HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2016Final
CIE0rngton
Planning and Development
Committee
Agenda
Date: November 14, 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(o)_clarington.net.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact
the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Audio Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio record of General
Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a
General Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be audio recording you
and will make the recording public by publishing the recording on the Municipality's
website.
Noon Recess: Please be advised that, as per the Municipality of Clarington's
Procedural By-law, this meeting will recess at 12:00 noon, for a one hour lunch break,
unless otherwise determined by the Committee.
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
CIarifl#oII Planning and Development Committee Agenda
Date: November 14, 2016
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: Council Chambers
1 Call to Order
2 New Business — Introduction
3 Adopt the Agenda
4 Declaration of Interest
5 Announcements
6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
6.1 Minutes of a Special Meeting of October 24, 2016 Page 4
6.2 Minutes of a Regular Meeting of October 24, 2016 Page 24
7 Public Meetings
7.1 Public Meeting Courtice Community Improvement Plan Page 29
Report: PSD -062-16
7.2 Public Meeting Proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Page 31
Glenview Neighbourhood
Report: PSD -063-16
8 Delegations
No Delegations
9 Communications - Receive for Information
9.1 CLOCA Heather Brooks, Director Natural Heritage and Page 33
Watershed Planning — Initiating and Update to CLOCA
Watershed Plans
Page 2
CIarifl#oII Planning and Development Committee Agenda
Date: November 14, 2016
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: Council Chambers
10 Communications— Direction
10.1 Extension for Anna Filippo — Request to Extend the Use of Temporary
Use of Living Quarters at 260 King Lane, Darlington
Temporary
Living Quarters (Motion to approve the six month
extension for the use of temporary living
quarters at 260 King Lane, subject to
signing a further Letter of Undertaking.)
11 Presentations
No Presentations
Page 36
12 Planning Services Department Reports
12.1 PSD -062-16 Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan — Page 37
Final Draft, Statutory Public Meeting
(Replacement Page 4 — Change to last paragraph)
12.2 PSD -063-16 Municipally -Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Page 44
properties in a portion of the Glenview Neighbourhood in
Courtice
12.2 PSD -065-16 Decision of the Committee of Adjustment on Minor Page 59
Variance Application A2016-0059 by Newcastle Holdings.
Inc.
13 New Business — Consideration
14 Unfinished Business
14.1 PSD -064-16 Durham York Energy Centre Air Quality Monitoring Page 68
Results —Options for Retaining an Air Quality Expert
[Referred from the July 4, 2106 Council Meeting]
15 Confidential Reports
15.1 Verbal Report Confidential Verbal Report from the Director of Planning
Services Regarding a Property Matter
16 Adjournment
Page 3
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
Minutes of a special meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on
Monday, October 24, 2016 at 5:00 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: C. Clifford, D. Crome, C. Salazar, L. Backus, N. Zambri, A. Greentree,
C. Fleming, attended until 6:59 PM, M. Chambers, attended at 7:06 PM
Call to Order
Councillor Woo called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM.
2 Declarations of Interest
Councillor Hooper declared an interest in any matter that may be specifically pertaining
to the Wilmot Creek development or Rice Developments Corp.
3 Delegations
3.1 Peter Alward and Tracy Fielding, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review
Prior to the meeting, Peter Alward and Tracy Fielding advised that further to discussion
with staff this morning, they are satisfied with the proposed changes and would not be
addressing the Committee this evening.
3.2 Kirk Kemp, Algoma Orchards, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review
Kirk Kemp, Algoma Orchards, addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan
Review. Mr. Kemp indicated the property in question is a 125 acre parcel of land south
of Highway 401, east of Darlington Provincial Park and west of Courtice Road with 3,000
feet of lakefront. Mr. Kemp indicated that the Municipality had shown an interest in
developing a park along the shoreline, and he had had discussions with staff regarding
an agri-tourism project with a hotel development combined with a residential component.
The park would include some of his property, some municipal property and property that
would need to be purchased by the Municipality. Mr. Kemp indicated the project would
be a boost to the economy, create jobs and provide a great addition to Clarington. He
expressed concern that in the draft Official Plan there is no mention of the agri-tourism or
residential component and a large portion of his land was park dedication. Mr. Kemp
-1-
0
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
requested the park designation be removed from his land and the entire 200 acres be
designated as a study area. Mr. Kemp's comments were in addition to his written
submission #WS -73.
3.3 Rodger Miller, Miller Planning Services on behalf of 1816451 Ontario
Limited, Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Rodger Miller, Miller Planning Services, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review on behalf of the owners of a 40 acre parcel of land on the southwest
corner of Rundle Road and Baseline Road, designated light industrial. Mr. Miller
indicated that since September 12, 2016, he has met with staff and their concerns have
been resolved through amendments made to the Official Plan Amendment and urged the
Committee to support the proposed changes. Mr. Miller's comments were in addition to
his written submission #WS -57.
3.4 Harvey Snyder Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Harvey Snyder addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended
Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review regarding
42 Martin Road. Through use of photographs on display, Mr. Snyder highlighted the
section of his property designated as environmental protection and requested this
designation be removed from his property. Mr. Snyder's comments were in addition to
his written submission #WS -25.
3.5 Libby Racansky Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official
Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review and
Report PSD -059-16, Municipal Comments on the Co-ordinated Review of
the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, and
the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
Prior to commencing her delegation, Libby Racansky was granted permission to address
the Committee on both Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment
No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review listed on this Agenda and Report
PSD -059-16, Municipal Comments on the Co-ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for
the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan, listed on the regular Planning and Development Committee Agenda
for this evening.
Through use of a PowerPoint presentation Ms. Racansky highlighted areas of concern
with respect to the Official Plan Amendment No. 107. Ms. Racansky expressed concern
with the removal of urban residential from the Special Study area in Courtice North being
replaced by Secondary Plans. She requested the Special Study designation of the
sensitive recharge area be maintained, that the required study be undertaken and paid
for by the developers and that it be reviewed by Regional and Municipal staff, CLOCA
-2-
5
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Ms. Racansky stated she was unable to locate
the extension of the urban boundary south in Courtice which had been previously
supported but never realized, and felt this would aid in servicing the future Courtice Main
Study area and lands zoned commercial/industrial along the baseline. Ms. Racansky is
concerned with the inclusion of the Nash Road Development Inc. site within the urban
boundary and feels that the land should remain within the Greenbelt Plan area as it is the
last permeable land within the Black Creek Watershed (most has been damaged and
replaced by impermeable surfaces). Ms. Racansky also requested that the Harmony,
Farewell and Black Creeks be included within the Greenbelt River Valley designation, as
volunteers are trying to rehabilitate the creeks and it would assist the Municipality in
establishing trails in the area.
3.6 Ryan Lavender Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Ryan Lavender, Schleiss Development Co. Ltd., addressed the Committee regarding
Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) -
Clarington Official Plan Review with respect to 3362 Tooley Road designated as
environmental protection in the Plan. Mr. Lavender reviewed a Land Use Concept Plan
for the Worden East Neighbourhood Plan on display stating that all required studies have
now been completed and in the opinion of their consultants, there are no concerns or
negative impact to the natural heritage system. Mr. Lavender requested the Clarington
Official Plan be amended to reflect the Environmental Impact Study results submitted to
staff, as the environmental protection designation is not appropriate given the results of
the studies.
3.7 John Passalacqua, Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official
Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review (Re:
50 Martin Road, Bowmanville)
John Passalacqua addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan
Review with respect to 50 Martin Road, Bowmanville. Mr. Passalacqua indicated that
the property was re -zoned in December 2015 to permit a 75 unit rental apartment
building which has now been put on hold due to the environmental protection designation
placed on the property which he feels is not warranted and should be removed.
Mr. Passalacqua expressed concern with reference to the "Martin Road Woodlot" stating
the trees which were removed from the property were assessed by an arborist and he
quoted directly from the arborist's findings. He noted as far as by-law and permitting
issues were concerned, the property was not within a CLOCA regulating area and did
not require any special conservation permitting, no trees were on the endangered
species list of Ontario and the site was not considered a woodlot as per the Regional By-
law. He stated confirmation was received from Regional staff that there would be no
objection to removal of the trees from the property and further confirmed by Municipal
staff that no permits were required. Mr. Passalacqua expressed concern that the current
mapping feature is grossly exaggerated and he disagreed that the trees met the
-3-
A•
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
description of a woodlot. Mr. Passalacqua also expressed concern with the development
of a trail behind 50 Martin Road and his responsibility to restore a portion of the woodlot.
He suggested that further discussions take place with the Municipality.
3.8 John Passalacqua, Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official
Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review (Re:
46 Martin Road, Bowmanville)
John Passalacqua addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan
Review, on behalf of his parents, with respect to 46 Martin Road, Bowmanville.
Mr. Passalacqua referred to diagrams and maps on display, highlighting the
environmental protection zone and requested that staff meet on site with their
environmental consultant to determine if the environmental protection designation is
warranted. He stated developers are apprehensive to develop lands with environmental
protection designation and that redevelopment of this vital corridor will be halted. He
requested the environmental protection designation be removed from the property and
that constructive dialogue continue.
3.9 Bryce Jordan, GHD, Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official
Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review (Re:
Vanstone Mill property)
Bryce Jordan, GHD, addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan
Review on behalf of Vanstone Mill Inc. Mr. Jordan indicated that further to the delegation
of Gerard Gervais on September 12, 2016, when Mr. Gervais outlined the negative
impact the proposed changes would have on development rights on the Vanstone
property, there have been modifications made to the mapping regarding the
Environmental Protection Zone which respect the zone development rights. Mr. Jordan
stated his clients are now satisfied with changes in the Official Plan Amendment No. 107
as it affects their property.
Resolution #PD -158-16
Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Hooper
That the order of the Agenda be altered to allow Ryan Guetter flexibility in the order of
speaking to the seven items he is registered on the Agenda.
Carried
3.14 Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re: Bowmanville East Landowners Group)
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Cladwwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
Official Plan Review on behalf of the Bowmanville East Landowners Group. Mr. Guetter
stated that he has attended the public meeting on the issue and subsequently submitted
written comments and has had discussions with staff. Mr. Guetter indicated that they are
supportive of a number of key changes including the removal of the sequencing which
are now included in the Secondary Plan, modifications made to environmental policies
that address buffer requirements and the notion of development charge credits being
offered to the extent that they are applicable to the processing of Secondary Plans. He
added they are also supportive of the policies concerning the assessment of various cost
sharing items, the landowners funding the Secondary Plan studies and the mapping
changes on 131 and B2 lands. Mr. Guetter requested that a handout be distributed to
members of Committee and Staff with some changes they are proposing which are
noted in red. He continued by noting that they are proposing changes to Section 23
related to Secondary Plans and explained that they are proposing that this initiation of
Secondary Plans be a collaborative initiative between the Municipality, the developer or
the Landowners Associations and added that a similar policy has been adopted in many
other municipalities, including the Town of Whitby. He added that they are asking to be
part of the funding process and be permitted to initiate the Secondary Plan application.
Mr. Guetter requested there be a policy included to ensure that there is a mechanism to
establish cost sharing and outline who will be responsible for various tasks in the
Secondary Plan process. He continued by asking that upon the initiation of a Secondary
Plan application that a Public Meeting be held to determine a Terms of Reference. Mr.
Guetter noted that this has not been reviewed by Staff and asked that there be an
opportunity for further discussion prior to this being approved by Council. He added they
support the policy that addresses development charge credits and noted that he believes
that it should be adjusted to ensure non -participating owners would pay their share. Mr.
Guetter referred to a change on the handout to revise "75%" of lands that are able to be
developed to "the majority". Mr. Guetter's comments were in addition to his written
submissions #WS -78 and #WS -83. He offered to answer questions from the Committee.
Suspend the Rules
Resolution #PD -159-16
Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Cooke
That the rules of procedure be suspended in order that the Special Planning and
Development Committee meeting be extended to complete the Agenda; and
That the regularly scheduled meeting be delayed to start following the completion of the
Special Planning and Development Committee meeting.
Carried
-5-
Clarftwn
Recess
Resolution #PD -160-16
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill
That the Special Planning and Development Committee meeting recess and reconvene
immediately following regular Planning and Development Committee meeting.
Carried
The special meeting reconvened at 7:06 PM with Councillor Woo in the Chair.
3.10 Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re: 2936 Hancock Road, Courtice)
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review with respect to 2936 Hancock Road, Courtice. Mr. Guetter thanked
staff for providing points of clarification with respect to all points in their submission in
particular the section with respect to built form. He added that they were looking to
increase the building height for one of the buildings and they still maintain that should be
permitted. Mr. Guetter concluded by thanking the Committee and offered to answer any
questions.
3.11 Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re:1475 Durham Highway 2, Courtice)
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review with respect to 1475 Durham Highway 2, Courtice. Mr. Guetter
explained that some potential mapping adjustments were requested with respect to the
delineation of a watercourse. He added that this was with respect to a request for a
modification of a drain on the property. Mr. Guetter explained that he thought this
adjustment was going to be made and did not see it reflected on the map. He offered to
answer questions from the Committee.
3.12 Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re: Part of Lot 33, Concession 2 (Re: Northeast
corner of Bloor Street and Prestonvale Road)
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review with respect to the northeast corner of Bloor Street and Prestonvale
E
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
Road. He explained that they have submitted a number of submissions outlining similar
comments. Mr. Guetter noted that this property has many natural heritage features and
he wanted to thank staff for the adjustments with respect to natural heritage policies,
buffers and the allowance for studies to determine these areas and limits. He wanted to
thank staff for the adjustments, clarifications. Mr. Guetter confirmed they support these
policies and offered to answer questions from the Committee.
3.13 Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re:. (Southwest quadrant, Baseline Road and Martin
Road, Courtice)
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review with respect to the southwest quadrant, Baseline Road and Martin
Road, Courtice. Mr. Guetter thanked staff for the clarification and noted that this
property has a flood plain, adjacent to which they will be developing. He concluded that
they are satisfied that the buffer that will be established through policy. Mr. Guetter
offered to answer questions from the Committee.
3.15 Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re: Mohawk Upper James Investments Limited)
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review on behalf of Mohawk Upper James Investments Limited. Mr.
Guetter explained that there are policies that reference natural heritage limits. He added
that they are concerned with the extent of the natural heritage limits that the mapping
illustrates. Mr. Guetter continued by explaining that they understand the limits can be
further defined though additional technical studies. He asked that if it is identified that
there needs to be a reduction or adjustment to the natural heritage limits, that this can be
done through a consolidation of the Official Plan and not a separate application. Mr.
Guetter noted that the next issue is related to Mearns Road in the Secondary Plan Area
B2. He explained that they are requesting the policies remain flexible related to road
design and geometry. Mr. Guetter added that they are requesting that the plan allow for
flexibility with respect to road alignment. He requested that some of the land use
designations for conceptual park area be refined through the Secondary Plan process.
Mr. Guetter's comments were in addition to his written submissions #WS -46 and #WS -
82. He offered to answer questions from the Committee.
3.16 Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re: Medallion Development)
Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
-7-
10
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
Official Plan Review on behalf of Medallion Development. He explained that these lands
are located within the Bowmanville East Landowners Group. Mr. Guetter indicated that
they support the introduction of trails and the emphasis on natural heritage. He
requested that they support the submission of the Bowmanville East Homeowners
Group. Mr. Guetter's comments were in addition to his written submission #WS -81. He
offered to answer questions from the Committee.
3.17 Jeff Guthrie Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Jeff Guthrie addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended
Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review. He made
a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. Mr. Guthrie advised the
Committee that he is the owner of the property located at 34 Martin Road in
Bowmanville. He continued by explaining the OPA 107 will designate 34, 38, 42 and 46
Martin Road as environmentally protected. Mr. Guthrie asked the Committee why such a
small area is being protected and that there are a very small number of trees located on
his property to be included in the protected area. He advised the Committee that he did
not receive any notification of the proposed designation change. Mr. Guthrie reviewed a
series of photos of the properties included in the woodlot area and noted that there are in
fact very few trees and several that are dead, fallen or have Emerald Ash Borer. He
added that the majority of the areas in the woodlot consist of kept grass areas with a few
trees and that one of the properties has a pool in the forest area. Mr. Guthrie asked the
Committee about the location of proposed trail that would be adjacent to his property.
Mr. Guthrie state that he thought this land was not to be developed due to the slope and
to protect the area. He feels that these properties were added to the environmentally
protected area late in the process after he attempted to sell his property. He added that
he feels this was not done to protect the environment but was done to control future
development.
Resolution #PD -165-16
Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Neal
That the delegation of Jeff Guthrie regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official
Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review, be extended for
one minute.
Carried
Mr. Guthrie concluded by stating that he feels this designation change was done without
proper notification to him or his neighbours and if this gets approved he will appeal the
matter to the Ontario Municipal Board.
11
Clarington
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
3.18 Jane McFarlane, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re: 1539 Prestonvale Road, Courtice)
Jane McFarlane, Weston Consulting, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review with respect to 1539 Prestonvale Road, Courtice. She provided an
overview of the location of the property and noted that it is comprised of two parcels of
land. Ms. McFarlane explained that since the September 12th meeting, modifications
have been made to OPA 107. She added that they are satisfied with the adjustments to
Map C and the revisions with respect to phasing. Ms. McFarlane continued by stating
the staff report contains their submission and the response from staff advising that the
subject land is contained within a Secondary Plan and that 80 units can be serviced.
She add that they hopeful that the secondary plan will be updated shortly after the
approval of the OPA 107 and that the subject lands will be changed to urban residential
to allow the development to proceed. Ms. McFarlane's comments were in addition to her
written submission #WS -22 and VS -7. She offered to answer questions from the
Committee.
3.19 Jake Murray and Anthony Biglieri, The Biglieri Group, Regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) -
Clarington Official Plan Review (Re: 5075 Holt Road, Hampton)
Jake Murray and Anthony Biglieri, The Biglieri Group, addressed the Committee
regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA
107) - Clarington Official Plan Review with respect to 5075 Holt Road, Hampton. They
made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation and a handout. Mr.
Biglieri provided details of the subject property and advised the Committee that they are
asking for the OPA 107 to be amended to include the subject property in the rounding
out of the hamlet designation for Hampton. He reminded the Committee that there was a
previous amendment to the Regional and Clarington Official Plan to allow for the use of a
golf driving range and an accessory building. Mr. Biglieri noted that the draft OPA 107
designates this land as prime agricultural. He added that in 2006 and agricultural review
was conducted by the landowner as part of the application and it was determined that
this land had limited agricultural potential and would not be suited as prime agricultural.
Mr. Biglieri explained that this rounding out would result in a blend of residential and
commercial designations for this area. He continued by reviewing the traffic and
transportation connections for this area. Mr. Biglieri advised the Committee that they
respectfully disagree with Staff's recommendations. He added that they are requesting
for the rounding out of the hamlet designation to include the subject property. Mr.
Biglieri's comments were in addition to his written submission #WS -43. He offered to
answer questions from the Committee.
12
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
3.20 Jake Murray, The Biglieri Group, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re: Property Roll # 010.404.18400.0000, 1984
Regional Highway 2)
Jake Murray, The Biglieri Group, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review with respect to Property Roll #010.404.18400.0000, Regional
Highway 2. He made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation.
Mr. Murray explained that their specific concerns are with the environmentally protected
designation for this property as noted in their submission to the Planning Department.
He explained that this property is currently green space and now will be designated as
environmentally protected. Mr. Murray added that this was determined in part by
information submitted by the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) who designated this
land as a wetland. He added that this must be done through the Ontario Evaluation
System (OS) and include ground-truthing or on site field work. Mr. Murray add that at
this time no one from the MNR, the Municipality or the Conservation Authority has visited
the property to conduct an assessment. He believes that this designation has been done
based on high level mapping and has not been ground-truthed. Mr. Murray's comments
were in addition to his written submission #WS -86. He offered to answer questions from
the Committee.
3.21 Jake Murray, The Biglieri Group, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review (Re: 3553 Liberty Street, North)
Jake Murray, The Biglieri Group, addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review with respect to 3553 Liberty Street North. He made a verbal
presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. Mr. Murray explained that his
client is looking to acquire the adjacent property for future development. He explained
that in the current Official Plan, this area is within the urban boundary and designated at
future urban residential. Mr. Murray added that in OPA 107 the proposed designation is
environmentally protected. He asked for the designation to be reconsidered and that the
appropriate assessment be done by way of a site visit. Mr. Murray's comments were in
addition to his written submission #WS -75. He offered to answer questions from the
Committee.
3.22 Ruby Lee, Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Ruby Lee addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended
Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review with
respect to 38 Martin Road, Bowmanville. She explained that she is concerned with her
properties designation being changed to environmentally protected in OPA 107. Ms. Lee
noted that the area in at the rear of her property is being designated as a significant
woodlot and she is requesting a site specific study be done with high level mapping to
-10-
13
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
determine that these trees are not significant. She questioned the proposed trail to be
installed on the back portion of their property. Ms. Lee noted that she is concerned this
will lower the value of her property. She continued by stating she feels that the
designation change was done without proper notification. Ms. Lee requested that this is
not necessary due to the lack of trees and requested that a site specific study be
completed. Ms. Lee's comments were in addition to her written submission #WS -28.
3.23 Peter Smith & Dominic Vetere, 1448774 Ontario Limited Planning
Consultants, Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Peter Smith, 1448774 Ontario Limited Planning Consultants and Dominic Vetere,
addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review. Mr. Smith stated that
they do not agree with planning in policy for the future relocation of Ms. Vetere's
business. Mr. Vetere asked for special study area designation to be removed as it will
require the future relocation of his business. He added that this will lower his property
value and the value of his business. Mr. Smith's & Mr. Vetere's comments were in
addition to written submissions #WS -95 & verbal submission #VS -9.
3.24 Robert Stephenson Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official
Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Robert Stephenson addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan
Review. Mr. Stephenson advised the Committee that Michael Fry from D.G. Biddle and
Associates was also present to answer any technical question from the Committee. He
explained to the Committee he is requesting a neighbourhood centre designation for a
property he owns on King Avenue West in Newcastle. Mr. Stephenson added that this
property is located in the Foster North West Neighbourhood. He advised the Committee
that the planning process has been ongoing for a number of years and the services for
this area are scheduled to be available very shortly. Mr. Stephenson added that a
neighbourhood plan application will be submitted in the near future. He continued by
explaining that they were hoping for this area to have a neighbourhood centre
designation in the OPA 107. Mr. Stephenson added that this area will be designated as
a Local Corridor, which will allow for a variety of mixed uses, however he feels a
Neighbourhood Centre designation would allow for more flexibility. He noted that there
is an existing Neighbourhood Centre designation in the north end. Mr. Stephenson
explained that he commissioned and economic feasibility study through the Altus
Consulting Group and they identified that Newcastle could support two Neighbourhood
Centres. He added that he disagrees with the Commercial Market Analysis conducted
by the Municipality as part of the Official Plan Review as it states that there will not a
need for additional commercial land until 2021. Mr. Stephenson compared the various
areas of Newcastle and stated that they will be similar in size and population and as a
result could support an Neighbourhood Centre designation. His comments were in
-11-
14
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
addition to his written submission #WS -7. Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Fry answered
questions from the Committee.
3.25 Jeffrey McLarty Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Jeffrey McLarty addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan
Review. Mr. McLarty advised the Committee that he is looking at purchasing a property
in the Municipality of Clarington. He asked that the areas of Nash Road and Green
Road and the area of Nash Road and Regional Road 57 be reviewed in greater detail
with respect to the environmentally protected designation. Mr. McLarty thanked the
Committee and offered to answer questions.
3.26 Victor Labreche, Labreche Patterson and Associates Inc., Regarding
Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA
107) —Clarington Official Plan Review
Victor Labreche, Labreche Patterson and Associates Inc., addressed the Committee
regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA
107) - Clarington Official Plan Review. He explained to the Committee that he
represents Ontario Restaurant Corporation (representative for McDonald's, Tim Horton's
and A&W Restaurants). Mr. Labreche noted that he works with municipalities to
establish zoning by-laws and urban design guidelines for drive through facilities. He
stated that he is here with respect to the proposed section 11.5.5 which prohibits of drive
through facilities in prestige employment areas. Mr. Labreche stated the prohibition of
drive through facilities cannot be done through the Official Plan process. He referred to
case law for the City of Ottawa PL03124 which concluded this determination cannot be
done through the Official Plan process. Mr. Labreche is asking for Section 11.5.5 b) to be
removed from OPA 107. He added that if this change is not made that they are looking
for justification for this decision. Mr. Labreche's comments were in addition to his written
submission #WS -94. He offered to answer questions from the Committee and confirmed
he would share with staff their traffic flow tools.
3.27 Warren Hung Regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan
Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) — Clarington Official Plan Review
Warren Hung addressed the Committee regarding Report PSD -060-16, Recommended
Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review. He
advised the Committee that he is the owner of the property located at 3196 Rundle Road
and that this property is approximately 95 acres in size. Mr. Hung explained to the
Committee that he objects to the natural heritage designation for this property. He
explained that this property was previously used for farming and then a gravel pit and
has been cleared since the late 1970's. Mr. Hung noted that the Ministry of Natural
Resources has not provided a response with respect to the designation. He added the
he feels this designation is excessive and should be removed. Mr. Hung's comments
were in addition to his written submission #WS -59. He offered to answer questions from
-12-
15
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
the Committee. Mr. Hung advised the Committee that he no longer needed to attend as
a delegation regarding Report PSD -059-16, Municipal Comments on the Co-ordinated
Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, and
the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan at the regular Planning and Development
Committee meeting of October 24, 2016.
3.28 Scott Waterhouse, Candevcon Ltd., Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) — Clarington
Official Plan Review (Highcastle Homes)
Scott Waterhouse, Candevcon Ltd., addressed the Committee regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) - Clarington
Official Plan Review on behalf of Highcastle Homes. Mr. Waterhouse advised the
Committee that he was looking to receive clarification with respect to their submission
regarding the east west arterial road in the Northglen Neighbourhood. He explained that
there has been discussion regarding the re -alignment of the road. Mr. Waterhouse
explained that they are looking for clarification to confirm that the proposed re -alignment
will now include a connector road and that his client will not be responsible for the
installation of this road. He added that if they are correct in their understanding they
support the proposed OPA 107. Mr. Waterhouse's comments were in addition to his
written submission #WS -39. He offered to answer questions from the Committee.
3.29 Brian Zeman, MHBC Planning, Regarding Report PSD -060-16,
Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) — Clarington
Official Plan Review
Prior to the meeting, Mr. Zeman advised the Municipal Clerk's Department that he would
not be addressing the Committee this evening as he submitted his comments in writing
to the Planning Department.
3.30 Stephen F. Waque, Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Regarding Report
PSD -060-16, Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107 (OPA 107) —
Clarington Official Plan Review (Re: Rice Developments and Nash Road
Developments Inc.
Prior to the meeting, Mr. Waque advised the Municipal Clerk's Department that he would
not be addressing the Committee this evening.
Recess
Resolution #PD -166-16
Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Cooke
That the Committee recess and reconvene immediately after the Regular Planning and
Development Committee meeting.
Carried
The meeting reconvened at 9:32 PM with Councillor Woo in the Chair.
-13-
16
Clarftwn Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
4 Planning Services Department Reports
4.1.1 Report PSD -060-16 Recommended Official Plan Amendment No. 107
(OPA 107) - Clarington Official Plan Review
Resolution #PD -167-16
Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Cooke
1. That Report PSD -060-16 be received;
2. That pursuant to:
a. The Provincial Policy Statement 2014;
b. The Provincial Greenbelt Plan (Greenbelt Plan);
c. The Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan);
d. Amendments 114 and 125 to the Durham Regional Official Plan;
e. The environmental policies and watershed studies of the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority, the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and
the Ministry of Natural Resources; and
f. The Municipality's Official Plan Review process;
That Official Plan Amendment 107 (OPA 107), be adopted by Council to update
the Clarington Official Plan and bring it into conformity with Provincial and
Regional Planning documents noted above;
3. That the Director of Planning Services be authorized to finalize the form and
content of OPA 107 resulting from Council's consideration, public participation,
agency comments and technical considerations;
4. That OPA 107 be forwarded to the Region of Durham for adoption;
5. That the Region of Durham be requested to initiate amendments to the Durham
Regional Official Plan, as necessary to implement OPA 107;
6. That upon adoption by Council, the Clarington Official Plan be implemented by
Staff as Council's Policy on all land use and planning matters and be implemented
through the capital budgets; and
7. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -060-16 and any delegations be
advised of Council's decision and notified by the department.
Carried as Amended
(See following motions)
-14-
17
Clarftwn Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
Resolution #PD -168-16
Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Cooke
That the foregoing Resolution #PD -167-16 be amended by adding the following:
That recommended amendments 651, 652, and 653 as detailed on pages 156, 157,
and 158 of Attachment 3 to Report PSD -060-16, regarding Secondary Plans, be
amended, as recommended by Ryan Guetter on behalf of the Bowmanville East
Developers Group, as follows:
23.3 Secondary Plans
23.3.1 Secondary Plans shall conform to and implement the principles,
goals, objectives, policies and land use designations of this Plan.
Upon approval by the Region of Durham, the Secondary Plan shall
be incorporated under Part VI of this Plan.
651. Existing Section 23.3.2 is hereby amended as follows:
23.3.2 The Municipality will prepare Secondary Plans in collaboration
with area landowners. Secondary Plans may be initiated by the
municipality or by an established landowners group upon
submission of a request to Council. The process for preparing,
adopting or amending Secondary Plans will be is subject to the
procedures contained in this section and under Section 23.2 and
other applicable policies of this Plan.
23.3.3 The Municipality shall work with landowners group within each
Secondary Plan area to advance Secondary Plans, and shall
establish an implementation framework for the secondary plan
process, which may include matters relating to advisory
committees, working groups, funding of supporting studies,
cost sharing principles and other financial considerations.
652. A new Section 23.3.3 is hereby added as follows:
23.34 During the review and update of an approved Secondary Plans, the
Secondary Plans will be amended to conform to the policies of this
Plan.
653. New Sections 23.3.4 through 23.3. 10 are hereby added as follows:
23.4:5 Where there is a conflict or inconsistency between the parent Plan,
the Secondary Plan will Drevail. unless the conflict is associated with
the density and intensification policies of the parent Plan, in this case,
the parent Plan shall prevail.
-15-
W
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
23" Droer to the M Uninir,aloty initmatinq the Following receipt of a
request by a landowners group to initiate Secondary Plan or
Staff's recommendation to proceed with a Secondary Plan
study, Council shall hold a public meeting inviting all landowners
within the Secondary Plan Area to advise them of the Droposed
Secondary Plan study and the terms of reference.
23-.6-.7 Where private funding is provided in accordance with Section 23.13
by a landowner or a landowner's group, they must own a majority of
the developable area within the Secondary Plan area Drior to
Council considering whether to proceed with a Secondary Plan.
23.E Prior to development approvals within a Secondary Plan area,
landowners may be required to enter into a developer'srg oup
agreement(s), or implement other alternative arrangements to
ensure the equitable distribution of the cost of community
infrastructure, facilities such as public schools, parks, roads, etc.
within a Secondary Plan area. The aareements(s) shall distribute. in
a fair and equitable manner, the costs of community infrastructure
and facilities to ensure an orderlv seauence of development.
23." Council shall approve the Terms of Reference, and, if applicable,
cost sharing agreements and any other necessary agreements prior
to the Secondary Plan study commencing.
23.1-0 Secondary Plans shall implement the policies of this Plan and the
Durham Regional Official Plan policies for Secondary Plans, in
particular:
a) the growth management objectives of sequential development,
full municipal water and sanitary systems, a minimum density of
fifty residents and jobs per gross developable hectare, and a
variety of housing types and densities;
b) the financial capacity of the Municipality to provide for the capital
and operating costs of municipal services and facilities required
to suDDort the development:
c) the provision of a diverse and compatible mix of land uses to
support vibrant neighborhoods, and the use of urban design
principles to create high quality public open spaces and achieve
an aDDroDriate level of connectivitv and transition to adiacent
areas;
d) the design of a connected system of grid streets and an active
transportation network as the key design element of the public
-16-
19
Cladwwn Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
realm with pedestrian connections to transit, community facilities,
schools, and parks. Higher density housing will be strategically
located alona or within Prioritv Intensification Areas to create a
transit supportive development pattern;
e) the integration into the design of the site and buildings of this
Plan's policies for Sustainable Design and Climate Change and
related standards/guidelines adopted by the municipality
includina areen infrastructure and low impact development
measures;
f) the protection and incorporation of natural heritage and
hydrologically sensitive features including surface and ground
water features, as well as the connections among these natural
features in order to inform the location. type. and amount of
development:
g) residential neighbourhoods will be "designed with nature" to
minimize arade chanaes. Dreserve mature trees and enhance
open space linkages;
h) the measures to mitigate the potential conflicts between the
development and existing agricultural uses;
i) level of visual interest achieved by incorporating different built
forms, landscaping, open space and environmental and natural
and cultural heritage resources and the creation of view corridors
and vistas of significant natural areas and public buildings;
j) the location of prominent public buildings, including schools and
spaces on prominent sites with significant street frontage and
oriented to the street;
k) cultural heritage resources will provide the context for new
development. New development will be compatible with and
complementary to its context with regard to siting, height, scale
and design. In new areas, heritage buildings will be incorporated
in a sensitive manner,
1) the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) will be used; and
m) inclusive lifetime neighbourhoods where the built environment
promotes a safe inclusive space with access to services and
amenities and a range of housing choices to meet the needs of
residents throughout all phases of their lifetime.
-17-
20
Clarftwn
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
23.40,44 The following background studies and analyses are generally
required in support of new Secondary Plans:
a) A Subwatershed study including natural heritage, fisheries,
hydrogeology, and hazard lands;
b) A municipal -wide financial impact analysis of growth and
develoament:
c) A Landscape Analysis;
d) A Planning Background Report
e) A Master Drainage Plan;
f) A Water and Wastewater Servicing Plan;
g) A Transportation Master Plan;
h) An assessment of potential impact on adjacent agricultural
operations and recommendations for mitigation;
i) A Sustainability Plan addressing Green Infrastructure and Net
Zero development and building Dractices:
j) A Commercial needs and impact analysis when a commercial
uses are proposed;
k) An Urban Design Report;
1) A Cultural and built heritage assessment including archaeology;
and
m) A housing needs analysis (including affordable housing).
Lost on the following recorded vote:
Council Member
Yes No Declaration of Absent
Interest
Councillor Traill
X
Mayor Foster
X
Councillor Cooke
X
Councillor Hooper
X
Councillor Neal
X
Councillor Partner
X
Councillor Woo
X
21
Clarftwn
Suspend the Rules
Resolution #PD -169-16
Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Traill
That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting for one hour until
12:00 AM.
Carried
Resolution #PD -170-16
Moved by Councillor Traill, seconded by Councillor Cooke
That the foregoing Resolution #PD -167-16 be amended by adding the following:
"That the Environmental Protected Areas exclude the property located at 3145
Mearns Avenue, as a result of it being a the High Volume Recharge Area as
detailed in the request of Mohawk Upper James Investments Ltd. (WS -46)."
Motion Lost
Resolution #PD -171-16
Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Mayor Foster
That the foregoing Resolution #PD -167-16 be amended by adding the following:
"That section 16.5, Special Policy Area D, be deleted."
Motion Lost
Resolution #PD -172-16
Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Mayor Foster
That the foregoing Resolution #PD -167-16 be amended by adding the following:
That recommended amendment 467 as detailed on page 110 of Attachment 3 to
Report PSD -060-16, regarding Special Policy Area D, be amended such that it
reads as follows:
"Special Policy Area D is located within Special Study Area 4 Courtice
Employment Area. The redevelopment of the site may not take place until such
time as sewer and water services are available. In the interim, the existing uses
may continue."
Carried
-19-
22
Clarftwn Special Planning and Development
Committee Minutes
October 24, 2016
Resolution #PD -173-16
Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Cooke
That the foregoing Resolution #PD -167-16 be amended by adding the following
recommendation at the end:
"That the Municipality of Clarington create a policy to encourage the Region of
Durham to locate Municipal Household Hazardous Waste Facilities in employment
areas of the Municipality."
Carried
Resolution #PD -174-16
Moved by Councillor Cooke, seconded by Councillor Neal
That, prior to the October 31, 2016 Council meeting, Staff be directed to attend the
designated woodlot on Martin Road properties to determine the impact of the Emerald
Ash Borer to this woodlot.
Carried
Resolution PD -167-16 was then Carried as amended on the following recorded vote:
Council Member
Yes
No
Declaration of
Interest
Absent
Councillor Traill
X
Mayor Foster
X
Councillor Cooke
X
Councillor Hooper
X
Councillor Neal
X
Councillor Partner
X
Councillor Woo
X
5 Adjournment
Resolution #PD -175-16
Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill
That the meeting adjourn at 11:24 PM.
Chair
Carried
-20-
23
Deputy Clerk
Clarftwn
Planning and Development Committee
Minutes
October 24, 2016
Minutes of a meeting of the Planning and Development Committee held on Monday,
October 24, 2016 at 9:17 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: C. Clifford, D. Crome, A. Greentree, M. Chambers, C. Salazar,
L. Backus
1 Call to Order
Councillor Woo called the meeting to order at 9:17 PM.
2 New Business — Introduction
There were no new business items added to the Agenda.
3 Adopt the Agenda
Resolution #PD -161-16
Moved by Mayor Foster, seconded by Councillor Neal
That the Agenda for the Planning and Development Committee meeting of October 24,
2016 be adopted as presented.
Carried
4 Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest stated at this meeting.
5 Announcements
Members of Committee announced upcoming community events and matters of
community interest.
6 Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting
Resolution #PD -162-16
Moved by Councillor Hooper, seconded by Councillor Cooke
That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Planning and Development Committee,
held on October 3, 2016 and the Special meeting of Planning and Development
Committee held on October 4, 2016, be approved.
-1-
24
Clarftwn Planning and Development Committee
Minutes
October 24, 2016
Carried
7 Public Meetings
No Public Meetings
8 Delegations
8.1 Libby Racansky Regarding Report PSD -059-16, Municipal Comments on the
Co-ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,
the Greenbelt Plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
The delegation of Ms. Racansky regarding Report PSD -059-16, Municipal Comments on
the Co-ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the
Greenbelt Plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan was heard during the
Special Planning and Development Committee meeting of October 24, 2016.
8.2 Eleanor von Gunten Regarding Addendum to Report PSD 038-16,
Municipally -Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Properties Fronting on
Tooley Road in Courtice
Eleanor von Gunten was present regarding Addendum to Report PSD 038-16,
Municipally -Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Properties Fronting on Tooley Road
in Courtice. Ms. Von Gunten advised the Committee that the residents of Tooley Road
are happy with the recommendations in the addendum Report. She added that Canada
prides itself on natural resources, and that this area is rich in heritage and with wildlife.
Ms. von Gunten explained that Tooley Road is enjoyed by many area residents. She
concluded by thanking Staff and the members of Committee.
8.3 Warren Hung Regarding Report PSD -059-16, Municipal Comments on the
Co-ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe,
the Greenbelt Plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
The delegation of Mr. Hung regarding Report PSD -059-16, Municipal Comments on the
Co-ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the
Greenbelt Plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan was heard during the
Special Planning and Development Committee meeting of October 24, 2016.
-2-
25
Clarftwn Planning and Development Committee
Minutes
October 24, 2016
Resolution #PD -163-16
Moved by Neal, seconded by Councillor Traill
That the remainder of the items, listed in the Agenda, be approved, on consent as
follows:
9 Communications - Receive for Information
9.1 Debi A. Wilcox, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, The
Regional Municipality of Durham — Durham Region's Response to the
Co-ordinated Review of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
That Communication Item 9.1 from Debi A. Wilcox, Regional Clerk/Director
of Legislative Services, The Regional Municipality of Durham regarding
Durham Region's response to the Co-ordinated Review of the Growth Plan
for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan, be received for information.
10 Communications— Direction
10.1 Andrew Gumbinger — Request to Extend the Use of Temporary Living
Quarters at 2830 Solina Road, Darlington
That the six month extension for the use of temporary living quarters at 2830
Solina Road, subject to signing a further Letter of Undertaking, be approved.
11 Presentations
No presentations
12 Planning Services Department Reports
12.1 PSD -059-16 Municipal Comments on the Co-ordinated Review of the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Greenbelt Plan, and
the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
That Report PSD -059-16 be received as the Municipal comments on the
Provincial Co-ordinated Land Use Planning Review;
That a copy of Report PSD -059-16 be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Affairs, and the Region of Durham; and
That the interested parties listed in Report PSD -059-16 and any delegations
be advised of Council's decision.
-3-
26
Clarftwn Planning and Development Committee
Minutes
October 24, 2016
12.2 PSD -061-16 An Application by 2103386 Ontario Limited Removal of
Holding Symbol for 6 Residential Lots
That Report PSD -061-16 be received;
That the application submitted on behalf of 2103386 Ontario Limited to
remove the Holding (H) Symbol be approved and that the By-law attached to
Report PSD -061-16 to remove the Holding (H) Symbol be passed;
That Council's decision and a copy of Report PSD -061-16 be forwarded to
the Region of Durham and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation;
and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -061-16 and any delegations
be advised of Council's decision.
13 New Business — Consideration
There were no New Business Item to be considered under this Section of the
Agenda.
14 Unfinished Business
14.1 Addendum to Report PSD -038-16 Municipally -Initiated Zoning By-
law Amendment for Properties Fronting on Tooley Road in Courtice
[Tabled from the May 24, 2106 Council Meeting]
That the matter of Addendum to Report PSD -038-16, regarding
Municipally -Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Properties Fronting on
Tooley Road in Courtice, be lifted from the table.
That Report PSD -038-16 and Addendum to Report PSD -038-16 be
received;
That the Zoning By-law Amendment be approved as contained in
Attachment 2 of Addendum to Report PSD -038-16;
That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development
Department be forwarded a copy of Addendum to Report PSD -038-16 and
Council's decision; and
That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -038-16 and this Addendum
to Report PSD -038-16 and any delegations be advised of Council's
decision.
Carried
27
Clarftwn Planning and Development Committee
Minutes
October 24, 2016
15 Confidential Reports
There were no Confidential Reports scheduled under this Section of the Agenda.
16 Adjournment
Resolution #PD -164-16
Moved by Councillor Neal, seconded by Councillor Cooke
That the meeting adjourn at 9:27 PM.
Chair
Carried
-5-
Deputy Clerk
Clarbgtoa
Nonce of Public Meeting
Courtice Community Improvement Plan
7eview
r 6t", the Municipality released the Draft Courtice Community Improvement Plan (CIP),
and comment.
The proposed CIP is intended to stimulate development and redevelopment within Courtice's
Highway 2 corridor, Townline Road to Courtice Road. A map illustrating the exact location of the
proposed Community Improvement Project Area and the proposed Community Improvement
Plan can be obtained for review as noted below. The proposed Community Improvement Plan
provides for a variety of Financial Incentives designed to stimulate private sector investment,
development and redevelopment within the Community Improvement Project Area.
File Number: PLN 37.4.1
How to be Informed
The Courtice Community Improvement Plan and any related documents are available for review at
the Courtice Public Library Branch, at Planning Services Department, and on our website at
www.clarington.net/en/live-here/Courtice-Main-Street-Community-Improvement-Plan.asp
Questions? Please contact the Planning Services Department at 905-623-3379, or by email at
planninqC@.clarington.net
How to Provide Comments
Attend the Public Meeting:
Date: November 14, 2016, 7:00 p.m. to 11 p.m.
Place: Council Chambers
Municipal Administrative Centre
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6
Any member of the public can speak at the public meeting or write to the Planning Services
Department to the attention of Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects.
If you wish to be notified of the adoption of the Courtice Community Improvement Plan you must
make a written request to:
Clarington Clerk's Department
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6
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.
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
The Courtice Community Improvement Plan, if adopted by the Municipality of Clarington Council,
can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.
29
If a person or public body does not make oral submissions at a public meeting or make written
submissions to the Municipality of Clarington before the proposed Courtice Community
Improvement Plan is adopted:
• the person or public body is not entitled to appeal the decision of the Clarington Council to
the Ontario Municipal Board;
• the person or public body may not be added as a party to the hearing of an appeal before
the Ontario Municipal Board unless, in the opinion of the Board, there are reasonable
grounds to add the person or public body as a party.
David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning Services
30
Clarbgton
Nonce of Public Meeting
A land use change is being proposed; have your say!
The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on a proposal to amend the
Zoning By-law.
Clarington Council has adopted an Interim Control By-law for a portion of lands within the Glenview
neighbourhood and directed the Planning Services Department to undertake a study of zoning
regulations including but not limited to housing types, lot frontages, lot sizes, building setbacks and
building heights. Planning Staff completed an analysis of the neighbourhood and with input from
property owners prepared a draft Zoning By-law amendment to change permissions for housing
types and zone regulations for the properties in the study area. You are receiving this notice
because you live or own property in or adiacent to the studv area. (See map below).
Properties with frontage on Glenview Road and Lynwood Avenue and some properties with
frontage on Westmore Street, Jane Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Nash Road and Courtice Road.
-=-
a- 4 N
sy
in
;ARM*
,-'
Area Subject To
Zoning By -Law Amendment
r
e
LL
ua
LU
:D -
�i
z
Ui
�a
�
O s
U- I
1-
ZBA 2016-0014
1- --
- , W
e
w
IESTMORE STREET
LLI A&
I J
NASH ROAD
r r '
'dim,�+ 'Y
r �
5
LL
LU
�a
w
IESTMORE STREET
LLI A&
I J
NASH ROAD
r r '
'dim,�+ 'Y
r �
5
LL
LU
The proposed amendment and additional information are available for review at the Planning
Services Department or online at www.clarington.net/glenview
Questions? Please contact Mitch Morawetz at 905-623-3379, extension 2411, or by email at
Speak at the Public Meeting:
Date: Monday, November 14, 2016
Time: 7:00 PM
Place: 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6
Municipal Administrative Centre
Council Chambers
Or write to the Planning Services Department to the attention of Mitch Morawetz.
File Number: ZBA 2016-0019
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.
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.
David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning Services
32
fCentral
Lake Ontario
Conservation
Member of Conservation Ontario
November 4, 2016
agreentreegglarington.net
Ms. Anne Greentree, Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6
Dear Ms. Greentree:
Subject: Initiating an Update to CLOCA Watershed Plans
CLOCA IMS File No.: NWPD1
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario
L1 H 3T3
Phone (905) 579-0411
Fax (905) 579-0994
Web: www.cloca.com
Email: mail@cloca.com
The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) will be embarking on conducting a 5 -year update to
the Lynde Creek, Oshawa Creek, Black/Harmony/Farewell Creek and Bowmanville/Soper Creek Watershed
Plans. CLOCA Board Report #5476-16 is attached, providing more information regarding this update. As noted
in the report, this will be a scoped exercise committed to:
• updating and assessing watershed changes due to growth and infrastructure improvements as well as evaluating
future urbanization and changing landscape on watershed health;
• advancing watershed recommendations supporting climate change mitigation and adaption and assessing risk
from natural hazards;
• evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of current watershed recommendations; and,
• improving consistency with recent and upcoming changes to federal and provincial legislation, policy and
guidelines as well as incorporating recent Authority work such as updates to floodplain mapping.
Seeking the input and advice of watershed partners is a valuable component. There will be public information
sessions held in 2017. If you have any questions regarding this work, please contact me. I look forward to
engaging your municipality and other watershed stakeholders in this update.
Sincerel ,
at r rooks�N IP RPP
Director Natural Heritage & Watershed Planning
HB/ms
Attach.
SAHeather\Watershed Plans\5 Year Update\November 4 2016_ Clerks_ Planning Directors.docx
What we do on the land is mirrored in the water
33
REPORT
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
DATE: September 20, 2016
FILE: NWPD1
PFRON'FD BY C,A.0.
S.R.: 5476-16
MEMO TO: Chair and Members, CLOCA Board of Directors
FROM: Heather Brooks, Director, Watershed Planning & Natural Heritage
SUBJECT: Watershed Plans — Initiating the 5 Year Update
Introduction
The Lynde Creek Watershed Plan was approved in May 2012. By April 2013, the three other watershed plans
(Oshawa, Black/Harmony/Farewell and Bowmanville/Soper) all received approval.
Consistent with provincial watershed planning guidance and more recently with the updates to the Provincial
Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan currently drafted, the CLOCA Watershed Plans identified the need to update the
plans within five years of adoption. Conducting this update is valuable as it will allow CLOCA to:
• identify changing conditions, pressures and trends in the watershed, including growth and new or expanding
infrastructure;
• assess, update, and revise watershed plan recommendations;
• evaluate the effectiveness of watershed plan implementation to date;
• support municipal compliance with Provincial Growth Plan including guiding new or expanding
infrastructure decisions, development of comprehensive water, wastewater and stormwater master plans, and
the preparation of subwatershed plans as a precursor to secondary plans and large scale development;
• ensure consistency with changing provincial and federal legislation;
• incorporate data from new or revised technology, methodologies, or science; and,
• better integrate climate change impacts including addressing advances in climate change assessment,
technology, adaptation and mitigation.
Components of the Update
It is important to understand that this five-year update is scoped. Components of the review will include:
1. Reflection — Identify those significant changes (such as growth, infrastructure, and climate change) that have
occurred since the watershed plan was adopted and determine whether these changes impact watershed
health. Also, assess whether these changes will necessitate alterations to watershed targets, goals, objectives,
etc.
2. Renew — Incorporate new, updated data, modelling, policies and legislation, renewing the watershed plans,
improving relevance and implementation.
3. Evaluation — Conduct a critical assessment of the implementation of the watershed plans and identify and
consider successes, achievements, gaps, and determine where more effort is needed.
4. Consultation — A first round of public information centres will be held seeking input on current and future
watershed challenges, future watershed management activities, and opportunities for further stakeholder
engagement. There will also be opportunities for meetings and discussions with specific stakeholder groups
as needed. Nearing completion of the 5 year updates, a final round of public information centres will be held
to share results of the watershed plan updates with stakeholders.
Cont'd
34
FILE:NWPD1 September 20, 2016
S.R.: 5476-16
Timeline and Resources
Each of CLOCA's watershed plans sets out the framework for undertaking the five-year review, including
identifying measures for evaluating the effectiveness of implementation and assessing progress towards achieving
the watershed health targets. Some of the groundwork to support the review can get underway immediately. In
order to undertake the five-year update to the watershed plans and continue to focus on ongoing commitments,
dedicated resources are needed. Specifically, hiring one person for a maximum 24 month contract will be required
in order to complete the updates to the 5 watershed plans before 2019.
Completing this work is an important component of the Authority's mandate and strategic plan. It will provide
valuable watershed information critically needed for decision making and program implementation at CLOCA.
Our watershed planning work is an important component in integrated planning as required by the Province and
Region (Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Plan and Durham Region Official Plan) to support
growth, new and expanding infrastructure, and comprehensive municipal servicing master plans. Investing in
this watershed plan update will support our municipal partners in achieving compliance with these provincial
growth requirements and further advance watershed knowledge as it relates to growth, infrastructure
improvements, climate change, green infrastructure, ecosystem restoration, natural heritage systems, water
resources systems including hydrogeology and flood risk.
It is recommended that in order for CLOCA to meet its current commitments, the Region be requested to provide
financial support to CLOCA to conduct and complete the five-year update to the Authority's watershed plans.
The Region of Durham's Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Reserve account has just over $200,000 (May
31, 2016). It is recommended that CLOCA request funding support from this reserve account to complete the
five-year watershed plan review.
Auth. Res. #85/16, dated September 20, 2016
"THAT Report #5476-16 be received for information;
THAT CLOCA initiate the five year update of CLOCA's Watershed Plans;
THAT CLOCA advise Durham Region and the municipalities that the Authority is initiating the five year update of
CLOCA's Watershed Plans; and,
THAT CLOCA seek the necessary financial support from Durham Region to support completion of the five year
update to the four CLOCA Watershed Plans."
CARRIED
HB/ms
35
Anna Filippo
260 King Lane
Hampton, LOB UO
November 1, 2016
Dear Clarington, to whom may I concern:
I, Anna Filippo, is writing this letter regarding 260 King Lane Hampton. I would like to
extend the period to demolish a farm house because the other home being built on the
property is not fully developed or livable. The builder, Delta Rae Homes, has stated that the
new home is not ready and that we can extend our period of demolishing the farm house. We
would like to extend the period of the demolishment.
Sincerely,
Anna Filippo
36
Clar;wgton
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: November 14, 2016
Report Number: PSD -062-16 Resolution Number:
File Number: PLN 37.4.1 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan — Final Draft,
Statutory Public Meeting
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the Planning and Development Committee recommend to
Council the following:
1. That Report PSD -062-16 be received;
2. That subject to comments that would necessitate major revisions being received at the
Public Meeting, the Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan be Approved;
3. That a by-law adopting the Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan and its
area be forwarded to a subsequent Council meeting;
4. That the financial incentives, specifically the tax increment grants and development
charge grants be addressed and implemented through the annual municipal budget
process; and
5. That all interested parties listed in PSD -062-16 and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
37
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -062-16
Report Overview
Page 2
Community Improvement Plans are studies that designate a defined area of the Municipality
for incentives through a number of financial mechanisms, encourage land assembly and direct
public works to promote development, redevelopment and improve urban infrastructure that
otherwise would not occur naturally. Council requested Staff initiate a Community
Improvement Plan for the Courtice Main Street area in May 2015. The Courtice Main Street
Community Improvement Plan is the result and is being presented at this statutory meeting to
obtain public comment, and seek approval for the incentives program.
1. Background
Part IV of the Planning Act describes the steps a Municipality must undertake to
designate community improvement areas and develop community improvement plans
(CIP's). The Official Plan sets out community improvement goals, objectives, policies
and generalized study areas.
The Regional Corridor along Highway 2 from Townline Road to Hancock Road is
identified in the Official Plan as Courtice C1, a first priority community improvement study
area. It was added as part of the amendment for the Courtice Main Street Secondary
Plan (Amendment 89).
Should Council adopt the Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan as
presented a by-law adopting the CIP and project area (Figure 1), it will be included on a
future Council agenda.
Figure 1 — Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Project Area
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -062-16
2. Community Improvement Background
Page 3
As part of the Official Plan Review, a special study on Courtice's Main Street was
completed. This Master Development Plan guided the policy direction of the Courtice
Main Street Secondary Plan and Urban Design Guidelines which Council adopted in
January 2013, the Region adopted in February, 2014 and was fully approved by the
Ontario Municipal Board November 28, 2014. The zoning implementing the Secondary
Plan was recently before Committee on October 3rd, 2016 for the statutory public meeting
and will be included on a future agenda.
The purpose of the Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan (CIP) is threefold:
To build upon the clear direction set out in the land use policies and urban design
guidelines of the Official Plan for urbanization as a mixed-use Regional corridor.
To enable the Municipality to respond to increased development interest and
community growth in Courtice by establishing a framework of financial incentives to
promote property consolidations, redevelopment and intensification along the
Highway 2 corridor.
To develop an implementation plan for the Black Creek Trail.
To achieve the purposes of the Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan the
consulting team held two public information sessions. In addition a survey of the
development proponents on the performance criteria to be used for the financial
incentives was conducted and the results used in determining the criteria included in the
CIP. Council provided input at the Planning and Development Committee meeting held
on June 6t", 2016.
3. CIP Process and Final Recommendations
The CIP process consisted of three stages.
3.1 Stage 1 - Identifying Community Needs
The Courtice Main Street Master Plan, Secondary Plan and Urban Design Guidelines
established the basis of the Community Improvement Plan. The Secondary Plan area in
combination with the C1 Regional Corridor area formed the basis of the study area.
The community support shown during the development of the Secondary Plan and Urban
Design Guidelines continued to be built upon and set the direction for the financial
incentives in the CIP.
3.2 Stage 2 - Draft Incentives and Programs
The second stage included draft CIP incentives/programs. These were reviewed with the
community and stakeholders. A survey of stakeholders was conducted to determine
which financial tools/programs and performance criteria best suited the development
community while maintaining financial sustainability for the Municipality.
39
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -062-16
Page 4
Community Improvement Plan incentives are intended to promote development that
benefits the public. Therefore the financial incentives have been tied to performance
criteria to take projects beyond the standards required by the Secondary Plan, Urban
Design Guidelines and zoning. The incentives are not designed to benefit development
that would be naturally occurring rather they are designed to spur development to
achieve higher quality and assist with overcoming issues that would otherwise impede
implementation.
The grants are segregated to address properties that do currently have sanitary servicing.
The performance criteria and percentage of the grant are set out in the Community
Improvement Plan and summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Summary of Incentive Programs
Project Performance
Program Description
If as -built project
DC Grant (as a % of DC normally
TIG (up to 10 year
achieves:
payable) for projects that:
annual grant) as a
% of the Municipal
property tax
increment TI
Do not have to pay
Have to pay cost
cost share to the
share to the Region
Region for full
for full municipal
municipal services
services
3 of 5 performance
25%
50%
50% of TI
criteria
4 of 5 performance
30%
60%
60% of TI
criteria
5 of 5 performance
37.5%
75%
75% of TI
criteria
The performance criteria are: Building Design and Construction; Pedestrian Environment
and Active Transportation; Green Open Spaces and Trail Access; Housing Choice
Accessibility and Affordability; and Sustainable Development.
A financial analysis of the future assessment impacts based on the Secondary Plan and
zoning was developed to assist with understanding how the financial incentives would
impact the Municipality. For the Development Charge grants the Municipality will budget
for and reimburse the Development Charge Reserve Fund; for the Tax Increment Grants
(TIGs) the Municipality will forego the percentage of the local municipal portion of the
property tax increment increase based on the assessment value over a period of 10
years.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -062-16
Page 5
Projects which apply and are granted the Revitalization DC Credit under the
Development Charges By-law 2015-035 are not eligible for the CIP incentives program.
3.3 Stage 3 - Implementation
The last stage focuses on the mechanics of how the grants program will work (as set out
in Section 8 and Appendix E and F). This includes screening, reviewing and approval of
applications for financial assistance and administering agreements and issuing financial
assistance payments. While the grants in the Courtice Main Street CIP are different in
nature. Planning Services experience and familiarity with our other CIP programs has
been instructive as to how the application, review and payment process should operate
efficiently.
As with the other CIP's, marketing programs will be established to raise interest in and
stimulate uptake of each program. As each development project site plan application is
reviewed, beginning at the Pre -Consultation stage, Planning Staff will be working with
applicants to determine how they can meet the performance criteria.
Financing of the incentives (grants) will be addressed as part of the operating budget
process on an annual basis. The monitoring program will continually address
implementation and service delivery adjustments to make the process business friendly.
Also included as part of the Courtice Main Street CIP is an implementation strategy for
the Black Creek Trail system. Implementation is contingent on gaining access to the
valleyland by developing agreements with the various private property owners through
the mechanisms outlined in Section 7 of the CIP. Once access has been obtained,
development of the trail will be to the standards established by Engineering Services. If
the development is to be carried out by the Municipality a capital budget will have to be
established. The information in this Section will be discussed in one-on-one meetings
with the owners to determine if there is a way to advance the trail development.
4. Agency and Departmental Comments
The final draft of the CIP was been circulated to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, Region of Durham and other interested parties at the beginning of October with
a deadline for comments of October 31St. Today's report is the presentation at a formal
public meeting to receive additional public comments. If necessary, revisions will be
incorporated into the CIP prior to the bylaw for its adoption being forwarded to Council.
4.1 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
To date we have not received written comments from the Ministry; however staff have
been informed verbally that the Ministry have reviewed the CIP and have no issues with
the recommended incentive program.
41
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -062-16
4.2 Regional Municipality of Durham
Page 6
The Region of Durham has been involved as a member of the steering committee and in
staff to staff meetings regarding the servicing issues in Courtice. The Region has
provided detailed comments which will be considered when finalizing the document. The
comments provided they do not affect the recommended incentives program, rather they
further clarification of the Region's servicing policy and the Regional Revitalization
Program.
4.3 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
CLOCA staff are supportive of the objectives and directions outlined within the CIP.
CLOCA welcome opportunities to work closely with the Municipality in the development of
the location of the Black Creek Trail Systems. CLOCA staff will assist the Municipality in
determining development limits on site specific development applications to ensure
natural heritage values are maintained and natural hazards are respected while allowing
for intensification.
4.4 Departmental Comments
Staff of Engineering Services and Finance were members of the steering committee and
very involved in the crafting of the Community Improvement Plan incentives and Black
Creek Trail Strategy. No comments were received from other Departments.
5. Public Comments
Few comments have been received from property owners and the public. One comment
noted an error in Appendix E the chart involving the height of buildings. This will be
corrected when finalizing the CIP document. Other comments received address the
specific details of construction of the trail system and will be forwarded to Engineering
Services.
6. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance and Tony Cannella,
Director of Engineering Services, Andy Allison, Municipal Solicitor who concur with the
recommendations.
7. Conclusion
The purpose of this report is to formally present the final draft of the Courtice Main Street
Community Improvement Plan to the public. The CIP has been prepared based on the
comments received during the public open house/workshops, Council input and
commenting review process.
42
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -062-16
Page 7
Funding to implement the CIP will be budgeted for annually as part of the operating
budget process. Depending on the funding allocated by Council and available,
development charge grants will be awarded based on the applications received to the
upset limit of the funding envelope available.
Strategic Plan Application
The recommendations contained in this report conform to the Strategic Plan, specifically
with respect to "consultation with the business community (to) encourage business
retention, expansion..." and "Support a variety of affordable mixed housing types and
community design attributes that support our residents at every stage of live across all
abilities".
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP. Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO
Director of Planning Services Interim CAO
Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects, 905-623-3379 ext. 2407
or flangmaid(o)_clarington.net
Attachment 1: Courtice Main Street Community Improvement Plan (under separate cover)
The list of interested parties is on file with the Planning Services Department.
FL/NT/DJC/df;tg
I:NDepartment\LDO NEW FILING SYSTEM\PLN Planning Files\PLN 37 Community Improvement Plan\PLN 37.4 Courtice Community Improvement\2015- CIP\PIC's\Statutory Meeting\Staff
Report\PSD-062-16 CIP Report.docx
43
Clarftwa
PI nnin Services
Planning Se ces
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: November 14, 2016
Report Number: PSD -063-16 Resolution Number:
File Number: ZBA 2016-0019 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Municipally -Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for properties in a
portion of the Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice
Recommendations:
That Report PSD -063-16 be received;
2. That the proposed zoning by-law amendment continue to be processed including the
consideration of public comments received in the preparation of a subsequent report; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -063-16 and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
Report Overview
Page 2
On June 13, 2016, Clarington Council passed an Interim Control By-law for a portion of the
Glenview Neighbourhood in Courtice and directed Planning Services Staff to study the
character of the area. Staff have sought public input, completed the analysis, and are now
proposing to amend the Zoning By-law to change permissions for housing types and zone
regulations in terms of lot frontages, lot size and setbacks. The proposed changes to the
Zoning By-law are intended to help preserve the character of the neighbourhood if
redevelopment occurs. Staff are seeking public input on the draft Zoning By-law which is
attached to this report.
1. Background
At the June 6, 2016 Planning and Development Committee meeting, Committee
considered Staff Report PSD -044-16 which discussed the need to study the character of
the Glenview Neighbourhood. Area residents were concerned that given the large lots in
the Glenview area, the number of severances would increase and newly constructed
homes would be out of character with the existing house types and styles. On June 13,
2016 Council passed the Interim Control By-law. The Study Area includes properties with
frontage on Glenview Road and Lynwood Avenue and some properties with frontage on
Westmore Street, Jane Avenue, Fourth Avenue, Nash Road and Courtice Road, shown
in Figure 1. All properties in the subject area are within the built boundary except for 32
Jane Avenue.
2. Characteristics of the Area
2.1 Many years of aerial photos and past development applications on file in the Planning
Services Department have also been reviewed. Staff undertook a background review of
the area which is characterized by many 50 plus year old homes on large lots by today's
urban standards. Over the past 15 years, new homes have been constructed in
subdivisions at the periphery of the subject area on Fourth Avenue, Jane Avenue and
Skinner Court. Between approximately 15 to 25 years ago, lots located on Nash Road
and Courtice Road were severed creating redevelopment and infill opportunities.
2.2 Typical lots towards the interior of the study area have approximately 32 metres of
frontage each with the range being from 20 metres to 49 metres. A few of these lots have
a lot depth of up to 60 metres, however 40 to 50 metres is common:
The lots on the newer portion of Fourth Avenue within the Plan of Subdivision
typically have 15 metres of frontage.
Lots fronting on Courtice Road have approximately 26 metres of frontage with the
exception of two 15 metre wide lots and one approximately 43 metre wide lot.
• Lots fronting on Nash Road range from less than 8 metres of frontage to 32 metres
of frontage.
45
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
Page 3
2.3 Bungalows are very common in this area, though there are some two storey dwellings.
Front yards tend to be deep with most in the range of 8 metres to 15 metres.
Rear yards are similarly deep and side yards tend to by wide compared to the zone
minimums. Lot coverage tends to be very low and landscaped open space high. In
many ways this area has developed similarly to an older hamlet residential area.
;.� - ----- -- -tea:=- --- - - -- --
Figure 1: Subject Area for rezoning
. lb
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
3. Provincial Policy
3.1 Provincial Policy Statement
Page 4
The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy
liveable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of
residential dwelling types while being sensitive to the characteristics of the
neighbourhood.
3.2 Provincial Growth Plan
The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing the
increasing population to settlement areas such as the Courtice Urban Area. Municipalities
are encouraged to create complete communities that offer a mix of land uses,
employment and housing options, high quality open space, and access to stores and
services. The subject area is mainly within the Built-up Area of the Growth Plan. The
Growth Plan includes policies to direct development to settlement areas, and provides
direction for intensification targets within Built-up Areas. Planning authorities are to
identify appropriate locations and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment.
4. Official Plans
4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Areas. Lands
designated as Living Areas permit the development of communities with defined
boundaries, incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure
to provide living accommodations that address various socio-economic factors.
4.2 Clarington Official Plan
The Clarington Official Plan designates the Glenview Neighbourhood as Urban
Residential. The Urban Residential designation typically seeks a minimum 10 units per
gross hectare with the predominant form of housing being single and semi-detached
dwellings with limited townhouses interspersed.
4.3 Council Adopted Clarington Official Plan
The Council adopted Clarington Official (Official Plan Amendment 107) also designates
the Glenview Neighbourhood as Urban Residential. These lands are not a Priority
Intensification Area. New development and redevelopment in established
neighbourhoods shall respect and reinforce the physical character having regard to the
pattern of lots, streets and blocks, the zone and configuration of lots, building types of
nearby properties, the height and scale of buildings and the setback of buildings from the
street, rear and sideyards.
47
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
5. Zoning By-law
Page 5
Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands Urban Residential Type One (R1), however
the Interim Control By-law is currently in effect. The R1 zone permits single and semi-
detached dwellings.
6. Public Notice and Submissions
The Public Notice of this meeting was given by mail to landowners within 120 metres of
the study area in accordance with the Planning Act. Staff have received comments
through the workshop and follow-up meeting along with other phone conversations. The
draft By-law was distributed with the Public Notice and has also been available on the
website. At the time of writing this report, no comments have been received on the draft
by-law.
7. Stakeholder Consultation
7.1 Workshop
On September 21, 2016, Planning Services Staff hosted an evening workshop at Faith
United Church with area residents and property owners or their representatives. The
workshop was attended by 26 people. At this workshop, Staff provided background
information on the Interim Control By-law, the current Provincial Policy and Official Plans
as well as an overview of the items that are addressed through zoning by-laws. The
attendees then participated in three round table activities. On September 28, 2016,
Planning Services Staff hosted a follow-up meeting to the workshop to share the results of
the activities and staff's neighbourhood character analysis. This meeting was attended by
many of the same people as attended the workshop along with a few who were unable to
attend the previous week.
7.2 Workshop Activities
Activity One
The residents were asked to map the area they felt should be studied. The results of the
first activity, "defining the limits of the study area", were presented to attendees. Staff
then presented a map that represented consensus by the participants at the following
meeting, which is the area proposed to be rezoned (Figure 2).
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
Page 6
Figure 2: Interim Control By-law and area to be rezoned
Activity Two
The attendees were asked to answer three questions. This was important to establish
principles for drafting an amendment to the zoning. The three questions and responses
are as follows:
i) What are the aspects of your area that you are proud of or find desirable regarding
building design and lot layout?
The responses were:
• Large lots / lot frontages
• Housing character
• Setbacks / privacy
• Ranch Bungalows
• Large driveways / ample parking
• Single detached homes
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
Page 7
ii) What are your concerns regarding what is currently permitted by the Zoning By-
law?
The responses were:
• Severance of Large Lots
• Reduced off-street parking
• Loss of unique character
• Reduced setbacks
• Different housing forms
iii) Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about your property or the area?
Some responses were:
• Maintain peace and quiet
• Close proximity to transit
• Safe streets for children
• Historical feel
• Minimal traffic
By contrast other responses were:
• 90% of property values are in the land changing the minimal frontage will
have a financial impact
• Owners who have approved land severances and invested in services
should be allowed to procced with house construction
• Home improvements are desirable
Activity Three
The participants were asked to examine the regulations in the Urban Residential Type
One (R1) Zone. The results of the third and final workshop activity were less clear as was
evident through the responses received when compared to the results of the previous
activities. Not all participants could grasp how zoning regulations are applied. However,
many of the responses received were still useful to Staff in writing the draft by-law. Many
respondents indicated the desire to protect the area for large lots, greater setbacks,
moderate dwellings and lots of open space.
8. Proposed Zoning By -Law Changes
8.1 In crafting the draft Zoning By-law, Staff have considered these four key principles should
guide the zoning:
• Must be consistent with applicable Provincial policy direction, the Regional Official
Plan and current and Council Adopted Clarington Official Plan policies;
• Take into consideration all stakeholder comments being both landowners and
development interests;
50
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
Page 8
Find a balance between the various interests that have been expressed in the
matter; and
Respect existing building rights where lots have been created but are not yet built
on.
8.2 The draft by-law is more restrictive than the current R1 zone in terms of permitted
housing types and regulations while at the same time allowing for a reasonable building
envelope on lots that have been created but are not yet built upon. Specifically, the draft
Zoning By-law restricts permitted uses to what is characteristic of each part of the study
area as follows:
For much of the internal area, only single detached dwellings are permitted;
For five large lots on Nash Road, it means semi-detached dwellings only;
Regarding the regulations, it is proposed that some lots on Fourth Avenue and the
vacant lots on Glenview Road be allowed to develop in accordance with the current
R1-44 zone regulations of the newer portion of that street, which means typical 15
metre lots.
8.3 The internal area is proposed to be zoned R1-32 which has the following key
components:
• Only Single detached homes are permitted.
• Most lots can be severed in half as most lots are approximately 32 metres wide and
the minimum width of a lot is 16 metres
• Increased front yard setbacks
Many older homes are setback by around 13-15 metres from the street line. The
proposed zoning has increased the setback from 4.5 metres to 8 metres.
• Reduced building heights
The existing R1 zone has a height limit of 10.5 metres which is measured to the
lowest finished grade. This would allow for a 3 storey building but this is generally
only used to the maximum to address grading issues. This allows homes to have a
walkout basement where grades would be lower at the back. The height has been
reduced to 8 metres which would only allow two storey homes. Height is also
measured to the middle of a hip or gable rood (half way between the eave and the
peak), so this also addresses very high pitched roofs which are increasingly
common and can overpower existing buildings with a lower pitch roofs.
Reduced lot coverage
Lot coverage can have a great impact on the size of buildings particularly on larger
lots. As an example an existing lot could have a lot area of 1440 m2 (32 metres
frontage by 45 metres depth). At 40% coverage, this would allow a 576 m2
(6200 sq. ft.) house. This is being reduced to 30% coverage, which would still
allows 432 m2 (4650 sq.ft.) house.
51
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
Page 9
However it is assumed that most significant redevelopment would occur with division of
the lot into 2 lots. In the example above, the lot would be approximately 720 m2. The 30%
coverage would allow a 216 m2 (2,325 sq. ft.) house versus the existing permission for a
288 m2 (3,100 sq. ft.) house. It should be noted that accessory buildings and structures
can add an additional 10% taking the total to 40%.
8.4 The proposed regulations for the five lots on Nash Road (see draft R1-33 regulations)
include similar increases and decreases as the draft R1-32 regulations making them
more restrictive than the current R1 regulations. The proposed permitted uses and
regulations for these lots will not prohibit the owners of these lots from continuing to use
the lots as they always have under the R1 zone regulations regarding alterations or
expansions to the five existing single detached dwellings. The new regulations would
only apply to redevelopment of these lots.
8.5 A comparison of the Zoning regulations is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Zone Regulations Comparison
Permitted Uses and
Existing R1 Zone
Proposed
Proposed
Zoning Regulations
R1-32 Zone
R1-33
Single and Semi- Detached
Single Detached
Semi-detached
Permitted Uses
15 metres for single
16 metres
18 metres
Frontage (minimum)
18 metre for semi
460 sq. m single
560 square metres
720 square
Lot Area (minimum)
550 sq. m for semi
metres
4.5 metres
8 metres
4.5 metres
Front Yard Setback
7.5 metres
8 metres
12 metres
Rear Yard Setback
6 metres
8 metres
No regulation
Exterior Side Yard Setback
1.2 metres
1.5 metres
1.2 metres
Interior Side Yard Setback
40%
30% for dwelling,
30% for
Lot Coverage (maximum)
40% total
dwelling
Landscaped Open Space
30%
40%
30%
10.5 metres
8 metres
8 metres
Building Height (maximum)
No regulation
1 metre
1 metres
Porch Height Above Grade
3 metres on a new lot
Not permitted
Not permitted
Garage Projection
No regulation
6.5 metres
No regulation
Outside Width of Garage
52
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16
Page 10
8.6 These proposed regulations are designed to work on both corner lots and interior lots of
varying depths and to keep much of the existing character while still allowing for some
redevelopment and infilling. All comments received and the analysis completed by staff
have been strongly considered in the writing of the draft By-law.
9. Agency Comments
Comments are outstanding from the Region of Durham Planning and Economic
Development Department and will be provided in advance of the recommendation report
coming forward.
10. Departmental Comments
The Engineering Services Department has reviewed the draft By-law and has no
comments or concerns. Clarington Engineering comments on all consent applications
and requires the implementation of standard conditions of approval as required.
11. Concurrence
Not applicable.
12. Conclusion
12.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the study and public
consultation process, to present the draft By-law for public input and to satisfy the
requirement for a Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue processing
the file including the preparation of a subsequent report.
12.2 The Zoning By-law amendment is being undertaken at the direction of Council due to
concerns expressed over lot creation and the character of new homes. The Interim
Control By-law is under appeal with a hearing to be scheduled for some time in the new
year. It is the goal of Staff to have a new Zoning By-law in place for the subject area in
advance of the hearing date.
13. Strategic Plan Application
Not applicable.
53
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -063-16 Page 11
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO
Director of Planning Services Interim CAO
Staff Contact: Mitch Morawetz, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2411 or mmorawetz(aD_clarington.net
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Draft By-law
List of interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is on file in the Planning Services
Department.
CS/MM/tg
I:\ADepartment\LDO NEW FILING SYSTEM\Application Files\ZBA Zoning\2016\ZBA2016-0019 Glenview Area\Staff Report\PSD-063-16 Glenview Staff Report.docx
54
Municipality of Clarington
Attachment 1 to
Report PSD -063-16
Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
By-law Number 2016 -
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for
the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it
advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington for ZBA 2016-0019;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 12.4 "Special Exceptions — Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone" is
hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception Zone
12.4.32 as follows:
12.4.32 Urban Residential Exception (R1-32) Zone
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 and 12.2, those lands zoned R1-32
on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for a single detached dwelling
and a home occupation use in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.11 of
this By-law, save and except the retail sale of antiques, arts, crafts, or hobby
items. In addition, lands zoned R1-32 on the Schedules to this By-law shall also
be subject to the following zone regulations:
a. Lot Area (minimum)
b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
i) Interior
ii) Exterior
c. Yard Requirements (minimum)
i) Front Yard
ii) Interior Side Yard
55
560 square metres
16 metres
20 metres
8 metres to private garage;
8 metres to dwelling
With attached private garage
or carport 1.5 metres;
iii) Exterior Side Yard
iv) Rear Yard
d. Lot Coverage (maximum)
i) Dwelling
ii) Total of all buildings and structures
e. Dwelling Unit Area (minimum)
f. Landscaped Open Space (minimum)
g. Building Height (maximum)
Without attached garage 1.5
metres on one side and 4.5
metres on the other
8 metres
8 metres
30 percent
40 percent
100 square metres
40 percent
8 metres
h. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished
grade (maximum) 1.0 metres
i. Garage Requirements
i) Garage doors shall not be located any closer to the street line than the
front wall or exterior side wall of the dwelling.
ii) Outside width of garage (maximum) 6.5 metres"
2. Section 12.4 "Special Exceptions — Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone" is
hereby amended by adding thereto, the following new Special Exception Zone
12.4.33:
12.4.33 Urban Residential Exception (R1-33) Zone
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 and 12.2, those lands zoned R1-33
on the Schedules to this By-law shall only be used for a semi-detached dwelling
and a home occupation use in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.11 of
this By-law, save and except the retail sale of antiques, arts, crafts, or hobby
items. In addition, lands zoned R1-33 on the Schedules to this By-law shall also
be subject to the following zone regulations:
a. Lot Area (minimum)
b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
c. Lot Coverage (maximum)
i) Dwelling
ii) Total of all buildings and structures
d. Rear Yard (minimum)
e. Dwelling Unit Area (minimum)
56
720 square metres
18 metres
30 percent
40 percent
12 metres
100 square metres
f. Landscaped Open Space (minimum) 30 percent
g. Building Height (maximum)
8 metres
h. Height of floor deck of unenclosed porch above finished
grade (maximum) 1.0 metres
Garage Requirements
i) All garage doors shall not be located any closer to the street line than the
front wall or exterior side wall of the dwelling.
Single detached dwellings existing as of June 13, 2016, can be altered or
enlarged subject to the provisions of Section 12.2."
3. Schedule `4' to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing
the zone designation from:
"Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone" to "Urban Residential Type One
Exception (R1-32) Zone";
"Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone" to "Urban Residential Type One
Exception (R1-33) Zone"; and
"Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone" to "Urban Residential Type One
Exception (R1-44) Zone"
as illustrated on the attached Schedule `A' hereto.
4. Schedule `A' attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.
By -Law passed in open session this day of , 2016
Adrian Foster, Mayor
C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk
57
m
VIII =� 111 ■
�
.��,_ •_III/
--�-1.� .111111111111111
IIIIINIIIIINO oa���
Nllllillllllilllllr mom �!% :■
P-Mlow-Roplo
IIIIIIIIIIII
11 ■��� / .
� 1
IIIIIIIIIIII � r%
%rte//� j % •
�_
_
� � �
IIIIIIIIIIII''��!�
" ��
■
•i •s •s �
4 ••,i•.•.1'•i i i
11 • ��iii�=����:��:�=����:�NIIIIIIIIIIiIII�
m
Clarftwn
Planning Services
Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: November 14, 2016
Report Number: PSD -065-16 Resolution:
File Number: A2016-0059 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Decision of the Committee of Adjustment on Minor Variance
Aaalication A2016-0059 by Newcastle Holdinas. Inc.
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD -065-16 be received; and
2. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD -065-16 and any delegations be advised
of Council's decision.
59
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -065-16 Page 2
Report Overview
This report has been prepared to inform Council of a decision made by the Committee of
Adjustment on an application for Minor Variance regarding the proposal for a LCBO store in
Newcastle. The minor variance application was for a reduced minimum exterior side setback
from 1.25 metre to 0.0 metres on Church Street and relocating the building entrance from
Church Street to the interior of the lot. The minor variance application was submitted in
advance of a full review of the Site Plan application. Staff recommended denial of the
reduced exterior side yard because of the potential for the impact on the municipal road
allowance and mature trees on Church Street. Staff also recommended denial of the
location of the building entrance because it does not comply with Official Plan policies or
Newcastle Village Centre Urban Design Guidelines. The Committee of Adjustment did not
support Staff's recommendation. Council has the option of appealing the Committee's
decision or not. While staff is not recommending an appeal of the minor variance application,
this difficult site will have a significant impact on the downtown. Staff are therefore bringing
some of these issues to Council's attention, highlighting the complexities of proposal that
arose through the Minor Variance application.
1. Background
1.1 Newcastle Holdings Inc. submitted applications for site plan approval and minor
variance for a proposed 968.5 square metre LCBO store on the west side of Church
Street north of Emily Street in Newcastle. Site plan review is in progress. The
proposal is on an oddly configured land assembly with proposed parking area on 91
King Avenue West and the store on 1036 Church Street (see Figure 1 below).
Other Lands
To Be Added_
v
•�-•' -' 1 � 1114
King Avenue West
Subject Site
1036 Church St
ti
et West »
I �—
Figure 1: Subject property as well as neighbouring lands to be added as part of the
proposed development
.1
Municipality of Clarington
Reaort PSD -065-16
Paae 3
1.2 The proposed front fagade of the LCBO building faces the rear parking areas of two
buildings located on the south-west corner of Church Street and King Avenue West.
The proposed site plan provides for a walkway only across the front fagade of the
building joining Church Street on the east to the parking lot on the west. Patrons
would not have direct access to the store from the parking spaces immediately in front
of the store. The parking spaces would be fenced but could be accessed via the
laneway easement.
1.3 These properties within the Newcastle Village Centre have been vacant for many
years. There are a number of mature trees which are located within the municipal
road allowance on Church and Emily Street. The surrounding area is a mature
neighbourhood (See Figure 2 below).
Figure 2: View of the existing street trees facing north on Church Street
1.4 The current draft site plan is shown on Attachments 1 and 2.
2. Application
2.1 The minor variance application was for the following:
• Reducing the minimum, exterior side yard setback from 1.25 metres to 0.0 metres;
and
• Relocating the building entrance from Church Street to the interior of the lot.
61
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -065-16 Page 4
Required w
4 BuildingLW
Entrance
cn
Location =
CC
Required
PM
Exterior Side U
Yard Setback
i
i
1 � .
ti
I`.
EMILY STREET WEST
Ik 1
Proposed
w
Building
�
Entrance
Location I
2
U
OC
rNo►oseo 1
=
I EMILY STREET WEST
Figure 3: Illustration of the proposed variances
2.2 Exterior Side Yard Setback
Maintaining the proximity of the building to the street is integral to supporting an active
and interesting streetscape. Therefore, the exterior side yard setback includes both a
minimum (1.25 metres) and a maximum (3.0 metres) requirement.
The intent of minimum exterior side yard setbacks for new buildings in the downtown is to
provide space between the building and the public right-of-way for building elements (i.e.
awnings, pillars, lighting), private landscaping, signage and other promotional activities
which may occur from time -to -time (i.e. sidewalk sales, etc.). Providing space for these
items on private property prevents the encroachment of these items into the boulevard or
sidewalk.
The layout of the proposed building within the Site Plan, neglected to take into account
the 1.0 metre road widening requirement along Church Street. As a result, the current
siting for the building is located 0.25 metres from the exterior side yard setback on
Church Street. Within this 0.25 metres, the Applicant still has to account for the awnings
and columns that will project out from the building face. The Applicant has requested a
62
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -065-16 Page 5
reduction of the minimum exterior side yard setback from 1.25 metres to 0.0 metres to
accommodate the desired location of the proposed building.
As can be viewed from the photo in Figure 2 on page 3 of this report, a number of mature
trees are within the Church Street road allowance. Staff raised concerns that moving a
building any closer to Church Street will negatively impact the survival of the existing
street trees.
The Engineering Services Department did not support the reduction of the minimum,
exterior side yard setback to 0.0 metres for the following reasons:
It could result in the construction of foundation footings in the municipal road
allowance; and
It would, undoubtedly, result in the destruction of the mature trees on Church Street.
All excavation associated with the construction of the proposed buildings should be
located outside of the drip line of all trees or, if this was not possible, the proponent
must submit an arborist's report providing guidance as to what an appropriate offset
should be to ensure no detrimental impact to the mature trees on Church Street.
The Committee of Adjustment raised questions about the variance request with respect to
the impact of the trees on the development potential of the property. The key input
required was the need for an arborist's report to provide guidance on what the
appropriate offset should be. Further, the Committee asked questions as to whether the
footings for the foundation wall could be constructed without encroaching onto the road
allowance. If was noted that it would be possible with an L shaped footing.
Based on the answers provided, the Committee of Adjustment approved this variance.
2.3 Building Entrance Location
The Official Plan policies state that new development must provide active ground floor
uses and avoid blank fagades. The intent of this policy is to create attractive
streetscapes that are appealing at the pedestrian scale for people to walk to and past.
One of the ways to achieve this objective is to locate main building entrances on the
street and beside public sidewalks.
This is further reinforced by the Official Plan policy which states that sites with frontages
on more than one street shall orientate the public entrance toward the street with the
greatest pedestrian activity, or in the case of a corner site, the entrance shall face the
intersection of both streets.
The Newcastle Village Centre Urban Design Guidelines emphasizes this point further by
stating that in commercial areas, active street life will be promoted by locating building
entrances and transparent windows facing public streets and publically oriented open
spaces.
63
Municipality of Clarington
Resort PSD -065-16
Paae 6
There is a concern from Planning staff that without locating the entrance on Church
Street, the contribution of the building to a pedestrian friendly street environment would
be diminished, particularly given the height and size of the building.
The relocation of the building entrance was not supported by staff as the site plan
process was still ongoing with respect to the design elements that would be undertaken
to address the "large blank wall" presence beside the street.
The Committee of Adjustment had a number of questions regarding the improvements
that staff were seeking through the site plan process and their importance. In the end,
the Committee approved the requested variance.
2.4 Other Issues:
There are a number of issues under consideration through the site plan process, which
are identified here for Committee's information.
Loading Area
The loading area is located off Church Street near the intersection with Emily Street.
Engineering Services has identified public safety concerns related to the delivery bay
design and the requirement for tractor trailer trucks to reverse on a public street. The
required backing movement would take place along roughly 65 metres of Church Street
and in an area that is in close proximity to an intersection. This design creates an undue
hazard for both pedestrians and motorists regardless of the anticipated traffic volumes
and was not supported.
The applicant is now committing, on behalf of LCBO that smaller trucks will be used,
reducing the need to pave the boulevard area and remove an additional tree.
Engineering Staff will be ensuring that the design of the boulevard will contain features
that prevent this use of the boulevard area for large truck turning movements.
Relationship to Properties to the North
The configuration of the merged lots is an awkward development site isolating the parking
area from the store. There are parking spaces in front of the store fagade and entrance
but they are not part of this development. However the use of parking spaces
immediately in front of the LCBO store will be hard to prevent. Ideally the landowners
should make appropriate arrangements for the shared use of the parking areas. Without
such an arrangement, it is anticipated that there will be ongoing issues and complaints.
3. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Director of Engineering Services who concurs with
the recommendations.
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -065-16 Page 7
4. Conclusion
This was the third meeting of the Committee of Adjustment on this application. One
variance was approved at an earlier meeting but the other requested variances were
deferred to allow time for the applicant to advance the site plan process and provide a
suitable design. Staff would have preferred for the site plan process to be further
advanced so that all potential variances could be covered and the outstanding issues
addressed. The applicant did not want further deferral of their application and requested
that the Committee approve the application. The applicant provided 7 letters of support
for the application.
The Committee of Adjustment did not support staff's recommendation to deny the two
variances. In these circumstances, if the matter is significant enough, staff will bring the
matter to Council. Council has the option of appealing the Committee's decision or not.
While staff is not recommending an appeal of the minor variance application, this difficult
site will have a significant impact on the downtown and it was appropriate to bring some
of these issues to Council's attention.
5. Strategic Plan Application
Not applicable.
Submitted by:
David Crome, MCIP, RPP,
Director of Planning Services
Reviewed by:
Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO
Interim CAO
Staff Contact: David Crome, Director, Planning Services, 2402 or dcrome@clarington.net
Attachment 1: Proposed Development Plan
Attachment 2: Proposed Building Elevations
The list of the interested parties to be notified of Council's decision is available in the
Planning Services Department.
IAIDepartment\LDO NEW FILING SYSTEM\Application Files\A Committee of Adjustment\2016W2016-0059 Newcastle LCBO\Staff Report -Appeal\PSD-065-16 - -CBO Appeal.docx
65
Municipality of Clarington
K I N G A V E N U E W
vwxaam
BUH: 0 4
N"S.Y.
00.4" SF)
E M I L Y S T R E E T
Proposed Development Plan
ii
Attachment 1 to
Report PSD -065-16
Municipality of Clarington
North Elevation
�pwmm T40*MIpmx6
-,�
0OM6#GUww9 ygepK ,
■i'-wo+6Mf 9"Im
GS CJ. 4
i 7
Spandrel Transparent Transparent
Fast Elevation
Attachment 2 to
Report PSD -065-16
Transparent
i.—
Spandrel Spandrel Transparent Transparent Spandrel
Proposed Building Elevations
67
Clarftwn
Planning Services
Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Planning and Development Committee
Date of Meeting: November 14, 2016
Report Number: PSD -064-16 Resolution:
File Number: PLN 33.3.10 By-law Number:
Report Subject: Durham York Energy Centre Air Quality Monitoring Results —
Options for Retaininq an Air Quality Expert
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD -064-16 be received; and
2. Council Drovide direction to staff on anv further actions that it deems nece
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -064-16 Page 2
Report Overview
Staff were requested to report back to Committee in November 2016 on options for retaining
an air quality expert, with expertise recognized in North America, to assist Council with
interpreting the ambient air (off-site) and stack test reports for the Durham York Energy Centre
energy from waste facility. The report outlines options and recommends that explanation of
the ambient air and/or stack test results be requested from the Region of Durham and Ministry
of the Environment and Climate Change staff.
1. Background
1.1. Ambient Air Monitoring Program in the Area of the Durham York Energy Centre
The Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan has been
prepared to satisfy Condition 11 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) Notice of
Approval and Condition 7(4) of the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). The
monitoring network includes upwind and downwind stations that have been measuring air
contaminants since May 2013, prior to facility start-up. Some parameters are measured
continuously, while others are non -continuously monitored. A fence line station, which
measures non -continuous parameters, was installed prior to full operation of the DYEC.
In October 2014 the Region added an additional monitoring station at Clarington's
request, which is located off of Crago Road on the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) site.
The ambient air quality monitoring station locations are shown on Figure 1. A list of air
emissions monitoring parameters is provided in Attachment 1.
Figure 1: Ambient Air Monitoring Stations for the DYEC
•
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -064-16
Page 3
Quarterly Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Reports are submitted by the Region's
consultant, Stantec, to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) for
review. The results for the Crago Road station are not part of the MOECC monitoring
program requirement, and are reported separately on a quarterly basis.
The ambient air monitoring program for the DYEC is scheduled to run for three years
after commencement of operations. At the July 5, 2016 meeting of Council, it was
resolved that the Municipality of Clarington would write to the MOECC and request the
Minister order that the ambient air monitoring program be extended by two years. The
response received from the MOECC is included as Attachment 2 and indicates that
MOECC staff will complete an assessment and determine whether additional ambient air
monitoring is required in February 2018.
The ambient air monitoring stations monitor air quality in the area of the DYEC, not
exclusively DYEC emissions. The equipment is calibrated on at least a quarterly basis,
with periodic equipment audits by the MOECC at their discretion. In 2015, calibrations
were completed monthly. The CALPUFF computer model is an MOECC standard; as is
the averaging over 36 months and using the 98t" percentile for PM2.5. Anomalies
(spikes/lows) happen when averaged they are not considered exceedances.
There are other ambient air monitoring stations in the general area (see Attachment 3).
St. Mary's Cement maintains an upwind and downwind station for its operations and
monitoring program. Temporary ambient air monitoring stations have also been installed
to monitor conditions as part of the 407/418 construction. In addition, the MOECC has a
long-term ambient air monitoring station at the Durham College Oshawa Campus.
In 2014 and 2015, the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch of the MOECC
conducted an air monitoring survey (TAGA — trace atmospheric gas analyzer survey) in
the vicinity of the DYEC at the request of the Ministry's York -Durham District Office.
Clarington had been instrumental in making this a priority for the District Office. It was
announced at the September 21, 2016 meeting of the EFW-WMAC that the MOECC
would be carrying out the same testing in October 2016.
The objectives of the TAGA air monitoring were to:
a) Measure background ambient concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
in the vicinity of the DYEC prior to its operation; and
b) Identify and measure concentrations of VOC's in ambient air downwind of DYEC
during operation.
The results where typical of urban areas in Ontario before and after DYEC operation with
no marked change (see Attachment 4).
70
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -064-16
1.2, DYEC Facility Air Emissions Monitoring Program
Page 4
Separate from the DYEC Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Plan, the Air Emissions
Monitoring Plan has been prepared to satisfy Conditions 12 and 13 of the EA Notice of
Approval and Conditions 7(1), 7(2) and 7(3) of the ECA. Air emissions monitoring started
when the first discharges were emitted from the facility. The monitoring program includes:
a) Continuous emissions monitoring systems (GEMS);
Continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) began with the commencement of boiler
operations (each boiler has its own monitoring equipment). A list of CEMS
monitoring parameters is provided as part of Attachment 1. Live CEM data is
posted to the DYEC website and the external facility display board.
b) Stack testing (also known as source testing);
In addition to CEM, air emissions from the facility are tested twice per year by a
stack (source) test. The parameter categories tested during the stack (source) test
are also listed in Attachment 1. The stack tests are carried out by a qualified air
specialist team under the scrutiny of an independent (third party) consultant. The
labs that analyze the samples collected are selected by Durham Region and results
are submitted to the MOECC.
c) Long term sampling for dioxins and furans;
Long-term sampling for dioxins and furans is performed by the AMESA sampler.
Through continuous monitoring, the sampling is intended to determine long-term
variations of dioxin and furan emissions levels over time. The system is evaluated
as part of the stack testing program. When Boiler #2 failed the stack test in May
2016, the Region retained experts to ensure that the AMESA sampler was
performing as anticipated.
1.3. DYEC Facility Air Pollution Control Equipment
Each boiler has its own dedicated Air Pollution Control system consisting of:
• Selective non -catalytic reduction system for control of nitrogen oxides (NOX);
• Patented Very Low NOXTM system for additional NOX control;
• Evaporative cooling tower with dry lime reactor for acid gas control;
• Activated carbon injection system for mercury and dioxin control;
• Minimum temperature of 1,000°C for VOC and dioxin and furan control; and
• Fabric filter baghouse system for particulate matter control.
CEM devices monitor stack emissions on a continuous basis to ensure compliance. The
DYEC is required to meet the air emissions standards set out in Ontario Regulation
419/05 Air Pollution — Local Air Quality (O.Reg. 419/05) and the MOECC Guideline A-7
Combustion and Air Pollution Control Requirements for New Municipal Waste
Incinerators (A7 Guideline). One exception to this is the stack emission limit for dioxins
71
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -064-16
Page 5
and furans at the DYEC, which is more stringent than the A7 Guideline limit (60 pg/Rm3
for the DYEC compared to the A7 Guideline value of 80 pg/Rm3).
2. Options for Retaining an Air Quality Consultant
2.1 Retaining a Consultant
Depending on what role is required of the consultant and the assignment, there are
options within the Municipality's Purchasing By-law to retain a consultant:
Expression of Interest (EOI) - A multi -staged process that can be used to shortlist
potential bidders before seeking detailed bids from the shortlisted bidders. An EOI is
generally used when the information required from bidders is specific, but the
Municipality is unsure of the capability of bidders to provide the required goods or
services. An EOI can also be used if the buyer is just looking to find out if there are
potential bidders who may have an interest in a particular project for goods or
services, or is seeking industry input into scoping requirements that will then go
back out to market later on as a Request for Proposal.
Request for Proposal (RFP) — The Municipality issues a detailed terms for reference
that outlines the tasks, timeframe, background material to be reviewed to orient the
consultant to the project, number of meetings, presentations to Council and public
meetings they are expected to attend, and reporting requirements. The length of
the assignment must be clearly stated, and whether there will be additional work
beyond what can be detailed in the terms of reference and how any additional work
will be paid (e.g. by task, hourly, expenses).
Sole Source — The selection of a consultant based on their expertise. If the contract
amount is $30,000 or less, direct hiring of a consultant is allowed under the
Municipality's Purchasing By -Law. If it is anticipated that a contract could exceed
$30,000, the Municipal Purchasing By-law would have to be waived by Council.
2.2 Consultant Qualifications
Council resolution #C-192-16 outlines that the consultant has to be an air quality expert
with expertise recognized in North America. Such a consultant has previously been
retained by the Municipality during the initial permitting stages for the DYEC. As part of
the peer review for the DYEC Environmental Assessment, Clarington hired SENES
Consultants for the air quality and human health and ecological risk assessment aspects;
since that time SENES has been purchased by another company (Arcadis) and none of
the individuals involved with our contract remain with the new company.
It may be difficult to find an air quality expert that does not have a conflict of interest given
the number of consultants that are already engaged with respect to DYEC air emissions
or have affiliations with previous phases of the project. In addition, recent consolidations
in the consulting sector may limit the number of companies. Further, while having a
consultant with expertise recognized in North America is important, it is also imperative to
have a consultant who is fully cognizant of the O.Reg. 419/05 and the A7 Guideline
requirements.
72
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -064-16
2.3 Consulting Assignment
Page 6
A terms of reference for the consulting assignment will have to be determined for what
Council would like the consultant to interpret. There is a significant difference between
being able to review reports and explain them, as opposed to digging into the numbers
and being able to verify the readings, check the computer model, or question the lab
results. Regardless of what process is used to retain a consultant, a clear understanding
of the assignment will be required in order to obtain an accurate project budget estimate
in advance of hiring the consultant.
2.4 Consulting Tasks and Costs
To obtain a task outline and preliminary estimate of effort required, staff looked to similar
assignments. Essentially there are three options that Council could consider to retain an
air quality expert.
2.4.1 Option 1, Monitor — The consultants' role would be explanatory. The consultant would
provide costing for a five year term of service. The scope of work would be limited to
reviewing the annual DYEC air quality reports and explaining findings to Council. This
would include:
a) Background familiarization with the EA conditions, background reports, monitoring
reports to date and other information for a consultant already familiar with the A7
Guidelines for Ontario, MOECC CALPUFF computer model and regulatory
requirements - 115 to 150 hours; and
b) Annual Presentation and Meeting with Council for 5 years, including all preparation
time for presentation and report writing — 300 to 350 hours (60-70 hours annually).
Typically the charge -out rate for an experienced consultant with good standing and
recognition in the field would start at $200/hour. The cost range would be from $83,000
to $100,000.
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Reports for the DYEC are issued on a quarterly basis; so
if Council is seeking more frequent input this should be set out in the terms of reference,
and would increase the cost range. Additional scope of work items to be considered
include whether the consultant is to be on call to respond to questions or concerns from
the public or individual Council members, and whether the consultant is to provide
comments and/or recommendations to the MOECC. All of these interactions will need to
be tracked and authorized to ensure the consultant does not exceed the budget.
Additional work beyond what can be detailed in the terms of reference could be
performed on an hourly basis. The hourly basis rate should be determined at the time of
retaining the consultant with an annual cost of living escalation provision, as well as an
annual upset limit.
2.4.2 Option 2, Peer Review — The consultants' role would be both explanatory as noted
above, and the consultant would be requested to provide their expert opinion on the
process being followed and interpretations provided. If the process or interpretation are
not acceptable the consultant would then be asked for a course of corrective action which
73
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -064-16
Page 7
would be submitted to the Region and MOECC for their consideration. For the consultant
to Peer Review the stack tests, access during the testing as part of the team will be
required and at the discretion of the Region and Ministry who are responsible under the
terms of the Environmental Compliance Approval. The cost range would be starting from
$100,000 to $250,000 over the five year term, and possibly more depending on how in
depth and/or the number of reports requiring peer review.
2.4.3 Option 3, As Needed Basis — The consultants' role of this assignment would be
background familiarization of the project (Option 1, item a) and to provide clarification and
explanation on an as needed ("on-call") basis at Council's discretion. In this case there
would be a minimum amount of effort initially for limited background familiarization of less
than $30,000. When called upon, which may be on an annual basis, quarterly basis, or
more frequently, an hourly rate would apply. For this option, costs could be contained by
establishing an overall upset budget on an annual basis.
2.4.4 Option 4, Responsible Agencies — Council should be cognizant that the Region is
paying in the range of $450K annually on ambient air monitoring for the DYEC. In
addition, each stack test is monitored by both the Region and Covanta and a third party
consultant at a total of $380K per test (currently 2 per year are required). The air
pollution control equipment consultant brought in to review the AMESA sampler data was
an additional $35K. All of this information is submitted to the MOECC who review the
results to ensure they meet the Air Emissions Monitoring Plan, Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Plan, the requirements of the EA Notice of Approval and ECA, and the O.Reg.
419/05 and A7 Guideline requirements.
As outlined above, more than $1.2 million of public funds are spent annually in air
monitoring at the DYEC. Council has sought and may continue to seek clarification and
explanation, first from the Region of Durham and second from the MOECC. Regional
staff have provided Council with presentations and explanation when requested.
Clarington staff can call upon MOECC staff at any time. As the responsible agencies, the
Region and MOECC are obligated to communicate the impacts on the air shed of the air
emissions in an understandable and comprehensive manner.
3. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Purchasing Manager.
4. Conclusion
The Region and MOECC have responsibility for the air quality monitoring program at the
DYEC. The Region has retained consultants with expertise in air monitoring and the
MOECC's technical staff review all the data. In addition, MOECC staff conduct quarterly
audits of the air monitoring equipment to ensure they are operating properly. In the past,
Council has requested the Region provide an explanation of the air monitoring results
which has been complied with expeditiously. Given the willingness of Regional staff to
provide explanations of the air monitoring results Clarington staff are recommending that
Option 4, Responsible Agencies, the Region is the first response for air emission queries.
74
Municipality of Clarington
Report PSD -064-16
Page 8
As a second line of response Ministry staff have indicated that they would be available to
respond to inquiries.
Lastly, we note that annual air quality reports have been prepared by the Province since
1970 based on the ambient air monitoring stations that the Province has across Ontario.
The general trend across the Province is a decrease in air emissions. However, given the
number of ambient air monitoring stations in the Courtice/Bowmanville area for different
projects and facilities and since all of this data is submitted to the MOECC; a request to
the MOECC for a summary of the cumulative findings and any potential implications for
Clarington residents could be made.
If Council wishes to pursue the retention of their own expert air quality consultant, then
direction should be given to staff regarding the preferred work assignment, Options 1, 2
or 3 and the estimated cost be listed as an optional item for the 2017 budget
deliberations.
5. Strategic Plan Application
Not applicable.
Submitted by: Reviewed by:
David J. Crome, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning Services
Curry Clifford, MPA, CMO
Interim CAO
Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Manager of Special Projects 905-623-3379 ext. 2407 or
flangmaid@clarington.net
Attachments:
Glossary of Terms
Attachment 1 - DYEC Summary of Air Emissions Monitoring Parameters
Attachment 2 - MOECC response dated Aug 8, 2016
Attachment 3 - Ambient Air Monitoring Stations by St. Mary's Cement and for Highway
407/418 construction.
Attachment 4 - Mobile TAGA Ambient Air Monitoring by MOECC
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
DJC/FL/tg/df
-)epartmerNEW FILING SYSTEM\PLN Planning Files\PLN 33 Waste Management\PLN 33.3.10 EFW -DURHAM YORK RESIDUAL WASTE STUDY\Air Quality Monitoring
pert\Staff Re, .5\PSD-064-16 _DYEC Air Quality Report.docx
75
Glossery of Terms to
Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -064-16
Glossary of Terms
A7 Guideline MOECC Guideline A-7 Combustion and Air Pollution Control Requirements for
76
New Municipal Waste Incinerators
CEM
Continuous Emissions Monitoring
CEMS
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System
DYEC
Durham York Energy Centre
EA
Environmental Assessment
ECA
Environmental Compliance Approval
EFW-WMAC
Energy from Waste — Waste Management Advisory Committee
EOI
Expression of Interest
MOECC
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
OPG
Ontario Power Generation
O.Reg. 419/05
Ontario Regulation 419/05 Air Pollution — Local Air Quality (O.Reg. 419/05)
PM2.5
Particular Matter measuring 2.5 microns (2.5 um) in diameter or less
RFP
Request for Proposal
TAGA
Trace Atmospheric Gas Analyzer Survey
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
76
Municipality of Clarington
Attachment 1 to
Report PSD -064-16
Durham York Energy Centre Summary of Air Emissions Monitoring Parameters
Ambient Air Monitoring — Upwind/Downwind Stations and Crago Station
Continuous emissions monitoring (CEM):
Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Sulphur dioxide (SO2), Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM2.5)
Non -continuous monitoring:
Total Suspended Particulate Matter (TSP), Metals (in TSP), Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Dioxins and Furans
Ambient Air Monitoring - Fence Line Station
Non -continuous monitoring:
Metals (in TSP)
Stack (Source) Testing
Metals, Chlorobenzenes and Chlorophenols, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Volatile
Organic Matter (volatile organic compounds VOCs), Polycyclic Organic Matter (polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons PAHs), Dioxins and Furans, CEM System parameters, Total
Suspended Particulate Matter, Total PM -10, including condensables, Total PM -2.5, including
condensables
Schedule D in the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) lists the full suite of parameters
to be tested.
CEM System
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrochloric acid (HCI),
hydrogen fluoride (HF), ammonia (NH3), organic matter, oxygen (02), opacity, moisture,
temperature
77
Municipality of Clarington
MiniStry
of the Environment
and Climate Change
Central Region Office
5775 Yonge Street
8'" Floor
North York ON M2M 4J9
Tel.: 416 326-6700
Fax: 496-326-6345
August 8, 2016
Minist6re
de I'Environnement et de I'Action
en matiisre de changement climatique
Region du Centre
5775, rue Yonge
80 6tage
North York (Ontario) M2M 4J1
T6I: (416) 326-6700
Telec: (416) 326-6345
June Gallagher
Deputy Clerk
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON LIC 3A6
Ms. Gallagher,
Attachment 2 to
r\• PSD -064-16
�r Ontario
ENV 1283MC-2016-2024
Thank you for providing the Clarington Council Resolution to the Honourable Glen Murray, Minister of
the Environment and Climate Change regarding the Durham York Energy Center located in the
Municipality of Clarington. I have been asked to respond on behalf of the minister.
On May 16, 2012, the ministry approved the Ambient Air Monitoring Plan (Plan), prepared by the
Regional Municipalities of Durham and York in accordance with Condition 11 of the Notice to Proceed
with the Undertaking. The Plan specifies that the operational monitoring (at the upwind and downwind
ambient air monitoring stations) is to be conducted for a minimum of 3 years.
The ambient air monitoring results for PM2.5 are compared to the Canadian Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS). Though there was a slight increase in the 98th percentile of PM2.5 24 hour
concentrations at Courtice and Rundle stations in 2014 compared to 2015, only Rundle station was
slightly above the CAAQS target value of 28 pg/m3 in 2015. However, this comparison is based on only
one year of data, and three years of data is required to assess against the PM2.5 CAAQS. Since
operational monitoring commenced on February 13th, 2015, insufficient data has been collected to
determine with any certainty if elevated concentrations have resulted in an exceedance of the CAAQS.
The following table provides a summary of the number of days, both before and after operations began
at the facility, where PM2.5 24 hour concentrations were above 28 pg/m3 at the Courtice Station,
Rundle Station and where elevated concentrations were experienced at both stations on the same day. In
total, 10 events of elevated concentrations occurred before operation, and 16 occurred after.
No. of days with 24 hr PM2.5 concentrations greater than 28 u m3
Station
Before Operation
After Operation
Courtice
4
5
Rundle
6
11
No. of days where both stations
experienced elevated
concentrations
4
4
...2
_2 -
The number of days where both stations experienced elevated PM2.5 24 hour concentrations on the
same day, both before and after facility operations began, suggests that both regional and local sources
contributed to these elevated concentrations. On the days where only Courtice or Rundle station
experienced high values, these stations were not predominantly downwind of the facility, again
suggesting that local sources of particulates contributed to these elevated concentrations, rather than a
single source.
PM2.5 can originate from multiple local, regional, and transboundary sources and it is typical for
Southern Ontario to experience a number of days during the year where the 24 hour average of PM2.5 is
greater than 28 µg/rnI Overall, the days of elevated PM2.5 concentrations observed at Courtice and
Rundle stations are the result of both local and regional sources. The data does not suggest that the
facility is the single source of PM2.5 in the area, and additional years of data are required to assess
trends in PM2.5 to compare against the CAAQS.
The operational monitoring at these stations began in February 2015 and will continue until February
2018. At that time, ministry staff will complete an assessment of the program before determining
whether additional ambient air monitoring is required.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Celeste Dugas, District Manager, York Durham
District Office at 905 836 7446 or by email at celeste.dugas@ontario.ca.
I trust this information is helpful in addressing your concerns.
Yours sincerely,
Dolly Goyette
Director, Central Region
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
79
Attachment 3 to
Municipality of Clarington Report PSD -064-16
St. Mary's Cement Ambient Air Emissions Monitoring Stations
St. Marys Cement air emissions are monitored using a series of sampling locations as set out
in the following table.
Sample Station
Location
Monitor
SMC1
OPG
PM 10 BAM, Dust fall jar
A
North East of Quarry
PM 10 Hi Vol, Dust fall jar
B
Cedar Crest
PM 10 Hi Vol, Dust fall jar
C
Cedar Crest (MOE location)
Dust fall jar
SMC 2
Cove Road
PM 10 BAM, Dust fall jar
The location of the sampling stations is shown on the aerial, below.
_ SrAcl
Highway 407 and 418 Construction Monitoring Stations
The location of the sampling stations is shown on the aerial, below.
Pre -construction monitoring of Phase 2 of the Highway 407 East extension construction at
1939 Highway 2, Courtice, ON ("the Hwy 2 location", took place from July 1 to September 30,
2015. This program involved continuous monitoring of Inhalable Particulate Matter (PMio),
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX), in addition to collecting
meteorological data. This sampling was conducted as required under condition 15.3 of the EA
Notice of Approval to Procced with the Undertaking, which can be found in Appendix C. The
following report includes all of the data and analysis of the information collected from the site
over the three month sampling period. This pre -construction air quality data set characterizes
the baseline air quality of the area prior to any construction activities.
Throughout this monitoring period, none of the applicable standards and criteria was exceeded
for any of the parameters measures at this station.
W
Municipality of Clarington
Mobile TAGA Ambient Air Monitoring by MOECC
Summary
Attachment 4 to
Report PSD -064-16
In 2014 and 2015, the Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch (EMRB) of the Ministry
of the Environment and Climate Change, conducted real time air monitoring in the vicinity of
the Durham York Energy Centre (DYEC) for selected volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at
the request of the Ministry's York Durham District Office. Several VOCs were identified and
measured downwind of the DYEC. The VOCs for which the highest half-hour concentrations
were measured include acetone (19pg/m3) in 2014, 6.8 pg/m3 in 2015) and xylenes (7.8 pg/m3
in 2014; 3.9 pg/m3 in 2015). These concentrations are typical of urban areas in Ontario.
Measured ambient concentrations of VOCs did not exceed their respective Ontario Regulation
419/05 Air Pollution — Local Air Quality air standards or guidelines during the 2014 and 2015
survey period.
Mobile TAGA Survey, Durham York Energy Centre, Courtice, Ontario, 2014 and 2015
Figure 1: Monitoring Sites in the Vicinity of Durham York Energy Center, Courtice, Ontario.
Mobile TAGA (EMR6, M0ECQ Survey, 2014 and 2415.
401 i^
ofow
Y - - .t -�
Durham York Energy Center A
` f
46
i
. { Kis Pi!r-- --. -1 .
P ,
1
M
Monitoring Sites
Projection: UTW Zone 17
Dat,rn Nam Ame+xania.w.1NAD)1783
Data prodded by: M—tryM me
cnvronrrer[ ami C-r�arr Change. land
'nfomraran dao
o—tler'f--Dac3 pr d. by Cntarin Mne4y
Naenal Resavces O CcVrgFc 2WT Fm
0ase.3AM— Irc V Rghh R er d
Dale Updaftd: October 91in 2915
Branch: MOECC EMRH
Unit Geamato, Certe
Handouts/Presentations
=-CO U RT I C E MAIN STRUT.17
COMMUNITYIMPROVEMENT PLAN--'--,----
.. �
Publk Meetin ,w - `� November 14 2016
k L •" �
Tx _
7.
A"
DI LLUN
CONSULTING
sem.
n ��. '.-.-�, �•.{��.� r fir, �t� r
Birdse a view of the study area
v v
Agenda
OFF
--
7 a c ro u n
-4r -..I
{:-::. = 20repara t o n 0 f
P-=.eF
1p
n c
_} _
e—Pgr
I ebt ve i ro-
7 w I—
a Y
__
7�-
ex Ste s lie y .
—
m
-
uestion
-----------------
rou
����y-R-� ..�ti1G�'•:�� }1.�_ � �-� � � +A~�yj�ryr' - ` - ��ti f
It!, .
+'�+' T Pre ' • i -
Who.
_' � - _ J•�T •"ter � •T�. - �
x AWE
F � 'yy� �s +.r�� — f�� �4�� rte• Y�jJf _� rf .�' � r �—
. - __ I� .5 �• - yam. 'rY ..
� v
- Birdseye view of the study area
Backgrouni- What is a CIP?
• Municipality retained Dillon Consulting and RCI Consulting
to development the Courtice Main Street Community
Improvement Plan (CIP).
• The CIP will allow Council to offer incentive programs for
development in the designated Courtice Main Street CIP
Area.
• Enables but does not obligate Council to implement all the
incentive programs, i.e., Council controls implementation.
• Uses public sector investment to everage private sector
investment.
• CIP designed to help Mplement the Vision contained in
Courtice Main Street Area Secondary Plan
• Primary Goal of CIP =Intensification -higher density
residential and mixed use development.
Background, Policy Direction
Municipality of Clarington Official Plan
• Area designated as a Corridor, with a Town Centre node.
• Policies provided in Courtice Main Street Secondary Plan.
Durham Region Official Plan
• Area designated as a Regional Corridor - promote public
transit ridership through mix of land uses at higher densities.
Secondary Plan
• Intensification planned for 2,000 residential units.
• Mixed land use development supporting higher densities.
• High quality urban design .
• Encourage sustainable development and protect significant
natural features.
• Provision of new public spaces and public realm
enhancements.
_
ti-�,.��. r- =� - - - •i�'���q__%- fit' � .- _ �`. � _-��a�_*Y� _' f _ �� .-�Y - i �
71
CI
K� +.._r-'R � � _ - —_- _ - +r�.w;r a' �•yr� ��3f'ir�i`4 .r '-ri{{_ �-� - .:
� .-`�r•�.-:�,_ � �rr a-. �,
� Ti_.� .- , ii ++++ - _ .. - �•�_ _- � - �- L R^� y.�Tt �r ;-- �'r -rt�=�^�r�t$�: ��i= _ .���P
�-
• � � 3 }-,�,� � - - ��R-�-.�. � ,•fes �w�+� � -' � �.-c � - -. -
J -
� � . ��Z' .. � - �i--�r � � • �
-� S - rte' �� � �' �- - � � - �i� �� - - _ - � • -_ _ �� 4 J.
It
�`�: may.. �'� � � �� � ,. r 4 �_ -� __ r ,�.a.. � •�-�
F
plo
'Vb.L amp
_•rte• w { _ ? �•� �.�M �� _.
T. T R I
-
lw-
•- :� � �-�� "— .'r ��
- Birdseye view of the study area
Preparat'ion of the
I -Mo Customized
• Existing CIPs in downtown areas of Bowmanville, Newcastle
and Orono offer typical facade/building improvement grants.
• Existing CIPS deal with traditional downtown/commercial
areas that are built-up -focus is primarily on revitalization.
• Courtice Main Street is different —numerous underutilized
properties — not a typical downtown/ commercial area.
• Therefore, Courtice Main Street requires a different strategic
CIP approach than traditional downtown/main street areas.
• Approach used for Courtice Main Street CIP —develop
incentive programs that will both: 1) help transform
underutilized lands into denser mixed use, and 2)
achieve Vision in Secondary Plan by addressing key
community improvement needs.
• Background Review •
• Community •
Improvement Needs +
Incentive strategies •
• Publi.
Meeting/Workshop #1 -
Apr 28, 2016 •
Draft Incentive Programs
Council Education
Session - June 6, 2016
Public Meeting/
Workshop #2 - June 22,
2016
Developers Survey
Fiscal Impact Analysis and
Financial Plan
• Draft CIP
• Final CIP/Statutory
Public Meeting #3 -
Nov 14, 2016
U."
Methodology
Broad -Based
• Review direction in background policipc and plans review.
• Review nest practices used in other municipalities to
transform underutilized lands into denser mixed use areas.
• Walking your of Study Arec- taking photos and notes.
• Boundary -inalysis of Study Ai ef- based on OP designation,
zoning, land uses (current and future) , and level of need.
• Input from public meetings held on April 28 and June 22.
• Input from Council Session held on June 6
• Input from survey of developers and written comments.
• Project web page (www. clarin g ton. n e tlenllive-h ere/Co urtice-
Main -Stree t- Comm un ity-Impro vem en t-Plan.
asp) .
0 Input from stats project steering committee.
Broad -Based
• Review direction in background policipc and plans review.
• Review nest practices used in other municipalities to
transform underutilized lands into denser mixed use areas.
• Walking your of Study Arec- taking photos and notes.
• Boundary -inalysis of Study Ai ef- based on OP designation,
zoning, land uses (current and future) , and level of need.
• Input from public meetings held on April 28 and June 22.
• Input from Council Session held on June 6
• Input from survey of developers and written comments.
• Project web page (www. clarin g ton. n e tlenllive-h ere/Co urtice-
Main -Stree t- Comm un ity-Impro vem en t-Plan.
asp) .
0 Input from stats project steering committee.
9--� Consultation Results
Goal of theCIP=Intensification - higher density residential
and mixed use development.
Pre -Condition = Servicing, particularly sanitary sewers
1. High quality architecture, urban design, building
construction and materials.
2. Pedestrian friendly environment and development that
supports transit, active transportation and accessibility.
3. Access to the Black Creek Trail system.
4. Housing choice, accessibility and affordability.
5. Sustainable development.
Community Improvement Needs
CD •�
�^ � � � . . • {gyp �, �
d'G Cr
17
rp
SAS _ Y
t 3
_ 111 11 t.
Incentive Programs
043 1.,
i
CD •�
�^ � � � . . • {gyp �, �
d'G Cr
17
rp
SAS _ Y
t 3
_ 111 11 t.
Incentive Programs
Ah
Innovative Approach
• Consultation and Best Practices Review identified a DC Grant
and TIG as the most desirable and effective incentives.
• 2 Step Approach —make sure projects achieve intensification,
ovals, and then performance goals with respect to planning
and community improvement needs.
• Step 1— Project must meet minimum qualifying intensification
targets (height, density and FSI).
• Step 2 — Only then, may project apply for incentive programs.
Value of the incentive is based on how well project addresses
community improvement needs - r-valuatiuii rrdmewurk.
• Fairness principle — value of incentive also based on whether or
not a developer must pay for the costs of sanitary sewer
extension.
13
Step 1 -Minimum Intensification Targets
Min Min
Height residential
(storeys) units per
gross ha.
Min Min
FSI Height
(storeys)
Step 2 -Evaluation Framework
• Draws on the Green Development Framework endorsed by
Council in December of 2015.
• Five (5) evaluation criteria directly reflect the key
community improvement needs:
1. Building Design and Construction
2. Pedestrian Environment and Active Transportation
3. Green/Open Spaces and Trail Access
4. Housing Choice, Accessibility and Affordability
5. Sustainable Development
• For a
project to
"conform"
with
a criteria, that project
must
include at
least half (50%)
of the project
components listed under that criteria.
• Some project components include a "bonus" option.
DC Grant and TIG
Project Performance 6kh. I Program D-
DC Grant (as % of DC normally TIG (up to 10 year
payable) for projects that: annual grant) as % of
Do not have to
pay cost share
to Region for
full municipal
services
25.0%
30.0%
37.5%
Have to pay cost
share to Region
for full municipal
services
50.0%
75.0%
Municipal property
tax increment (TI)
50.0% of TI
60.0% of TI
75.0% of TI
k
_y
IR
. n t,
{
�' •i fit_ ��� ��.� �� .� 4 f'7
F -11_ou.62 L"iis
� F
S
Ar
Next Steps
17
EP
r-Jf•,
rcm31ecwle
043 1.,
i
{
�' •i fit_ ��� ��.� �� .� 4 f'7
F -11_ou.62 L"iis
� F
S
Ar
Next Steps
17
EP
r-Jf•,
rcm31ecwle
• Adoption
- After this Public Meeting, the CIP is revised in response to
agency and public comments as per direction from
Municipal staff /Council.
- Final CIP adopted by passing of a by-law by Council.
- 20 day appeal period after passing of adoption of the by-
law.
• Implementation
- Council considers implementation of incentive programs
as part of the budget process.
- Incentive programs can be phased -in.
- Preparation of program guides, application forms, etc...
- Monitoring of implementation and results.
El
cz
rp
M J4
'�� fit- � __ � �•7 - -'''' � +• �f •
F .f II
.-Stir li
LO
+ re I i
Y
Quest'ions
Municipally -Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment
for properties in a portion of the Glenview
Neighbourhood in Courtice
Public Meeting: November 14, 2016
Q. J
— L SKINNER CT — —
Ll
C II i
.�
GLENVIEVV ROAD
Area Subject To
IlZoning By -Law Amendment
a
LU
I z
17 / LU
LU
z � U
z
I�
�
LU WESTIVORE STREET
I�
QI III
NASHROAD
... ,.
1 i
ZBA 2016-0019 `. i
Background
• Concerned residents
• Interim Control By-law
• Direction to study area
character
„ N.
F �. GE REY _�
NpLpg pR ., � � . -
73 N i.
Area Of Interim Control By Law
Area To Be Rezoned es
6 rt
3201
is
56 SKINNER CT
W _
70 J ��. 454 52 � c �� � -a'i. 3131
N 76 150 51..
n
m
8
p46 48
86 33 142 3177
9 s f c o 41 3172
�, 3163
ti wa 36 37LENVIEW ROAD 37 3154
°151
3146 3147
32 31 34 31
.s 3138 Q 3133
'oa 25 28 W 7 27 3126 C'
LLJW U 3121
22 ; 21 24 Q 23 3114
.n ar.. 18 Q 0 3'05
m &J
W17 O 17 310D{ O
of Z 18 ?: 3092 [, U 3091
12 "f 11 14 � 15 30861
J 3079
8 7 1 3068
8
Nn v 4 3 4 5 m
18 W 3051
WESTMORE STREET
14 W 11 a a e �n m :� ry �. 3035
Q
1C = 3C21 „.
r 7
3012 ..
�6a
LL
NASH ROAD
Public Comments
Desirable
characteristics:
• Large Lots /Lot Frontages
•Housing character
•Setbacks /privacy
• Ranch Bungalows
• Large driveways /ample
parking
•Single detached homes
Concerns expressed:
• Seve ra n ce of La rge Lots
• Reduced
parking
off-street
• Loss of unique character
• Reduced setbacks
• Different housing forms
Proposed Zoning
• R1-32 and R1-44
to permit single
detached
dwellings only
• R1-33 to permit
semi-detached
dwellings only
(existing singles
permitted)
21 2 0 o ro 3260
17 6 CV- �+ o IV m .7
09 16 EORG� REyNO�
os 22 z S pR
2s
73 c� ,n
IN Lck
a7 Zoning Change From "RV To "Rl-32" 69 w , M
87 Zoning Change From "RV To "R1-33" 55
m. 4
or 4
s Zoning Change From "R1" To "R1-44" s1 _ _
°r 3201
75 SKINNER'CT
W 3191
09 7 "J 71 154 52
67
.N 75 151 150
i3 78 147 146
61 8 g3 43 .142 s 3177
I' 0Dj
/ISIS i
a
31W
4�31 _
W _
V 3139
—1 Wo 7
D LU 31
2,41
90 97 J
F r C 3105
17 0
U38
3
---
34
{ r I 1 r. 1 11
i 1
a✓ -f... 1 4 I E �� r` e
22
—J -- --—J.-- 3051
_ IWE ; TI ORE SIRE
a4 Ili 3035
10 F j f ,0 3021
4
30
O1 ♦� *� y '� N N N N
NASH ROAD �' a
..icy. i f...
Measured height of a dwelling
Measured height 4.2 metres
Measured height 8 metres
nn ---.._-_j I- -: - I- , I n r -i_--
Lot Area (min) = 460m2
Lot Coverage (max) = 40%
Landscaped Open Space (min) = 30%
Building Height (max) = 10.5m
S T R E E T
15m
E
R1 Zone Minimum
Lot Area (min) = 560m2
Lot Coverage (max) = 30%
Landscaped Open Space (min) = 40%
Building Height (max) = 8m
Scale 1:300
S T R E E T
16m
E
ao
1.5m 1.5m
—r
EI
1
1
1.2m
1.2m
1
1
168m2
1
1
1
1
1
IE
1
1
1
1
1
1
184m2
i
1
1
M
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
—..-------..—�
E
R1 Zone Minimum
Lot Area (min) = 560m2
Lot Coverage (max) = 30%
Landscaped Open Space (min) = 40%
Building Height (max) = 8m
Scale 1:300
S T R E E T
16m
E
ao
1.5m 1.5m
—r
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
168m2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R1-32 Zone Minimum
E
00
E
N
M
Q. J
— L SKINNER CT — —
Ll
C II i
.�
GLENVIEVV ROAD
Area Subject To
IlZoning By -Law Amendment
a
LU
I z
17 / LU
LU
z � U
z
I�
�
LU WESTIVORE STREET
I�
QI III
NASHROAD
... ,.
1 i
ZBA 2016-0019 `. i
Glenview Neighborhood
Rezoning
Katrina Metzner
597 George Reynolds Drive
room
aY -Mklp OMr. HIEN MEN 19510 mitgem
Ik
:i11off f.w@
Al
N
61
2673 Presontvale Road
M D
613 George Reynolds Drive
D. G. Biddle & Associates Limited
consulting engineers and planners
96 KING ST. E., OSHAWA, ONTARIO UH 1136 PHONE (905) 576-8500 FAX (905) 576-9730
e-mail: info@dgbiddle.com
November 11, 2016
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville ON
Attention: Clerks Department
Re.: Glenview Neighbourhood Draft Zoning By-law Amendment
Our File: 116120
Dear Mr. Chair and Members of the Planning and Development Committee
We are writing with regard to the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment for the Glenview
Neighbourhood on behalf of our client Holland Homes. Holland Homes is the owner of
properties at 4 Jane Avenue, 44 Westmore Street, 4 Lynwood Avenue and 10 & 12
Glenview Road in the Municipality of Clarington (the Holland Properties). All of the
Holland Properties are within the area captured by the amending Zoning By-law.
The Holland Properties have all proceeded through the Consent to Sever application
process at the Region of Durham's Land Division Committee, or are currently in the
process. Those properties that have proceeded to a Land Division Committee hearing
have received positive comments from the Municipality of Clarington's Planning
Department, stating that the severance applications are in conformity with the Zoning
By-law provisions for lot frontage and lot area.
The Municipality of Clarington adopted Interim Control By-law No. 2016-056 for the
Glenview Neighbourhood, which effectively halted all development on the Holland
Properties.
The draft Zoning By-law amendment, as currently written, fails to recognize the
properties that were in the Consent to Sever process at the time that the Interim
Control By-law came into effect. As such, several of the Holland Properties may not be
able to meet the performance standards of the amending Zoning By-law with regard to
building setbacks and lot coverage. Additionally, the new lot at 44 Westmore Street
does not meet the new minimum lot frontage requirements, whereas that same lot was
permitted to be created in compliance with the parent Zoning By-law. The parent
Zoning By-law does not make provisions for non -conforming lots created legally,
except to allow for uses on lots that were created prior to the passing of the parent
Zoning By-law. As such, the new legally created lot will not allow for any use under the
new amending by-law provisions. In other words, the amending zoning by-law
prevents the owner from obtaining a building permit on the legally created lot.
Given these oversights; we kindly request that the amending Zoning By-law exempt the
Holland Properties in whole. Failing that, we are willing to work with Planning staff to
write site specific exceptions to the Holland Properties.
Holland Homes has had their development rights tested and upheld at the Ontario
Municipal Board for the 44 Westmore Street property (formerly 4 Jane Avenue). This
amending Zoning By-law, as written, will unfairly take those development rights away.
This is will cause undue harm and will prove to be very costly to Holland Homes.
In consideration of this, we look forward to the Committee's cooperation in this matter.
Yours very truly,
D.G. Biddle and Associates Ltd.
Consulting Engineers and Planners
Michael J. Fry, M.C.I.P., R.' .P.
Planning Manager
Cc: Ryan Holland, Holland Homes
Jennifer Savini, Templeman Menninga LLP
Mitch Morawetz, Municipality of Clarington