HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-008-20
Staff 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: February 24, 2020 Report Number: PSD-008-20
Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:
File Number: PLN 40, PLN 38.6 Resolution#:
Report Subject: Zone Clarington, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Comments
Recommendations:
1. That Report PSD-008-20 be received;
2. That Planning Staff continue to consult with key stakeholders and local residents in an
effort to resolve outstanding concerns with the draft zoning by-law, and to work towards
a new zoning by-law that not only balances local interests, but also conforms with
Provincial Policy and the Clarington Official Plan;
3. That Planning Staff continue the Zone Clarington site specific reviews with the aim to
carry out any of the necessary site visits in spring/summer 2020;
4. That as part of the second draft zoning maps, Staff review and remove the buffers as
directed by Council through Resolution #JC-115-19;
5. That cultural meadows (ELC code CUM) as outlined in Sections 4.5 to 4.8 of Report
PSD-008-20 be removed, if warranted;
6. That upon completion of the Zone Clarington exercise, Staff bring forward a
housekeeping Clarington Official Plan Amendment to modify the natural heritage
system as necessary; and
7. That all interested parties and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Municipality of Clarington Page 2
Report PSD-008-20
1. Background
1.1 At the January 20, 2020 Council meeting, a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing (MMAH) to the Mayor dated January 10, 2020 (Attachment 1) was added
as a communications item. In response, Staff were asked to report regarding the
following:
Report Overview
Clarington, when updating its Official Plan, built upon the environmental feature based
Natural Heritage System first outlined in the 1996 Official Plan. The award winning 1996
Official Plan set a new standard for the protection of natural heritage in Southern Ontario.
As set out in the April 2013 Natural Heritage Discussion Paper, the objective was and still is
to protect Clarington’s natural heritage system from incompatible development. Using the
information provided from the provincial ministries and conservation authorities, the mapping
layers of environmental features were used to determine the Natural Heritage System.
Clarington defined the Natural Heritage System in conformity with the policies of the
Provincial Policy Statement, the Greenbelt Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Plan, the Growth Plan and the Regional Official Plan. Through surveys and numerous
meetings carried out during the Official Plan review process, the community continually
expressed protection of the environment as the most important issue .
To implement the Official Plan, Clarington must bring its Zoning By-laws into conformity. This
project, called Zone Clarington, involves consolidating Zoning By-laws 84-63 and 2005-109
into a new Zoning By-law. As development occurs, the Zoning By-law mapping is updated
to be in keeping with the Official Plan policies. For the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Province
introduced the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and required that municipalities
update their Official Plans and Zoning By-laws to be in conformity with the Plan. Clarington
completed this conformity exercise in 2005 by adopting OPA ’s 33 and 34 and enacting
Zoning By-law 2005-109. This conformity exercise was approved by the Region of Durham
and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Upon approval of OPA 107 in June 2017, Planning Services Staff undertook the task of
bringing our existing Zoning By-laws into conformity with the updated Official Plan. The
Planning Act requires Council to update zoning by-laws no later than three years after
revision to the Official Plan. Knowing that we would not meet the three year deadline the
Mayor wrote the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on September 17, 2019 to inform
him that while staff were diligently working towards bringing the zoning into conformity,
consultation with land owner and residents is challenging the timeframe. The Minister
responded to the Mayor’s letter on January 10, 2020. Staff were asked to write a report
regarding the Minister’s comment on “additional lands”.
Municipality of Clarington Page 3
Report PSD-008-20
That Staff report back on the additional lands included in the Environmentally
Protected (EP) areas by the Municipality that were not required by the Province to
be identified as EP.
1.2 The requirement for Clarington to define its Natural Heritage System (NHS) as part of
the Official Plan and the associated vegetation protection zones are provided in each of
the governing provincial land use planning documents, including the Provincial Policy
Statement, the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine
Conservation Plan (ORMCP). The simple caveat to this requirement is that the locally
defined and approved NHS (denoted as the EP Area designation in the Official Plan
mapping) and the associated policy framework is not more restrictive than the policies
with respect to agriculture and aggregates.
1.3 Clarington’s Official Plan was adopted by Council November 1, 2016 and approved by
the Region of Durham, June 19, 2017. This approval verified that Clarington’s Off icial
Plan met provincial policies and applicable Provincial Plans. Clarington’s Official Plan
Amendment 107 has been further confirmed by Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT)
on September 30, 2019 as being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in
conformity with the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the ORMCP.
1.4 As background, to identify and define the NHS in the Official Plan, a Natural Heritage
Discussion Paper (2013) was prepared and reviewed through public information
sessions. One of the issues discussed was the need to harmonize the multiple policy
approaches across the various provincial plans. It was also acknowledged that “where
development is proposed, the ultimate boundary of the N HS may have to be determined
through detailed site specific studies”. The proposed Zone Clarington regulations also
reflect that ultimately, where development is proposed, a site specific study may be
required.
1.5 The Provincial approach to vegetation protection zones (buffers) differs between the
ORMCP, Greenbelt Plan, and Growth Plan. Planning staff recommended and Council
concurred with having a consistent approach to protect environmental features from
development with buffers and that they be included within the EP Area Designation of
the Official Plan for rural areas.
2. Clarington’s feature based Natural Heritage System (NHS)
2.1 There are a number of ways to define and develop a policy framework for the protection
of the NHS. An environmental features based approach protects individual features, not
the linkages between them. A Systems approach is comprised of individual
environmental features plus the linkage (existing or potential) between them. However,
this approach does not protect environmental features that are not linked to the larger
system. Clarington’s approach as described in The Natural Heritage Discussion Paper,
2013 was a combination, protecting for a connected system, while affording protection
to isolated environmental features.
Municipality of Clarington Page 4
Report PSD-008-20
2.2 The PPS, Greenbelt Plan and ORMCP also support a combined approach. Each policy
document protects the individual features (i.e. wetlands) as well as the linkages
between them (e.g. ORM Natural Linkage Area; Greenbelt NHS). The majority of the
linkage areas in both the Greenbelt NHS and in the ORMCP, is agricultural land.
Clarington’s NHS (Map D of the Official Plan) uses, stream valleys to provide the
linkages between environmental features, rather than agricultural land.
2.3 This means that within the Greenbelt NHS (and ORMCP) there are over 6,000 hectares
of agricultural land. When working through the Official Plan review, staff particularly
wanted to exclude as much agricultural land as possible from the NHS. Using the
environmental features and the valleylands to create Clarington’s NHS achieved this.
2.4 Prior to the approval of OPA 107 by the Region, the approval authority is required to
circulate the Council adopted OPA to MMAH for their comments. MMAH, through the
one window approach, co-ordinates comments from all Provincial agencies. MMAH
noted in their correspondence that although the Greenbelt Plan allows for a one-time
refinement of the Greenbelt NHS at the time of OP conformity, Provincial ministries
were concerned that Clarington’s NHS appeared to be a n over refinement of the
Greenbelt NHS. MMAH suggested Clarington consult further with Regional staff
regarding this issue. Detailed comments from MMAH dated February 10, 2017 were:
“The Greenbelt Plan allows for a one-time refinement of the NHS at the time of
municipal OP conformity. The NHS in the OP is a wholesale deletion of much of
the Greenbelt NHS. The NHS appears to have been reduced to the sum of
natural heritage and hydrologic features and has removed the linkages in the
Greenbelt NHS. The Municipality of Clarington has added their own linkage
policies, foregoing the Greenbelt NHS. The intent of refinement is just that - a
fine-tuning of the system; making small changes where warranted.”
2.5 A second letter was received from MMAH on April 12, 2017 reiterating the position that
Clarington’s NHS eliminated the majority of the Greenbelt NHS and that Clarington’s
approach was environmental features based, not system based, and therefore not
supported by Ministry staff. In other words, Ministry staff felt the Clarington NHS had
not gone far enough and needed to be expanded.
2.6 In order to reconcile the difference between the Greenbelt NHS and Clarington’s NHS,
the Region of Durham staff proposed to maintain the Greenbelt NHS as a part of Map H
in Clarington’s Official Plan and to add associated policies in OPA 107. The Provincial
ministries were supportive of this solution. For Clarington, this meant we could continue
with the (combined linkage and environmental feature based) NHS on Map D which
establishes the EP Area designation.
2.7 Clarington staff wanted an environmental feature and system based approach to ensure
that as much agricultural land as possible was excluded from the NHS. It has been our
experience that farmers inherently understand the value of environmental features and
provide ongoing stewardship of the land. The linkages between environmental features
Municipality of Clarington Page 5
Report PSD-008-20
can be achieved through a number of mechanisms. The difference of opinion between
Ministerial and Clarington staff can be explained by understanding and appreciating
staff’s knowledge and expertise in implementing policy requirements at the loca l level.
Clarington’s NHS is 38.4% or our total land area; had staff followed the
recommendation of the Province it would have been 49.4%.
3. Zone Clarington (first draft)
3.1 The first draft (interactive map, Figure 1) of the Zone Clarington mapping showed
vegetation protection zone (30 metres) as part of the EP Zone (green with hatching),
plus 90 metres of Environmental Review Area (hatching). Displaying this information
made it clear what land may generally not be built upon, and within proximity to these
non-development lands, justif ication for a proposed development may be required.
Figure 1: Excerpt showing Interactive Map hatching
3.2 Council directed staff to “delete the Environmental Review Area (90 metres) and
Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone (30 metres) from the draft zoning by-law
amendment” by Resolution #JC -115-19, September 16, 2019. This resolution
effectively changes the way the minimum area of influence and buffers are shown in the
ORMCP Zoning By-law 2005-109.
3.3 Unless directed otherwise, neither the vegetation protection zone (buffers) nor
Environmental Review Area (ERA) will be reflected on the second draft zoning by-law
mapping. During preparation of the second draft, staff will recommend regulations and
site plan approval to ensure the appropriate regulations are in place for conformity with
Provincial Policy, the Region of Durham Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan for
new development. As noted in Report PSD-057-19, this will remove 13,300 acres
(5,383 ha) from the EP zone as presented in the first draft of the zoning mapping. By
removing this information (buffer and ERA) from the zoning maps, it will not be readily
apparent to the reader that additional lands may not be built upon and additional studies
may be required in support of a development proposal.
3.4 In 2005, Clarington completed the ORMCP conformity including the implementing
zoning (Zoning By-law 2005-109). This zoning by-law was approved by the Minister of
Municipality of Clarington Page 6
Report PSD-008-20
Municipal Affairs and Housing in 2010. Given the direction to staff noted in Section 3.2,
a significant amount of land already zoned EP on the moraine will be removed. Staff
will need to specifically review the implications of the removal of the minimum area of
influence and buffers from the ORMCP area as the strategy of mapping had already
been approved by the MMAH for the Oak Ridges Moraine Zoning By-law 2005-109.
Mapping options were presented to Council in October 22, 2019 (Attachment 4).
3.5 Staff are monitoring the LPAT hearing for the appeal of the East Gwillimbury
Comprehensive Zoning By-law review in regard to EP, set to begin on March 23, 2020.
East Gwillimbury has lands within both the ORMCP and Greenbelt. Staff will also
conduct a best practice review of other municipalities on the moraine to determine if
there are other planning tools that can be implemented to ensure Provincial Policy
conformity.
3.6 Staff recently presented the Zone Clarington project and the resulting direction by
Council to the Durham Chapter Appraisal Institute of Canada members. Some
members felt that by removing this key information from the zoning maps it was less
transparent and not warranted, as the requirement is set out in Provincial Policy.
3.7 The Minister’s letter dated January 10, 2020 did not clarify whether his comments about
“additional lands” were directed towards the Official Plan or the first draft Zoning By-law
mapping released in November of 2018. Staff sought clarification as to whether the
additional lands referenced in his letter were the buffers (Attachment 2). The response
letter (Attachment 3) received from the Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy) on February
6, 2020 provides clarification that the “comments in the Minister’s letter were based on
the first draft of the Municipality’s Zoning By-law”.
3.8 The MMAH letter of February 6, 2020, also acknowledges Clarington will not meet the
three-year timeframe to bring the Zoning By-law into conformity with the Official Plan.
The Ministry recognizes that Clarington is working on the zoning by-law and
“encourages Clarington to continue working with the public and key stakeholders to
resolve any outstanding concerns…that not only balances local interests, but that also
conforms with the Clarington Official Plan”.
3.9 Planning Staff are currently working through the site specific zoning review process. To
date, we have received 167 requests and have met with the applicable Conservation
Authority, completing initial background information and mapping reviews for 73 of
these properties. W here, based on the results of the initial review, it has been
determined a site visit may not be necessary, a letter outlining the results of the review
and any proposed changes will be sent to the property owner in March 2020. Planning
and Conservation Authority Staff are meeting, in late February, to continue the
background information and mapping review process and to coordinate the scheduling
of site visits. All requested site specific reviews will be completed before a second draft
of the zoning by-law is released.
Municipality of Clarington Page 7
Report PSD-008-20
3.10 Staff will determine if there are updated data sets that can be utilized to improve EP
mapping for the second draft of the zoning by-law. A detailed review (grid by grid) will
be conducted of all mapping to identify if refinements can be made to properties where
a site specific review has not been requested. Since the review of data sets and aerial
photography is not relied upon for 100% accuracy, it is proposed to retain the regulation
providing for the interpretation of the EP zone boundary to reflect the actual location of
an environmental feature on the ground. As noted previously, even without a site
specific review at this time, should discrepancies arise in the future, Official Plan policy
and proposed Zoning By-law regulations allow for future refinement without the need for
an Official Plan Amendment or Zoning By-law Amendment.
4. Additional Lands included in Environmental Protected (EP)
Areas
4.1 During the January 20, 2020 Council discussion of the Minister’s letter Councillor Neal
sought clarification regarding two other issues, Vegetation protection zones for
valleylands, and cultural meadows.
Buffers for Valleylands
4.2 With respect to Significant Valleylands, the ORMCP is the only Provincial Plan that
prescribes the minimum dimension of the vegetation protection zone. For a Significant
Valleyland the minimum vegetation protection zone is defined as all of the land within 30
metres of the stable top of bank. In addition, the associated policy notes that if the
required natural heritage evaluation determines that the minimum is not sufficient, the
evaluation shall determine the dimension and provide direction for the maintenance and
where possible, improvement or restoration of natural self -sustaining vegetation within
the protection area (ORMCP Policy 23.(1) (d) and Part III Table).
4.3 In agriculturally dominant landscapes, valleylands are often the only environmental
features that remain. Valleylands are to be protected from development because they
provide a significant linkage and connectivity function of the NHS. Clarington’s larger
valley systems, like the Bowmanville/Soper Creek, link the landscape from Lake Ontario
to the Moraine. The Black/Farewell/Harmony Creek valley system not only links Lake
Ontario to the Moraine, it also extends across Municipal boundaries , as does the
Ganaraska River valley system. Official Plan policies and mapping have applied the
protection afforded in the ORMCP consistently to all valleylands within the rural area.
Cultural Meadows
4.4 As noted in the Natural Heritage Discussion Paper, to create two of the NHS data
layers, Significant Woodlands and Wetlands, specific Ecological Land Classification
(ELC) codes were utilized along with data from the Ministry of Natural Resources and
Forestry. The ELC provides a framework for objectively describing the landscape.
Clarington’s ELC data was provided by the Conservation Authority’s with the exception
Municipality of Clarington Page 8
Report PSD-008-20
of the Robinson and Tooley Creek watersheds, where the ELC data is from the
Watershed Study prepared by AECOM (2011). In addition to these data layers, the
outer limit of all environmental features collectively created the NHS. The ELC code for
cultural meadows is CUM and was specifically excluded from the NHS. A cultural
meadow is often a pasture or successional growth area when a field has been left and
not recently worked (e.g. 5 plus years).
4.5 The Geographic Information System (GIS) is the electronic mapping layers used to
create the NHS. The information on the layers is drawn from the metadata (data bases)
provided by the Province and Conservation Authorities and refined through additional
studies. Staff from the Municipality and both Conservation Authorities reviewed the
NHS in relation to aerial photography. Using their collective expertise and site
knowledge, staff identified locations where the NHS required adjustment to rectify with
the aerial photography. W here a discrepancy was noted, the underlying data sources
were checked for verification. Staff attempted to update each of the underlying data
sources however, we are not the owner of certain data layers. The focus was to ensure
that the boundary of the NHS was as accurate as possible.
4.6 At the request of Councillor Neal, staff have determined that within the entire NHS
(23,552 ha), approximately 45 hectares of land with the ELC code CUM are included in
the NHS. Upon closer review and verification of the coding the majority have been
appropriately included within the NHS either as a result of an Environmental Impact
Study or because they surround stormwater facilities, other ponds/open water, and/or
they are within Conservation Authority ownership. In other cases, the CUM is located
within (i.e. surrounded by) a larger environmental feature such as a woodland. As such,
the CUM does not determine the limit of the NHS. In these cases, cultural meadows
perform a function within the larger NHS and should be appropriately protected from
development. In other cases, the ELC appears to be incorrect and warrants further
review.
4.7 The 45 hectares of CUM coded locations will be further evaluated as part of the site
specific review process being carried out for Zone Clarington.
5. Concurrence
Not Applicable.
6. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council adopt the specific recommendations
outlined in this report and refer Zone Clarington back to staff to continue processing.
Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services, 905-623-3379 x 2407 or
Flangmaid@clarington.net. and Lisa Backus, Principal Planner, 905-623-3379 x 2413 or
lbackus@clarington.net
Municipality of Clarington Page 9
Report PSD-008-20
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Minister’s letter of Jan 10, 2020
Attachment 2 – Acting Director’s email of Jan 17, 2020
Attachment 3 - MMAH letter of Feb 6, 2020
Attachment 4 – Mapping Options – from presentation of October 22, 2019
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
1
Gamble, Theresa
Subject:FW: Three-Year Extension Request to Minister Steve Clark
From:DWP (David Piccini)<dwp@pc.ola.org>
Sent:January 21,2020 4:56 PM
To:Langmaid,Faye <flangmaid@clarington.net>
Cc:Foster,Adrian <afoster@clarington.net>;dawn.palin.rokosh@ontario.ca;stephen.hamilton@ontario.ca;Mayors
Office <MayorsOffice@claringtonnet.onmicrosoft.com>;Park,Lindsey <lindsey.park@pc.ola.org>;Parkco,Lindsey
<lindsey.parkco@pc.ola.org>
Subject:Re:ThreeYear Extension Request to Minister Steve Clark
Caution: External email. Do not click links or open attachments you do not trust.
Hi Faye,
Thanks,but I was just making a suggestion given circumstances.Whether they do or don’t is mute,as many of the other
municipalities I represent proactively reach out to ministry articulating asks.We don’t need prior staff approval to
articulate a formal ask.
Just my thoughts.
David
Sent from my mobile device.Please excuse brevity.
On Jan 21,2020,at 4:29 PM,Langmaid,Faye <flangmaid@clarington.net>wrote:
Hello all
Stephen and Dawn would you answer whether the Ministry grants a formal extension to
the three year timeframe to bring zoning into conformity? To my knowledge this has not
occurred in the past and others have not completed their review within the allotted
time. Is this a new process that the Ministry will be formally rolling out to all
municipalities? It was my understanding that providing the Ministry knew that we were
actively working on the conformity exercise, the Ministry understood that some
processes are more complex and require longer timeframes.
Many thanks
Faye Langmaid
Acting Director
Planning Services Department
2
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6
905-623-3379 ext. 2407 | 1-800-563-1195
www.clarington.net
From:DWP (David Piccini)<dwp@pc.ola.org>
Sent:January 21,2020 4:07 PM
To:Langmaid,Faye <flangmaid@clarington.net>;Foster,Adrian <afoster@clarington.net>
Cc:stephen.hamilton@ontario.ca;Mayors Office <MayorsOffice@claringtonnet.onmicrosoft.com>;
Park,Lindsey <lindsey.park@pc.ola.org>;Parkco,Lindsey <lindsey.parkco@pc.ola.org>
Subject:Re:Three Year Extension Request to Minister Steve Clark
Caution: External email. Do not click links or open attachments you do not trust.
Thanks Faye,
Given circumstances,may I ask why a formal extension is not being requested?
Perhaps the Mayor could address my question?
Regards,
David
Sent from my mobile device.Please excuse brevity.
On Jan 20,2020,at 12:33 PM,Langmaid,Faye <flangmaid@clarington.net>wrote:
Good afternoon David
We are not asking for a 3 year extension. Rather, the Mayor’s letter of
September 17 informed the Minister that we would not meet the 3 year
requirement in the Planning Act. The Minister’s response of Jan 10
appears to acknowledge that we are in the process of working on the
Zoning By-law conformity and will exceed the 3 year time limit in the
Planning Act. We have not established an end date as we are working
through the site review assessment process with rural residents.
Hope that clarifies.
Faye
From:Piccini,David <david.piccini@pc.ola.org>
Sent:January 20,2020 12:10 PM
To:Langmaid,Faye <flangmaid@clarington.net>
Cc:stephen.hamilton@ontario.ca;Mayors Office
<MayorsOffice@claringtonnet.onmicrosoft.com>;Foster,Adrian
3
<afoster@clarington.net>;Park,Lindsey <lindsey.park@pc.ola.org>;Parkco,Lindsey
<lindsey.parkco@pc.ola.org>
Subject:RE:Three Year Extension Request to Minister Steve Clark
Importance:High
Caution: External email. Do not click links or open attachments you do not trust.
Good afternoon Faye,
For clarification purposes. Is the Municipality of Clarington asking for a three-year
extension?
Regards,
David
From: Langmaid, Faye [flangmaid@clarington.net]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2020 8:49 AM
To: Piccini, David
Subject: Three-Year Extension Request to Minister Steve Clark
Apologies I should have copied MPPs Piccini and Park and Chair Henry when I
responded as they were copied on the Minister’s letter.
Faye
From:Langmaid,Faye
Sent:January 17,2020 1:12 PM
To:Stephen.hamilton@ontario.ca;Marcia Wallace (marcia.wallace@ontario.ca)
<marcia.wallace@ontario.ca>
Cc:Councillors Office <CouncillorsOffice@claringtonnet.onmicrosoft.com>;Mayors
Office <MayorsOffice@claringtonnet.onmicrosoft.com>;Brian Bridgeman
(Brian.Bridgeman@Durham.ca)<Brian.Bridgeman@Durham.ca>
Subject:Three Year Extension Request to Minister Steve Clark
Hello Stephen and Marcia
Thank you for the Minister’s response. Upon reviewing the letter, staff
have some questions. The letter states: “The lands brought into the EP
Zone in Clarington include lands that are identified by the province as
Greenbelt and NHS as well as additional lands that the province has not
required to be zoned EP.” And further “Municipalities are permitted to go
beyond provincial standards,” To manage local and public interests, we
are writing to ask for clarity on how to approach applying provincial
policies? In the two letter from MMAH we received during the Official Plan
review MMAH commented on the refinements we were proposing to the
Provincial NHS and required certain mapping and policies be added to
Clarington’s Official Plan. Please outline for us where Clarington has gone
beyond provincial standards in our Official Plan mapping and application
4
of EP zones so that prior to implementing the a new Zoning Bylaw it can
be rectified.
At this point we are in the process of preparing the zoning by-law
amendment which includes mapping. Council has already instructed staff
to remove the 30 metre buffer zone and 90 metre environmental review
area, the second draft will include this revision. Is this what is meant by
the statement “as well as additional lands that the province has not
required to be zoned EP”?
There has been discussion locally and questions regarding the Clarington
Official Plan as to whether it conforms to Provincial Policy. Would MMAH
confirm that the Amended Official Plan conforms to all applicable
provincial policies?
We are inviting the Minister and representives to come to Clarington to
provide your guidance to staff and Council in applying these complex
provincial policies at the local level. As you can appreciate our intent is to
ensure zoning in Clarington complies with all provincial policies. Our goal
is to protect the environment and agricultural resources while balancing
the needs of our landowners and removing unnecessary restrictions.
Faye Langmaid
Acting Director
Planning Services Department
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6
905-623-3379 ext. 2407 | 1-800-563-1195
www.clarington.net
Attachment 3 to Report PSD-008-20
Mapping
Option 1
Keep the Minimum
Vegetation
Protection Zone
and Environmental
Review Area (ERA)
overlays
Option 1 is the approached used for the current
draft zoning by-law.
Displaying buffers for the minimum vegetation
protection zone and environmental review area
overlay flags viewers of the map of the potential
need for site plan approval within the
environmental review area (ERA) overlay and
limited use permissions within the vegetation
protection zone.
It is perceived that development would be
prohibited in the ERA area. This perception is
wrong. Maps must be read with the
corresponding regulations contained within the
text of the draft zoning by-law. Section 16 of the
draft zoning by-law states that permitted uses
and regulations of the EP zone apply to the
minimum vegetation protection zone. The
permitted uses and regulations for the
Environmental Review Area are what is identified
by the underlying zone and corresponding
sections in the text. The Environmental Review
Area requirements are addressed in the Site Plan
Control By-law. It has been added to trigger the
site plan control by-law which we are looking to
streamline, simplify and add exemptions to.
Mapping
Option 2
Show only the
Minimum
Vegetation
Protection Zone
overlay
The second option is to revise the EP zone to
remove the minimum vegetation protection
zone from the EP zone boundary and show it as
an overlay, a non-EP zone. The underlying zone
would be modified to match the adjacent zone
such as agricultural or rural residential, as
shown in this example.
We would provide additional text in section 16
so the proposal will comply with provincial
policy. In 2017, there were changes to
provincial policies for the vegetation protection
zone which provides for some expansions to
existing uses within the buffer.
We would explore options to modify the
regulations in Section 16 to better reflect the
provincial policy updates for both Options 1 and
2.
The effect of this option is a reduction of the EP
zone on many properties and reduction of the
total area of the EP zone overall while
maintaining the intent to ensure that a
minimum vegetation protection zone is applied
to environmental features.
Mapping
Option 3
Show no overlays
The third option would be to not show the
minimum vegetation protection zone or
the Environmental Review Area as has
been directed by Council in Resolution
#114 and #115.
While not showing the buffers, we would
have to address them in through other
regulations. The concern with this
approach is that users rely on the mapping
to visualize what is regulated and what is
not within the text of the by-law. There is
also a question as to whether this would
meet the intent of the Region’s Policy that
required lower tiers to show and detail the
vegetation protection zone.
Mapping
Option 4
Create a separate
map for the
Minimum
Vegetation
Protection Zone
and Environmental
Review Area
overlays
To address the Region’s policy if the 3rd
option is desired we could add a schedule
(option 4) of the buffers on a separate
map in the zoning by-law. This would help
with the visualization of the regulations on
a separate page.
Regardless of the mapping approach new
development will need to conform to
provincial policy requirements to protect
environmental features.