2011-0002, submitted by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. subject to conditions as contained in -Attachment 2; and b) the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. as contained in Attachment 3; 3. That once all conditions contained in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be forwarded to Council for approval; 4. That the Ontario Municipal Board, Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD -046-16 and Council's decision; and 5. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -046-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision 12-78 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 2 Report Overview This report is requesting Council support for a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision that has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The subdivision proposes a range between 237 to 301 residential units in the Brookhill Neighbourhood of Bowmanville. This greenfield proposal by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. contains single detached lots, semi- detached dwelling lots, street townhouse units and two mixed use blocks including a range of 46-81 residential units in each block for street or stacked townhouses, live -work units, small apartment buildings and limited ground floor commercial. A 0.78 hectare parkette and landscape strip adjacent to Regional Road 57 will be dedicated to the Municipality. The Plan of Subdivision is consistent with the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan and the Clarington Official Plan. 1. Application Details 1.1 Applicant: 1.2 Agent 1.3 Proposal 1.4 Area: 1.5 Location 1.6 Roll Numbers 1.7 Built Boundary 12-79 Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. GHD Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision 237 to 301 unit residential Plan of Subdivision consisting of 53 single detached dwelling lots, 14 semi-detached dwelling lots for 28 units, 58 townhouse units, two mixed use blocks containing a total of 98-162 multi -residential units, a parkette and a landscape strip adjacent to Regional Road 57. Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment To rezone the subject lands from "Agricultural (A)" to implement the proposed Plan of Subdivision. 11.98 hectares 2278, 2318, 2360 Regional Road 57, Bowmanville, Part Lot 15, Concession 2, former Township of Darlington (see Figure 1) 18-17-010-030-01000 18-17-010-030-01100 18-17-010-030-01200 M Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 3 Figure 1: Subject Site 2. Background 2.1 On April 15, 2011, Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment. Since the original submission,, several changes have been made to the draft plan, most notably was adjusting the alignment for the future extension of Longworth Avenue, after the completion of an Environmental Impact Study and the Environmental Assessment in 2012. Other changes included the mix and size -of lots and the location of the parkette. The applicants were advised that the proposed uses for the lands fronting onto Longworth Avenue only showed stacked townhouses and did not include other housing forms nor did it incorporate institutional, recreational, cultural uses, or limited retail and service commercial uses, consistent with the "Village Corridor" designation. 12--80 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 4 2.2 On November 25, 2015, the Municipality received a Notice of Appeal submitted by the solicitor for Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. regarding the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and an application for zoning by-law amendment. The appeals were filed under Sections 51(34) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, for failure of the Municipality to make a decision in respect of these development applications. The Ontario Municipal Board hearing is set to commence on June 27th for 4 days. Since the appeal was received, Staff continued to meet with the applicant's planning consultant to discuss the draft plan. An agreeable solution has been reached. The applicant concurs with the requested changes to the draft plan, as well as to the Conditions of Draft Approval and the zoning by-law amendment. (See Figure 2) er SC YL Subject Site_. M1l Y SFORD DRIVE � - •� ` � � ;' I — � i s { .. s. Draft Approved l = SUMERSFORq DR:. 01 f �u z'' t Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T95035 ; IF 10 r Z y9y9 r a,. ]I = Park � i P r Residential Village CorridorB Oil 012 ENS R u Storm Pond 3C_2011-0002 Figure 2: Proposed Draft Plan 12-81 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 5 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Use 3.1 The subject applications are three parcels that front onto Regional Road 57 and are rectangular in shape. The lands gently slope to the south and west. The majority of the subject lands are currently being used for agricultural crops. Single detached homes and accessory buildings are located at 2318 and 2360 Regional Road 57. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - two single detached dwellings and associated accessory structures and beyond that vacant land South - two single detached dwellings, vacant land for which an application for Plan of Subdivision (18T-95027) by Tonno has been submitted but not approved and the Brookhill Tributary East - large lot, estate residential uses West - Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (S -C 2012-0003) by DG Group which includes residential uses, a neighbourhood parkette, elementary school block and the Brookhill Tributary and associated valleylands to be dedicated to the municipality. 4. Provincial Policy 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy liveable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential; employment; recreation, parkette and open space; and other uses to meet long term needs. Some relevant polices are: New development shall occur adjacent to built up areas and shall have compact form, a mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services. New housing is to be directed to locations where infrastructure and public services are or will be available. A full range and mix of housing types and densities shall be provided to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. Healthy, active communities to be encouraged through the promotion of planning safe streets that meet the needs of pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity. A full range of built and natural settings for recreation including parkettes, open space areas, trails and linkages are to be provided. Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 6 Infrastructure and public service facilities shall be utilized in an efficient and cost effective manner that considers impacts from climate change while accommodating projected needs. A mix of "uses and housing type are proposed. The proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement. 4.2 Provincial Growth Plan The Growth Plan provides a framework for accommodating growth in existing built up areas, and within greenfield areas. In particular: New development in greenfield areas are to be complete communities with access to a mix of jobs, services, housing, schools, recreation and open space that is easily accessed through various modes of transportation. Each upper -tier municipality will be planned to achieve a minimum density target that is not less than 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare. Major growth is to be directed to areas serviced by existing or planned municipal infrastructure, such as water and sewer services. Natural heritage features that compliment, link or enhance natural systems shall be identified and protected. The subject Draft Plan of Subdivision is within a greenfield area. The density target of 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare is achieved throughout the Brookhill Neighbourhood. A mix of uses and housing forms are proposed. The proposal is consistent with Growth Plan. 5. Official Plans 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Area. Lands designated as Living Area permit the development of communities with defined boundaries, incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socio-economic factors. The proposed development is permitted within the Living Area designation. A mix of uses such as certain home occupations, convenience stores, public and recreational uses Which are compatible with their surroundings are permitted. Limited office development and retailing of goods and services in appropriate locations and as a component of mixed use development may also be permitted in Living Areas provided there are appropriate provisions and designations in the area municipal Official Plan. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The Clarington Official Plan designates the subject lands "Urban Residential". Two symbols for Medium Density, are located south of the future Longworth Avenue extension, one at the future extension of Clarington Boulevard, and the other at Regional Road 57. 12-83 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 7 The predominant use of lands within the "Urban Residential" designation shall be for housing purposes. Other uses may be permitted which by the nature of their activity, scale and design are supportive, compatible and serve the residential uses. These include corner stores, home-based occupations, parkettes and schools. Within the Brookhill Neighbourhood, the housing target is 1575 units, 950 low density units, 550 medium density units and 75 units for intensification. The predominant form of housing for low density residential development includes single and semi detached or linked dwellings as well as duplexes. The density range is between 10-30 units per net hectare. Medium density units include townhouses, trip lex/quadruplex, low rise apartments and mixed use developments. The density range for medium density development is 31-60 units per hectare. The site is bounded by Regional Road 57, a Type 'A' Arterial Road to the east, the future extension of Longworth Avenue, a Type 'C' Arterial Road to the north, and the future extension of Clarington Boulevard, a Collector Road to the west. The detailed land use policies are contained in the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. 5.3 Brookhill Secondary Plan Community Structure The draft Plan of Subdivision is generally consistent with the Principles and Community Structure contained in the Secondary Plan. The neighbourhood is edged by a primary road network being Regional Road 57, the future extensions of Clarington Boulevard and Longworth Avenue. The Longworth Avenue and Clarington Boulevard frontages of this development are located adjacent to the "Village Corridor", the primary focus for the Brookhill Neighbourhood. In the centre, housing units surround a parkette consistent with the "Neighbourhood Commons Area" designation. Land Use Policies Within the Secondary Plan the subject lands are designated as "Village Corridor", "Low" "Density Residential", "Neighbourhood Commons Area" and "Parkette". The "Village Corridor" incorporates institutional, retail and service commercial, recreational and cultural uses as well as ground -related housing and residential apartment buildings within a mixed use context. Permitted housing forms include street, block or stacked townhouses, multiple unit buildings and low-rise apartment buildings. Apartment units may be permitted in either stand-alone residential buildings or above the ground floor in mixed use buildings. Live -work units are permitted. Retail and service uses shall be permitted on the ground floor only, to a maximum of 5.00 square metres. Building height shall be in the range of 3 to 6 storeys or between 8.0 to 20.0 metres. 12-84 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 8 "Low Density Residential" housing shall be in the form of single and semi-detached units. Coach houses are permitted over top detached garages fronting on a lane in limited areas. Within the "Neighbourhood Commons Area", street, block or stacked townhouses and multiple unit buildings are permitted. Medium density shall develop consistent with Official Plan policies. Parkettes form the central focus of the "Neighbourhood Commons Areas". Parkettes shall perform an array of functions within the community and shall range in size and design depending on their planned role and function. The parkette within the "Neighbourhood Commons Area" shall be a minimum of 0.80 hectares and shall be surrounded by at least two sides, but preferably.three or four sides by public roads. 6. Zoning By-law Within Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, the lands are zoned "Agricultural (A) Zone". An application to amend the Zoning By-law has been submitted. 7. Summary of Background Studies A number of studies were submitted in support of the proposed the applications. The conclusions of the reports are summarized below. 7.1 Environmental Impact Study by Aquafor Beech Limited and North South Environmental July 2010 An Environmental Impact Study was completed in 2010 to determine the development limits adjacent to the Brookhill valleylands, and set the location for the future extension of Longworth Avenue over the Brookhill Tributary. The subject lands were included in the study which identified a locally significant plant species known as Downy Willow -herb, The Environmental Impact Study recommended that this species be transplanted to suitable habitat within the Brookhill Tributary lands. 7.2 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment by Golder Associates, May 2010 Fill material and a coal -fire boiler are present on the subject lands. Miscellaneous domestic debris and building materials were'also noted. Given the age of the buildings there may be some hazardous substances on site. Water wells and septic systems shall be decommissioned in accordance with provincial requirements. The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment did not recommend that a Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment be undertaken. 7.3 Noise Impact Study by Sernas Associates (now GHD), May 2010 Noise attenuation fencing is required on those units flanking Regional Road 57 and central air conditioning units are to be installed in each unit so that windows may remain closed. All exterior walls require brick construction to maintain indoor noise levels. 12-85 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Certain windows may require additional glazing which will be determined when detailed floor plans and elevations are available for the various units. The appropriate warning clauses will be required in the Offers of Purchase and Sale for those units identified in the noise impact study. 7.4 Functional Servicing Report by Sernas Associates (now GHD), May 2010 The sanitary sewer system and the water supply system can be provided to the proposed development from through the lands to the south. The stormwater management pond for this development is located on lands external to the subject site to the south (18T-95027). 7.5 Stage 1 Archaeological Site Assessment by Archeoworks Inc., April 2010 An Archaeological Site Assessment recommended that for those areas undisturbed, a Stage II Archaeological Assessment be undertaken and approved by the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport prior to any development occurring on site. 8. Public Submissions A letter of objection was originally received from the owners who reside at 2404 Regional Road 57, immediately to the north of the subject property. They objected to the alignment of Longworth Avenue because the north half of the alignment would be on their lands. The alignment of Longworth Avenue has since shifted southerly and is completely on the subject lands. In a subsequent email, the owners expressed concern that their dug well could go dry as a result of this development. These issues will be discussed further in Section 11 of this report. Another landowner north of the subject site inquired about the timing of the development. 9. Agency Comments 9.1 Region of Durham Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department has advised that the proposed draft plan is consistent with Provincial Plan Polices. The lands are designated as Living Area and shall accommodate a full range of housing options at higher densities by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas particularly adjacent to arterial roads. The proposed residential subdivision is consistent with the policies and direction of the Region's Official Plan. The Region will require an updated Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the subject site since the previous ESA exceeds the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change prescribed 18th month timeframe. In the event that the Phase 1 recommends a Phase 2 ESA the applicant will be required to subject a Record of Site Condition to the Ministry and Region prior to final approval of the draft plan. 12-86 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 10 The Stage 1 Archaeological Site Assessment indicates that a Stage II archaeological assessment will be required for those areas of the site that are undisturbed. The applicant will be required to provide the report to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport for their review and approval. Municipal water supply is available to the site, however municipal sanitary sewers are not available and are dependent of the adjacent land owner to the south. Alternatively, the owner may make arrangements with the adjacent land owner to extend a 600 mm trunk sanitary sewer along the future alignment of Clarington Boulevard. The developer will be required to provide sufficient road widening to accommodate a minimum of 18 metres from the centerline of Regional Road 57 as well as a 15 metre by 15 metre site triangle at the intersection of Regional Road 57 and Longworth Avenue. The Region will not permit access at the proposed intersection of Regional Road 57 (west side) and Longworth Avenue until such time the re -alignment of Longworth Avenue on the east of Regional Road 57 is completed. The Regional Cycling Plan shows Longworth Avenue as part of the Primary Cycling Network and as such should accommodate cycling lanes. The Region has no objection to the approval of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and provided conditions to be fulfilled prior to clearance by the Region for the registration of the plan. 9.2 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board In June 2011, the school boundaries in the eastern portion of Brookhill Neighbourhood were changed. The applications would generate 43 elementary school students to, Waverly Public School and 27 secondary students to Clarington Central Secondary School. A public elementary school site was approved at the south-west corner of Clarington Boulevard and Longworth Avenue in S -C 2012-0003. Should the school be built, two accesses would be required. Board Staff also requested the municipality ensure public sidewalks are installed on all proposed road allowances. The Board Staff also provided conditions of draft approval which require a warning clause in Offers of Purchase and Sale advising potential purchasers that the reserved public elementary school site may not be constructed or used as an elementary school site. An existing public school will be used to accommodate students until a school is constructed in the Brookhill Neighbourhood. 9.3 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Central Lake Ontario Conservation does not object to the development of the site, however some requirements still need to be addressed. The Authority has provided 12-87 Municipality of Clarington Resort PSD -046-16 Page 11 conditions of draft approval which specifies items that need to be addressed prior to final approval. In addition to standard conditions, the Authority is also requesting the following: • Prior to on-site grading construction of final approval a report describing the intended means of conveying stormwater to a proposed stormwater pond situated on lands south of the subject property and not owned by the developer; . • A report to determine the impact of development on water quality as it relates to fish habitat, and means whereby erosion and sediment is controlled during and after construction; • A plant salvage and monitoring plan for a local significant plant species into the Brookhill Tributary floodplain; • Reports describing how lot level infiltration measures are to be incorporated into the subdivision design in accordance with the recommendations of the Brookhill Subwatershed Plan; and • A contribution to the Municipality of Clarington for remedial works in the Brookhill Tributary, in accordance with the Brookhill Tributary Environmental Impact Study. 9.4 Utilities The applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and rezoning were circulated to various agencies for comment. Bell, Rogers Communications and Enbridge Gas do not object to the proposal and have provided Conditions of Draft Approval. 10. Departmental Comments . 10.1 Emergency Fire Services Emergency and Fire Services has requested that fire hydrants be placed to allow coverage to laneways. All municipal laneways are to be designated as Fire Access Routes by By-law. "No Parking" signs shall be posted and enforced. The laneways shall meet minimum requirements of the Ontario Building Code for Access Route Design. 10.2 Operations Department Operations provided comments on snow storage on rear lanes and right-of-way widths. The standards for rear lanes and right-of-way widths are contained within the approved Secondary Plan. 10.3 Engineering Services Department Engineering staff advise that the proposed development complies, for the most part, with the Council approved Brookhill Secondary Plan. However, there are issues that must be addressed by the applicant prior to the final approval of the draft plan of subdivision: The proposed development is currently "landlocked" in terms of road connections, and there are no services extending to the proposed subdivision. Development of Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 12 these lands is premature until roads and services are constructed including the requisite stormwater management pond. • The stormwater management pond and much of the Clarington Boulevard road allowance are proposed to be constructed on lands owned by others. The applicant must co-ordinate the construction of Clarington Boulevard from its existing north terminus to Longworth Avenue, Longworth Avenue from Regional Road 57 to Clarington Blvd. to a full urban standard as well as all services and the stormwater management pond with the adjacent landowners. • The applicant must submit an implementation/phasing plan demonstrating how the development will be provided with road and service connections in the absence of direct connections to existing municipal road and servicing infrastructure. The plan and all related agreements must be acceptable to the adjacent landowners, and the plan will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services. • Longworth Avenue must be constructed in its ultimate alignment and location east of Regional Road 57 including signalization. The opening of Longworth Avenue in this development prior to its direct connection to Longworth Avenue east of Regional Road 57 will not be permitted. • Construction of sidewalks, street lighting and cycling lanes on Regional Road 57 which connect this development to existing infrastructure south of the proposed development must be co-ordinated with the Municipality to the satisfaction of the Director. • An updated Traffic Study must be submitted which recommends the configuration and design of all major intersections including all.traffic control devices adjacent to and in the vicinity of this development. • An updated Functional Servicing Report (FSR) has not been submitted for this current draft plan. The updated FSR must include a detailed Preliminary Lot Grading Plan as well as an updated Servicing Plan satisfactory to the Director prior to final approval. • A Stormwater Management Report must be included in the FSR which demonstrates that all major and minor flows will be directed to the proposed stormwater management pond and which demonstrates that the stormwater management pond has been adequately sized for all development benefiting from this pond prior to final.approval. • The Neighbourhood Parkette is in an appropriate location and size, consistent with the Secondary Plan. 11. Discussion 11.1 The proposed draft plan is consistent with the Community Structure in the Brookhill Secondary Plan. The draft plan is edged by two arterial roads, Regional Road 57 and the future extension of Longworth Avenue, and the future Clarington Boulevard, a collector road. 12-89 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 13 The Village Corridor fronts onto Longworth Avenue and Clarington Boulevard and will provide housing in a mixed use format with various sizes, heights and tenure. A Landscape Strip is proposed adjacent to Regional Road 57 and will be planted to forma "green corridor" between the regional road, including sidewalk and cycling lane and dwelling units internal to the site. The Neighbourhood Parkette is located in the centre of the neighbourhood with two frontages on public streets. 11.2 Recommendations from Environmental Impact Study An Environmental Impact Study was prepared for the Brookhill Tributary by DG Group and Tonno. There are two recommendations from the -Environmental Impact Study that impact this development. First, a locally significant plant species, Downy Willow -herb a wetland species, is located within a narrow drainage ditch on the subject site. This plant species should be transplanted in a suitable location within the floodplain of the Brookhill Tributary. Second, severe erosion is occurring at the confluence of the Brookhill Tributary and the Bowmanville Creek. This erosion is occurring as a result of the failure of the Vanstone Dam. The erosion is problematic on its own but also causes a barrier to fish passage. Development upstream will exacerbate the problem and remediation is recommended. The cost for remediation shall be borne by the benefitting landowners. A Condition of Draft Approval has been added requiring a contribution towards the remediation. 11.3 Housing Types and Mixed Uses The draft plan provides for a mix of lot sizes to permit various housing forms. The number and the various lot sizes are provided below: Housing Types Lot y t - -F...-- • Single Detached 10 metres 27 • Single Detached 12 metres 26 • Semi Detached 18 metres 28 Total:Low;,R,ensit U.nifs _ _ .: _ . _ .:.. '...., ; : $1. • Lane Townhouses 6.0 metres 36 • Street Townhouses 7.0 metres 22 Villa e Corridor Two Blocks 98-162 Total 156-220 _units Total Number of:.Units < - 237.301 units.` The units facing Clarington Boulevard are lane based townhouse units. Street Townhouses also face the parkette which is consistent with the Neighbourhood Commons Area in the Secondary Plan. 12-90 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 14 The two blocks fronting on Longworth Avenue will make up the Village Corridor in the Brookhill Neighbourhood. They are of sufficient size to be comprehensively designed with a mix of uses including street, block or stacked townhouses, multiple unit buildings and low rise apartment buildings with a stand alone building or above the ground floor in a mixed uses building. Live/work units would also be permitted. Commerical uses are permitted up to 500 square metres as well as cultural, institutional and recreational uses. The proposed zoning by-law provides for the appropriate built form to implement the Secondary Plan while providing for some flexibility in the unit type and mix. Application for site plan approval will be considered for both blocks at the same time. This will ensure that the development approvals are not piecemeal and will adhere to the urban design policies and guidelines set out in the Official Plan and Secondary Plan. 11.4 Parkette and Green Corridor The parkette is in a central location and can be seen at the terminus of two roads. Housing fronts on both sides of the parkette and the homes will have upgraded architecture at the front and rear as well as the corner lots. The parkette size is less than what is required if calculated at 1 hectare per 300 units in keeping with the Planning Act and the Clarington Official Plan. The applicant will be required to make up the difference in a cash payment. The Secondary Plan requires a landscape strip adjacent to Regional Road 57 from Stevens Road to Longworth Avenue. This "green corridor" will have landscaped berms which are intended to provide a visual barrier between the residential units and the traffic on Regional Road 57. The landscaped strip will be dedicated to the municipality. 11.5 Roads and Related Infrastructure The draft plan is premature relative to the availability of roads and supporting infrastructure to the site. Cooperation with the abutting landowners, specifically DG Group to the west and Tonno to the south will be required. Specific conditions have been added to ensure the appropriate cost sharing arrangements will be in place, specifically endeavours to collect and front ending agreements to and from benefitting landowners. Clarington Boulevard The west side of the proposed alignment of Clarington Boulevard is partially located on lands owned by DG Group. The timing of development will be contingent on securing the balance of the lands and/or cost sharing arrangements with DG Group. Longworth Avenue The original submission showed the alignment of Longworth Avenue straddling the property boundary between the landowners located at 2404 Regional Road 57, and the draft plan owned by Dunbury. The owners of 2404 Regional Road 57 objected to any portion of the alignment on their property. 12-91 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Paqe 15 An Environmental Assessment confirmed the location of the alignment of Longworth Avenue from the urban area boundary in the west to Regional Road 57 in the east. It also determined the location of the crossing of the Brookhill Tributary. As such, the alignment was shifted south and is now completely on the proposed draft plan. The development of this plan will require the full Longworth Avenue cross-section to be constructed for the Village Corridor frontage. Since the Region of Durham controls intersections at regional roads, construction of the west side of Longworth Avenue cannot proceed until the alignment east of Regional Road 57 has been constructed. Once built, Longworth Avenue will .have sidewalks on both sides as well as cycling lanes. Stormwater Management Pond The stormwater management pond to service these lands is located on lands to the south owned by Tonno. The timing of the development for the subject lands will depend on the timing of development for the Tonno lands or the developer must make arrangements with Tonno to secure land and easements prior to construction commencing. 11.6 Impact on Neighbours Well The Region of Durham's Well Interference shall apply. 12. Concurrence Not applicable. 13. Conclusion In consideration of the findings of all supporting studies, comments received from circulated agencies and area residents, and based on review of the proposal, staff recommends that Council support staff attending the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the application subject to the Conditions of Draft Approval (Attachment 2) and the Zoning By-law (Attachment 3). 14. Strategic Plan Application The recommendations contained in this report conform to the Strategic Plan. 12-92 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -046-16 Page 16 Submitted by: Alwt ,David J. Oroo,.MCI P, Fii 'P Director of Planning Se ices Reviewed by:- Franklin y: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Cynthia Strike, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379, extension 2410 or cstrike(aD,clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1.: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision Attachment 2: Conditions of Draft Approval Attachment 3: Zoning By-law Amendment (To be Distributed Under Separate Cover)' List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision 1 Thomas Albani, DG Group Cora Tonno, William Tonno Construction Ltd. Wayne and Catherine Bolahood Dunbury Development Bryce Jordan, GHD Steve Zakem, Aird and Berlis John Andrusyshyn Ronald & ChristineArmour Mark Ashworth Roy Brooks Cameo Parent Corp Anthony & Melissa Douglas James & Lorraine McEwen William & Caterina Proietti Thomas & Ermioni Sawchuk. CP/CS/av 12-93 4116&� v V L Z' M ly 7-7 to B I Nv'..'a .4� --c I a Cj n-9- Y, 17 . ..... ; BLOCK M IBLoW 40ciK !61,T 144 .4 !,,4-4-1 LA E B LAW! A Gi + 1. LID t. 71 1BLU 61..'N 1 4 4 1-4- 7 Nl� tST,C- STREET E A g 0 _0 f 'rREET",A s .... ------ 0 0 0 ot g86 U) /J� S,'RE A A" .10 S RE PSC 7- 2�U (ROA' '9L M U 4; N 0 9 e S- p X 0 3 aT _g�6 g m 0 in 94- -u m-, 98 0 0 -- , K>C) al R jai -s t—SIg 4y aM > UN I :� k: F , gF-Ei m 0.0 M-/ ;u (D 0 -U 0 C) E3 60 Municipality of Clarington Without Prejudice Conditions of Draft Approval File Number: S -C-2011-0002 May 30, 2016 Part 1 - Plan Identification Attachment 2 to Report PSD -046-16 1.1 The Owner shall have the final plan prepared on the basis of approved draft plan of subdivision S -C-2011-0002 prepared by GHD identified as job number 09264, dated May 2016, which illustrates 53 single detached dwellings, 28 semi-detached dwellings, 58 street townhouses, 2 blocks with a range of 98 to 162 residential units, a park, road widenings, reserves and landscape strip. Part 2 — General 2.1 The Owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (the "Municipality") that contains all of the terms and conditions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement respecting the provision and installation of roads, services, drainage, other local services and all internal and external works and services related to this plan of subdivision. A copy of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement can be found at http://clarington.net/documents/planning/subdivision-agreement-feb20l4.pdf 2.2 The Owner shall name all road allowances included in the draft plan to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the Regional Municipality of Durham (the "Region").. 2.3 All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Municipality's Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings. Architectural Control 2.4 (1) The Owner shall be responsible for 100% of the cost for the "Control Architect" to review and approve all proposed models and building permits in keeping with the approved Architectural Control Guidelines for the Brookhill Neighbourhood and to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. (2) No residential units on the draft plan shall be offered for sale to the public until such time as arch itectu ral'contro I guidelines and the exterior architectural design of each building has been approved by the Director of Planning* Services. (3) No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building on any residential lot or block on the draft plan, until the exterior architectural design of each building and the location of the building on the lot has been approved by the Director of Planning Services. 12-95 Marketing and Sales 2.5 (1) The Owner shall prepare a Land Use Plan which shows the draft plan and surrounding land uses. The Land Use Plan shall be. in a format approved by the Director of Planning Services. (2) The Owner shall erect and maintain a sign on the development site and/or in the sales office which shows the Land Use Plan as approved by the Director of Planning Services. (3) The Owner shall submit its standard Agreement of Purchase and Sale to the Director of Planning Services which includes all warning clauses/ notices prior to any residential units being offered for sale to the public. Site Alteration 2.6 Draft plan approval does not give the Owner permission. to place or dump fill or remove fill from, or alter the grade of any portion of the lands within the draft plan. The Owner shall be required to obtain a permit from the Municipality under Site Alteration By-law 2008-114, as amended, for any such work. If any portion of the lands are within an area regulated by a conservation authority, the Owner shall obtain a permit from the conservation authority in addition to obtaining approval from the Director of Engineering Services regarding the intended haulage routes, the time and duration of the site alteration work and security relating to mud clean up, dust control and road damage. After registration of a subdivision agreement, the provisions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement shall apply to any proposed site alteration on the lands covered by the subdivision agreement. Part 3 - Final Plan Requirements 3.1 The following road allowances shown on the draft plan shall be dedicated to the Municipality upon registration of the final plan: (a) Longworth Avenue (b) East side of Clarington Boulevard (c) Streets "A", `B", "C", "D", "E", "I", "F", "G", and "H" (d) Lane "A" and Lane "B" 3.2 The Owner shall transfer to the. Municipality (for nominal consideration free and clear of encumbrances and restrictions) the following lands and easements: (a) Reserves: 0.3 metres reserves shown as Blocks 78, 79, 80 and 81 and as redlined on the draft plan. (b) Parkland Dedication: Page 12 12-96 Block 75 on the draft plan (c) Landscape Strip: • Block 76 on the draft plan (d) External (with registration of Phase 1): i) Stormwater Management Pond as shown on 40R - ii) West side of Clarington Boulevard as shown on 40R- 3.3 The Owner shall transfer to the Region (for nominal consideration, free and clear of encumbrances and restrictions) the following lands and easements: (a) A road widening across the entire frontage of the draft plan of subdivision along Regional Road 57 sufficient to provide minimum of 18 metres measured from the centreline of Regional Road 57. (b) A 0.3 metre reserve across the total frontage of Regional Road 57, as widened. (c) A 15 metre by 15 metre sight triangle at the intersection of future Longworth Avenue and Regional Road 57. Part 4 —Plans and Reports Required Prior To Subdivision Agreement/Final Plan Registration 4.1 The Owner shall submit the following plans and report or revisions thereof: Phasing Plan (1) The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the . Municipality and the Region for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. The Phasing Plan must show how the roads and associated infrastructure within each phase are intended to connect to subsequent phases of development, including the provision of temporary or transitional works such as temporary turning circles, external easements for temporary turning circles, and associated frozen lots. In the event that full build out of the subdivision is phased over time, there must be at least two open road accesses to the development at any given time. Development of any portion of Blocks 73 and 74 abutting Longworth Avenue cannot proceed until such time as construction of Longworth Avenue both east and west of Regional Road 57 has been completed and is fully operational, including signalization..The Municipality shall require the preparation of a subdivision agreement for each phase of development. Noise Report (2) The Owner shall submit to the Director of Engineering Services, the Director of Planning Services and the Region, for review and approval, an updated noise report, based on the preliminary noise report entitled Noise Page 13 12-97 Impact Study, prepared by Sernas Associates, dated October 2009 as job number 09264. Functional Servicing (3) The Owner shall submit a revised Functional Servicing Report including a detailed preliminary grading plan. The revised Functional Servicing Report shall also demonstrate that all major and minor flows will be directed to the proposed stormwater management pond and that the pond is adequately sized for all development benefiting from this pond. Community Theme Plan (4) The Owner shall submit a "Community Theme Plan" to the Director of - Planning Services and Director of Engineering Services for approval prior to the first submission of the of the Engineering Drawings. The Community Theme Plan shall be complimentary to the themes identified for the lands west of Green Road, including gateway treatments, landscape treatments, lighting fixtures, fencing details and related design issues for the overall design, location and configuration of trails and open space buffers. All Engineering Drawings shall conform with the approved Community Theme Plan. Environmental Sustainability Plan (5) The Owner shall submit an Environmental Sustainability. Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services. Such plan shall identify the measures that the Owner will undertake to conserve energy and water in excess of the standards of the Ontario Building Code, reduce waste; increase recycling of construction materials and utilize. non-toxic, environmentally sustainable materials and finishes. Soils Management Plan (6) Prior to Authorization to Commence, the Owner shall provide a Soils Management Plan for review and approval by the Director of Engineering Services. Such plan shall provide information respecting but not limited to any proposed import or export of fill to or from any portion of the Lands, intended haulage routes, the time and duration of any proposed haulage, the source of any soil to be imported, quality assurance measures for any fill to be imported, and any proposed stockpiling on the Lands. All imported material must originate from within the Municipality of Glarington. The Owner shall comply with all aspects of the approved Soils Management Plan. The Director may require the Owner to provide security relating to mud clean up, dust control and road damage. Landscaping Plan Page 14 12-98 (7) The Owner shall provide a Landscaping Plan for the 9.0 metre Landscaping Strip (Block 76). The Plan shall include berms and vegetation including low maintenance trees, shrubs and ground cover sufficient to provide a landscape barrier between Regional Road 57 and the plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning Services and Director of Engineering Services. Traffic Impact Study (8)- The Owner shall provide an updated Traffic Impact Study for the Brookhill Neighbourhood (Sernas Transtech November 2010) which analyzes the major intersections in the neighbourhood, including Clarington Boulevard/Stevens Road, Clarington Boulevard/Brookhill Boulevard; Clarington Boulevard/Longworth Avenue. Any recommended improvements to the road network or at any intersection identified in the study will be constructed at 100 % the cost of the Owner subject to Conditions 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7. The timing of any identified road or intersection improvements must be consistent with the approved phasing plan. The study'will be subject to the approval of the Director of Engineering Services. Part 5 —Special Terms and Conditions to be Included in the Subdivision Agreement Lands Requiring Site Plans 5.1 The Owner acknowledges that Blocks 73 and 74 require concurrent Site Plan Approval from the Municipality under Section 41 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.13. The site plan plan shall be consistent with the Urban Design Guidelines for the Brookhill Neighbourhood and the Community Theme Plan and shall include design concepts for development fronting onto Longworth Avenue, Clarington Boulevard and Regional Road 57, including but not limited to building form, height, massing and materials, entrance locations, vehicular parking, pedestrian connectivity and landscaped areas in front of buildings, landscape treatments, lighting fixtures, street furniture and signage. Longworth Avenue 5.2 The Owner is 100% responsible for the construction of Longworth Avenue subject to Conditions 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7. The road design shall be in keeping with the Municipality's design for Longworth Avenue as shown on "Typical Sections Longworth 1 and Longworth 2" as approved by the Director of Engineering Services. Any operational requirements at intersections such as turning lanes, but excluding traffic signals, are 100% cost of the Owner subject to Conditions 5.5, 5.6 and 5.7. The Municipality will be responsible for the cost of the oversizing of the travelled portions of the road. Clarington Boulevard 12-99 Page 15 5.3 The Owner acknowledges that much of Clarington Boulevard is located on lands owned by others (18T- 95027 and S -C 2012-0003). The Owner must co- ordinate the construction of Clarington Boulevard from its current terminus to the north side of the proposed extension of Longworth Avenue, with the adjacent land owners. Clarington Boulevard shall be constructed in keeping with the Municipality's design for Clarington Boulevard as shown on "Typical Sections Clarington Blvd. 1 and Clarington Blvd. 2" as approved by and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Furthermore, the Owner shall provide a staging plan for the construction of Clarington Boulevard for the approval of the Director. Front-Endina Contribution 5.4 The Owner acknowledges that the portion of the future Clarington Boulevard within the Plan, as well as the stormwater management pond and related facilities which are located outside the Plan and which will directly benefit the plan may be constructed, paid for or otherwise provided by landowners to the south and west of the draft plan (S -C 2012-0003 and 18T-95027). The Owner further acknowledges that if this happens, the Municipality may'undertake in the conditions of draft plan approval applicable to such lands to use its best efforts to recover a proportionate share of the cost of such roadwork, works, services and facilities from the Owner and to reimburse the front -ending owners accordingly. In such case, an Authorization to Commence shall not be issued for any Works unless the Owner has paid to the Municipality its proportionate share of such roadworks, works, services and facilities, which amount the Municipality shall hold in trust for and on behalf of the front -ending owners. Endeavour to Collect 5:5 The Owner shall construct and pay for 100% of the cost of the following oversized or external services (the "Shared Services"): • Construction of Longworth Avenue from Regional Road 57 to Clarington Boulevard; • Oversizing of storm sewers through the Lands to provide for existing and future runoff from all external Lands contributing to the storm sewer system through the plan; • Construction of Clarington Boulevard from its current terminus to the north side of Longworth Avenue if this development precedes the development to the south and west; and' • Construction of the stormwater management pond and related facilities if this development precedes the development to the south; 5.6 The Shared Services are required to service the Lands but will also provide benefit to the following lands (the "Benefitting Land"): Page 16 12-100 The owners of land to the north; The owner of the lands to the west (S -C 2012-0003) should the Owner build Clarington Boulevard from its current terminus to the north side of Longworth Avenue; and The owner of the lands to the south (18T-95027) should the Owner build Clarington Boulevard from its current terminus to the north side of Longworth Avenue and the stormwater management pond and related facilities. 5.7 The Shared Services are not included in the Municipality's Development Charge By-law or in any special area development charge and, therefore, the Municipality cannot provide the Owner with any assurance that the Owner will recover any of the costs of constructing the Shared Services from the owners of the Benefitting Land. However, if the Benefitting Land or any part thereof is to be developed by plan of subdivision, plan of condominium, severance or any other method requiring an approval under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.13, then the Municipality shall endeavour to ensure that the owners of such Benefitting Land pays to the Owner their proportionate shares of the costs of the Shared Services. The Owner shall be required to prepare a Cost Sharing Report for the Shared Services. Stormwater Management 5.8 The Owner shall secure all necessary easements from the adjacent land owner. (18T-95027) required to service the subject lands prior to the issuance of an Authorization to Commence from the Director of Engineering Services. Temporary Turning CIrCIes 5.9 (1) Temporary turning circles are required at phase limits where roadways are incomplete and any lots abutting temporary turning circles will be frozen and not eligible for building permits. (2) Where part of all of a temporary turning circle is on lands outside of the road allowances, the Owner shall convey an easement to the Municipality in a form satisfactory to the Municipal Solicitor. Such easement shall be released for nominal consideration when the turning circle is removed to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. (3) Where proposed road connects to existing temporary turning circle, the Owner shall restore all areas to municipal standards. This includes curbs, sidewalks, asphalt, drainage, boulevard topsoil and sod, street trees'and streetlighting relocations, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. Existing Structures 12-101 Page 17 5.10 The Owner shall obtain demolition permit(s) to remove all existing buildings and structures from the Lands, unless such buildings or structures are to be preserved for heritage purposes. Parkland 5.11 The Owner shall convey Block 75 to the Municipality for Park or other public recreational purposes and any underdedication shall be provided to the Municipality cash in lieu *of parkland under section 51.1 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13. The Owner acknowledges that the land and payment represents 1 hectare per 300 dwelling units included in the draft plan and the payment shall be based on the value of the Lands as of the day before the approval of draft Plan of Subdivision S -C-2011-0002. 5.12 The Owner shall prepare a Park Plan for Block 75 (1) In this section, "Park Plan" means a plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect showing: (a) all proposed park features including walkways, playgrounds, and seating areas (b) the proposed grading and stormwater drainage system to demonstrate that the proposedparksize, configuration and topography will allow for the construction of park facilities. (2) An Authorization to Commence shall not be issued for any Works until the Owner has submitted and the Director has approved the Park Plan. (3) The Owner shall construct, and ensure the Engineering Drawings incorporate the final grades for the park including 200 mm minimum topsoil and sodding, fencing, all storm sewer servicing within the park and provision of sanitary sewer, water connections and hydro service to the park property line along the park frontage. (4) For purposes of the Subdivision Agreement, all works under the section 5.12(3) are considered a separate Works Component with a minimum maintenance period of 2 years. Noise Attenuation 5.13 (1) The Owner shall implement the noise attenuation measures recommended in the updated noise report entitled Noise Impact Study, prepared by Sernas Associates, dated October 2009 as job number 09264. (the "Noise Report"). (2) The Owner shall not make an application for a building permit for any building on the Lands until an acoustic engineer has certified that the plans Page 18 12-102 for the building are in accordance with the recommendations of the Noise Report. Erosion Control Stabilization Works 5.14 The Owner acknowledges the recommendations of the Brookhill Tributary Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Aquafor Beech, July 2010. Furthermore, the Owner shall contribute to the erosion control stabilization works on the downstream of the Brookhill Tributary. The amount is. based on the contributing upstream developable neighbourhood. Each benefiting landowner -shall pay their proportionate share of the works to the municipality, based on the drainage area of the draft plan. Part 6 — Agency Conditions Region of Durham 6.1 (1) The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Region. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region, and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. (2) Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. (3) The Owner shall name road allowances included in this draft plan to the satisfaction of the Municipality and the Region. (4) The Owner shall grant to the Region any easements required for provision of Regional services for this development and these easements shall be in the location and of such widths as determined by the Region. (5) The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region for review and approval if this subdivision is ,to be developed by more than one registration. (6) The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of -a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services. Page 19 12-103 (7) Prior to final approval, the Owner is required to provide an updated Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), in accordance with the Region of Durham's 2014 Updated Site Contamination Protocol and accompanied by a signed Regional Reliance Letter. and Certificate of Insurance to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. In the event that the Phase 1 ESA recommends that a Phase II ESA be completed, the Owner must submit a signed Record of Site Condition (RSC) to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). The RSC must be to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, including an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the RSC by the MOECC. (8) The Owner shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the subject property and mitigation and /or salvage excavation of any significant heritage resources to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. No grading or other soil disturbance shall take plane of the subject property prior to a letter of clearance from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Conservation Authority 6.2 (1) Prior to any on-site grading or construction of final registration .of the Plan, the Owner shall submit 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 the provincial guidelines. (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. (c) The means whereby erosion and sedimentation and their effects will be minimized on the site during and after construction in accordance with the 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. (2) The Owner'shall prepare a_ plant salvage and monitoring plan for the locally significant Epilobuim strictum (downy willow herb) identified on site through the approved Brookhill Environmental Impact Study prepared by Aquafor Beech Limited and North South Environmental dated July 2010. The monitoring component will assess the successfulness of the transplant and shall also identify the length of time for monitoring to continue. (3) Prior to any on-site grading, and/or construction associated with the proposed plan of subdivision, the owner shall provide confirmation to the Page 110 12-104 Central Lake Ontario Conservation�Authority that the locally significant plan species Epilobuim strictum (downy willow herb) identified on-site has been relocation in accordance with the approved salvage plan. (4) Prior to any on-site grading or construction of final approval of the plan, the Owner shall submit to and obtain approval from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for reports describing how lot level infiltration measures are to be incorporated into the subdivision design in order to promote infiltration and reduce runoff as well as maintain and preserve groundwater conditions in accordance with the Brookhill Neighbourhood Subwatershed Study, November 2005. (5) The Owner shall satisfy all financial requirements of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. This shall include Application Processing Fees and Technical Review. Fees as per the approved Authority Fee Schedule. (6) The Subdivision agreement between the Owner and The Municipality of Clarington shall contain, among other matter, the following provisions: (a) The Owner agrees to carry out the works referred to in Condition 6.2 to the satisfaction of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. (b) The Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater and erosion and sediment control structures and measures operating and in good report during the construction period in a manner satisfactory to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. (c) ' The Owner agrees to advise the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 48 hours prior to the commencement of any grading or initiation of any on-site works. Utilities 6.3 (1) The Owner shall coordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan that allows for the safe installation of all utilities including the separation between utilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. (2) All utilities will be.installed within the proposed road allowances. Where this is not possible, easements will be provided at no cost to the utility provider. Proposed easements are not permitted on lands owned by the Municipality unless it can be demonstrated that there is no other alternative. Such easements must not impede the long term use of the lands and will be at the discretion of the Director of Engineering Services. Page 111 12105 (3) The Owner shall cause all utilities, including hydro, telephone, and cable television within the streets of this development to be installed .underground for both primary and secondary services. Part 7 — Standard Notices and Warnings 7.1 The Owner shall include a clause in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots informing the purchaser of all applicable development charges in accordance with subsection 58(4) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S. 0. 1997, C.27. 7.2 The Owner shall include the notices and warnings clauses set out in Schedule 3 of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for all Lots or Blocks. 7.3 The Owner shall include the following notices and warning clauses in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for the Lots or Blocks to which they apply: Noise Report 7.4 (1) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for Lots 14 to 23, 40 to 55, 58 to 61 and Blocks 62, 63, and 64; Purchasers are advised that sound levels due to increasing road traffic and the existing may interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the sound levels will exceed the Ministry of Environment's noise criteria. (2) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for Lots (to be determined by.updated Noise Report): This dwelling unit was fitted with a forced air heating system and the ducting etc. sized to accommodate a central air. conditioning unit. The installation of central air conditioning by the homeowner will allow windows and exterior doors to be kept closed, thereby achieving indoor sound levels within the limits recommended by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.. (Note: The location and installation of the outdoor air conditioning device should be done so as to comply with noise criteria of MOECC publication NPC -216, Residential Air Conditioning Devices and thus minimize the noise impacts both on and in the immediate vicinity of the subject property). (3) The Owner shall include the following notice in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale for Lots 18, 19,* 51 and 52; a. Despite the inclusion of noise control features in the design of the subdivision and individual units, noise levels from road traffic. and the existing may be of concern and may occasionally Page 112 12-106 interfere with some activities of the dwelling occupants as the noise exposure level may exceed the noise criteria of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. . b. An acoustical barrier (1.80 metre fence) has been constructed on this lot to help reduce outdoor noise levels in the rear yards. The fence not to be tampered with or removed by the homeowner. c. The Owner shall include the following notice, in the agreements of purchase and sale for Lots 18, 19, 51 and 52: , Noise Attenuation Fencing - Noise attenuation fencing is a required feature for this lot to assist in reducing the noise levels to comply with Ministry of the Environment standards. This fencing must be located on the private property portion of the lot and must be designed and constructed in compliance with the recommendations of the noise attenuation report prepared by Noise Impact Study, prepared by-Sernas Associates, dated October 2009 as job number 09264.The maintenance of this fencing is the responsibility of the owner of the lot after the developer has been released from any further responsibility for the fence. School Board 7.5 The Owner shall include the following warning clause in agreements of purchase and sale for All Lots and Blocks: School - Purchasers and tenants are notified of the location of a school on adjacent lands and such school activity may give rise to noise and traffic. Future School - Potential purchasers are advised that while an elementary school site has been reserved within the Brookhill Neighbourhood for the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board that it may not be constructed and used as an Elementary School site. All potential purchasers are further advised that an existing Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board school will be used to accommodate all public board elementary pupils until such time as any new Elementary School can be constructed in the Brookhill Neighbourhood. If a new. Elementary School is not constructed within Brookhill Neighbourhood, than all pupils will be accommodated at an existing public board elementary site. Nearby Farm Operations 7.6 The Owner shall include the following warning clause in agreements of purchase and sale for Lots All Lots: Farm Operations —There are existing farming operations nearby and that such farming activities may give rise to noise, odours, truck traffic Page 113. 12-107 and outdoor lighting resulting from normal farming practices which may occasionally interfere with some activities of the occupants. Nearby Park 7.7 The Owner shall include the following warning clause in agreements of purchase and sale for Lots 32 to 37, 56, 57 and Block 68: Park - The adjacent Block 75 is designated for parkland uses including community events and recreation facilities which, when developed, may contain active lighted facilities for night-time services. Part 8 - Clearance 8.1 Prior to final approval of the plan for registration, the Municipality's Director of Planning Services shall be advised in writing by: (a) the Region how Conditions 2.2, 3.3, 4.1 (1) & (2), 7.4, 6.1 & 7.3 have been satisfied; (b) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, how Conditions 6.2 have been satisfied; and (c) Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, how Conditions 7.5 has been satisfied. Part 9 - Notes to Draft Approval 9.1 Terms used in these conditions that are not otherwise defined have the meanings given to them in the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement. 9.2 As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at any time prior to final approval. 9.3 If final approval is not given to this plan within three (3) years of the draft approval date, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file shall be closed. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is submitted to the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date. 9.4 Where an agency requirement is required to be included in, the Municipal subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agency in order to facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and telephone numbers of these agencies are: (a) Durham Regional Planning Department, 605 Rossland Road East, P.O. Box 623, Whitby, Ontario L1 N 6A3 (905) 668-7721. Page 114 (b) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, 100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa, Ontario LIH 3T3 (905) 579-0411. (c) Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board, 1994 Fisher Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 6X6. Page 115 If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. To: Mayor Foster and Members of Council From: Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk Date: June 3, 2016 Subject: Planning & Development Committee Meeting — June 6, 2016 — Update File: C05.Planning & Development Committee Please be advised of the following amendments to the Planning & Development Committee agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, June 6, 2016: 8. Delegations See attached Final List (Attachment #1) 10. Communications — Direction (Additions) (Attachment #2) 10.3 Karen Muir, Regarding Report PSD -042-16, Applications by Kaitlin Corporation for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit Medium Density (Townhouse) Development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre, Bowmanville (Motion to refer the correspondence from Karen Muir, regarding Report PSD -042-16, Applications by Kaitlin Corporation for a Draft Pian of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit Medium Density (Townhouse) Development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre, Bowmanville for consideration during discussion of Report PSD -042-1.6) 12. Planning Services Department Reports (Attachment #3) 12.5 PSD -046-16 Application by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. to Develop Between 237 to 301 Unit Residential Plan of Subdivision in the Brookhill Neighbourhood of Bowmanville Attar d please find Attachment #3 to Report PSD -046-16. Ann Gr entre icipal Clerk CAG/mc Encl. C. F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads ATTAINIM,EKIT #_7Final RER)KI '�4ro Agenda Date: June 6, 2016 Time- 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario, Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 , Audio Record: The Municipality of Cl:arington makes an audio record of Planning and Development Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a Planning and Development Committee meeting, the Municipality will be audio recording You and will make the recording public by publishing the recording on the Municipality's website, Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non -audible mode during the meeting. Copies of Reports are available at www,clarington.net Clarftt011 nning and Development Committee Agenda I 1 Call to Order 2 New Business --- Introduction 3 Adopt the Agenda 4 Declarations of Interest 5 Announcements 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 6.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of May 16, 2016 7 Public Meetings Date: June 6, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 6-1 7.1 Application for a Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision & Zoning 7-1 By-law Amendment Applicant: Modo Bowmanville Towns Ltd., Fifty Five Clarington Ltd., and Devon Daniell (Kaitlin Corporation) Report: PSD -042-16 8 Delegations 8.1 Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington, Regarding Report PSD -043-16, Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) — Comments 8.2 April Gross Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice 8.3 Nina Mallette Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice 8.4 David Unwin Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice 8.5 Suzanne Richardson Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice Page 1 Cladngt011 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: June 6, 2096 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 8.6 Andrea Skinner Regarding Report PSD -046-16, Application by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. to Develop Between 237 to 301 Unit Residential Plan of Subdivision in the Brookhiil Neighbourhood of Bowmanville 9 Communications - Receive for Information There are no Communications to be received for information. 0 Communications— Direction 10.1 Christopher Harris, Town Clerk, Town of Whitby— Planning and 10-1 Development Department Report, PL 45-16 Request for Region of Durham to Amend the Regional Official Plan Regarding Places of Worship (Motion to Endorse) 10.2 Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington — 10-13 Regarding Report PSD -043-16, Durham Region Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) — Comments (Motion to refer Correspondence Item 10.2 from Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington to Report PSD -043-16, Durham Region Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) - Comments) Page 2 Clariflgt011 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: June 6, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 10.3 Scott and Karen Muir, Regarding Report PSD -042-16, Applications by Kaitlin Corporation for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit Medium Density (Townhouse) Development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre, Bowmanville (Motion to refer the correspondence from Scott and Karen Muir, regarding Report PSD -042-16, Applications by Kaitlin Corporation for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit Medium Density (Townhouse) Development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre, Bowmanville for consideration during discussion of Report PSD -042-16) 11 Presentations No Presentations 12 Planning Services Department Reports 12.1 PSD -042-16 Applications by Kaitlin Corporation for a Draft Plan of 12-1 Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit Medium Density (Townhouse) Development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre, Bowmanville 12.2 PSD -043-16 Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 12-13 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) - Comments 12.3 PSD -044-16 Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in 12-45 Courtice 12.4 PSD -045-16 Applications by Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc. to Amend 12-51 Phase 2 of a Draft Approved Pian of Subdivision for 24 Residential Units and a f=uture Development Block for Medium Density in the Apple Blossom Neighbourhood, Bowmanville Page 3 12.5 PSD -046-16 Application by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. to 12-78 Develop Between 237 to 301 Unit Residential Plan of Subdivision in the Brookhill Neighbourhood of Bowmanville 13 New Business -- Consideration 14 Unfinished Business None 15 Confidential Reports No Reports 16 Adjournment Page 4 ATIA C I I MEN , I' #— TO Cliambers, Michelle Subject: FW: S -C-2016-0001. and ZBA 2016-0010 Objection Letter Importance: High From: Karen Muir [LiiaiLto-desig!l_@,I<areritiiLiir.ca] Sent: JUne-02-16 1:26 PM To: Clerks Department Outside <ClerksDepp,(ITent@cIari t net>:Taylor Scott, Anne <A rScott.@ 0 � claringL . . ..... q!L.qffI>; Hooper, Ron <rdapotaei@.cIz > Cc: Karen Muir <d,esigp @karenrnuJr.ca> Subject: S -C-2016-0001 and ZBA 2016-0010 Objection Letter Importance: High June 2, 2016 Re: S -C-2016-0001 and ZBA 2016-,0010 I OBJECT to the above planning application. Please accept this written Submission as Scott and Z=� Karen MUil"S objection to the proposed development in the Bowi-nanville West Town Centre in the Municipality of Clarington. After thorough review and research of the submission, it is apparent that the protection and safety of our community has not beery considered in this plan application. I OBJECT to the development plan of subdivision on the grounds that there has been NO consideration taken for the undeniable road safety hazards coupled with extreme safety liabilities and the intense infringement of privacy, as well as noise pollution issues. I understand the importance of urban development and of moving forward with long-term economical growth plans; however, it is critical for the safety and well- being of out- growing community to accomplish and maintain an absolute Solution before moving forward. I have been down this road before. Some years ago, my rural picturesque property was nestled in a quaint apple grove that hugged Green Road. Then the Clarington Shopping Center was built. I attended the development meetings prior to construction of the Clarington Shopping Center. There was absolutely NO mention of building only half of Prince William Boulevard. I voiced my concerns, but soon learned that Prince William Boulevard was to be built regardless of my concerns. I can honestly say that the property has since lost .100% of its once charming privacy. My property was suddenly a corner lot. The curb was built an impressive one foot off my property line. Does that seem reasonable and well thought Out? These wre drastic, tinwelcomed changes that, in my opinion, have had a significant negative impact on my quality of living. Over the years, there have been a plethora of new issues that we have been unfairly forced to deal with. For example: the public bus now stops directly adjacent the bedroom window; we prematurely lost our home mail delivery; the sidewalk has been virtually impossible to maintain after the snowplow makes a pass; and trespassing is an increasing problem. I had asked for fence screening to help with privacy, noise issues, and to act as a preventative for foot traffic cutting across the front and rear portions surrounding my home. The only suggestion offered at that point was to build a fence in where I was expected to pay half. This did not seem reasonable or possible because the curb, as mentioned earlier, is merely one foot off my property line. Execution of winter road maintenance has been especially difficult. I was told the snow would be plowed to the other side of the road. This did not happen. There have been, and I can see there will continue to be, huge privacy, littering, and noise issues if this application plan is not addressed carefully. I still do not understand how this planned infrastructure was deemed acceptable and sufficient given the vision and scope of the long-term urban development plan. I am a responsible homeowner and must keep my tenants and property safe from all hazards. I strongly feel this newly proposed residential development plan still has not realistically addressed or even considered these very same issues that were apparent all those years ago.. Since the construction of the new bridge, the neighborhood has changed drastically again. Now, my number one concern is safety along with liability and yet more privacy and noise issues for my tenants. The road traffic, along with foot and bike traffic, has increased since the completion of the bridge and the grand opening of Green Road. The corner of Green Road and Prince William Boulevard is already a huge safety hazard because it is tight, increasingly busier, and much harder to see clearly because of the mature trees, hydro poles, and general visual distractions. It has become extremely difficult to maneuver safely when entering and exiting the driveway at 1599 Green Road. What happens when you add up to 284 residential dwellings into the landscape? I am concerned with the safety implications as well as the insurance liabilities due to more vehicle road and more pedestrian traffic. I am sure you can understand my reason for this reflection. What measures will be taken to ensure that our family, friends, and community will not be put in harm's way? Will I be able to safely get in and out of my driveway? Will my tenants be happy living there? How do I retain any possible shred of privacy? Will I be unfairly responsible for erecting privacy and noise filtering fences? Will the noise level be an issue for sleeping? Will the residential units cast shadows on the yard and gardens? Will my property value decrease? Who will take care of public sidewalks in the winter? How will the school bus routes operate? Will curbside waste collection change? How will mail be accessed? I have been a proud homeowner on Green Road for over 25 years. Now, with these changes, I feel I have been chased out and forced to move on. Bowmanville is a great place to live and raise a family. I hope the Municipality of Clarington will address my concerns and ultimately achieve effective solutions that will alleviate the long-term issues with regards to the impact of Bowmanville West Town Centre development. Sincerely, Scott Muir 2 Municipality of Clarington A17ACHIANT C, . ..... Attachment 3 to F �eport FISD-046-16 Without Preh J u n e .016 IA— Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2016-.__ being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive/Zon!60 By-4,pw'for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Mun advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended,,pf � ngton deems it of the Municipality of Clarington for 7BA 20111-0012; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the'b"t,,"'Oncil of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, enacts as follows: .......... . . . . . ........ 1. SECTION 12 "SPECIAL S — URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE ONE (R1) ZONE is hereby amer�oeo a new Special Exception Zone as follows: Ii I Mi 111 MrSHM Notwithstar,)di,hStion`','.1 g., i) and iv); 3.16 i. iv); 112,11; 12.2 a); b); c); d) i), ii), iii), 0; i), thos, n6d,,,R1 -97 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for single detdaed o; " 'gemi-detached dwellings, subject to the following zone regulations: (minimum) Single detached dwellings with minimum of 10,0 metre frontage 300 square metres ii) Single detached dwellings with, minimum of 12.0 metre frontage 370 square metres iii) Semi-detached' dweflings with a, minimum of 18.0 metre frontage 50 square metres a C. 9 e. C Lot Frontage Interior (minimum) i) Single detached dwelling ii) Single detached dwelling iii) Semi-detached dwellings Lot Frontage Exterior (minimum) i) Single detached dwelling ii) Semi -Detached dwellings Yard Requirements (minimum) i) Front or exterior side yard Interior side yard for dwellings Interior side yard *emi. Special Yard Regula4aN IM 10.0 metres 12.0 metres 18.0 metres t12metres tres 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side dwellings 1.2 metres Bay win ws th foundations may project into any required yard to a more than 0.75 metres with the bay window having a r mu idth of 3.0 metres, but in no instance shall the interior side rd g reduced below 0.6 metres. S - ay project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no %tance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 Visibility Triangle (minimum) rerage (maximum) 1 Storey a) Dwelling b) Total of all buildings and structures 5.0 metres 50 percent 55 percent ii) All other residential dwellings a) Dwelling 45 percent b) Total of all buildings and structures 50 percent iii) Notwithstanding the above lot coverage provision, a covered and unenclosed porch/balcony having no habitable floor space above it, shall be permitted subject to the following: a) In the case of an interior lot, an unenclosed porch/ba up to a maximum area of 12.0 metres shall be permitted. e it is located in the front yard of the lot and shallnot Ic as lot coverage. b) In the case of an exterior lot, an unenclos = ony up to a maximum area of 20.0 metres shall b ; 'tt , provided it is located in the front and/or exterior sib rd a he lot and shall F I 8.5 metres 12.5 metres 4.6 metres :1ECIAL EXCEPTIONS — URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE THREE (R3) amended by adding a new special exception zone as follows: ESIDENTIAL EXCEPTION (R3-51) ZONE" Notwithstanding Sections 3.1 g.; j. i), iv); 3.16 i. iv); 3.22; 14.1; 14.2; 14.3 a.; b.; c.; e.; g.; and h. those lands zoned R3-51 on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for semi-detached dwellings and street townhouse dwellings having frontage on both a public lane and an improved public street, subject to the following: a. Semi-detached shall be permitted as follows (minimum): i) Lot area 450 square metres ii) Lot frontage - interior 14.8 metres iii) Lot frontage - exterior 18.0 metres b. Street townhouse dwelling shall be permitted as follows (minimum): i) Lot area 180 square metres ii) Lot frontage - interior .= y. etres iii) Lot frontage — exterior tres C. Yard Requirements (minimum) i) Front yard or exterior side yard — abutting an imp : b is street that is 20 metres wide or less 3.0 t s to dwelling 1. . the unenclosed p = h; on a street abutting ic' I sidewalk 3.6 metres elling; 1.5 metres to the unenclosed porch pr X ed public street 4.0 metres to dwelling; 2.0 metres to the unenclosed porch 1.2 metres, nil where building has a common wall with any building on an adjacent lot located in an R3 -XX zone and detached metre side yard _ common wall with another private garage on an adjacent lot located in the R3-51 13 metres 1.0 metres zone. iii) Bay windows with foundations may project into any rear or exterior side yard to a distance of not more than 0.75 metres with the bay window having a maximum width of 3.0 metres. iv) Steps may project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.0 metre. e. Visibility Triangle (minimum) 5.0 metres 7 h. Lot Coverage (maximum) i) Semi-detached dwelling ii) Semi-detached dwelling and total of all buildings and structures iii) Townhouse dwelling iv) Townhouse dwelling and total of all buildings and structures 40 percent 50 percent 45 percent rcent V) Notwithstanding the above lot coverage provision, a covered unenclosed porch/balcony having no habitable floor sp b , shall be permitted subject to the following: a) In the case of an interior lot, an unenclo r alcony up to a maximum area of 10.0 metres shall er fed provided it is located in the front yard of the lot an a be calculated as lot coverage. b) In the case of an exterior lot, an , e ed porch/balcony up to a maximum area of 15.0. , s all be permitted provided it is located in the front an eior a yard of the lot and No parking space shdjLbe ted in any front or exterior side yard 1.0 metre 12.5 metres 3. Section 15 "SPECIAL XC SNS --URBAN RESIDENTIAL TYPE FOUR (R4) Zone is hereb. a b dding a new Special Exception Zone as follows: 15.4.41 U ID TAIL EXCEPTION (R4-41) ZONE" Notwithst d ; 3.11, 3.16 b) (ix) , 3.28, 15.1, 15.2, a, c, e., g,, h., i., those lands zone 4 1) s own on the Schedules to this By-law shall have frontage on an imI is treet, and access on a public lane or private street subject to the f in - use nd regulations" a. P—'rmitted Residential Uses: i) Apartment Building ii) Stacked Townhouses iii) Street Townhouses b. Permitted Non-residential Uses for Apartment Buildings only: Bank or financial establishment, business, professional or administrative office; C. 9 e. 11 ov ge aximum) 60% en Space (minimum) 25% ng fight (minimum) 3 storeys (maximum) 6 storeys cape Strip adjacent to the front erior lot line (minimum) 1.5 metres for Stacked Townhouses and Street Townhouses (minimum) t Area Lot Frontage Yard Requirements a) Front yard or exterior side yard 185 square metres 6.0 metres 3.0 metres to the dwelling 1.2 metres to the unenclosed porch on a street abutting a municipal sidewalk b) Interior side yard 1.2 metres; Nil where a building has a common wall with any building on the adjacent lot in the same zone C) Rear Yard 5.0 metres iv) Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above the average finished grade measured at the front lot line 0.5 metres g. Regulations for Stacked Townhouses i) Rear Yard (minimum) w : tres ii) Lot Coverage (maximum) 60% iii) Landscape Open Space (minimum) 25% iv) Building height (minimum) 3 storeys (maximum) 4 storeys V) Parking spaces shall not be located in the re a y: between an improved public street an# a ide I use vi) 2 parking spaces for each Live Work U m) vii) Landscape Strip adjacent to the fro = for lot line viii} (minimum) h i re Second story decks maqd,llings r yard 1.5 metres (maximum) 4.0 metres h. Regulations for Street Townhou i) Only permitted w thfront on an improved public street ii) on the south sideo block. Rear Yard (minim ) a) W. ut attached garage to a private street with an attached garage to a private street rage (maximum) Townhouse dwelling Townhouse dwelling and total of all structures Landscape Open Space 13.0 metres 6.0 metres 45% 55% 30% i. Special Yard Regulation for Street Townhouses i) Minimum separation between the dwelling and detached garage on the same lot shall be 6.0 metres ii) A detached garage may have a 0.0 metre side yard setback where the detached garage has a common wall with another garage on an adjacent lot located in the R4-41 zone II; iii) Steps may project into the required front or exterior side yard, but in no instance shall the front or exterior side yard be reduced below 1.2 metres iv) Visibility Triangle (minimum) 5.0 metres V) Notwithstanding the above lot coverage provision, a covered and unenclosed porch/balcony having no habitable floor space above it, shall be permitted subject to the following: a) In the case of an interior lot, an unenclosed porch/balc up to a maximum area of 10.0 metres shall be permitted p i it is located in the front yard of the lot and shall not be t as lot coverage. b) In the case of an exterior lot, an unenclo k r ba ny up to a maximum area of 15.0 metres shall b e rovided it is located in the front and/or exterior sid a e lot and shall not be calculated as lot coverag vi) No parking space shall be located in A to terior side yard. Building height (minimum) 2 storeys (maximum) 3 storeys Regulations for Non-Residenti e i) Non-residential u es per d only in the street front facing portion of the ground floor buildin ontaining a permitted residential use. ii} Total Floor Area on -residential use shall be a maximum of 500 square metre Transparent in minimum) 60% of the first storey iv) An outd not be permitted for a business licensed to serve alcohol. V) may not be permitted in the front or exterior side yard a ly be accessed by a public lane or private street. vi # areas may not be permitted in the front or exterior side yard and n y be accessed by a public lane or private street and must be Iv enclosed. iedM '3' to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by ging the zone designation from: "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding -Urban Residential Exception ((H) R1-97) "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding -Urban Residential Exception ((H) R3-51) "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding -Urban Residential Exception ((H) R4-41) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule 'A' hereto. 5. Schedule 'A' attached hereto shall form part of this By-law. 6. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections34 and 36 of the Planning Act. By -Law passed in open session this day of , 2016 This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2016- 1 passed this day of � 2016 A.D.. t.Oh7C3tiWORTH AVENUE- WITHOU LONGWORTFI AVENUE ur'r 4 A J9. wI I r� y. i• 1 a,l 7' '` ra, ` ^t i•,1. �1 aY I, •. . I r ... a` aa� 7 Y: I � 7 .r y I Awa ".7, .. C7 Y 7 a r 0 r4fr^a 1 1 7 k• 1 r '.ye kt z If .'e �. s ..' `w ,^•'\^.ah\:+.s"^ 4\\"s\'s'a I M _ ti' r r : r r y �: .�..._.. .•r .6'"'°*.�..'�.w"�ti\`"w`\\.°-�r'd-.\. I^� .t I,r,r 1 , hr c�y...t. 7 I'";..r... a: '�"s�"�."e\,.\"�-.\ ,,,�`.`w.^-.•+.`-., a w i r h 1` h a Zoning Change From'A' To'(FI)R1-g7' Zoning Change From 'A' Tb'(H)R3.3'g' Zoning Change From'A' To'(H)R4-41' = Zoning Change From A' To Rl' Zoning Change Frof-n A' To'(11)R3-51' Ad6an Foster, Ma or 8ziotiwNrNaNlvllle 4 Z6A 2011-001''2 * SolNr:r,1NNIN. 3 G. Anna Gre€sntrea, Munlcipal GI131k 1'1131_Il�J Clerk's Department If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. To: Mayor Foster and Members of Council From: Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk Date: June 6, 2016 Subject: Planning & Development Committee Meeting — June 6, 2016 — Update #2 File: C05.Plannina & Development Committee Please be advised of the following amendments to the Planning & Development Committee agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, June 6, 2016: 12. Planning Services Department Reports 12.4 PSD -045-16 Applications by Averton Homes (Bowmanville) Inc. to Amend Phase 2 of a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision for 24 Residential Units and a Future Development Block for Medium Density in the Apple Blossom Neighbourhood Attached please find amended Attachment #3 to Report PSD -045-16. CAG/mc Encl. C. F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads Attachment 3 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 Corporation of The Municipality of Clarington By -Law Number: 2016 - being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2014-0033; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Section 14.6.47 Urban Residential Exception (R3-47) Zone be amended by adding the following: "d. Building Height (maximum) 11 metres". 2. Schedule "1" to By-law 84-63 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: Urban Residential Exception (R1-20) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-47) Zone"; Urban Residential Exception (R1-20) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-84) Zone"; and Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-20) Zone" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R3-47) Zone". 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 Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. By-law passed in open session this day of , 2016 Adrian Foster, Mayor C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk 12-76 Attachment 3 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -045-16 This is Schedule "A" to Sy -law 2016- , passed this day of , 2016 A.D. 0 \ O O � cj� G CO M �J �O I � c�GG w z F- w U Q z O Z U ¢ z w z � CAMPLING CT — Zoning Change From 'RI -20'To'(H)R2-84' N ® Zoning Change From'(H)R1-20'To'(H)R3-47' ® Zoning Change From 'R1 -20'To'(H)R3-47' Adnan Foster, Mayor Bowmanville • ZBA 2014-0033 • Schedule 3 C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk 12-77 Handouts/Circulations Planning & Development Committee Meeting Applications By: Devon Daniell, Modo Bowmanville Towns Ltd. and Fifty Five Clarington Ltd (Kaitlin Corporation) Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to permit Medium Density (Townhouse) development in the Bowmanville West Town Centre Public Meeting: June 6, 2016 " o "" Limits of Draft Plan of z Subdivision & Zoning QUi w , r w MI _ till _PRINCAMWVVII I 1AM thEVAR ;. CL 1 m y `. Devon Daniell r� rn " Fifty Five t' Y " Clarington Ltd Modo Bowmanville _ 1 - o Towns Ltd 1p t. v r � �r � .. �.� yr':� ` � • t� � . y �� 'mss � � x, a r e . Y f j1 ASPEN SPRIN-GS DRIVE w - "6" i ZBA)2016-0010 �_ J z` _ 5C 2016-0001 1 ; P I � x �''ers •. it SII t �� NYNER'S AUFHORIZAMM 'x. HMODO ANS C F�1Gi0F10. .. j' I j.� J[oRIGl141 Si El � I .a FMTbW 27 203 mr £1B4:NR1' 2i,, 2P75 O'WNER'S AurHCRZA]IC i 1 I I1 rr" eE'AN DIRE] -L a ac.BIDLY-E AND ASM C- LTE& j w• .z I W„ _ � I I ? (omurw 519NED BY) {ORIGIN& zimc) fit) Ld� I win fL%RMRY 7J 7079 u'.. FEdYLf9R•Y M .15 + v.r a• a ra � I'. ��y •s: i I 1r 1 H � I I I 15 E If I ° I1 1 I II J I+I I KEY PLAN WPOSFD IJS- LOT/eLK $ CFA OF AREA L9T5/6Lx5 UHIT5 (Fq� VON RSrcDfM FL - ALS 7 407 ADDRIGNAL IHPOr-110H AMUIFED U1 M SWWW 51 GP R! PUNNING AAI :CIIXER:ILL xun oN Fvc Fc wl•.w.r )PFH SPACE iF3.DEl1RLL 'P9 XJNOPwL NTCa u V YIN1— 4lYAf.F4 AlW tfliF mmER's AurHoFd7ARCN NYNER'S AUFHORIZAMM 'x. HMODO ANS C F�1Gi0F10. TORUS 0.G DIfE%E IND ASSOC�L1a C.4 DD LE AN6 18if1C� LTD. (CPod,&L SIONEo J[oRIGl141 Si El AIL .a FMTbW 27 203 mr £1B4:NR1' 2i,, 2P75 O'WNER'S AurHCRZA]IC i SHRWOOR S CEWWLkTE rr" eE'AN DIRE] -L sn. oe ytc ulioni,�en ac.BIDLY-E AND ASM C- LTE& � D��LRHES RUIIiEOT•' (omurw 519NED BY) {ORIGIN& zimc) fit) Ld� SCOTT win fL%RMRY 7J 7079 u'.. FEdYLf9R•Y M .15 1 NNSW eLOCR I ,a[u Aw L,G D a in RM4AIF8 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION PART Of LOT 15, CONOE551QN 1 FORMERLY IN THE TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON NOW IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REGIONAL MUNICIPALT( OF DURHAM •ItTO en Rln eeEp�pntl plonn erc �• Dz: x 115152 olaax ar. Ra. RCSSi X.Dt. D P- 1 :I£p4E] sr: x.— FIA &MIL i4^>•i— Lj i; a � r -....� — y(� J of LU "�' Existing Commercial Uses ` a U] fy_ ► � 1 7� .. `~ O ULEITARD ��'`� Existing GO m ,' -• `y Site f ' Municipal Park h -- PI wnhouse - Development Limit of Draft Plan (u - t '■+� p -to 139 units) of Subdivision and Rezoning ' VD EXTENSION OF CLARINGTON BL . � - ,.. Future Go �- Future High Density Site Development CODQ IY_ —, Proposed Approved Apartment AI Jw- z ;Townhouse Under Construction LdLU Developments ax�"ay (up to 145 units) GF' a t �cJF Existing .� x K Park X13 `s i .. a_ FI:YCRE _ P, wlfti7 lam , Y a ME, 1 ZBA 018-0010 k r u s■ r a i i i1r +7 i SSC X016-0001 ■ 1 Public Comments • Traffic • Intersection improvements • Built form, height and design of units • Phasing of development • Impact to property at 1599 Green Road • Privacy and overlook from terraces • Protection and preservation of mature trees 3-D Digital model Staff and Agency Comments • Major issues: • Traffic, access, road and intersection improvements • Urban design and built form • Phasing of development • Establishing appropriate densities 5.5m (18') Dual Frontage Townhouses I I"T-- raF- t5 ra<,• I I I I . �L. �—�f—""S r .. �- — .' �, 1. +�c — ._� — — _: _ Q— — ��7 = RI ar. , 'E !L"__'�:? `S Falrr Mfr J �, • �lr :4: mow_. ^• �,� HEY PLAN r.". -AMC USE SCIICDVLC n •I]]OT lm g r r'�1 � ; /PROPOSED 115= LOi/&1($ $ OF U1 OF AREA L9TV6Lu5 UNITS (Fa) # BLACK 45 + — _ / /'• n [AREArD 467ho} /' �), + ,,;- . M+ ^r�xg- i .: ./, n.e x ,� • .... , WEIIUM DENSITY REUCENTIA. L] a � ' 6�- �1'y,.,.•y4-d�/� ¢� Y' n.•.u. , N i`QO UNrrs PER lha] VON R?SIVEM hL .2 BLOCK 5 �(9(AD REA-1,85nn) 4ADENING} ' _ "• ~ t c 1 f rr n, e 407 CArYRESIDEMIRL iT JIM PER lho,1 J AGDRIW4 IWr011—WH AMIJIRED JWM GF rW PUNNIND ACI • / x' T' aN� 3 E YDRFF ��IIXER:ILL r ! I - I sw •N:'-�'F J `', F.�7� � � s:ur4�xun aN aPCFc wI•.w.r � I P.,„;<� ... i v;"... :.�d��`• � 1 asr �FFH SFrc= I. x Yk51 _ P. .1. —1 � � I, � B fi1i 4it _ x+Vttp<P I �rvi. •' �� ,N`F ,4� � ' ., 5 Ml YINN:4'Fl 4lYAf.F4 AlW rdlF }',. E cynr P.34POSC6 ALIGNu.Ni FOR ••^Tn °� �� I � C{ARINGfON BO'J LEVAti'ii � rU DNHR's AurHcFd7ARICN I MNERS AURIORIZATICN 4 - IIY,:�•� S 1 r+' y V"' FFTY WE ,x MODO BUM ZANY 1E CLbitlN3i0H ? ' ELG B EX%E AHouAssoc�LR0. Lo c eIDDLc AHc A�ac LTD. ix I 3M BLOCK 3 ✓ RW"�, :,,. ..w ., a + :�r rn' .:+ H i S u�, •,�_ _ (Ank=*.41 hp1',. / ('' 1 r (DRIGIML SIGNED yBY) J(0RIGIP4L SIGN➢ H(JA HIGH DEWYRE`v�fHRPA : V r dQLLW J GMKJ1. yy J LIMC4' jI- — BLOCK 7 f (W...Lmn Pm , s, y .. `• o •.� - I - , (Ruw 'A1 HING] '+r FEBvhm 2_, -w £ca%Kff 2� 2075 �.a 76 mr r r0M17UM's AurHcmzARICH SURA4YCR 5 CERRFIGTE i CE'AN DMNE].L •L" rr •, PI� l ter, rle. l`: 1 {• .., :�! ?rr 00.G9DCLE ANDcASSOC LTD. eY p�g4RHE5 WflEO ,rr i r'� � •� � 1 (EARI6IHAL SIGNED BY) (DRIGINPL 9pt➢ 6n BLOCK 2 .' r f I b l MEDIUM DENSIPI' IhMIUL a cuinamX B"v r x fEt77.bIPY iS, 77tfi r rk1.(9KY •!', 1G15 {, 1� �� PFR lho.]Ii ] lTf m nCLJIX RS ] xPRJIb W `• `' s; x DRAFT PLAN Igr� Y' OF SUBDIVISION PART OF LOT 15, CONCESSION 1 I i t I FORMERLY IN THE TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON HOW IN THE r MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON �I t - I• a%� REGIONAL MVNICIPALT( OF DURHAM 1 11J /'� /r lz} I ��!r 7��1 D.®. ■Iddls A A..ocln— Ll mlc.d r r BENCHMARK: OBM 425-89 ELEV. 96245 wnmv recgleero one plono „re ee �-' i I �: �r mnceErE eracF cx�Rmc xavlra� mu oMCR HNY. w, AF EA M £ ,a ,3 xY N5T �P IN ER 6M E 5 aA x�nx x 115152 Imp i Aron. i r, sir nrcoe11:art1 n normi�Frai FeF oanrx ar Pa. I; + 11 .1 _'Ll n],.- P_ A � END OE 91XR:E, yyy❑-yyy srs° ea Cu re:,e sound �¢ ma �..a x scurf 0- curlrm� RE35v Br: N.6S. D 1 N.C. I PLUI LNIt e4^W>re