Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/27/2016Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: June 27, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Michelle Chambers, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at mchambers c(D,clarin toq nnet. 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 1 Call to Order 2 New Business — Introduction 3 Adopt the Agenda 4 Disclosures of Interest 5 Announcements 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 6.1 Minutes of a Special Meeting of June 6, 2016 6-1 6.2 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of June 6, 2016 6-4 7 Public Meetings 7.1 Application for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 7-1 Applicant: W.E. Roth Construction Limited Report PSD -047-16 8 Delegations No Delegations 9 Communications - Receive for Information There are no Communications to be received for information. 10 Communications — Direction 10.1 Jeffrey A. Abrams, City Clerk, City of Vaughan —Requested Amendment to 10-1 the Planning Act to Address Issues With Official Plan Amendments that Follow the Completion of a Comprehensive Official Plan Review (Motion to Endorse) Page 1 CkiriflO011 Planning and Development Committee Agenda Date: June 27, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers 10.2 Dr. John Cherry, Distinguished Emeritus Professor, University of 10-6 Waterloo — Proposed Modifications to Approved Rotosonic Hole Location and $25,000 Funding (Motion for Direction) 11 Presentations No Presentations 12 Planning Services Department Reports 12.1 PSD -047-16 An Application by W.E. Roth Construction Limited to Add a 12-1 (H) Holding Provision to the Agriculturally Zoned Lands at 8318 Maynard Road 12.2 PSD -048-16 An Application by Lesle Gibson for Removal of (H) Holding 12-11 Symbol 3238 Concession Road 3, Clarke 12.3 PSD -049-16 Proposed Amendment Draft Approval for Far Sight 12-17 Investments Ltd. 12.4 PSD -050-15 Amendment to Draft Approval — 2408406 Ontario Inc. 12-26 (Fourteen Estates) for 28 Hamlet Residential Lots in the Hamlet of Newtonville 13 New Business — Consideration 13.1 Motion Request that the Region of Durham Provide Sanitary 13-1 Service along Highway 2 from Sandringham to Courtice Road [New business item from Councillor Cooke] 14 Unfinished Business None 15 Confidential Reports 15.1 PSD -051-16 Courtice Waterfront Land Acquisition 16 Adjournment Page 2 Special Planning and Development ClaringtonCommittee Minutes June 6, 2016 Minutes of a special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on Monday, June 6, 2016 at 3:00 PM in the Mezzanine Meeting Room, Clarington Public Library,. Bowmanville Branch. Present Were: Mayor A. Foster, Councillor S. Cooke, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor W. Woo Regrets: Councillor W. Partner, Councillor C. Traill Staff Present: F. Langmaid, A. Greentree, L. Benson, N. Taylor, A. Allison, L. Pinto, B. Radomski 1 Call to Order Councillor Woo called the meeting to order at 3:00 PM. 2 Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest stated at this meeting. 3 Presentations 3.1 Paul Mule, Dillon Consulting Limited and Luciano P. Piccioni, President, RCI Consulting, Regarding the Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Paul Mule opened the presentation. The verbal presentation, accompanied by a PowerPoint Presentation, covered the following topics: Introduction of Consulting team Project timeline which consists of three phases Community Improvement Plans and Best Practices o Clarington has 3 existing CIPs in downtown areas of Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono. A total of 58 properties have received a total of $814,000. o As the incentives are developed within this area, Clarington's Development Charges (DC) by-law may have to be updated. o The typical downtown/commercial area CIP's and the Key Policy goals and objectives were compared with the Courtice Main Street highlighted to demonstrate how the typical strategies will not work in this instance. o The Waterloo Northdale CIP, Waterloo Uptown CIP, Smarter Niagara Incentive Programs, Town of The Blue Mountains CIP, Orillia Downtown Tomorrow CIP, and Oshawa Downtown Shoulder Area CIP were successful and could be. applicable to the Courtice Main Street CIP to achieve their Official Plans. - 1 - r �r Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 • Background of Key Municipal and Regional Polices o Both Clarington's and Durham Region's Official Plans designate Courtice Main Street as a corridor. o The key elements of the Secondary Plan and Urban Design Directions were described. o The proposed public realm projects were highlighted. o To better define traffic.flow and transit, a proposed cross-section was explained, and tied in the Durham Region Transportation Master Plan. o The Region has indicated that Courtice Main Street is not eligible for Regional Intensification Servicing Policy (RISP) as size of sanitary sewer on Highway 2 makes it. No assistance of funding of the services from the Region of Durham appears to be available. This is quite different from the approach within Niagara Region where the approach seemingly comes from the top down. Servicing o To extend the sanitary sewer between Sandringham Drive to Courtice Road is estimated to cost approximately $1,957,500 with the portion west of Trulls Road being $807,500 and east of Trulls Road being $1,150,000. o The key servicing issues were highlighted. o Key opportunities and solutions were explained including options to: service by blocks rather than individual properties; various approaches depending on the block; and including the option for the Municipality to front end the related servicing costs. The presentation was suspended to allow for Members of Committee to pose questions to the consultants and staff. Staff confirmed that the position of the Region, being that Courtice CIP is ineligible for the RISP and RRP, was recent, unexpended, and problematic news. The presentation continued covering the following topics: • Black Creek Trail Policy Support o Discussed the existing trail and how it and the proposed trail will be integrated in the plan. o Opportunities for Acquisition and access for the trail system were highlighted including the marketing and promotion of benefits to building safe/secure trails. • Key Community Improvement needs o To provide an extra tool to achieve the desired development • Preliminary Draft Incentive Programs o The proposed approach was highlighted and explained that should no funding be forth coming from the Region, the approach would have to be reconsidered. From the current perspective, the DC grant approach is deemed the most effective. o Evaluation framework was detailed. o The Preliminary concept was explained. -2- 6-2 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 Next Steps o Public Meeting / Workshop #2 — June 22, 2016 o Revise the Incentive Programs — July 2016 o Prepare Fiscal Impact Analysis and Financial .Plan — July 2016 o Prepare and circulate Draft CIP — August/September 2016 o Statutory Public Meeting and Final CIP — October 2016 In conclusion, the consultants advised that the CIP is an enabling tool, should be monitored, is amendable without undertaking a full review of the plan, and should be fully reviewed every five years. Resolution #PD -085-16 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Cooke That the presentation from Paul Mule, Dillon Consulting Limited and Luciano P. Piccioni, President, RCI Consulting, Regarding the Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan be received for information. Carried 4 Adjournment. Resolution #PD -086-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal That the meeting adjourn at 5:00 PM. Chair Carried -3- Municipal Clerk 6-3 n Planning and Development.Committee Minutes Uarington June 6, 2016 Minutes, of a meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on Monday, June 6, 2016 at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. Present Were: Mayor A. Foster, Councillor S. Cooke, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor W. Woo Regrets: Councillor W. Partner Staff Present: F. Langmaid, A. Greentree, M. Chambers, C. Pellarin, L. Benson 1 Call to Order Councillor Woo called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2 New Business — Introduction Councillor Cooke added a New Business item, regarding an exemption to Sign By-law 2009-123 for the South Courtice Neighbourhood Association, to the New Business — Consideration section of the agenda. Suspend the Rules Resolution #PD -087-16 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Neal That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to add the delegations of Carlo Aloe, Kyle Roberts, and Pauline Beaton regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice, to the Delegation Section of the Agenda. Carried 3 Adopt the Agenda Resolution #PD -088-16 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal That the Agenda for the Planning and Development Committee meeting of June 6, 2016 be adopted as presented. Carried 4 Declarations of Interest Councillor Neal declared an interest in the New Business Item regarding and exemption to Sign By-law 2009-123 for the South Courtice Neighbourhood Association. -1- 6-4 Planning and Development Committee ClaringtonMinutes June 6, 2016 5 Announcements Members of Committee announced upcoming community events and matters of community interest. 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting Resolution #PD -089-16 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Mayor Foster That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning and Development Committee, held on May 16, 2016, be approved. Carried 7 Public Meetings 7.1 Application for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Applicant: Modo Bowmanville Towns Ltd., Fifty Five Clarington Ltd. and Devon Daniell (Kaitlin Group) Report: PSD -042-16 Anne Taylor Scott, Senior Planner, made a verbal and electronic presentation to the Committee regarding the application. Elizabeth Nesbit, local resident, spoke to the application. Ms. Nesbit explained to the Committee that she is not necessarily opposed to the development and is here to obtain more information on the development. She added that Green Road has not been open for a long period, of time and that the traffic has increased significantly. Ms. Nesbit noted that she is concerned with increased traffic issues and where the entrances to the development will be located. Scott Muir, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Muir stated that the existing intersection at Green Road and Price William Boulevard is substandard and a safety hazard. He added that his driveway is too close to this intersection and it is becoming increasingly dangerous to enter and exit his property. Mr. Muir advised the Committee that the correspondence he submitted for the agenda provided greater details of his concerns. He concluded by adding his main issues are with decreased privacy, noise, and increased garbage in the area. Ari Yapa, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Yapa explained that he is concerned with the extension of Clarington Boulevard to Green Road. He added that he is also concerned with the three way stop at Boswell Drive and Green Road -2- 6-5 .Planning and Development Committee CiadyngtonMinutes June 6, 2016 becoming a four way intersection. Mr. Yapa explained that he feels this will increase traffic and become a safety concern. Henry Wildeboer, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Wildeboer advised the Committee that he supports additional medium and high density housing: He added that he is concerned that this development is too many homes on too small of an area. Mr. Wildeboer noted that this will cause overpopulation and increased traffic in the area. He continued by explaining that too many of these new developments have houses that are too large for the lots they are built on and this leaves no space for landscaping or areas for children to play. Mr. Wildeboer concluded that he would like the lots in this development to be larger and the number of homes to be reduced. He added that he does support growth in Clarington and is requesting that it be done responsibly. Enzo Bertucci, Kaitlin Corporation, applicant, spoke to the application. Mr. Bertucci advised the Committee that they conducted an open house and will continue to address questions and concerns from the residents. He added that the density in the application conforms with the Official Plan. Mr. Bertucci concluded by advising the Committee that he is available to answer any questions. 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 Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee, was present 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. Ms. Metcalf noted that Committee has received the comments that were sent to the Commissioner of Planning for the Region of Durham from the Agricultural Advisory Committee. She stated that the Region of Durham is not being realistic with their proposal to delete the non -abutting farm severances. Ms. Metcalf added that the Region of Durham is using the Regional Official Plan from 2000 and many things have changed in the agricultural industry in the last 16 years. She concluded by thanking the members of Committee and advised the Agricultural Advisory Committee supports the staff report. 8.2 April Gross Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice April Gross was present regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice. Ms. Gross advised the Committee that they are seeing a drastic transformation in their neighbourhood with the recent severances. She explained that they bought their home for the lot land the space. Ms. Gross added that these are unique bungalows built on custom lots and the character of this area needs to be maintained. She continued by stating the lots in this area are being bought and -3- Planning and Development Committee ClaringtonMinutes June 6, 2016 severed for financial gain. Ms. Gross noted the she supports intensification as long as it supports the existing neighbourhood. She added that policies need to be put in place to protect these unique neighbourhoods. Ms. Gross stated that these applications have been brought to the Land Division Committee and the Committee does not agree with their recommendations and that a recent appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board was unsuccessful. She added that local policy permits the division of these lots. Ms. Gross advised the Committee that the current zoning permits semi-detached and link homes and that these do not fit in with the character of the neighbourhood. She stated that she is also concerned with decreased privacy, parking, and increased traffic. Ms. Gross explained that the character of the neighbourhood needs to be considered with new development and lots sizes, and building height and setbacks need to be reviewed. She concluded by advising the Committee that she supports the neighbourhood study and asked for any existing severance applications to be placed on hold until the review has been completed. 8.3 Nina Mallette Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice Nina Mallette was present regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice. Ms. Mallette advised the Committee that she agrees with the previous delegation. She advised the Committee that she attended the Land Division Committee meetings and felt that their concerns were not taken seriously. Ms. Mallette concluded by noting she is concerned with increased traffic, parking and the oversized homes that do not conform with the design of the neighbourhood. 8.4 David Unwin Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice David Unwin was present regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice. Mr. Unwin advised that he supports the neighbourhood study and thanked Council for approving the Resolution in April, 2016. He continued by explaining that he supports change that is well planned and conforms with the existing .neighbourhood. Mr. Unwin added that recent severances are resulting in homes being built that are completely out of character with the existing properties. He continued by explaining that design and reduced setbacks of these homes are also a concern. Mr. Unwin concluded by thanking the Committee and supports the neighbourhood study to ensure that the character of this area is preserved. 8.5 Suzanne Richardson Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview -Neighbourhood in Courtice Suzanne Richardson was present regarding Report PSD -044 -16, -Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice. Ms. Richardson explained that she lives in newer development in the area. She added that she had previously submitted a petition to the Land Division Committee regarding a recent severance. Ms. Richardson explained that a lot behind their property was severed into three separate lots and the houses that are being built to not conform to the design of the neighbourhood. She add M 6-7 Planning and Development Committee CladyngtonMinutes June 6, 2016 that the houses being built are extremely large with a stucco exterior and do not match the character of the existing houses in the neighbourhood. Ms. Richardson concluded by noted that she supports the neighbourhood design to maintain the integrity of the neighbourhood. 8.6 Andrea Skinner, Aird and Berlis LLP, Regarding Report 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 Andrea Skinner, Aird and Berlis LLP was present regarding Report 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. Ms. Skinner advised the she is present on behalf of Dunbury Developments. She provided some background information on the application. Ms. Skinner explained that if Committee approves the recommendations it could resolve their Ontario Municipal Board appeal. She concluded by advising the Committee that she was available to answer any questions. 8.7 Carlo Aloe Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice Carlo Aloe was present regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice. Mr. Aloe advised the Committee that he has experience with the Ontario Municipal Board and previously had an appeal dismissed. He stated that there is a need for guidelines to be put in place for new developments. Mr. Aloe noted that the lots that had 39 metre frontages are now being severed to have frontages of 15 metres or less. He continued by explaining that at the Ontario Municipal Board hearings they look at both the Regional and Clarington Official Plans. Mr. Aloe added that this area was designated for intensification so there were no rules to be applied for development. He added that the character of the development would have been reviewed if there was an intensification plan in place. Mr. Aloe noted that the area of the neighbourhood in the Official Plan is much larger than he thought, and it included a variety of design styles and this was the final reason that the appeal was dismissed. He concluded by advising Committee that he supports the neighbourhood study and that there needs to be neighbourhood guidelines in place for future developments. 8.8 Kyle Roberts Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice Kyle Roberts was present regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in'the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice. Mr. Roberts explained to the Committee that he was responsible for the severance at the northwest corner of Westmore Street and Courtice Road back in 2007 that resulted in four lots. He advised the Committee that he supports a variety of future developments and intensification. Mr. Roberts noted that when the corner lots are divided the homes will be narrow and have small setbacks from the road. He asked that the R2 provision be removed for the properties in the area. -5- Planning and Development Committee ClaringtonMinutes .June 6, 2016 8.9 Pauline Beaton Regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice Pauline Beaton was present regarding Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice. Ms. Beaton advised the Committee that she agrees with the comments expressed earlier by Ms. Gross. She continued by noting she is concerned with future development removing one home on a lot and replacing it with up to five homes. Ms. Beaton added that she moved to this area for its maturity and there needs to be guidelines in place. She noted she is concerned with the size of the properties, setbacks, parking and increased traffic. Ms. Beaton concluded that this type of neighbourhood needs to be protected. Alter the Agenda Resolution #PD -090-16 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Mayor Foster That the Agenda be altered to consider Report PSD -044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice, at this time. Carried 12.3 PSD -044-16 Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice Resolution #PD -091-16 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Neal That Report PSD -044-16 be received; and 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. Carried as amended (See following motion) Resolution #PD -092-16 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Cooke That the foregoing Resolution #PD -091-16 be amended by adding the following at_the end: "That an interim control by-law be passed for a period of one year. Carried The foregoing Resolution #PD -091-16 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. M Planning and Development Committee Minutes • Recess Resolution #PD -093-16 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Cooke That the Committee recess for five minutes. Carried The'meeting reconvened at 8:47 PM with Councillor Woo in the Chair. 9 Communications - Receive for Information There are no Communications to be received for information. 10 Communications— Direction June 6, 2016 10.1 Christopher Harris, Town Clerk, Town of Whitby— Planning and Development Department Report, PL 45-16 Request for Region of Durham to Amend the Regional Official Plan Regarding Places of Worship Resolution #PD -094-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal That Communication Item 10.1 from Chris Harris, Town Clerk, Town of Whitby regarding, Planning and Development Department Report, PL 45-16 Request for Region of Durham to Amend the Regional Official Plan Regarding Places of Worship, be endorsed by the Municipality of Clarington. Motion Withdrawn Resolution #PD -095-16 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Traill That Communication Item 10.1 from Chris Harris, Town Clerk, Town of Whitby regarding, Planning and Development Department Report, PL 45-16 Request for Region of Durham to Amend the Regional Official Plan Regarding Places of Worship, be received for information. Carried -7- 6-10 Planning and Development Committee ClaringtonMinutes June 6, 2016 10.2 Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington — 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 Resolution #PD -096-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal That Correspondence Item 10.2 from Brenda Metcalf, Chair, Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington 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, be endorsed by the Municipality of Clarington. Carried 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 Resolution #PD -097-16 Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Neal That 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 be considered during the discussion of Report PSD -042-16. Carried 11 Presentations No Presentation 6-11 PlClarboonanning and Development Committee Minutes June 6, 2016 12 Planning Services Department Reports 12.1 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 Resolution #PD -098-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Hooper That Report PSD -042-16 be received; 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 That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -042-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 12.2 PSD -043-16 Durham Regional Official Plan Policies 9A.2.9 & 9A.2.10 (Severance of Abutting and Non -Abutting Surplus Farm Dwellings) - Comments Resolution #PD -099-16 Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Cooke That Report PSD -043-16 be received; 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; 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 That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -043-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried M 6-12 Planning and Development Committee ClaringtonMinutes June 6, 2016 12.3 PSD-044-16 Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice Report PSD-044-16, Redevelopment and Infill in the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice was considered earlier in the meeting after the Delegation portion of the Agenda. 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, Bowmanville Resolution #PD-100-16 Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Cooke That Report PSD -045-16 be received; 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; 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; 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; 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 That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -045-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried -10- 6-13 Planning and Development C• k � Carington June • 2016 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 Resolution #PD -101-16 Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Hooper That Report PSD -046-16 be received; 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 to Report PSD -046-16; and b) the Zoning By-law Amendment application submitted by Dunbury Developments (Regional) Ltd. as contained in Attachment 3 to Report PSD -046-16; 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; 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 That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -046-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. Carried 13 New Business — Consideration ,13.1 Exemption Sign By-law 2009-123 for the South Courtice Neighbourhood Association Councillor Neal declared an interest in the Exemption to Sign By-law 2009-123 for the South Courtice Neighbourhood Association as his wife is a member of the association. Councillor Neal left the room and refrained from discussion and voting on this matter. Resolution #PD -102-16 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Mayor Foster Whereas the Municipality of Clarington's Sign By-law 2009-123 allows temporary signs for Community Groups to announce a community function or event sponsored by a non- profit organization; 11 6-14 Planning and Development Committee ClaringtonMinutes June 6, 2016 Whereas the Council Policy allows signs for a Community Group on the property where the event will be held or on municipally owned property; and Whereas the South Courtice Neighbourhood Association is requesting to place a sign on a privately owned property located on the south side on Bloor Street east of Townline Road for the two week period leading up to the "Shakespeare in the Park" event on an annual basis; Now Therefore is be Resolved that subject to the South Courtice Neighbourhood Association obtaining the owner's consent, staff be directed to issue a sign permit to the South Courtice Neighbourhood Association for the two week period prior to the "Shakespeare in the Park" annual event for the property on the south side of Bloor Street and east of Townline Road as long as it remains undeveloped. Carried Councillor Neal returned to the meeting. 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 -103-16 Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Mayor Foster That the meeting adjourn at 9:22 PM. Chair 6-15 Carried -12- Deputy Clerk C.Iarftwn PUBLIC MEETING PSD -047-16 MUNICPALITY OF CLARINGTON Notice of Pu bHc Mee- tihg A land use change has been proposed, 'have your say! The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application to amend to Zoning By-law 2005-109 W.E. Roth Construction Limited has submitted a rezoning application to add a'IBolding (H) provision to the portion of lands zoned Agriculture (A). This is to implement the requirement of the region of Durham to ensure that after the creation of three 80 hectare lots, an archaeological study is submitted prior to removal of the'HoWing (WI) and issuance of a building permit. Address: 8318 Maynard Road North. The lands front on the north side of Concession road � and the west side of Mavnard Road The proposed amendment, and additional information and background studies are available for review at the Planning Services Department and on our website at clarington.net/developmentproposais Questions? Please contact Carlo Pellarin 905-623-3379, extension. 2408, or by email at Wellarinna clarinotnn nPt Speak at the Public Meeting: Date: Monday, ,dune 27, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON I-1 C 3P,6 Municipal Administrative Centre Council Chambers Or write to the Planning Services Department to the attention of Carlo Pellarin File Number: ZBA2016-0012 (Cross Reference Files LD 085/2015 & LD 086/2015 Freedom of Information and Protection, of Privacy Act' The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the Clerk's Department at 905- 623-3379, extension 2102. J ZBA2016-0012 Page 2 Accessibility If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations please contact the Clerk's Department at 905-623-3379, extension 2109. Appeal Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed, you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board and you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable grounds to do to. Dav ,!.-Crowe, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services CP/ah N I r CELEBRgT� :ry G June 13, 2016 °) r Y- AUGHAN Ms. Anne Greentree, Clerk Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6 Dear Ms. Greentree: RE: REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING ACT TO ADDRESS ISSUES WITH OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT FOLLOW THE COMPLETION OF A COMPREHENSIVE OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW I write to advise you that Vaughan Council at its meeting held on June 7, 2016, adopted the following resolution: Whereas, the Ontario Planning Act allows landowners to apply for official plan amendments at any time subject to the requirement for a complete application; and Whereas, municipalities are required to process any such .official plan amendment applications; and Whereas, if a municipality fails to process such application or refuses the application, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; and Whereas, the number of such applications has become more frequent in recent years; and Whereas, Council and community members are becoming more and more frustrated in dealing with such amendment requests; and Whereas, the Vaughan Official Plan 2010, which emerged from the City's previous Municipal Comprehensive Review, resulted in appeals that are complex, difficult, time-consuming and costly to resolve; and Whereas, municipalities are required to review their Official Plans every five (5) years as per the Planning Act, and will have to take into account the requirements of the Places to Grow Act and other Acts and Plans; and Whereas, Bill 73, an Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997, and the Planning Act, provides that during the two year period following the adoption of a new official plan, applications for amendments to the official plan will only be permitted with the approval of the municipal council; and Whereas, there is a desire to ensure that there is a stable planning framework between official plan reviews that members of the public can rely on to define their communities and shape their investment decisions, without the need to consider piecemeal amendments to the plan. ./2 City of Vaughan, Office of the City Clerk, 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive, Vaughan, Ontario L6A 1T1 Tel: 905.832-8504 website www.vaughan.ca email Jeffrey. Abram s(a�vaughan.ca RM K,� , y VAUGHAN Page 2 Ms. Anne Greentree, Clerk Municipality of Clarington June 13, 2016 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Act and other Acts as necessary be amended, to provide that once an official plan, or amendments resulting from a Municipal Comprehensive Review, is . approved by the pertinent approval authority,. municipalities be given the right to decline consideration of any applications to amend the approved Plan; 2. That such applications be held in abeyance until the next Municipal Comprehensive Review, and that the applicants no longer have the right to appeal the municipality's refusal to consider such Official Plan amendment applications to the Ontario Municipal Board until their consideration at the next Municipal Comprehensive Review; That once an official plan, or amendments thereto resulting from a Municipal Comprehensive Review, is approved by the pertinent approval authority and the appeal period has closed following the issuance of the Notice of Decision, the disposition of the appeals be expedited by the Ontario Municipal Board such that they be resolved, generally, within one year of the first pre -hearing conference; 4. That in cases where a municipally initiated study such as a secondary plan or transportation study is underway that municipalities be provided the discretion under the Planning Act to determine whether or not a complete development application in the same area should proceed to consideration at a Statutory Public Hearing or to a Committee of Council; and That this resolution be circulated to: • The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; • The Regional Municipality of York; • GTA Municipalities; • The Honourable MP Deb Schulte; • The Honourable MP Francesco Sorbara; and • The Honourable MPP Steven Del Duca, Minister of Transportation Attached for your information is Item 25, Report No. 24, of the Committee of the Whole regarding this matter. To assist us in responding to inquiries, please quote the item and report number. Sincerely, Jeffrey 4. Abrams City Cl4k Altaehment: Extract. JAA/as City of Vaughan, Office of the City Clerk, 2141 Major -Mackenzie Drive, Vaughan, Ontario L6A 1T1 Tel: 905.832-8504 website www.vaughan.ca email Jeffrey.Abrams(o)vaughan.ca 10-2 CITY OF VAUGHAN Item 25, CW Report No. 24 — Page 3 Whereas, the Vaughan Official Plan 2010, which emerged from the City's previous Municipal Comprehensive Review, resulted in appeals that are complex, difficult, time-consuming and costly to resolve; and Whereas, municipalities are required to review their Official Plans every five (5) years as per the Planning Act, and will have to take into account the requirements of the Places to Grow Act and other Acts and Plans; and Whereas, Bill 73, an Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997,. and the Planning Act, provides that during the two year period following the adoption of a new official plan, applications for amendments to the official plan will only be permitted with the approval of the municipal council; and Whereas, there is a desire, to ensure that there is a stable planning framework between official plan reviews that members of the public can rely on to define their communities and shape their investment decisions, without the need to consider piecemeal amendments to the plan. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Act and other Acts as necessary be amended, to provide that once an official plan, or amendments resulting from a Municipal Comprehensive Review, is approved by the pertinent approval authority, municipalities be given the right to decline consideration of any applications to amend the approved Plan; 2. That such applications be held in abeyance until the next Municipal Comprehensive Review, and that the applicants no longer have the right to appeal the municipality's refusal to consider such Official Plan amendment applications to the Ontario Municipal Board until their consideration at the next Municipal Comprehensive Review; 3. That once an official plan, or amendments thereto resulting from a Municipal Comprehensive Review, is approved by 'the pertinent approval authority and the appeal period has closed following the issuance of the Notice of Decision, the disposition of the appeals be expedited by the Ontario Municipal Board such that they be resolved, generally, within one year of the first pre -hearing conference; and 4. That this resolution be circulated to: �.-.,_, ,....a • Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; :The Regional Municipality of York; • GTA+ Municipalities; _..,•",..: The Honourable. MP Deb Schulte; • The Hon,o,yrable MP Francesco Sorbara; and The:Honourable MPP Steven Del Duca, Minister of Transportation. �i f 4 10-3 CITY OF VAUGHAN alvel a =191u Weill ► pq 14 u I =I =k I I p yellyll I ► ol pmel1 l . Item 25, Report No. 24, of the Committee of the Whole, which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Vaughan on June 7, 2016, as follows: By receiving Confidential Communication C4, from the Deputy City Manager, Legal & Duman Resources, dated June 7, 2016. 25 REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING ACT TO ADDRESS ISSUES WITH OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT FOLLOW THE COMPLETION OF A COMPREHENSIVE OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW The Committee of the Whole recommends that the following resolution submitted by Regional Councillor Rosati, dated May 31, 2016, be approved subject to adding the following clause 4: 4. That in cases where a municipally initiated study such as a secondary plan or transportation study is underway that municipalities be provided the discretion under the Planning Act to determine whether or not a complete development application in the same area should proceed to consideration at a Statutory Public Hearing or to a Committee of Council, so that the amended resolution reads as follows: Whereas, the Ontario Planning Act allows landowners to apply for official plan amendments at any time subject to the requirement for a complete application; and Whereas, municipalities are required to process any such official plan . amendment applications; and Whereas, if a municipality fails to process such application or refuses the application, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; and Whereas, the number of such applications has become more frequent in recent years; and Whereas, Council and community members are becoming more and more frustrated in dealing with such amendment requests; and Whereas, the Vaughan Official Plan 2010, which emerged from the City's previous Municipal Comprehensive Review; resulted in . appeals that are complex, difficult, time- consuming and costly to resolve; and Whereas, municipalities are required to review their Official Plans every five (5) years as per,the Planning Act, and will have to take into account the requirements of the Places to Grow Act and other Acts and Plans; and Whereas, Bill 73,. an Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997, and the Planning Act, provides that during the two year period following the adoption of a new official plan, applications for amendments to the official plan will only be permitted with the approval of the municipal council; and Whereas, there is a desire to ensure that there is a stable planning framework between official plan reviews that members of the public can rely on to define- their communities and shape their investment decisions, without the need to consider piecemeal amendments to the plan. ../2 10-4 CITY OF VAUGHAN Item 25 CW Report No. 24 — Page 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Act and other Acts as necessary be amended, to provide that once an official plan, or amendments resulting from a Municipal Comprehensive Review, is approved by the pertinent approval authority, municipalities be given the right to decline consideration of any applications to amend the approved Plan; 2. That such applications be held in abeyance until the next Municipal Comprehensive Review, and that the applicants no longer have the right to appeal the municipality's refusal to consider such Official Plan amendment applications to the Ontario Municipal Board until their consideration at the next Municipal Comprehensive Review; 3. That once an official plan, or amendments thereto resulting from a Municipal Comprehensive Review, is approved by the pertinent approval authority and the appeal period has closed following the issuance of the Notice of Decision, the disposition of the appeals be expedited by the Ontario Municipal Board such that they be resolved, generally, within one year of the first pre -hearing conference; 4. That in cases where a municipally initiated study such as a secondary plan or transportation study is underway that municipalities be provided the discretion under the Planning Act to determine whether or not a complete development application in the same area should proceed to consideration at a Statutory Public Hearing or to a Committee of Council; and 5. That this resolution be circulated to: • The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; • The Regional Municipality of York; • GTA Municipalities; • The Honourable MP Deb Schulte; • The Honourable MP Francesco Sorbara; and • The Honourable MPP Steven Del Duca, Minister of Transportation. Member's Resolution Submitted by Regional Councillor Gino Rosati. Whereas, the Ontario Planning Act allows landowners to apply for official plan amendments at any time subject to the requirement for a complete application; and Whereas, municipalities are required to process any such official plan amendment applications; and Whereas, if a municipality fails to process such application or refuses the application, the applicant has the right to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board; and Whereas, the number of such applications has become more frequent in recent years; and Whereas, Council and community members are becoming more and more frustrated in dealing with such amendment requests; and ../3 10-5 June 22, 2016 Attention: Faye Langmaid Manager of Special Projects Municipality of Clarington Council Services 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON LIC 3A6 RE: Proposed modifications to approved Rotosonic hole location and $25,000 funding The University of Guelph (UofG) and McMaster University are appreciative of Clarington Council's $25,000 commitment and the work that has occurred by all parties involved towards the advancement of a Rotosonic hole and installation of a Multi-level System (MLS). The drilling has not been able to proceed on a schedule that will allow the graduate students that are depending on data from the hole and multilevel system to complete their Masters theses in the time allotted to them by the University unless we meet the July 5 drilling schedule. Although there are still ongoing attempts to get drilling approved for Hydro One land at the deep core hole site, the prospects for full approval by July 5 are very poor. However, G360 would like to propose an alternate drill site on private property located adjacent to the Hydro One site for the purposes of the scientific study that is consistent with the approved funding in order to expedite the completion of the MLS. This alternative site arrangement will enable the drilling schedule to be met and will assure that the team of scientific collaborations can proceed with no deficiencies so that the financial investment by Clarington will give the best possible value. An agreement is being established between G360 and the landowner for access to the MLS for a period of five years with G360 owning the costs of well decommissioning. We hope that CLOCA sees this monitoring as valuable to them and will want to take in on as part of their long term monitoring network.. This plan will allow G360 to convey data to interested parties in an accelerated manner and create a reasonable timeline for the graduate students working on this project. It will also allow Clarington to have full access to the hole/MLS in their pursuit to inform and protect their citizens. We will welcome Dr. Rick Gerber to be a collaborator on the hole and multilevel installed just as would be the case if the hole were to be drilled on Hydro One property as originally planned. We will also welcome the participation -of Mr. Steve Usher. With a slight shift in collaborative efforts, with a renewed focus from G360, McMaster University, the Municipality of Clarington, and the EEA, it is expected that the advancement of the Rotosonic hole and installation of the MLS will occur in July of 2016. -Drilling of the Rotosonic hole and installation the MLS on private land, with ownership by G360, will best facilitate the scientific goals of this project. Yours sincerely, Dr. John Cherry Distinguished Emeritus Professor, University of Waterloo Planning Services Public Meeting Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102. Report To: Planning and Development Committee Date of Meeting: June 27, 2016 Report Number: PSD -047-16 Resolution Number: File Number: ZBA 2016-0012 By-law Number: Report Subject: An Application by W.E. Roth Construction Limited to add a (H) Holding provision to the Agriculturally zoned lands at 8318 Maynard Road Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD -047-16 be received; 2. That the proposed application for Rezoning ZBA 2016-0012 submitted by W.E. Roth Construction Limited be approved; 3. That the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved as contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD -047-16; 4. That once conditions contained in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, including the preparation of an Archaeological Study for land to be used for residential purposes, 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 -047-16 and Council's decision; and 6. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -047-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 12-1 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -047-16 Report Overview Page 2 W. E. Roth Construction Limited has submitted a rezoning application to add a (H) Holding provision to the portion of the lands zoned Agriculture (A). This is to implement the requirement of the Region of Durham for two related consent applications and to ensure that after the creation of three 80 hectare lots, an archaeological study is submitted prior to removal of the (H) Holding and issuance of a building permit for a dwelling. 1. Application Details 1.1. Owner: W.E. Roth Construction Limited 1.2. Proposal: To rezone the lands zoned "Agriculture (A)" to add a "(H) Holding" provision to require an Archaeological Study to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit for a house. 1.3. Area: 240 hectares (600 acres) 1.4. Location: 8318 Maynard Road 1.5. Roll Number: 18-17-030-070-05100, 18-17-030-070-05501 and 18-17-030- 070-05600 1.6. Within Built Boundary: No 2. Background 2.1. On August 17, 2015, the Durham Region Land Division Committee considered applications LD 085/2015 and LD 086/2015. To allow a 240 ha (600 acre) lot to be split into three, 80 ha (200 acre) lots. As a condition of approval the Region of Durham Planning Department required the preparation of an Archaeological Study for the property. The property is on the Oak Ridges Moraine and has an existing dwelling at 8318 Maynard Road. 2.2. Due to the costs of preparing an archaeological study for such a large land mass, the applicant approached the Municipality of Clarington to try and find a more practical solution. As a result, the applicant filed the application on May 11, 2016, to rezone the Agriculturally (A) zoned portion of the lot, which permits a single detached dwelling, to be rezoned by adding a "(H) Holding" provision. An archaeological study can then be submitted by future land owners, for only the portion of the property to be used for the residence, prior to removal of the holding and issuance of a building permit. 12-2 Municipality of Clarington Resort PSD -047-16 2.3 Studies Submitted Page 3 The applicant submitted a Minimum Distance Separation Calculation in support of the application prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting. Inc., dated September 8, 2015. The study concluded there are three beef farms within 1000 metres of the land holdings. An existing farm near the south west limit of the property does not meet the required MDS setback to the closest lot line based on the housing capacity of the barns. However, a future residence can be pushed further east or north on the lot and comply with the MDS requirements. Figure 1: Map showing subject site 12-3' Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -047-16 Paqe 4 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses 3.1 The property is a rolling and partially vegetated, 240 hectare parcel on the north side of Concession Road 8, abutting the west side of Maynard Road, and east of Harris Road. Approximately a quarter of the property is used for agriculture, while the balance of the lands contain trees and bush land. The property has an existing house with access from Maynard Road. 3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows: North - the lands to the north are rolling, vacant and. tree covered. South - the lands to the south are primarily used for agriculture. East - the lands on the east side of Maynard Road include a farm operation, the balance of the lands are primarily vegetated and rolling. West - the lands immediately to the west are rolling farm land. 4. Provincial Policy 4.1 Provincial Policy Statement The lands are considered to be both Prime Agricultural and Rural. Both areas permit the creation of new agricultural parcels provided they are of a size appropriate for the type of agricultural use, and large enough to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operation. Natural features shall be protected for the long term. New agricultural parcels are permitted provided they comply with minimum distance separation formulae. 4.2 Oak Ridges Moraine The lands are within the Countryside and Natural Core Areas of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The lands are within a Class 1 Landform Conservation Area and are partially within an area of High Aquifer Vulnerability. All designations within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan permit agricultural uses, however development shall satisfy the policies with respect to key natural heritage features and hydrologically sensitive features and their associated buffer areas; landform conservation areas and area of high aquifer vulnerability. Any development or site alteration may require the submission of an evaluation by a qualified environmental consultant. Lot creation is permitted where the purpose is to re-establish original township lot lines that contain 81 hectares (200 acres). The Plan provides policies to ensure there is enough developable area on the severed and 'retained lands to accommodate the proposed use without encroaching into sensitive features. 12-4 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -047-16 5. Official Plans 5.1 Durham Regional Official Plan Paae 5 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the property Oak Ridges Moraine, and further identifies the property as Natural Core Area and Countryside Area. Natural Core Areas contain a high concentration of key natural heritage features, hydrologically sensitive feature or land form conservation. New permitted uses are very limited and relate primarily to conservation and resource management. Countryside Areas are intended to protect prime agricultural areas, provide for the continuation of agricultural and other rural land uses. The applications for consent were determined to be consistent with these policies. The rezoning to' add a Holding provision conforms to the policies. 5.2 Clarington Official Plan The subject lands are designated a mix of Prime Agricultural, Environmental Protection Area and Natural Core Area. New agricultural parcels are permitted provided they comply with minimum distance separation formulae and have a minimum lot area of 40 hectares. The rezoning application conforms. 6. Zoning By-law The lands are zoned Agricultural (A), Environmental Protection (EP) and Natural Core (NC) by Zoning By-law 2005-109. A residential use is only permitted within the `A' zone. The proposed severed and retained lots would continue to satisfy the minimum lot area of 40 hectares and the minimum lot frontage of 100 metres. 7. Public Notice and Submissions Public Notice was mailed to all property owners within 300 metres of the subject property, and a sign was posted on the Concession Road 8 frontage. Staff received enquiries from two neighbouring property owners enquiring as to the purpose of the application. Neither had any objection to the application. 12-5 Municipality of Clarington Resort PSD -047-16 Figure 2: Notice of Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment WLERath ConenX&MLk,,WBnVA.IlW an NPPU=dM fo WWW &0Zgn„g W14w to add a Holft "awnt ftApb*xaJM zmvd ler to be oonVWBd M ft H IIIandle atabuAdmype" for thus. 8©ha bts. 8. Agency Comments 8.1 Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department Page 6 The Regional Planning Staff have no concerns or comments with respect to the rezoning application, to add a (H) Holding Provision to a portion of the lands to ensure an archeological study is submitted prior to removal of a (H) Holding and issuance of a building permit. Matters relating to this application were identified through land division applications LD 85/2015 and LD 86/2015. 8.2 Public School Board Board staff have advised they have no objections to the above noted application. Should any residential units be proposed, any students generated would be accommodated at Kirby Centennial PS (JK — 6), The Pines Sr. PS (7-8) or Clarke High School (9-12). 9. Departmental Comments Engineering Services The Engineering Services Department has no objection to the rezoning and has previously commented with no objection to the severances. 12-6 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -047-16 10. Discussion Paae 7 10.1 The majority of the lands are zoned Environmental Protection (EP) or National Core (NC). Residential dwellings are prohibited on those lands. The only area of concern are those lands zoned Agricultural (A). 10.2 The lands are subject to approved consent applications LD 85/2015 and LD 86/2015. A condition of approval from the Region of Durham Planning Department required an archaeological study be completed prior to the consent being finalized. An archaeological study was not reasonable for the 240 ha (600 acres). As a result the applicant has filed the rezoning to place a "(H) Holding" on the lands. The Holding symbol will prevent the issuance of a building permit. As it is the owner's intention to sell the lands the purchasers can undertake an archaeological study for the lands where a house, accessory buildings and driveway are to be located. The Region of Durham accepted this approach. 10.3 A report in support of the application identifies that there is sufficient room on the two vacant lots to accommodate a dwelling each in compliance with the minimum distance separation setbacks calculated at 250 metres. 10.4 The lands are on Oak Ridges Moraine and are in a site plan control area. There appears to be suitable lands without vegetation to provide a future building envelope, a `plans only' approval will provide the Municipality and agencies an opportunity to request the necessary evaluations and plans and to approve building envelopes, while considering the minimum distance separation setback, should a building permit for a dwelling be proposed in the future. 11. Conclusion In consideration of the agency, staff and public comments, it is respectfully recommended that the applications to add a "(H) Holding" provision be approved. 12. Strategic Plan Application Not applicable. 12-7 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -047-16 Page 8 Submitted by David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services Reviewed by:.'-, Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Anne Taylor Scott, Senior Planner 905-623-3379 ext. 2.408 or ataylorscott _clarington.net Attachment 1 —Zoning By-law Amendment The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: W.E. Roth Construction Limited CP/ATS/df 12-8 Attachment 1 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -047-16 The 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 to add a (H) Holding provision to ensure an archaeological study is completed prior to the construction of a dwelling on the severed lots (ZBA 2016-0012); Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Schedule "2". (Clarke)" to.By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding — Agricultural ((H)A) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto. 2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of the By-law. 3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. By-law passed in open session this day of , 2016_ Adrian Foster, Mayor C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk 12-9 This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2016- , passed this day of , 2016 A.D. 0 a 0 o: 0 z a o 0 ' a CONCESSION ROAD 8 ® Zoning Change From "A" To "(H)A" N Adrian Foster, Mayor Clarke . ZBA 2016-0012 • Schedule 2 C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk WzWI 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 27, 2016 Report Number: PSD -048-16 Resolution Number: File Number: ZBA 2016-0003 By-law Number: Report Subject: An Application by Lesle Gibson for Removal of (H) Holding Symbol 3238 Concession Road 3, Clarke Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD -048-16 be received; 2. That the Application to remove the (H) Holding Symbol submitted by Lesle Gibson be approved as contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD -048-16; 3. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD -048-16 and Council's decision; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -048-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 12-11 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -048-96 Report Overview Page 2 The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of the application to remove the (H) Holding Symbol for the approved outdoor wedding and event venue at 3238 Concession Road 3, Former Township of Clarke. 1. Application Details 1.1. Owner: David Gibson 1.2. Applicant: 1.3. Agent: 1.4. Proposal: 1.5. Area: 1.6. Location: 1.7. Roll Number: 1.8. Within Built Boundary 2. Background Lesle Gibson (Events by Grace) EcoVue Consulting Services Inc. Removal of the (H) Holding Symbol from the Agricultural Exception (A-89) Zone 32 hectares Part Lot 34, Concession 3, former Township of Clarke 3238 Concession Road 3 1817 030 030 28700 M 2.1. Applications to amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the proposed wedding and event venue were approved in September 2015. Since that time, the applicant and consulting team worked towards finalizing the site plan approval. 2.2. EcoVue Consulting Services Inc. submitted the application for removal for the (H) Holding Symbol on February 3, 2016. 2.3. On June 10, 2016, revised drawings were received in order to finalize the site plan approval and Site Plan Approval was issued June 13, 2016. The conditions of site plan approval require the applicant to submit a road damage deposit, a security for entrance improvements and a cash contribution for the lighting, prior to permits being issued. The drafting of the site plan agreement is underway. 12-12 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -048-16 3. Discussion Paae 3 3.1 The (H) Holding Symbol is a provision enabled by the Official Plan to ensure that certain obligations have been considered prior to development and redevelopment of the lands. This includes: servicing, access, protection of natural areas, measures to mitigate the impact of development, submission of required studies, execution of agreements and any other requirements as may be deemed necessary by Council including the implementation of the policies of the Official Plan. 3.2 The subject property is zoned "Holding - Agricultural Exception ((H) A-89) Zone" and permits agri-tourism uses, including a proposed wedding and event venue, and all permitted uses in the parent Agricultural (A) Zone. 3.3 Council must be satisfied that the provisions of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are met prior to removing the Holding symbol and release of building permits. Conditions of site plan approval include: • Conditions relating to use of most easterly entrance along Concession Road 3 for event traffic to alleviate neighbours' concerns; • Special requirements for the agri-tourism events; • Securities in the amount of $2,100 for entrance improvements and paving; • Cash payment in the amount $2,500 for future installation of street light along Concession Road 3; and • Road Damage deposit of $1,000. 3.4 The applicant will be required to enter into a site plan agreement and satisfy all financial requirements with the Municipality prior to obtaining any permits for the agri-tourism venue. Although the development agreement has not been executed, in consideration of Council recess for the summer, staff recommend lifting the 'H' symbol at this time. 3.5 All property taxes have been paid in full. 4. Concurrence Not applicable 5. Conclusion In consideration of the comments noted above, approval of the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol for 3238 Concession Road 3, as shown on the attached By-law and schedule (Attachment 1) is recommended. 6. Strategic Plan Application The recommendations contained in this report conform to the Strategic Plan. 12-13 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -048-16 Page 4 Submitted by: Reviewed by: Davi /J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Anne Taylor Scott, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2414 or ataylorscott(a).clarington.net Attachments: Attachment 1 - By-law to Remove the (H) Holding Symbol The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Heather Sadler Lesle Gibson David Gibson Deborah Mathias Teresa L. DeCicco James Kamstra Barry Staples Michael Allen Jim Kamstra ATS/CP/df 12-14 Attachment 1 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -048-16 The 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 to permit agri-tourism uses, including an outdoor wedding and event venue, on the subject lands (ZBA 2016-0003); Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. Schedule "2" (Clarke)" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: "Holding — Agricultural Exception ((H)A-89) Zone" to "Agricultural Exception (A-89) Zone" as illustrated on the attached Schedule "A" hereto. 2. Schedule "A" attached hereto shall form part of the By-law. 3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act. By -Law passed in open session this day of , 2016 Adrian Foster, Mayor C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk . 12-15 This is Schedule "A" to By-law 2016- , passed this day of , 2016 A.D. g a a 5 0 a 3 LI ® Zoning Change From "(H)A-89" To "A-89" /V Adrian Foster, Mayor Clarke - ZBA 2016-0003 - Schedule 2 C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk 12-16 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 27, 2016 Report Number: PSD -049-16 Resolution Number: File Number: S -C-2005-0002 By-law Number: Report Subject: Proposed Amendment Draft Approval for Far Sight Investments Ltd. Recommendations: 1. That Report PSD -049-16 be received; 2. That the Amendment to Draft Plan of Subdivision S -C-2005-0002 (Far Sight Investments Ltd.) be approved subject to conditions as contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD -049- 16; 3. - That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD -049-16 and Council's decision; and 4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -049-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 12-17 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -049-16 Page 2 Report Overview This report recommends amending Conditions of Draft Approval for the subdivision owned by Far Sight Investments in Bowmanville. The amendment relates to trails, pedestrian connectivity and plan implementation. This draft plan of subdivision was originally Draft Approved in August 11, 2010 and an extension to Draft Approval was granted in October 2015. 1. Application Details 1.1 Applicant/Owner: Far Sight Investments Ltd. 1.2 Proposal: To amend conditions relating to: • Sidewalk construction, and deleting the condition requiring the Owner to construct the sidewalk along Lambs Road; • Providing a pedestrian crossing of Soper Creek and trail connection to Barley Mills park; • Phasing of dedication of Open Space lands and trail construction; • Finalizing the cost contribution for rehabilitation of Lambs Road; • Updating the lapsing provisions in accordance with PSD -053- 15; and • Minor revisions to block references and housekeeping items. 1.3 Area: 46.041 ha 1.4 Roll Number: 1817 010 010 08200 1817 010 010 08210 1.5 Location: The subject lands are east of Soper Creek, south of Concession Street East, north of Durham Highway 2 and west of Lambs Road. The property is contained within Part Lot 7, Concession 1, former Township of Darlington 2. Background 2.1 On July 12, 2010 Council considered the application for proposed Draft Plan' of Subdivision S -C-2005-0002 and supported issuing draft approval for a total of 541 units. The draft approved plan consists of 273 single detached dwelling lots; five blocks for 29 street townhouse units; 2 blocks for 239 block -townhouse units; open space blocks, which includes lands associated with the main branch of the Soper Creek as well as a tributary to the Soper Creek; a stormwater management block; and a park block (see Figure 1). it7±•�3 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -049-16 Figure 1 — Draft Plan of Subdivision •1 I I I I � � 1 � I f=^_Zz= lily \\T 10. IF a) I Ijj •I`�HhtiY�� ar�r�+a i I I II l ----- I jI — I I I 1 II I I I I 1 r� Pacie 3 12-19 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -049-16 Page 4 2.2 Draft Approval was scheduled to expire in 2015 however an extension was granted as recommended by PSD -053-15. If final approval is not given to Phase 1 by no later than November 27, 2018, and no later than November 27, 2022 for any subsequent phase, draft approval will lapse. 2.3 The current approved conditions of draft approval require the owner to construct approximately 1 kilometre of sidewalk along Lambs Road and along Concession Street East to make a connection to the existing sidewalk on the west side of Soper Creek Drive. Existing conditions also require the owner to construct trail connections from Concession Street East, southerly through the park, and then easterly to Lambs Road. 2.4 Staff, the Owner and his consulting team have been working through the final approval process and the detailed Engineering drawings are under review. During this time, it was evident that there would be an advantage to provide the neighbourhood with a trail connection through Barley Mills Park, as opposed to sidewalk construction along Concession Road East and Lambs Road. The sidewalk will still be provided but either with the reconstruction of Lambs Road and Concession Street East or earlier if warranted. These projects are included in Clarington Development Charge By-law. The amendment also includes provisions relating to phasing the trail construction and dedication of Open Space lands. The Owner has provided his concurrence on the amending conditions. The proposed revisions to conditions of draft approval relating to pedestrian connectivity is depicted. on Figure 2. Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -049-16 Page 5 Figure 2 — Proposed Revisions to Conditions of Draft Approval 12-21 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -049-16 3. Discussion Page 6 3.1 The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of amending conditions, included as Attachment 1. 3.2 Sidewalk infrastructure along Lambs Road and Concession Street East can be deferred until a future date, when other lands in the area are developed. These sidewalk projects are included in Clarington's Development Charge By-law, as part of the road reconstruction. Providing a creek crossing and making a pedestrian connection through Barley Mills Park will provide residents a more direct connection to existing neighbourhoods, parks and schools to the west. This will result in an overall benefit to the community by improving. the trail network within Open Space lands and encouraging active transportation. Trails willalso connect the neighbourhood to the Soper Creek trail system to the north, including connections to Camp 30. 3.3 Allowing the trail connection and dedication of Open Space to be phased is appropriate given the subdivision design. The trail connection through Barley Mills Park, up to Barley Mills Crescent and crossing of Soper Creek will be required at the onset, prior to the occupancy of the first dwelling in phase 1, and will efficiently connect the neighbourhood to the rest of Bowmanville. The remaining trail connections to Concession Street East and Lambs Road will be phased and required to be. completed prior to issuance of the 240th and 300th building permit, respectively. The dedication of the Open Space lands connecting the Park northerly to Concession Street East will occur with the first registration, while the Open Space lands connecting the Park easterly to Lambs Road will .occur with the second registration. 3.4 The amending conditions of draft approval also provide for confirmation of the cash contribution for the rehabilitation of Lambs Road in the amount of $113,941.75 and other minor revisions to block references. 3.5 The Region of Durham Planning Department, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board have no objection to amending the Conditions of Draft Approval. 4. Conclusion 4.1 In consideration of the comments noted above, Staff recommends amending the Conditions of Draft Approval as included as Attachment 1. 12-22 Municipality of Clarington Report RSD -049-16 Submitted by: Reviewed David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Plannina Services Page 7 by: Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Anne Taylor Scott, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2414 or ataylorscottP,clarin toq n=net Attachment: Attachment 1 —Amending Conditions of Draft Approval List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Far Sight Investments Limited GHD — Bryce Jordan GHD — Franklin Zadorozniak Allison Lester Anne Caroline Wilson Bernie Hirseland Betty Marti Dave & Shelley Winkle Deborah Patrick Dr. Wendy Korver Frank Lockhart John O'Toole Lorne Morton Lyndsay Luckhardt Margaret Quinney Mark & Cheryl Rigby Mary Mogford and Tom Campbell Matt & Marianne Yeatman Michael Hackenberger (Bowmanville Zoo) Mike Domovich Peter Klose Rhonda Hooper Richard Mostert Shirley Amos Marlene Amos 12-23 Attachment 1 to Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -049-16 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL Draft Plan of Subdivision S -C-2005-0002 Part Lot 7, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington Date: June 16, 2016 Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision S -C-2005-0002, stamped approved September 28, 2010 together with Conditions of Draft Approval dated August 11, 2010, are hereby amended as follows: Condition 10 is amended by adding the.following paragraph: "The Owner agrees to provide a cash payment for external improvements as detailed below: Costs to be recovered Lambs Road Original Cost of Works 2011 $93,648.19 15% Engineering fees $14,047.23 Subtotal $107,698.42 CPI Index (All items) 2011 to 2015 1.058 TOTAL PAYMENT - $113,941.75 2. Condition 15 is amended by deleting "293" and replacing with "294". 3. Condition 16 is amended by deleting "292" and replacing with "293". 4. Condition 18 is amended by deleting "296" and replacing with 297'. 5. Condition 19 is amended by deleting "Blocks 293 & 294" and replacing with "Blocks 295 & 296". 6. Condition 23 is amended by deleting "and 291" and replacing with "291 and 292". 7. Condition 30 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "30. The Owner shall be responsible for the conveyance of all Open Space Blocks identified on the Draft Plan and for the construction of 3.0 metre paved pedestrian trails as follows: i) The Owner shall convey Block 284 to the Municipality of Clarington as Open Space with the registration of the first phase of development. The Owner is responsible for constructing a pedestrian trail along the east side of Soper Creek within Block 284. The trail shall extend from the future sidewalk network along Concession Street East continuing south within the 5 metre buffer to the Environmental Limits along Blocks 280 and 281 and Lots 244 to 272 to complete a trail connection to the Park (Block 282) and the Stormwater Management Pond (Block 283). The Owner agrees to complete the trail construction in accordance with the approved construction drawings and specifications prior_to-the issuance of the 240th building permit. 12-24 ii) The Owner will also be responsible to construct a connecting pedestrian trail, including the bridge crossing over Soper Creek, westerly from Blocks 282, 283 and 284, to lands identified by Assessment Roll Number 18-17-020-060-16721 owned by the Municipality of Clarington, known as Barley Mills Park. The trail shall terminate where Barley Mill Park fronts onto Barley Mill Crescent. The trail shall include a bridge and abutments over Soper Creek. The trail shall be constructed prior to the first occupancy of the first dwelling in Phase 1. iii) The Owner shall convey Block 285 to the Municipality of Clarington as Open Space with the registration of the second phase of development. In addition, the Owner is responsible for the construction of a pedestrian trail. within Block 285, from Block 282 to Lambs Road. The Owner agrees to complete the trail construction in accordance with the approved construction drawings and specifications prior to the issuance of the 300th building permit. iv) The design and specifications of the pedestrian trail and bridge crossing over Soper Creek shall be approved by the Director of Engineering Services." 8. Condition 31 is hereby amended by deleting "and stormwater management block prior to the transfer of Block(s) 282 and 283 to the Municipality." and adding ", stormwater management block and open space block prior to the transfer of Blocks 282, 283 and 285 to the Municipality of Clarington." 9. Condition 34 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "The Owner shall construct a sidewalk on the both sides of Streets "A", "H" and "B"." 10. ' Condition 57 is amended by adding the words "including an access gate for maintenance of the pond" after the word "angle". 11. Condition 53 is deleted is its entirety and all other conditions renumbered accordingly. 12. That Note 1 to the Conditions of Draft Approval dated August 11, 2010 be deleted and replaced with the following: NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL If final approval is not given to Phase 1 of this plan by no later than November 27, 2018, and no later than November 27, 2022 for any subsequent phase, and no extensions have been granted, draft approval shall lapse and the file shall be CLOSED. Extensions may be granted provided valid reason is given and is submitted to the Director of Planning Services for the Municipality of Clarington well in advance of the lapsing date. 12-25 j vt 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 27, 2016 Report Number: PSD -050-16 Resolution: Pile Number: * 18T-87083 Ey-law Number: Report Subject: Amendment to Draft Approval for 2408406 Ontario Inc. (Fourteen Estates) for 28 Hamlet Residential Dots in the Hamlet of Newtonville Recommendations: 1: , That Report PSD -050-16 be received; 2. That Council supports: Option 1 Retaining the current draft approved 1.16 hectare park site on the north side of the approved Jones Avenue extension; NJ Option 2 Revising the park site to a 0.62 hectare site on the west side of Street "A" and taking cash -in -lieu of parkland for the balance of the developer's obligation; 3. That extension to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision 18T-87083, as amended to October 27, 2016 be supported; 4. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD - 050 -16 and Council's decision; and 5. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -050-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision. 12-26 Municipality of Clarington Resort PSD -050-16 Page 2 Report Overview The report recommends that Council supports either Option 1, retaining the park site in its current location or Option 2, relocating the park site to the west side of Street "A", within the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and an extension to draft approval to October 27, 2018. 1. Application Details 1.1 Owner/Applicant: 2408406 Ontario Inc. (Fourteen Estates) 1.2 Proposal: 28 lot residential subdivision 1.3 Area: 57 hectares 1.4 Location: Part Lot 8, Concession 1, former Township of Clarke (Figure 1) 1.5 Roll Number: 030-010-09100 1.6 Within Built Boundary: No 12-27 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -050-16 Page 3 2. Background 2.1 In 1992, the Region of Durham draft approved a 28 lot residential plan of subdivision in the hamlet of Newtonville. The implementing zoning by-law was also approved by the Town of Newcastle in 1992. 2.2 Prior to 1995, the Region of Durham was the subdivision approval authority. Plans of subdivision were draft approved with no time limit for obtaining final approval. In 2011, the Municipality of Clarington amended Conditions of Draft Approval for 18T-87083, by including an expiry date of three years to 2014. In 2014, Fourteen Estates was in the process of acquiring the lands and requested an extension to Draft Approval. At that time, the Conditions of Draft Approval were amended by adding conditions to ensure development would proceed in keeping with current policies and guidelines, realigned Rose Crescent to intersect with Street "A", changed the location of the park to a more appropriate location given the closure of Newtonville Public School and extended draft approval for two years to October 27, 2016. 2.3 Fourteen Estates have retained an engineering firm to prepare engineering drawings as part of fulfilling conditions of draft approval, however, they cannot obtain final approval in advance of the October 2016 expiry date. As a result, the Owner has requested a two years extension to October 27, 2018. 2.4 Earlier this year, a few existing residents in the adjacent subdivision to the east, expressed concerns with the approved amendment to draft approval that reduced the size and relocated the park from its original location beside Newtonville Public School to the northeast quadrant of the draft plan. They are concerned that the park would bring nuisances that would impact their quiet rural lifestyle. 2.5 The purpose of this report is to; • Provide background for the park location in 1992 and the rationale for relocating the park in 2014; • Discuss the concerns of the residents; • Provide Option 1 to retain the park in its current location or Option 2, revising the park location to the west side of Street "A"; and • Recommend approval of the extension to draft approval for two years. 3. Park Locations 3.1 In the original Draft Approved Plan the location of the park was adjacent to Newtonville Public School. It had an awkward configuration, however it provided opportunity for overlapping facilities between the school and park block. (See Figure 2). It allowed for a sports field, either ball or soccer on a joint park/school site with adequate parking. The park size exceeded the 5% parkland dedication requirements and as such the municipality was required. to pay for the over -dedicated lands. In 2007, the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board closed the public school. It was used as a maintenance shop for the Board's tradespeople and computer training lab for Board staff. In 2014, the Board 12-28 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -050-16 Page 4 declared it surplus to their needs, however shortly thereafter the Board revoked the declaration and the school remains in the Board's ownership today and it continues to be used as a maintenance shop. Figure 2 —1992 Park Location J PAYNESCRESCENT 1 2 ROSE CRE$ 5 3 6 4 7 JONES AVEryUE JONESAVENUE J oy�a P_ark;BlocR;2:254 haa v Q W 28 15 School.Site F p' N Z61 a � 27 Q U 26 25 24 23 22 21 i N HIGHWAY 401 18T-87083 � N � 6 70 11 iz 13 14 16 20 19 18 17 3.2 With the closure of the school, the opportunity to overlap shared facilities is lost. The park was an irregular shape fronting onto Jones Avenue, Street 'A" (future extension of Charles Tilley Crescent) and Regional Road 18 (Newtonville Road). The east portion of the park was 45 metres wide by 210 metres long. Too narrow for sports fields and only useful as a tot lot and a walkway between Newtonville Road and Street "A". This is an inefficient use of parkland. 12-29 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -050-16 Page 5 3.3 In 2014, the draft approved plan was amended by realigning Rose Crescent so it intersected with Street 'A' rather than being an off -set intersection. The block created between the east limits of Jones Avenue and the subdivision limits was determined to be appropriate for the new park (Block 29) in the northeast quadrant of the draft plan. It is centrally located for residents in the southeast quadrant of the hamlet. The park has frontage on three local roads, Rose Crescent, Jones Avenue and a small portion on Paynes Crescent which provides good exposure and a quieter environment, rather than fronting onto a busy regional road. The regular shape and 1.16 hectare size, is more efficient for development of a park and the Municipality would not be required to pay for the over -dedication of any parkland (see Figure 3). Figure 3 — 2014 Park Location The park is not of sufficient size to support a sports field or parking lot, but have a limited playground with play structure and swings, central seating area with shade structure, walkways connecting to Jones Avenue and free play area. 12-30 • 9 10 Z � . 12 Rose Crescent 13 i re -aligned to --- PAMSCRESGENT intersect with 20 j 1S 17 I Street "A" 1 2 j New Park Location ROSE CRE9 3" 3�r•cir•�'s': I ' i .IONESAVENUE JONESAVEFJUE . . ..... .. - W V O Former Park W SChOoi Site 20 Block now 4 lots �!p ha% 27 x j 28 U TE 25 22 23 22 21 f 'Y X HIGHWAY 4-01__.__._ IOT-87083 The park is not of sufficient size to support a sports field or parking lot, but have a limited playground with play structure and swings, central seating area with shade structure, walkways connecting to Jones Avenue and free play area. 12-30 • 9 10 1i 12 13 7d --- 15 16 20 79 1S 17 The park is not of sufficient size to support a sports field or parking lot, but have a limited playground with play structure and swings, central seating area with shade structure, walkways connecting to Jones Avenue and free play area. 12-30 • Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -050-16 Paae 6 4. Comments from Residents regarding 2014 Park Location 4.1 On May 3, 2016 a Public Information Centre (PIC) was held at the Newtonville Community Hall. The meeting was held to provide information regarding the park. Thirty (30) residents were in attendance as well as the Owner's consultants, staff from the Planning Services Department and the Manager of Park Development. 4.2 Draft approval was issued 24 years ago, prior to most of the residents moving into the community particularly to the east. Some attending the PIC were interested in finding out about the development, its configuration, timing of development and what measures will used to mitigate impacts during the construction process. Some residents spoke in support of the relocated park because it is central to the area and no longer had frontage on Regional Road 18 which was a safety concern. A few residents were concerned with the revised park location in proximity to their properties. 4.3 Following the meeting a lengthy letter was received from a resident in objection to the park. The letter reiterates concerns expressed at the PIC. The letter forms Attachment 1 to this report and is summarized below. • Parks bring a number of negative consequences because they attract people who are "up to no good", such as late night activities and crime particularly in the new location because it is hidden away. • Garbage and illegal dumping which gets blown around or ransacked by raccoons. • Users of ATV and dirt bikes will not be averse to using the park. • Significant loss in privacy for area residents. • Constant noise from various activities. • Increased traffic on local streets. • . Parking issues will impact area residents. • Park location is too close to existing Ina Brown Parkette. • Amending the draft approved plan of subdivision without notice to area residents. 5. Discussion 5.1 Municipal staff support the retention of the municipal park in its currently approved location and configuration as shown as Block 29 on Figure 3 for the reasons outlined above. This is identified as Option 1. 5.2 Subsequent to the Public Information Centre, Staff met with the Owner of the subdivision and their consultants to discuss the location of the park. The Owner strongly agrees that the current location is the best location for the subdivision and the hamlet, however will agree to relocate the park in order to satisfy resident's concerns and expedite the process to receive final approval. An alternate location for the park is Lots 27 and 28 in the - approved draft plan fronting onto the west side of Street "A". The current location at Rose Crescent and Jones Avenue could be lotted out for two lots to maintain the number of lots within the Draft Approval at 28. (See Figure 4). This is Option 2. 12-31 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -050-16 Page 7 5.3 The size of the relocated park will be approximately 0.62 hectares with 98 metres of frontage. This is approximately one half of the size of the approved park but meets the minimum frontage requirements. The owner would be required to pay cash -in -lieu for shortage in required land dedication. The revised park is considerably smaller than is required in the Official Plans for hamlet parks but so is the currently approved site. It is a parkette. Parkettes are required wherever the Municipality deems it necessary to augment or adjust the park requirements of any neighbourhood. The park in Option 2 is not centrally located to the area which it serves. It could have a playground similar to the previous park site. It is not an ideal location in terms of being central to the quadrant it serves- and the site was selected because there are no existing residences abutting the site. Should the School Board declare the school lands surplus to their needs, there may be opportunity for the Municipality to acquire a portion of the lands to enlarge the parkette, should that be deemed appropriate in the future. Figure 4 —Relocated Parkette on Street `A" Z� PAYNES CRESCENT i 2 Relocated Lots 27 and 28 ROSE CRES I I 3 I 27 I 28 I JONESAVENUE I I JONESAVENUE 9 5 10 Q ,w, 12 4 w Q 5 N Relocated o >r; Park BlocK29 W ;;=y School Site°' . 0.62°ha a: W -- z5 2n is 18 v IT" 25 24 23 2Z 21 N XHIGHWAY "11 401 18T-87083 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -050-16 5.4 Requests from the Fourteen Estates The Owner has advised that should Option 2 be chosen, it will come with some financial and timing costs to them and without any benefit. These include changes to reports and plans that are complete, or are substantially complete including, revised engineering drawings, all required to fullfil Conditions of Draft Approval. In return for their support, they have requested the following: i) Expedited review of the engineering submission; ii) Parkland dedication be considered in full without additional cash -in -lieu for the -new location of the parkette which is less than the 5% required; iii) Additional cost of the second conceptual park concept plan be included as a component of the parkland development in the Development Charges calculation for this site; and iv) That full two year extension request be granted with assurance that Fourteen Estates will expedite submissions and the finalization of the subdivision well before the two year timeframe. 5.5 In response to the Owner's request Staff offer the following: i) Once the engineering drawings are submitted to the Engineering Services Department, staff agree to expedite their review. ii) The required parkland dedication for the entire draft plan is 1.159 hectares. Park Block 29 represented 1.16 hectares. The Owner was required to pay cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication for the under dedication of the required 5%. The smaller park block allows the Park Block 29 to be divided into larger lots and therefore the potential for the Owner to charge a premium for those lots. Staff do not support concessions on meeting the parkland requirements. - iii) The parkland concept has not been submitted for approval and was not based on any grades, as required in the Conditions of Draft Approval, as such it is considered preliminary. Much of the concept can be transferred to the new park location. Staff do not support including the costs of the design in the costs of developing -the park which is borne by the Municipality. iv) Staff support the extension to draft approval for an additional two years for October 27, 2018 provided that Fourteen Estates use their best efforts to finalize all the necessary works and receive final approval. 5.6 For the most part, people enjoy living close to parks. Developers often want the park to be built in earlier phases of development of their subdivision because they are a selling feature and will often require a premium for lots abutting a park. The Director of Planning Services will issue a Notice of Decision advising interested parties of the decision and .advising of the appeal date which is 20 days after the decision is made, for anyone wishing to appeal. Notice will be provided to anyone who signed in at the PIC as well as anyone previously on the interested parties list. At that time, anyone can appeal the amendment to the draft approved plan. The Owner would be responsible for all costs 12-33 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -050-16 Paae 9 associated with defending the amendment and the extension to draft approval in the event of an appeal. 6e Concurrence This report has been reviewed by Director of Engineering Services who concurs with the recommendations. 7 Conclusion In light of the concerns expressed by some residents, Council now has the opportunity to reconsider the park location. Staff still believe the currently approved site (Option 1) better serves the long term needs of the residents. The Owner is motivated to fulfill conditions of draft approval and register the plan. If an extension is not granted the conditions will lapse and the draft approved plan will expire. It is respectfully recommended that the extension of draft approval for two years, being October 27, 2018 be approved. 8 Strategic Plan Application Not applicable Submitted by:s° David"J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Services Reviewed Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Staff Contact: Cynthia Strike Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2410 or cstrike@clarington.net Attachment: Attachment 1: Letter from P & G Likogiannis 12-34 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -050-16 The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: Denise Borkwood Martha Gibson Chrissie Borutskie Donal Robins Tony Gray Ray Tompkins Mark & Nancy Smithson Bernice Milligan Patricia Likogiannis Jean Hill Meaghan Crawford Charlene Bowman Mark vanVoorst Tunney Planning Carolyn Molinari, CM Planning Robert Pawlett Norm Pond Phil Kacaba Jen Kacaba Georgia Ashby Ganean Ashby Doug & Marlene Timms Glen & Lynda Farrow Donald Robins Donna & Noel Charran Dave Higgins Stuart Day Jason & Ester Glavin John & Karen O'Donnell Ray & Doris Tompkins Dennis & Irene Burtinsky Sandy Lyall 12-35 Paae 10 Municipality of Clarington Patricia & George Likogiannis 67 Jones Avenue Newtonville, ON, LOA UO May 6. 2016 Dear Willy Woo, Wendy Partner and David Crome: Attachment 1 to Report PS® -050-16 This letter is to provide our concerns regarding the 2014 amendments made to the 1992 subdivision plan for the Newtonville property that is South of Highway 2 and East of Newtonville Road, which is currently owned by Fourteen Estates. The 2014 amendments to the 1992 plan were made without notice to the public and without consultation with the public, until the Public Information Centre which was held on May 3, 2016 due to concerns raised by local residents. We attended the May 3rd PIC and were invited to provide comments at the conclusion of that meeting. Rather than completing a Comments Card we are providing this letter to outline our concerns with the amendments to the 1992 development plan. Our sole concern with the amended plan is that the proposed park has been relocated to a new location different from the original 1992 plan. We believe that the old park location was clearly a better location for serving the public interests than the new location for a number of reasons, including the followings: • Parks bring a number of negative consequences to the local area. The old park location was on the outskirts of the subdivision and so would not have brought these negative consequences into our quiet, safe, rural subdivision. Instead, the old park location isolated these negative consequences to the outskirts of the subdivision. The old park location was also less likely to attract people looking for a place to get "up to no good" since it opens on Newtonville Road, and so is less hidden away. • The new park location is much closer to Newtonville's only other park, Ida Brown Parkette, and so largely serves the same group of residents. • The old park location is in fact accessible to a larger group of residents since it had access points onto Charles Tilley Avenue (serving Veltri Estates and Fourteen Estates) and Newtonville Road (serving those living in the hamlet outside of these subdivisions). • The new park location will increase the risk of children being hit by cars if there is an access point onto Paynes Crescent as planned. The old park location had safe access points, given the wide sidewalks on Newtonville Road that were in place to service the old school. • It is in the public interest for residents to be able to rely on existing plans and that they will not be changed without good reason. The local residents relied on the original 1992 plan when making their home purchasing decisions, and the plan to move the park to a new location has a major impact on these residents. Those with properties backing onto the previous park location had purchased their homes with the hopes of backing onto a park, and the remaining residents moved to the area to escape the urban problems of living close to a park and are unhappy that one is now being added right in the middle of our subdivision. • It was clear at the public consultation that the majority of the local residents do not want the park to be moved. Since so many local residents are unhappy with the new park location, it is in the best -12-36 2 public interest to move the park back to the previously approved location which _is a better location to serve the local community. The town planning department explained at the PIC that public notice and consultation were not deemed necessary for the plan amendments because they perceived this was a minor change to the plan. We respectfully disagree and strongly object to the amendments being labelled as "minor"; assessing a change as "minor" is a matter of perception and the change in park location is in fact a "major" change for the local residents. Many of the local property owners reviewed the 1992 development plans for this property before selecting a lot in which to build their home or before purchasing existing homes, and the 1992 plan was a major consideration in their decision to purchase their home. The location of local parks is in fact a.major factor in home purchasing decisions for many home buyers, and as such the town should not change existing plans for parkland without consulting with local homeowners and the change in the plan should be made for strong reasons that are in the best public interest. Changes should not be made without consultation and without very strong, good reasons. At the May Yd PIC, the town planning department responded to our concerns with the explanation that it was too late to make any changes to the amended plan since the plan was now final and if changes were made then the builder would have the right to appeal to the OMB. However, the local residents firmly believe that the planning department did not take the best interests of the residents of Newtonville into account in making changes to the 1992 plan without public consultation, and as such we request that. the town do the right thing now and work with the builder to move the park back to the previously approved location. The builder appears to be indifferent as to where the park is located, so weare sure this could be achieved. For good reason, the Ontario Planning Act frequently refers to the necessity of holding public consultations to allow the public to make representations for plans and revisions to plans, and we believe that the planning department should have followed this good practice before approving the amended plan. Respectfully, the planning department appears to have taken short cuts when amending the 1992 plan, which have resulted in the local residents being very upset and we request that the town do the right thing and fix the issue arising from the shortcuts taken in amending the 1992 plan. Before explaining our concerns, we will provide background about the neighbourhood surrounding the park. We.are a small, quiet, sheltered, and close little neighbourhood. Homeowners purchased homes in this neighbourhood to enjoy a safe, quiet, and private lifestyle; most of us have lived in urban subdivisions previously and were looking for a much quieter and more private place to live. We want our children to live in a community where children can play street hockey, ride their bikes, and walk to visit friends safely without fear of being hit by a car. The plans for our development, Veltri Estates, did not include a park, but this was of no concern to us since our lots are large enough (1 /2 — 2 acres) that families have parklike backyards with plenty of room to -play and play structures, soccer fields, basketball courts, swimming pools, and trampolines right in the backyard. 12-37 Our children have not missed having a local park because they have plenty of room and play equipment to play anything they wish right in their backyard. Parks Involve NeLyatives and Positives; They are Not for Everyone Especially Not in Rural Cnmmunities The planning department explained at the May Yd PIC that they did not hold a public consultation when they amended the 1992 plan because they felt that the changes were minor; explaining further that they viewed a park as always being a positive to the neighbouring properties. This was an incorrect perception of the planning department; parks are not always a positive to neighbouring properties especially not in rural communities. Respectfully, the planning department failed to take into account that the 1992 plan involves a rural community, and that rural landowners do not have the same needs or desires that urban landowners may have. While parks may offer some positive benefits which make them attractive for some home buyers, in fact there are a significant amount of negative issues and problems that arise with parks and so many home buyers do not wish to purchase a home that is in close proximity to a park. In fact for rural homeowners, parks provide little or no benefit and the negative issues arising from a park are much more significant. When concerns regarding the negative aspects of a neighbourhood park were raised at the May 3rd PIC, the parks engineer acknowledged that the town frequently experiences significant problems with existing parks, but explained that this is just something that local residents must stay on top of so that the park can be enjoyed by the neighbourhood. We agree that any negative issues will be our problem to deal with, given that police presence in our rural community is very rare.. However, we don't think that it is advisable for residents to be dealing with these issues on their own. I will outline a few of the problems and issues that affect local residents when a park is introduced to a neighbourhood: o Late Night Activities — Bringing late night activities closer to your home is clearly an undesirable side effect to having a park nearby. Where groups such as teenagers, beer league ball teams, and other groups are looking for a location to partake in late night activities, they will frequently look to local parks. The side effect of these late night activities for local home owners include loud noises, music, and swearing late at night, broken beer bottles on their property,. tire tracks from cars and ATVs on their lawn, etc. o Crime — Bringing illegal activities, such as drug dealing, closer to your home is clearly another potential side effect to having a park nearby. Unfortunately parks are frequently the location where people choose to engage in illegal activities, such as drug dealing and vandalism. This has a significant impact on local home owners who feel less secure, whose houses are more likely to be targeted by the criminals, and who worry about the safety of their own children. o Garbage — Unfortunately parks tend to attract a lot of garbage and illegal dumping, which leads to a significant amount of garbage being blown on to neighbouring properties. Illegal dumping and littering is already a significant problem in rural communities such as. 12-38 M Newtonville. We see this regularly along road sides and at the carpool lot on Newtonville Road, and the wind and raccoons ensure that any garbage is quickly distributed to the surrounding properties to be cleaned up by local residents. o ATVs and dirt bikes — ATVs and dirt bikes are already an issue in rural communities such as Newtonville, with people driving them on any vacant property. Many locals own either an ATV or a dirt bike, and residents of Newcastle also frequently venture out to Newtonville looking for a place to ride their machines, These people tend to use any spare piece of land that they can find, and will not be adverse to using the local park. o Significant Loss in Privacy — Parks are built by the town with the hopes that they will be well used by the local residents, which means that they can be very busy locations. The result is a significant loss of privacy for those homeowners living nearby. This is a particularly significant concern for the residents of our quiet, sheltered neighbourhood, as we all left urban subdivisions to enjoy the peace, quiet, and tranquility of living in a rural neighbourhood. o Constant Noise — Parks tend to add a significant amount of noise to their immediate vicinity. Whether it is late night parties with music and swearing, ATVs and dirt bikes, or just large groups of people congregating for fun and parties, people simply tend to not worry about noise levels at the park as they do when they are in their own backyard. This is a significant concern for the residents of our quiet neighbourhood, as we all left urban subdivisions to enjoy the peace, quiet, and tranquility of living in a rural neighbourhood. o Increased Traffic on Local Street — The new subdivision will significantly increase traffic along Jones Avenue, as it will now become a through street. Adding a park on Jones Avenue, right in the middle of the subdivision, will increase the traffic along this street further. This is of significant concern to the local residents as we purchased homes in a rural subdivision so that our children can feel safe to ride bikes and walk to friends' homes. The increased traffic in the subdivision is already a concern, and adding a park into the middle of the subdivision will make the traffic worse. This subdivision was -only built for local traffic, as there are no sidewalks and no curbs. o Parking Issues — Given that the proposed park will be almost 3 acres, there is also the concern that it will become a practice area for local soccer and other ball teams, and that this will create problems in the neighbourhood. With two children in soccer, I am very aware that open space for teams to practice on is limited, and that teams look to all parks with available green space to practice at. While the proposed park is big enough to attract local teams, the location is entirely unsuitable for accommodating the parking needs of large groups of people if the park were used for such purposes. Jones Avenue is a narrow road, such that if cars are parked on both sides there will barely be enough room for one car to squeeze through at a time. Rose Avenue is a very small and narrow street, and so will not accommodate parking either. In addition, the neighbourhood does not have curbs or sidewalks so we will have to deal with people parking on our lawns and leaving them a muddy, rutted mess. We left the May 3rd PIC very worried that our concerns may be downplayed since the Parks Engineer at the PIC downplayed the concerns outlined above, explaining that the town has these issues at all parks, and it is really up to the local residents to clamp down on this activity so it doesn't become a problem. This certainly did not alleviate our concerns. The Parks Engineer also 12-39 5 indicated that he felt that the issues outlined above would be minimal at such a rural location, but we beg to disagree. Instead, we believe that these issues are likely to be particularly acute for this park location for the following reasons: 1. Given that this park is a rural park, we believe that this park location will be very attractive for people looking to partake in the activities outlined above because it is on a secluded rural side street. As you are aware, all of the activities outlined above are either illegal or are considered a public nuisance and so the police will crack down on any of these activities if they are aware of them. As a result, people typically look for an out-of-the-way location that is not frequently patrolled by the police when conducting these activities. This park location is the perfect location for those looking to get "up to no good" since it is in an out -of -the way location that is rarely patrolled by police, while being easily accessible. 2. Newtonville has the same issues with late night activities, illegal activities, etc as any town, so the park will be convenient for locals to use for this purpose. So to say that these issues will be minimal because the park is in a rural location is simply not accurate. 3. Newtonville is also in very close proximity to larger towns such as Newcastle and Port Hope, such that the park is only a 5-10 minute drive away from two fairly large towns. The town planning department indicated at the May 3rd PIC that they had believed that a park would only be a positive to the. neighbouring homeowners. We recognize that parks are viewed as a positive for homeowners in urban subdivisions, since children need a large space to play sports and other games. However, these are not a plus for rural homeowners since our children already have all of the space they need to play. right in their own backyard. All homeowners in Newtonville have acreage ranging from a minimum of V2 acre to several acres, with most homeowners tending towards.I or 2 cares [minimum local lot size is % acre since homes are serviced by septic tanks.] If you were to drive through our neighbourhood you would see that all of the family homes are already well set up for children to play, with soccer nets, play structures, basketball courts, trampolines, and swimming pools. Children have plenty of space to do anything they wish right in their own backyard, and so the neighbouring homeowners perceive no benefit in having a local park. In fact, the plan for our subdivision, Veltri Estates, did not include any park land, and we were all happy to purchase our homes with the full knowledge that there would be no park. Given that parks have both negative and positive attributes, and in fact there is little benefit to residents of rural communities, it is clear that many people would choose to not reside next to a park. It is true that many urban homeowners choose to purchase a home in close proximity to a park; however it is also true that homeowners everywhere avoid purchasing homes in close proximity to a park. This is why the local residents are upset; there are people on Old Jones Avenue who purchased their homes with the knowledge that they would back onto a park, and they are now upset that instead of park they will now have extremely large homes behind them. However; most of the local residents moved to Newtonville to escape the noise and lack of privacy found in urban subdivisions, and so do not want to have a park in close proximity to our homes. Personally, we do not want to live across the street from a park, and so also want the park to be located where it was previously planned. Alternatively, we would be fine if the park were totally removed from the plan. 12-40 I MovinLy the Park is Not a "Minor" Change to the Local Residents A home purchase is a very big decision. We took our home purchase decision very seriously, visiting the Veltri subdivision for four years before moving forward with the decision to build a home with Veltri in late 2011. Veltri still had 24 lots available at this time, and, we chose our lot carefully. Given that our lot was adjacent to the land now owned by Fourteen Estates, we visited the town planning department before moving forward with finalizing our lot selection. A number of the local residents did the same thing when purchasing their homes. When we visited the town planning department, a town planner showed us the 1992 plan and assured us that if there were any changes to the plan (even minor as he assured us) that the town would consult with local residents and would notify the residents. ' In 2013, a neighbor who works for Durham Region told us that he had learned through his work that there was going to be a park located across the street from our house. We visited the town planning again and were assured that the 1992 plan was still in effect, and the planner assured us that he was not aware of any pending plans to change the plan. We left our name with planner and asked to be notified if there were any proposed changes to the plan. Again, we were assured by the planner that if there were any changes to the.plan (even minor as he assured us) that local residents would be consulted. However, we were never notified of the change in the plan. Instead, in January 2016 we found out that the plan had changed -when a neighbor told us that Fourteen Estates was going to develop the property and we found plans for the new development in the corporate brochure posted on Fourteen Estates website. We immediately contacted the town planning department, and our concerns regarding the amendments to the 1992 plan were ignored for four months. We believe that this was likely because the planning department felt it was too late to address our concerns, but this is inappropriate given that we were not given the chance to address our concerns when the plan was amended. The May 3, 2016 PIC ultimately happened because Wendy Partner and Willy Woo were kind enough to arrange it when we explained our concerns to them, after having been ignored for four months by the planning department. The location of the park in fact matters very much to the local residents. We've all made our home purchasing decisions with the previous plan in mind; those who wanted to back onto a park bought homes next to the previous park location and those who did not want to be near a park purchased homes away from the previous park location. So it is, in fact, a huge deal to the local residents that the town planning department has moved the park location. Given that the local residents do not want the park to be moved, the town should move it back to the previously approved location if there isn't a clear benefit to local residents from the new park location. The planning department has indicated that the new location is more central to the local residents, but as we will explain further below the previous location is just as central (or more) to the hamlet than the new location is. Given that there is no clear advantage to the new location, we urge the town to do the right thing and move the park back to its' previous location. Local residents relied upon the previously approved plans in making home purchasing decisions, and as such the town should not be changing the plan unless there is a clear benefit to the hamlet arising from the amendments. 12-41 The most frustrating aspect of the change in the plan is that it heavily impacts current residents, who are very unhappy with the new park location, instead of being built in the midst of the new Fourteen Estates subdivision. Fourteen Estates have indicated that they think the park will be a selling point, so it makes sense to build the park in the midst of their subdivision so that the new homebuyers will purchase knowing that they will be adjacent to a park and will be happy with this. Instead, the park is being moved so that it is right in the middle of the existing residential, surrounded by existing homes on old Jones Avenue, new Jones Avenue, and Rose Avenue. Given that existing homeowners are unhappy with the new plan, and Fourteen Estates is happy with the plans for a park, we request that the town seriously consider moving the park back to the previous location, which is in the midst of Fourteen Estates and backs onto some existing homes who were pleased with backing on to a park. Alternatively, the town could move the park elsewhere in the huge 56 - acre parcel being developed by Fourteen Estates such that it doesn't impact existing residential so. substantially. Another option could be to remove the park completely from the plan, and include parks in some of the other developments that are being planned for Newtonville. Previous Location Will Reduce Negative Consequences to the Local Residents As explained above, there are a number of serious, negative consequences to adding a park to a neighbourhood. While we do not feel that a park is needed in the subdivision at all, given that the residents use their backyards as a park, we were not as concerned with the impact of the previous park location on our quiet, safe, rural subdivision as the old park location was on the outskirts of the subdivision. As a result of the old park location being on the outskirts of the subdivision, the subdivision would be significantly less impacted by the negative consequences of the park,_ including noise, illegal activities, late night parties, etc. Our concern with the new park location is that it moves the park so that it is right in the middle of the subdivision, and so we will be significantly impacted by the negative consequences of the park being added to the subdivision. Given that the old park location was just as convenient to the local residents as the new park location, we request that the town move the park back to the previously planned location so that it will have less of a negative impact on the neighbourhood. The old park location was ideal because it provided a centrally located park to the hamlet, which was not as close to Ida Brown Parkette, while not bringing the negative effects of a park into our quiet, rural, safe subdivision. Previous Location is More Central to the Rest of the Hamlet The town planning department explained at the May Yd PIC that they decided to change the location of the park because the park would no longer be adjacent to a school, and they felt that the new location would be more central to the hamlet. We respectfully disagree with the assertion that the new location is more central to the hamlet, and given that the new location is no clear winner over the old location we respectfully ask the town to hold to the previously approved plan that has been relied upon by all of the local homeowners. 12-42 E The town planning department's assertion that the park will be more central to the hamlet simply does not hold water. Instead, the only residents who may possibly benefit from being closer to the new park location are the 12 homes located on Paynes Crescent, and these homes are already a short 2-5 minute walk away from Ida Brown Parkette and so are already serviced by this existing park. In fact the Paynes Crescent homes may not even benefit from the new park location; they will only benefit if the town builds a path from the park to Paynes Crescent and the town has not determined if they will be allowed to use the existing right-of-way to build this path. We have expressed serious safety concerns with building this path (explained further below), and the town planning department responded to say that they are not sure if the path can even be built. If this path is not built, then the new park location will be no less convenient to the homes on Paynes Crescent than the old park location. If the path is built then it will create a significant safety concern for children using the path. Given that there are only 12 homes who may benefit from the new park location, and these homes are already a 2-5 minute walk to Ida Brown Parkette, this does not seem a good reason for the new park location. While the new park location may possibly be more central to the 12 homes on Paynes Crescent, it will not be any more convenient to the remaining homes in the neighbourhood. In fact, the new park is only 400 feet away from the old park. For those living on new Jones Avenue and Rose Avenue, the park will be marginally closer but being only 400 feet closer this is a marginal improvement; maybe a 2 minute walk. For those living on Charles Tilley Avenue and old Jones Avenue, the old park location was actually more convenient as it was closer to them. Given that the old park is more convenient for half of the subdivision (those living on Charles Tilley Avenue and old Jones Avenue), and is only 2 minute walk farther for the remainder of the subdivision (those living on new Jones Avenue and Rose Avenue), we respectfully disagree with the planning department's conclusion that the new park location is more central to the subdivision. In fact, the previous location was more central to a larger portion of the hamlet and therefore was able to service more of the hamlet than the new park location. The previous park location had an access point from Newtonville Road and an access point on Charles Tilley Crescent, thereby servicing the rest of Newtonville (from Newtonville Road) and servicing Fourteen Estates -and the Veltri homes (from Charles Tilley Crescent). The previous park location was much more accessible to the 20 homes located on south Newtonville Road and the south side of Highway 2. The previous park location was also more centrally located to the 48 homes on Charles Tilley Cresc and the proposed future subdivision that. is South of the Fourteen Estates subdivision. The town already has sidewalks and low speed limits (50 KM/hr) along Newtonville Road and Highway 2 so that residents can safely access the downtown area and children can safely walk along the sidewalks that were put in place to provide access to the old school. As a result, families can safely travel along these roads to access the park on Newtonville Road. In addition, the new park location is closes to the hamlet's other park, Ida Brown Parkette, than the old park and therefore creates overlap with Ida Brown Parkette. Residents on the East side of the four comers in Newtonville and on Paynes Crescent already benefit from living close to Ida Brown 12-43 E Parkette, so it does not make sense to move the park so that it closer to Ida Brown Parkette. The new park is less than 1000 feet from Ida Brown Parkette, and if the path is created from the new park to Paynes Crescent then the parks will only be a 2 minute walk away from each other. We also have significant concerns with the proposed pathway from the new park to Paynes Crescent. The town planning department has indicated that it is not yet certain whether this path will be approved or not. If the path is approved, then the town must address safety concerns associated with this path to ensure that children are not hit by vehicles travelling along Paynes Crescent. It is likely that children from North of Paynes Crescent will use this path to access the park, but this portion of Paynes Crescent is in fact an extremely dangerous access point for children. Paynes Crescent is not an appropriate entry point to the park. Paynes Crescent does not have sidewalks, and is an old, beat -up, very narrow road, with the entry point from Highway 2 being a very steep hill that is lined by trees and has a blind 90 -degree corner at the bottom. It is very dangerous for kids to walk or ride their bikes down this hill as it is very steep, ends in a 90 -degree corner, and cars approach the corner blindly from the opposite direction. In order to make this safe, the town will need to remove the trees at this corner and install sidewalks, so that it is safe for children to use; otherwise it is highly concerning that children will be hit by vehicles coming around the corner. In contrast, the old park location was accessible from Newtonville which is comparatively much safer, with wide sidewalks that were previously used for children to walk to the school that is adjacent to the old park location. The Paynes Crescent access point to the new park location is not a safe entry point, whereas the Newtonville Road access point to the old park location is a safe access point. We Ask the Town to Do the Richt Thing for Local Residents The town planning department expressed their concerns at the May 3rd PIC that the park could not be moved back to the previously approved location because the 2014 revisions to the _1992 plan have now been approved, such that the builder can appeal any changes to the existing plan. However, given the numerous concerns'raised by the local residents it is clear that the planning department should have held public consultations to share the revisions with the public and understand any concerns they might have with the revisions. We are asking that the'town do the right for the local residents and take action on our concerns. At the end of the May 3rd PIC, Willy Woo suggested that it may be possible to revise the plan if the town were to work with the builder on any changes to ensure that the builder is on board and so will not appeal. There was a representative of Fourteen Estates at the PIC, and she indicated that Fourteen Estates was indifferent between the two park locations, so it seems quite likely that the town can address our concerns if they work directly. with the builder. We were very disappointed that the planning department felt that potential objections from Fourteen Estates were a valid reason for not addressing our concerns. The town should -da the right thing for the local residents. We did the right thing in consulting with the planning_department, 'and were misled to believe that we would be notified and a consultation would take place if any changes 12-44 10 (even minor) occurred to the plan. In reading the Planning Act, it is clear why the two planners believed that we would be consulted on any changes as public consultations are core to the Planning Act and are referred to throughout the Act. We notified the town planning department over four months ago, as soon as we learned about the revisions to the plan, to explain our concerns and the town planning department ignored these concerns until Wendy Partner and Willy Woo became involved. We now understand that our concerns were ignored because the planning department likely felt it was too late to address them. However, if we work with the builder it is not too late. We hope that this delay has not caused this issue to have come to the point where it cannot be resolved. We respectfully state that the town planning department has dropped the ball on this one, and the planning department and the town should have the accountability to address the issues arising from this lapse in judgement. Residents should be able to rely on existing plans when making home purchase decisions, and they should be able to trust that existing plans will not be amended without good reason and without public consultation. As explained above, the town planning department has not provided a strong reason that is clearly in the public interest for moving the park, and we believe it is more in the public interest to retain the park in the previously approved location. We understand that the town planning department took a fresh look at the park location because co -use with the Newtonville Public School was no longer available. While we understand the need to take a fresh look at the park location, we respectfully disagree that the new park location is better than the previous location, so it makes sense to abide by the original plan. Given all of this, we request that the town move the park back to its previously approved location. It became clear to the local residents at the May 3rd PIC that the town planning department is very resistant to the idea of moving the park back to its previously approved location because this will not be easy. However, this difficulty could have been easily avoided if the planning department had held a consultation with local residents as they had promised us that they would. The planning department incorrectly assumed that this was a minor change and that the local residents need not be consulted. We ask that the town to fix this lapse in the planning process and do the right thing by the local residents and make every effort to move the park back to the previously approved location Conclusion In conclusion, we believe that the old park location was clearly a better location for serving the public interests than the new location for the following reasons: Parks bring a number of negative consequences to the local area. The old park location was on the outskirts of the subdivision and so would not have brought these negative consequences into our quiet, safe, rural subdivision. Instead, the old park location isolated these negative consequences to the outskirts of the subdivision. The old park location was also less likely to attract people looking for a place to get "up to no good" since it opens on Newtonville Road, and so is less hidden away. 12-45 11 ® The new park location is much closer to Newtonville's only other park, Ida Brown Parkette, and so largely serves the same group of residents. ® The old park location is in fact accessible to a larger group of residents since it had access points onto Charles Tilley Avenue (serving Veltri Estates and Fourteen Estates) and Newtonville Road (serving those living in the hamlet outside of these subdivisions). ' - ® The new park location will increase the risk of children being hit by cars if there is an access point onto Paynes Crescent as planned. The old park location had safe access points, given the wide sidewalks on Newtonville Road that were in place to service the old school. ® It is in the public interest for residents to be able to rely on existing plans and that they will not be changed without good reason. The local residents relied on the original 1992 plan when making their home purchasing decisions, and the plan to move the park to anew location has a major impact on these residents. Those with properties backing onto the previous park location had purchased their homes with the hopes of backing onto a park; and the remaining residents moved to the area to escape the urban problems of living close to a park and are unhappy that one is now being added right in the middle of our subdivision. • It was clear at the public consultation that the majority of the local residents do not want the park to be moved. Since so many local residents are unhappy with the new park location, it is in the best public interest to move the park back to the previously approved location which is a better location to serve the local community. We ask the town to move quickly iri taking action on this, as the -builder is progressing with his plans and will be less willing to make changes the further he moves along. He has already cleared the -roadways and pathways to the lots and is completing soil testing at this time, and so is becoming more and more invested in the amended plan as time passes. The town planning department has ignored this issue since January, and we are concerned that any further delay will make it impossible to get the builder onside with addressing the residents' concerns. Please do not delay with addressing this issue any further. Sincerely, Patricia & George Likogiannis 12-46 New Business Item #13.1 For Planning and Development Committee Meeting on June 27th Moved by: Councillor Cooke Seconded by: Mayor Foster Whereas Highway #2 is a Regional Road and Regional Corridor through Courtice and is envisioned as a key area to provide density and variety of housing options that are currently very limited in Clarington; and Whereas to develop the area between Sandringham and Courtice Roads, as envisioned in the Region's Official Plan and the regionally approved Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan, the existing residential lots will need to be amalgamated into development blocks and serviced with sanitary sewers which presents a significant impediment to redevelopment; and Whereas sanitary sewers are a necessary pre -cursor to redevelopment and are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Region; and Whereas unless Regional sanitary services are installed within this portion of the Regional Corridor, economic development of the corridor as envisioned in the approved Regional and local planning documents and Courtice Community Improvement Plan cannot be achieved; Therefore be it resolved that the Municipality of Clarington requests that the Region of .Durham provide sanitary service along Highway 2 from Sandringham to Courtice Road to assist with spurring the economic development of this corridor as envisioned by directing Regional staff to take all steps necessary to undertake such sanitary sewer work as a local improvement in accordance with Ontario Regulation 586/06 or any other applicable legislation to ensure the construction of such work and recovery of all costs for such work from the benefitting landowners. 13-1 l'LL�111J 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 24, 2016 Subject: Planning & Development Committee Meeting — June 27, 2016 — Update File: C05.Planninq & Development Committee Please be advised of the following amendments to the Planning & Development Committee agenda for the meeting to be held on Monday, June 27, 2016: 8. Delegations See attached Final List (Attachment #1) 15. Confidential Reports — Addition 15.2 PSD -052-16 Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of a Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of November 5, 2015 4n4, e re _r tree, Munici al Clerk CAG/mc Encl. C. F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads Attachment #1 to Update Memo A !111!11 iiiq���ipiq Committee Agenda Date: June 27, 2016 Time: 7:00 PM Place: Council Chambers, 2nd Floor Municipal Administrative Centre 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario . EMPW � __. Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Michelle Chambers, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at mchambers(a clarin_ toc on.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 1 Call to Order 2 New Business — Introduction 3 Adopt the Agenda 4 Disclosures of Interest 5 Announcements 6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting 6.1 Minutes of a Special Meeting of June 6, 2016 6-1 6.2 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of June 6, 2016 6-4 7 Public Meetings 7.1 Application for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 7-1 Applicant: W.E. Roth Construction Limited Report PSD -047-16 8 Delegations 8.1 Lyn Townsend, Steve Deboer, and Pat Hegan (Representing Terry Timmins) Regarding a Pool House Building Permit for 7700 Brown Road, Leskard 8.2 Patricia Likogiannis Regarding Report PSD -050-16, Amendment to Draft Approval — 2408406 Ontario Inc. (Fourteen Estates) for 28 Hamlet Residential Lots in the Hamlet of Newtonville 8.3 Rick Rondeau, 2408406 Ontario Inc. (Fourteen Estates) Regarding Report PSD -050-16, Amendment to Draft Approval — 2408406 Ontario Inc. (Fourteen Estates) for 28 Hamlet Residential Lots in the Hamlet of Newtonville 9 Communications - Receive for Information There are no Communications to be received for information. Page 1 10 Communications — Direction 10.1 Jeffrey A. Abrams, City Clerk, City of Vaughan —Requested Amendment to 10-1 the Planning Act to Address Issues With Official Plan Amendments that Follow the Completion of a Comprehensive Official Plan Review (Motion to Endorse) 10.2 Dr. John Cherry, Distinguished Emeritus Professor, University of 10-6 Waterloo — Proposed Modifications to Approved Rotosonic Hole Location and $25,000 Funding (Motion for Direction) 11 Presentations No Presentations 12 Planning Services Department Reports 12.1 PSD -047-16 An Application by W.E. Roth Construction Limited to Add a 12-1 (H) Holding Provision to the Agriculturally Zoned Lands at 8318 Maynard Road 12.2 PSD -048-16 An Application by Lesle Gibson for Removal of (H) Holding 12-11 Symbol 3238 Concession Road 3, Clarke 12.3 PSD -049-16 Proposed Amendment Draft Approval for Far Sight 12-17 Investments Ltd. 12.4 PSD -050-16 Amendment to Draft Approval — 2408406 Ontario Inc. 12-26 (Fourteen Estates) for 28 Hamlet Residential Lots in the Hamlet of Newtonville 13 New Business — Consideration 13.1 Motion Request that the Region of Durham Provide Sanitary 13-1 Service along Highway 2 from Sandringham to Courtice Road [New business item from Councillor Cooke] Page 2 14 Unfinished Business None 15 Confidential Reports 15.1 PSD -051-16 Courtice Waterfront Land Acquisition 15.2 PSD -052-16 Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of a Decision of the Committee of Adjustment of November 5, 2015 16 Adjournment Page 3 3 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: June Gallagher, Deputy Clerk Date: June 27, 2016 Subject: Planning & Development Committee Meeting - June 27, 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 27, 2016: Additional Information regarding: 10.2 Dr. John Cherry, Distinguished Emeritus Professor, University of Waterloo - Proposed Modifications to Approved Rotosonic Hole Location and $25,000 Funding Attached please find additional information from Clint Cole, Chair, Enniskillen Environmental Association regarding the above matter. Mr. Cole is also requesting to address the Committee at tonight's meeting. Should Members of Council wish to hear Mr. Cole's delegation, a motion to suspend the Rules of Procedure will be required. - t I VZ, e- � Ju e Gallagher, Deputy Clerk J EG/cf Encl. C. F. Wu, Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads Fleming, Cindy From: Clint COLE <CCOLE@drps.ca> Sent: June -27-16 12:56 PM To: Fleming, Cindy Cc: Clerks Department Outside; 'Catharine Cole' Subject: Delegation request for Planning & Development meeting tonight ( 27 June 2016) at 7:00 pm Hi Cindy, My apologies for the short notice request to be a delegation at tonight's Planning & Development Comittee meeting. However, I only discovered late last week that it might be helpful for the Counselors to still consider the Townline Rd. municipal road allowance as a preferred site location over a privately owned site location for the Group 360 proposed sonic hole research project. I have since consulted Dr. John Cherry of Group 360 and he would still prefer the municipal road allowance as a site location for the sonic hole. However, he did not include that option in his letter of request on June 22nd, 2016 to Clarington Planning & Development Committee as he assumed that it couldn't be accomplished administratively before 4th July 2016. Due to months of extensive delays by Hydro One in getting permission to use the Clarington Tranformer site as a location for this research approved, the july 4th date is now an operational "hard" deadline that he must adhere to if this project is to go ahead at all at this point. Therefore I request to be a delegation at tonight's Planning and Development Committee meeting at the descretion of members of Council & Mayor Foster. Could this request be please forwarded to Mayor Foster & Members of Council ahead of tonight's meeting for their consideration. Thank you, Clint Cole Enniskillen Environmental Association Chair