and 9 linked townhouse units.
The entrance now is only off of Rudell,
as shown in Attachment 2,
just south of the linked townhouse dwellings there.
And then in terms of the number of units,
the number of units in the apartment building is still 200—
sorry, still 166.
The stacked townhouse units have been reduced to 30,
and the linked townhouse units remain
as, I believe it was 9.
Okay, now if
I look at— and again, this is the Clearant and Official Plan— when it
speaks to urban residential, which this is the urban residential
area, says generally up to 3 stories. But if we look at this
as a local corridor, it speaks to,
in this case, a mid-rise 5 to 6. So, um,
is this an urban residential or local corridor?
In some ways I do know the answer, but I'd like to hear from staff
because this is a 6-story building.
So through the chair, I'm going to ask Haida to respond to that as that
is also addressed in the staff report about the designations and how it came to
I'm sorry, through the chair, if you don't mind repeating the
question. I think it was about the heritage designation for the existing
farmhouse on the property. Is that correct? Yeah. No,
I appreciate that. No, I mean, I do know the answer. I asked
the question when I know the answer. 5.8 answers it.
This is a mid-rise building townhouse. Mid-rise building is proposed to
be 6 stories. This is aligned with the urban residential and
local corridor designation. So, um,
apologize. Um, and is
the parking sufficient? I see that there is a parking garage,
and the parking garage is basically
Basically for the tenants in the apartment building
or for the townhouses? The townhouses would have their own,
but would there be space for those that are in
the townhouses or just for the, the 6-story apartment or
multi-residential?
Um, through the chair, um, so there—
the townhouses have associated,
um, parking on, um, you know,
uh, associated with the dwelling units, um, whereas the apartment,
um, building has underground parking,
um, as well as parking to the, uh, to the, um, on the west
portion of the property. There is— there
was a traffic impact and parking study that
indicated there was sufficient parking on the site.
There— in response to comments from the public meeting regarding
the parking, that is one of the reasons that
the number of units was decreased
to make sure there was enough parking on the site for the number of units
there. Okay, no worries. Thank you for that.
And my last question to the delegation
that was speaking about traffic,
can you speak to that?
Maybe as far as traffic impact studies and that.
So through the chair, I apologize, but just to intervene
on this, I'd actually rather have Karen Richardson, who's the manager of
development engineering, that can speak to that. And also, just to be a little clearer
on the last response, the applicant through the traffic impact
study amended and updated and increased the amount of parking to
meet all of ours as well as Durham Region's requirements.
So Karen, please. Through the chair to
Councillor Wills, The traffic impact study did an analysis.
As you know, Rudell's a collector and Highway 2's
our arterial, so they have a higher order roads which expect more traffic.
So the traffic impact study showed no impact. So it's expected
with this development that the traffic will build up, but the
roads are already assigned to handle it. Okay,
thank you for that, Karen.
I'm looking to members of council. Do we have any further questions on this?
I don't see any. Darryl, I, I see, uh, I think it was 2023
was the initial public meeting on this, uh,
to the delegate's question, uh,
suggesting that the, the neighbors were somewhat surprised. Can we Can
we speak to the outreach, you know, what we do, what we did?
Thank you. So through the Chair, yes, there has been a
variety of pieces regarding public engagement. I'm actually going to have
Amanda Tapp as the Manager of Development that could walk through the sequence of all
of the points of public engagement that have occurred. There have been signs, there have
been mailouts, there have been public meetings, but Amanda can go into a little more
detail about that. Thank you, Daryl. And through the chair,
um, Hiba has been the file planner on this file for bringing
it to recommendation, but she wasn't the planner on the file for the history.
So just going to walk through a little bit of, of that. So as
mentioned, 2023, there was a public meeting on this application.
It did look significantly different. It was much more dense at the time.
We heard several comments from the public
took that range of comments back to the applicant in which they made several
extensive revisions. So yes, looking 3 years later,
we brought something forward tonight that meets those requirements that
are currently in the official plan and zoning
that's appropriate for the site. I think it's also incredibly important to note that
this meets the official plan designation that's been on the site for upwards of
10 years at this point now as well, and there would have been lengthy public
process at that time in order to know we were going to be aiming to
achieve this, these types of densities, these types of densification at this corner. So just
something we wanted to, to note as well on, on the several points of public
contact that's been had through, through maybe a few planners, but, but up
into tonight. So thank you for
that. I, I would make two observations. 2 observations, and this
is, you know, to carry forward. One, despite our answer,
I'm thinking the impression of the residents doesn't match their reality,
perhaps doesn't match our reality. And the other observation,
Darryl, you and I have spoken about this, we mentioned it earlier.
When we do traffic impact studies,
to the average individual, sometimes these just don't
make sense. I wonder if at some point in the future we can take
a before and after and quantify,
uh, you know, quantify some of these to, uh, and maybe have a better
understanding of, of how the experts, uh, do these. And I'm just,
I'm not looking for a response, but it's, it's something to,
uh, think about moving forward to, uh, to help with the public and,
and move forward with. Thank you.
All right, that I believe exhausts the
delegations, Madam Clerk, unless you know something I don't.
Oh, sorry. No, you're absolutely correct. We did.
We exhausted the delegations a minute ago.
So that is item 5.3.
I'll need Those
were just questions. We already did the vote on consent,
so that's good. 5.5,
Councillor Traill, you had questions to staff on the emergency
comments from our emergency services. You have the floor.
Yeah, thank you. Um, so it's my understanding, and perhaps I I'm
not— I didn't record this correctly, but basically what we were
told by the developer is that, uh, GHD said
that an emergency evacuation analysis was not included in the traffic report
because it's not required under Clarington's terms of reference, but it is in
the emergency services, uh, review.
So I just— I want to make sure that we don't have any kind of
deficiency requiring developers to examine the need for emergency access routes and evacuation
plans, and they want to make sure that that's being addressed. Or do we need
to bring a motion forward to have staff report back on including that in the
terms of reference when they do a traffic impact analysis?
Because as I see it, an evacuation route is also traffic impact, right? Like,
that seems to make sense. But so I would like to hear from staff,
planning and emergency services, please. Thanks.
Okay, so thank you. And through the chair, I'm going
to have Nicole Zambri, the principal planner on this file, that can speak to
the in fact, of the comments we've received from EMS regarding this proposal. And then
for the more technical aspect of what you're asking about, Councillor Traill, I'm going to
have Karen Richardson that reviews all of the TISs, that come— transportation
impact studies that come forward, and the inclusions and how that
is looked at as it relates to traffic as well as for emergency services.
So over to Nicole.
Through the— through the mayor, um,
EMS did have comments on the first submission, mainly related
to Block 9, where there's a single access. But for
the existing Wilmot Creek community, that was
looked at by EMS and they had no concerns with the
emergency or evacuation or emergency access to
the site and the response for a response call.
So with that, I can pass it over to Karen
to speak to the traffic, uh, traffic study
report and how they address emergency response times.
Through the mayor to Councillor Traill, so we, we have
a general TIS guideline that's on our website that outlines
the scope of work that's required for any development application that
is has to provide a traffic impact study and support.
So that's outlined. And then we have— we also request the
terms of reference to be reviewed by staff, and it's
at that point that we would outline that there's an additional scope
that is required. It's typically a separate report,
so it's not included in the traffic impact study,
but EMS would recommend that report, or it
also comes through the planning We ask for that report and then it's
provided to us for review and, and we either,
we review it internally or sometimes it is actually sent out
for peer review also. Okay,
so through the chair, my— or sorry, through the mayor because it's
a special meeting, um, my question is, is that as we build up
the waterfront, um, especially there's a, there's a, there's a lot of development now happening
in Ward 3 Do we not have a specific evacuation
analysis requirement in the terms of reference, especially for neighborhoods such as this one?
And, and part of the reason I didn't support the Lake Breeze development was
for this same reason— there was one in and one out. Uh, and so
I want to know, A, is an evacuation analysis
not currently required? And B, can that be added as
a requirement for developments where there is only one access, or at
the most two? Access and egress routes,
because to me this does seem like a bit of an oversight, and I'm concerned
for the safety of residents. This is also along a rail corridor,
and again, if for some reason Coballdick Road becomes impassable, we've essentially
trapped several thousand residents down there. And we know we
did have a situation with, um, with the, with the train issue not
that long ago, uh, which prevented access, uh, from, from the Lake
Breeze area. So Can you please comment on that and if that's something
that we want to look at going forward, please?
So through the Mayor, uh, Nicole Zambri, the principal planner, can respond
to that. It's also addressed within sections 10.37 and 10.38 of
the report.
Through the Mayor, um, so great question, and having written that report
when that removal holding went forward, I am very familiar familiar
with this situation. The difference in the Beaumont Creek case
is that they have an at-grade separated crossing,
and this proposed development is north of the CN rail line,
so they're not directly impacted like the Lake Breeze community is,
um, in the event of a derailment situation.
Okay, and then what about the evacuation analysis as a, as a matter
of protocol going forward? So that it's part of our
terms of reference.
So that could be more of a question for Karen then in terms
of like what she's looking at technically. But in
terms of this specific case, it is
all north of that CN Rail line. So it would be no
different than any other neighborhood subdivision in terms of access
to public roads and major arteries and that sort of thing. So in
this case, there's not— yeah, sorry, go ahead. No, it's okay.
I'm just going to say just quickly, this one isn't the same though,
because if Coballdick is not available, you only have one road.
Yes. So there's another— there's an alternative access. And from what I understand from
EMS is they always are looking for two access points.
So in the case with the Lakeshore or the Lake Breeze community,
both their access points are, uh,
at-grade crossings. So, uh, and in that
event, if there was ever derailment, the train lengths are long enough that they could
block both at-grade crossings in that situation.
Yeah, yes, that's why. Okay,
um, Miss Richardson, would you be able to comment on whether or not this analysis
is gonna— is part of our terms of reference going forward so that we're
always addressing the concerns with, with, um, with evacuation.
And again, I reiterate, this is because we're seeing a lot more waterfront development.
So through the chair, through the mayor, it would be more of
a site-specific requirement. So at the time
of when we review the terms of reference, we would outline then that emergency
access report would need to be included as part of supporting documentation
for the development. So it's not a straight— it's not required
for everyone. But it's site-specific.
Okay. And was one required for this development?
To my knowledge, they did do an analysis of the emergency
evacuation and the EMS. Well,
we had this— we asked the question and EMS said
they had no concerns. So EMS would be the trigger for the report.
Right. But is there a physical report in existence? That I can look at that
assesses the safety from an evacuation standpoint?
That, that was a question.
Yes. So through the mayor, Nicole Zambri can speak to that
on what has been submitted, the sporting, and, and also respond to that question.
Through the mayor, um, from what
I remember reading through the TIS report, it mentioned that
there would be improvements made as part of this development that would actually
potentially increase or better improve the traffic
flow, as such as signalization, turning lanes, things like that. So it's actually
going to improve the existing situation that's already there.
And that's all I can recall from that report in terms of emergency access
and response times. Okay,
Councillor, and just to add to what Nicole Zambri has
said, as has been mentioned by a couple of staff throughout
the entire review of every one of these applications, they are circulated to our professionals
in EMS that provide a technical review. The idea
identify if there's additional work that's needed or not. We rely upon
our professionals in order to provide that level of expertise, and through that,
what we have is outlined in this report. There are no concerns from
EMS regarding this proposal going forward.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Lyons. I appreciate that. And of course, as councillors, we rely
on professionals too. We're relying on you guys, so we're all— we all do the
same thing. My concern is that I don't have an evacuation
analysis an analysis that I can look at, that I can, that I can physically
touch, and that I can read. So without that background information,
I'm not comfortable supporting this. So, uh, I would like to— I'm,
I'm going to be voting no on this, and I would like to request a
recorded vote. Hopefully in the intervening time between this and the next opportunity, we have
to look at this application by a secondary plan that will be able to determine
if there is in fact an actual evacuation analysis that was done,
uh, that, that we can, we can review. Thank you.
So, Councillor Traill, on the consent agenda,
nobody pulled anything to amend anything,
so we have, we have already voted on
this. So a recorded vote,
that, that time has passed.
Do you have anything further, Councillor?
Uh, yeah, so when we do the confirming bylaw, I'll do a recorded
vote on that because I, um, expressing my opposition to the approval of
that item. Thanks. So there
will be a confirming bylaw, but it'll be at the end of the public meeting.
Okay, so the clerk is confirming that, uh, that we'll pull that.
Councillor Woo, I see you're reaching for your mic.
Floor is yours, sir. Yeah, through Your Worship and to,
uh, the director of Planning and Development.
I did ask the question to the, the agent
for the developer,
and in the report 5.21,
it says the height of buildings shall be a minimum of 6 stories and maximum
of 8 stories. The revised proposal has low-rise apartment buildings
with a height of 4 stories, which necessitates necessitated the need
for an amendment to the high-density designation for Block 10.
Block 10 is the one to the north, which basically wraps around
Wilmot Creek Drive.
Is there something that we can request that the
buildings be kept to a 4-story height?
So through the mayor, The challenge with that
is you have a current secondary plan that's already in place that enables
higher density. This official plan amendment that is before
council would essentially vary and essentially
lower the amount of development that is to occur in this area by
almost 300 units. So while it is possible
through an official plan amendment, and council can make a decision on the official plan
amendment whether to to modify it or not. But I would anticipate
that this would likely get appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal in the fact of
the amount of modification that the developer has already essentially
acquiesced on for this site. So yes,
you— it could be amended. However, you would
have to amend, of course, the secondary plan through the official plan amendment, the zoning
bylaw amendment as well. And then once a decision goes out, it would go out
for an appeal period of 20 days.
So it is a case where this council could
make that motion, but as you said, it could
be appealed to the OLT.
Is that correct? So through the mayor, that is correct.
You also have a staff report recommending approval from your staff staff
as well, which would result in a situation if there isn't
an appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal that we would have to secure
outside council, outside council likely, as well as for sure
professional planners.
Now, and as the
previous, uh, well, Councillor Traill, when she mentioned about
the evacuation or emergency evacuation,
And with this, is this something that we could refer
back to staff to discuss with the, the developer
about these two issues?
So through the mayor, through the further implementation, this is essentially
establishing principle of development, a couple changes, as well as
zoning for the site. When they come forward for site plan approval, of course,
we'll be working very very closely with them. We could have further conversations.
We are always looking through our reviews of those applications.
They get circulated to EMS. They give us feedback. A lot
of the departments across this organization, as well as to the region, they all
see this. They'll give us feedback. We can look at those things.
We can have conversations about them in order to ensure that,
um, those elements are addressed appropriately.
But I do I want to just sort of close on the fact that EMS
has reviewed this from a policy as well as a zoning perspective
and currently has no concerns. But they will be involved through the subsequent process when
we review the site plan.
Okay. And my last question again,
it was discussion about baseball
diamond. For parks,
they have increased the size of the park block
13 from 0.71 to
1.02 hectares, and block 14,
0.6 to 0.79 block
14. Now, the municipality would assume
those parks, are they big enough for a baseball diamond,
or could block IT in an open space. Will we ever put a baseball diamond
in an open space?
So through the mayor, normally we would never put
a baseball diamond into open space. Open space is more of a protective
type of designation. Generally we would only put them within our park spaces.
The parks themselves that are brought forward, of course it will go through a
fulsome review as well as consultation of what elements should be put
into that, we use the guidance from council and the approved Parks and Rec
master plan that will inform what are the needed uses within that park and
within that area. And then of course we'd come forward asking for a budget
in order to implement it as well. Right, okay, thank you.
Do we have any further questions on this?
Yeah, so Darryl, I, I've got a couple in, in there. Either a
follow-on to Councillor Woo's.
Everyone wants to avoid the OLT because
it, it just creates so much uncertainty. And to your point, where there
is a positive staff report, uh, report that, that puts
a mountain in front of us. Um, and I don't mean that
in a, in a bad way towards staff, just so you know.
But moving forward, I, you know, we've,
we've heard a desire from the residents to have
some ongoing dialogue, some understanding perhaps
of, you know, an evacuation plan so they've
got some, some comfort. Councillor Wu brings up, you know, the, the ball
diamond, which it sounds like we don't have a great answer for right now,
if we have an answer for it all. And, and there are other issues
you know, around about a number of things. The,
the 4 stories makes the residents happier,
but they are fully aware that it
may be a bit of a red herring where it's not going to be 4.
So as we, as we move forward with this,
what can happen in terms of talking to the residents and
ensuring that where possible their, their concerns are met,
as opposed to the developers saying, well, you, you put
your hand up, um, we're, we're just bulldozing through.
So through the mayor, you ask a very interesting question,
which is why I was just conferring with our manager in development planning,
because once If council, through what
we've heard today, has approved the official plan amendment, which as we've said is
only changing a couple minor things to vary from what the approved secondary plan
has, and the zoning is implementing it, we would then be working
closely with the developer when they come forward with site plan
applications. Site plan applications, unfortunately, the province has really
changed the planning system regarding public
inputs, notice processes for public meetings, all of that. So it
almost becomes a much more closed framework at that point because
it's working out some of the detail. But from what I'm hearing today,
and we want to work very closely with the community, these are
things that I'd like to take that back and try and figure out how can
we help support communication in this area. It's a large area
that's coming on, it's implementing a vision of council for that secondary plan. And I
think there's probably some methods in which we can at least make sure there's
awareness around these pieces, looking into that as well.
Plus, all of the material that we have associated with these, uh, these applications
are fully available. So if any of the residents want to look at any of
those, we can share them. We can get out all of the studies as well,
and our staff would be happy to sit down with anybody and walk through that.
Okay, thank you. And, and Mr. Juttant, I would
encourage the developer. I, you know, it could simply be a matter
of explaining, explaining a number of things,
explaining how they got to— so I, I will
hope that we reach out. Obviously, the homeowners association would be the,
the best starting point to, to engage in dialogue on
this. Thank you ever so much.
So that is the end
of the consent agenda.
The public meeting will start at 6 o'clock.
So folks, we will see you back for the public meetings at 6 o'clock.
Since we have owned the property and built there,
we have respected the tributary and split our farmland into two fields because it is
too wet to drive our farm equipment through the swale.
The Baptist Church on the third concession has been very kind allowing us to access
the southern portion of our land but we have to be very careful to not
damage their property when the area is wet. The bungalow
to the west of the subject property was flooded 2 years ago during a heavy
rainfall, and I've managed to get my own tractor stuck in the mud in those
fields on more than one occasion. We have been very careful
to ensure the tributary remains untouched to ensure drainage, but this
proposal looks to drop 23 townhouse units directly on top
of it. The bottom line is that careful inspections need to occur, and I'm
more than willing to assist with providing accurate information about water
flow through this area. I'm a big fan of Henry Ford.
So, Rick, how much— how much time do you need? I need 1 minute.
Okay, go ahead. I'm a big fan of Henry Ford, and he was
quoted as saying, don't bring me problems, bring me solutions. So rather than stand
here and only voice concerns, I'm offering a solution that allows the property to be
developed while addressing density, traffic, noise, and most importantly, staying out
of the creek. Did you hand those out already? On the second document
we submitted, there's a townhouse complex kitty-corner on the southeast corner of
Liberty Street, Third Concession intersections. It's made up of
two buildings with three large townhouse units in one and four to five units in
the other. Using an aerial shot, we marked the property and then
transposed it on the subject property. It's fit— fits well in the eastern portion
of the subject property, and more, more importantly, stays out of the creek. These townhouse
units would fit well in the existing neighborhood, is made up of
single-family dwellings and estate lots to the north. It could also provide green space and
playground areas. So, Rick, at this point I'm going to need a motion. So you're
well beyond, uh, your time. Well, thank you for your— Councilor Anderson was—
you were giving a motion for 2 minutes.
You know, I'm looking at you and not pushing the button. Okay, okay. How much,
how much time do you need? 15 seconds.
One 3 lines left. You know what,
go ahead. Okay. These townhouses units would fit in the existing
neighborhood that's made up of single-family dwellings in the state lots to the north.
It could also provide green space and playground areas which do not exist
in the current plan. If the applicant were to come back with a plan that
mirrors the complex in the southeast corner, it stays out of the tributary. I'm sure
that would help alleviate the concerns we have. Thank you for your time and the
extra time. All righty, so before I go to
members of council with questions, Rick, you're aware, and for members that
are here in the audience, this is initial public meeting. Yes,
council are making no decision this evening. This will go
back to staff, they will take all of your questions and
concerns, and a report will be coming. But, but no decisions
are being made on the spot. That's correct. Okay, perfect. Thank you.
So I will look to members of council for questions to
the delegate.
Councillor Elhajji. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You turned me off before,
but now you turn me back. Yeah, anyways,
I was going to crack a joke there, but inappropriate. I like jokes. Go ahead.
Yeah, bad joke. Yeah, close enough. Thank you, Rick. Thank you for coming for explaining.
You briefly, briefly touched upon cloaca.
And how you raised your concerns to Cloaca. So I'm just wondering if there has
been a response from Cloaca. Yes, I spoke to a
representative from Cloaca yesterday by phone, and it was kind
of an odd response. He said there are things in the file that he could
not share with me, which I understand that, but he was going
to be looking into it and taking biologists from Clarington,
I believe. Clarington has an on-staff biologist.
And representatives from Kloka to not only look at what has transpired
on the land, but also to look at the setbacks on the southern edge
of our property, whether that's considered water
flow or watershed, whether it's 3 meters or 30 meters. So they
were going to be exploring all that. But beyond that, he said thank you for
your email and the phone call, and he would be back to me. So it
sounds like there's like an active investigation for Kloka going on. Yeah, but he wouldn't
share all the details with me, which it's probably legal requirements and frameworks that they
have to do. I understand that. Yeah. Okay. And then, uh, just to clarify as
well, because you, you, you went really quickly over, over what—
can you just describe this? Okay. In a slower, more detailed
manner. Beating the clock there. Thank you. So that, that is on the southeast
corner of that same intersection. It's really
well done townhouse unit of— made of 3 units. Looks like a,
for lack of a better term, or premier type
townhouse with another set of 4 or 5 premium
townhouses, what I'm trying to say, another 4 or 5 on the other side.
And I just, actually Morgan took that block and
moved it over and transposed it on the subject property to say,
hey, this would fit and stays out of that creek and
stay away from any drainage issues. Okay. Okay.
Thank you. Just as an example. And it was more the style versus cramming 23
units into that small block and
the increased traffic, the density, no play area.
There's no septic in there, so I assume he's got to tie in with— north
of the Third, there's no services, sanitary. So he's got to either buy
or come up with some type of septic system in there, which isn't
provided, and without any play area, just paying
for parkland, that doesn't solve the problem of where 23 families
are going to have their kids play in there. I know where they're going to
end up. They're going to end up in our farm field, which is not a
play area. That's an actively farmed property. Absolutely.
That was one of my questions to the developer as well regarding the parkland
and play area. So I'll be asking that later, but thank you for answering
my question. Questions, and I appreciate you being here. Thank you. Thanks.
Thank you, Councillor. I've got Councillor Anderson next.
Thank you. I just want to emphasize, as the mayor said, this is just
an information gathering session. It's just to gather information.
No decisions are being made. Are you opposed to the 23
units? Are you opposed to any kind of development?
Or— no, that's— and that's why I provided that that
second document, that if the applicant were
to consider that, I wouldn't have any opposition to
putting that type of development in there. Just stay away from that
creek and whatever's happened to that creek over the last 3 years,
'cause there is water coming through there, no question.
I know that property inside out, and there are ducks in there in
the spring. They nest down in there. But you have
alluded to the fact that Cloca is actively involved in this currently,
so we are not sure what would be allowed
or what wouldn't be allowed. No, no, Cloca may come in and say— Right,
right. Yeah, that's their decision. But if Cloca
were to ask me, what are you okay with?
You take that block from the southeast corner, move it over here, I wouldn't be
opposed to that so long as it meets all the setbacks and guidelines as
established by Clarington, Durham Region, and CLOCA.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. Councillor Woo.
Yeah, to Your Worship, thank you very much,
Morgan and Rick.
What you handed out, and you have the red line, but I see the development
and pretty well they're driveway is coming for that
development is accessing Concession Road
3, basically where the house is. Yes. The house to
the west. And, but it's basically right
over top, what creek is that or what waterway is that? That's a tributary
3, it's identified as tributary 3 that feeds eventually down
to Sober Creek. Sober Creek. Yes. And that's out of this
This North Glen Environmental, which I was part of that development.
We elected not to proceed with Kemps and Holmanen at
the time. We preferred to have the farmed
fields. So— but I was part and paid for the environmental
impact study just so I knew what the property concerns
were. Right. And right now— not that it's been destroyed.
Councillor Wolff, if I could just Just back up. You're talking about that driveway.
I did speak to my neighbour to the west. And he was very concerned.
He wasn't able to be here tonight, but he was concerned about their driveway side
by side with the volume of traffic coming out of the
proposed area. And if that roundabout goes in, the cars
coming down Liberty Street and heading directly west,
I don't know if you've been in that area lately, but that intersection is treacherous
at best. I've had, since we moved there in 2005, we've had 3 air ambulances
land on our property for accidents. It's a
bad corner. And speaking of that corner, there's a proposed
roundabout in that area. Yeah, that's, that roundabout, they marked
our property again this week, so I don't know what the status is now,
whether it's moving again. They've done the locates on our
property probably a dozen times now. Over the last 2 to 3
years. Right. And the waterway in itself,
like, for the property, the house is still there.
Have you seen any activity going on? There are cars
parked there, but I don't know if anyone's actually living there.
I don't know. It seems to be boarded up, but I can't say
that for sure. So the property is being maintained. The grass
is being cut. The grass, as of Monday,
the strip where the water comes through was not able to be cut with a
lawn mower, it was too wet. But I see it has been cut, I assume
by someone with rubber boots and a weed eater to cut the
grass down. Okay, thank you very much.
Okay. Okay, I'll look to council. Do we have any further questions?
Rick, you noted that you have sent your questions and concerns
by email to staff. Yes. Do you know how much
staff appreciate getting those emails because they have, you know,
a documented set of questions as opposed
to writing down? I'm sharing this for the benefit of everyone. There you go.
I can— tomorrow I will forward that email to Mayor and Council as well so
you have it. So I must say, the planner with this project has
been very helpful. I'm quite pleased with the response I've been getting from her.
It's good to hear. And again, for, for being here tonight and for submitting those,
thank you very much. Okay, all righty.
Thank you for your time. So again,
uh, for any members, uh, any members of the public in attendance,
uh, if you'd like to speak in support or opposition
to the file, please come forward.
And if you'd write your, uh, your name, contact information
there, that would be wonderful.
You actually just turned it off. I apologize. Perfect.
Good evening, everyone. We can, uh, my name is Melanie Chico.
I am a longtime resident of Clarington.
I have worked here and lived here for 25 years. Uh, I'm a local
elementary teacher, uh, and I am also a very new resident of
the neighborhood that backs onto, uh, this property that
we're speaking of tonight. Uh, I live on Jennings Drive, which is just
on the south side of the Concession Road. So my bedroom window looks
directly into this proposed development. My neighbor did
an excellent job of speaking to the environmental concerns, and I stand by
all of those concerns that he's already shared. I won't repeat them.
The concern that I'd like to bring forward to council tonight is from
a parent perspective, from a safety— as a safety issue.
Sometimes I'm told, and I understand in my learning this week, that these
development proposals don't sometimes consider the wider picture serve
the impact to the citizens and the community members who live close by.
Uh, and one thing I would like to bring forward to council is, um,
this area was within the catchment area for the brand
new North Glen Orchards Public School, which is just opening this week, which I happen
to be a teacher at. Uh, and so the students who live in this— who
will live in this proposed community, uh, will be within the catchment
area for North Glen Orchards. Um, when you look at the map and
if you go to the KPRDSB website, you'll notice that The catchment
areas are very strictly enforced, and there's good reason for that. Those things have
been held in true for the board for a very long time, um,
and because these students are where they are
in that specific, uh, plot, um, they live
1.5 kilometers from the front doors of North Glen Orchards
Public School, and KPR has enlisted a brand new policy
this year where the busing distance for these students is
1.6 kilometers, and there is there's absolutely
no flexibility, I assure you, of that distance, which means
that we can assume that the students who live— are going to live in this
proposed development will be walking to school.
I can assure you that as a resident of that neighborhood, it is not a
safe place to walk with your children.
I have 4 children who live with me on Jennings Drive. None of
them are allowed to go on Concession 3. There is a high
volume of traffic. There are speed concerns about that traffic.
The intersection at Liberty and Concession is a question mark
at best and a danger at worst. So these
proposed families who are buying in this proposed development may
not know when they purchase their home or they rent their home that the expectation
is going to be that they walk their children along Concession 3 to
get to their children's assigned school. My students are—
my children are a little bit older, but my 9 to 13-year-olds
would not be allowed to walk along there, never mind students who would be starting
at North Glen at 3 and 4 years old. This is a, a major question
mark that I think sometimes gets overlooked when we propose these kinds of developments.
I'm certainly by no means saying that we shouldn't develop the property. I just
think having an eye on that impact and the way that that would
impact those families should be really well researched and well, uh, discovered. Um, so my
concerns from a safety perspective, from the student perspective, but also from a
traffic standpoint— um, as I said, my backyard backs onto Concession
3, and my family sits in our backyard and listens to cars constantly.
Uh, we made that choice in buying that home, but adding that significant
volume of traffic to that very small area of
the road will be a significant change to the
community members who already own properties there, as well as adding to
the safety concern that are already well documented for that part of
the community. Um, there's also several, uh,
additional plots of land within the North Glen subdivision that
have still not been developed, 3 to my knowledge, um, one of
which has an increase of potentially 700 units. So if
you add all those things together and you consider the real people that would live
in those properties, you're potentially adding between 1,000
and 1,200 cars to an already congested area
of our town in the next 3 to 5 years. From what I can,
I can tell from looking at the literature, that's a huge concern.
And while I understand the need for developing property as
a growing community, I absolutely understand that. I think sometimes
our property development can get ahead of our infrastructure development,
and I'm concerned about the way that that impacts the citizens who already
live in that neighbourhood, but also the prospective new neighbours who would be purchasing or
renting homes in that proposed development. Thank you for considering
this point of view. I appreciate your time. Thank you, and don't go anywhere.
We've got Councillor Rang up first. Yeah, thank you, thank you for that presentation.
Presentation, and thanks for the information about the— specifically about the
busing distances. That's really helpful to keep in mind, and I
do appreciate that. And also, thanks for being a teacher
at North Glen. My daughter will see you shortly.
My question is— and this is not an endorsement of the density or
the proposal per se, but the
sidewalks on Concession 3 stop quite far up.
Well before that. Well before that. And, and I have
had conversations with residents about,
and have been talking to Works about adding sidewalk
capacity all the way to Liberty. Would that be helpful?
It certainly would be helpful from a walking transportation
standpoint, for sure. It would be helpful.
Certainly on the north side of Concession, where that transportation
is most likely to happen as those students get to North Glen,
would be a priority for sure. Okay, I don't think it changes
a lot about the increase in the car traffic, but it certainly would allow families
to travel to school in a safer way. Yeah, okay, thank you.
Thank you, Councillor. I've got Councillor Zwart and then Councillor
Anderson, you after that. Thank you, and thanks
for coming today. Um, the school board, the school issue,
have you discussed that with your school board trustee? I have not,
no. It was really— the sign just popped up in the field
across from our home about 2 weeks ago, so that's not something that I have
had an opportunity to discuss with our trustees yet, no. Okay, because that's
where that type of complaint— yeah, I did go to the school board website just
to verify my understanding of the school catchment area. Um, and the
school catchment for North Glen does go a little bit— I would
say, my guesstimation from the map, probably 100 meters to
the east of Liberty. So just that property that's also on
the east side of that intersection would also be part of the North Glen catchment.
Um, when you go further east than that line, those students would go
to Longworth. Okay, yeah, thank you. No problem.
Thanks, Councillor George. I've got Councillor Anderson.
Thank you. And I guess you're looking forward to the new school. It's like a
year overdue. I am. Fingers crossed the doors are open this week. We're looking forward
to it. Yeah, I haven't heard of any hitches, so I am sure it will
be open. Thanks for bringing that safety concern. When it comes to safety
of kids, that's paramount. And I know when I was on the school
board if there was a safety concern,
like lack of sidewalk, etc. I know
the 1.6, it's kind of etched in stone,
but sometimes they'll make allowances for that
for safety. It depends. It doesn't always happen, but yes,
so that's— those are the kind of things we want to
hear and the kind of things that will make me
take a pause when it comes to development, because safety is
always going to be number one when it comes to children.
So, Councillor Anderson, there's a question in there somewhere,
right? So, to follow up on Councillor
Rong's point, if there were sidewalks in,
would you be— have less of a concern? I think the sidewalks
would definitely help. I, I think to ask families to try to transport their children
to school without a sidewalk would be a liability the city would not
want. It would be, it would be very dangerous. The only
way to access that area on the road is actually
physically on the road. There is a shoulder, but on the other side of the
shoulder there's a culvert, so you, you literally couldn't even walk on the side of
the road without being on the gravel. So I think it would be
impossible to consider families even trying to walk their
young children to school without some modification to the
side of that road. Okay, so you have answered my next
question. I was going to ask if there was an alternate route other than walking
on the shoulders to get to the school. Well, you have
answered that. There isn't. Sorry, could you repeat that? If there was an alternate route
other than walking on the main road to get to the school,
there isn't, correct? Well, I think I think the alternative— excuse me for one moment,
Councilor Anderson, if you speak more closely so we're actually
all— it's not just you. I'm sorry, I'm already a little
bit hard of hearing, so I'm having to— yeah, I was just wondering if there
was an alternate route other than walking on the shoulders,
whether it's Concession or Liberty or whatever the street might be.
So there is not a currently developed alternate route because
the space between the proposed property and where the school is
is farmland, or it's a home to the immediate west, and then
there's farmland, and then there's the Baptist Church. So there's no walk-through
pathway across those properties to be able to get to the North Glen
neighborhood. Um, certainly, you know,
some families might choose to drive their children to school if they can't
safely walk. Um, the challenge with that is that the area
in front of North Glen Orchards Public School is going to be highly
congested already with families driving their students to school.
So there isn't a lot of other walkways and
pathways to transport students, um, into that neighborhood. There's a—
if you walk along Concession 3, you could turn right onto
North Glen Avenue and follow the, the street itself where there are already sidewalks,
um, over to the school. Um, but it's a 1.5
km walk, which I've had little ones and
it's not something I would enjoy doing with 3 and 4-year-olds for sure,
even if it was safe. So it's a very long walk. Yes, and I know,
I know it's congested because if there's a
soccer game at the park, it's congested. I see that
firsthand. So thank you. No problem.
Thank you, Councillor. I've got Councillor Wu next.
Yeah, through his worship, and thank you very much for coming
forward. And again, it's been a long time for that new school
to open, isn't it? It has been a long time, sir. Yes, you're right.
We're ready. Now, getting back to— and
especially, you know, when you're mentioning about even your kids, if you live
on the south side of Concession, on the north side, I think
the sidewalk ends at the Baptist Church, but on the south side, it comes
closer to you but not to you. It does. You're right, it doesn't go as
far as my home. If you look at the map
that you originally had up, my home is literally
directly across from the driveway of the proposed neighborhood.
So there's no sidewalk there. So you're basically having to
walk on your shoulder till you get this side. But the other part is,
where do you cross? Right. Where do you cross?
So there is an entrance just at the end
of our street on McCorkle Drive. I think you can't really see it on the
map, but just if you look at the home with the pool on the far
left there, that home faces onto McCorkle Drive. So there's
a road right there that meets up with Concession, but there's certainly no crosswalk there
to be able to cross over to the other side of Concession. And I'd have
to look at a wider map, but I'm pretty sure that the sidewalk only goes
as far as Gimblett Street, which is the next major street to
the west. So I don't even think the sidewalk
comes as far as McCorkle. So you've still got probably at least
maybe 3/4 of a kilometre, maybe half a kilometre before you get
to the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road. And there's no
crosswalk there. Now, you are about
how— what's the distance? You said 1.6 kilometres. Correct.
So be able to bus, and you're probably 1.5.
It is exactly 1.5. I checked on the map this afternoon. So the school
board modified their busing distances this year. Um, so in previous
years, junior kindergarten to grade 4 students were at 1.2
kilometers. So in that case, these students would have qualified for a bus up to
grade 4. But recently, just as of last September, they've modified
that distance to be 1.6 6 kilometers. So in this case,
um, based on my calculations this afternoon, the entrance to that community
to the front door of North Glen is 1.5, so they'd be just under that
cutoff. Um, and my experience with navigating this pathway for students
this year is that the board is very strictly enforcing that boundary this year.
There's very little exceptions made. In some cases, they might make an
exception for a student who had significant special needs who needed special transportation requests But
generally speaking, for the regular student population, that would not be an available accommodation.
So in order to qualify— and you did mention about
the Ketchum area, maybe just a little bit east of Liberty.
So I don't know if they pick you right up at the door or you
would have to go to a bus pickup if you qualify. Yeah, so if
there was a development on the opposite side outside of Liberty. I'd have to do
the math, sir, but I would think that would be just barely on the outside
of that 1.6-kilometer catchment. And so theoretically,
if there was a proposed property development on that other corner,
on the northeast corner, those students would qualify for a bus
to North Glenorchards. Yeah. Okay, thank you. And,
and maybe it wouldn't hurt to reach out to the school board trustees.
I will do that. Thank you for the suggestion. I will for sure. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wu. I've got Councillor Elhaj next.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Melanie, for coming in and speaking. My wife's
a teacher as well, so I know the hard work that, that you guys put
in, and so a big thank you, I guess, on behalf of council as
well. Thank you for being a teacher. I had a specific question on
the catchment area, and, and I know you mentioned
safety, and I just want to— it was kind of— it's kind of a rhetorical
question, but are you aware that this council changed, uh, school zone speed
limits to 30 km/h, improving safety? I am very aware, yes.
I, uh, I had my oldest child went to the Pines Senior
Public School, and so I was party to some of the conversations and the,
um, parent advocacy to manage the school
issues with the transportation speed limit in front of the Pines, uh,
in the last few years. So yes, I'm very familiar with that piece. For sure.
Great, thank you. And thank you for, for talking about your, your safety concerns,
you know, on Concession 3 as well. I think we all— I think you've heard
all of council, you know, share those concerns as well. Um, so back to the
catchment area, I know you mentioned that the busing areas are 1.6 and you're
roughly around 1.5 kilometers. I'm just wondering if you— like, I,
I haven't— in, in you being up here, I haven't been able to find why
they chose 1.6 kilometers. I'm just wondering if you are are aware why
they chose 1.6 kilometers. I unfortunately can't speak to the school board's decision-making
process there. In my experience, I was a special
education teacher in my last job, and so a lot of my responsibility was
supporting students who needed special transportation requests to get to school,
who had special unique needs. And I know that in my navigating
that part of my job with the board, they were very strictly enforcing that
distance. But I don't know much about— I imagine As most things do,
it came down to a budgetary concern, but I don't
know the specific background of the conversation that went on to create that
specific number of distance. No. Yeah, that's my assumption as well, is budget
related, which obviously comes down from province, right? And I know that the trustees
and the school boards are very tight with their budgets as a result.
So, so yeah, thank you. That was my only question.
Thank you for coming up again and And God bless you for
working with special needs as well. I know the hard work there as
well. So thank you. Thank you,
Councillor. I'll look around. I don't see
anything further. Thank you for coming. No problem. I will reiterate,
please reach out to the trustee.
I know that they will be delighted to hear from you.
And I know that if you help to advocate for budgets that
allow for better busing and a
whole range of things that you know way better than we do that the
school boards need, again, they will be
just more delighted than you can imagine. Yes, sir, I will do my
best. Thank you very much. Oh, thank you.
All righty. So again, we will look To members of the public,
anyone speaking in support of or opposition
to this application?
I don't see any further takers.
So that's who's going to speak for— oh yeah, okay. Uh,
oh, there you are, Mr. Jitan. You're the agent for the applicant.
Good afternoon, Mayor and members of council. My name is
Christian Détan. I'm a registered professional planner with GHD, and I'm here
on behalf of LAK Realty Appraisals and Consultants,
the owner of the subject property. The owner, Phil, is in
attendance today. Regarding the app— and I'm here
regarding the applications for the zoning bylaw amendment and draft plan of subdivision at
2658 Concession Road 3 in Bowmanville.
Here's just an overview of the subject site,
and here is an overview of the proposed concept.
So the proposed concept consists of a small-scale
residential infill development on approximately 0 0.45
hectares located at the northwest corner of Concession Road
3 and Liberty Street North. Um, the application proposes
11 front-loaded townhouse dwelling units, um, 12 dual-frontage,
uh, townhouse dwelling units, uh, for a total of 23 residential
units. Um, the Concession Road,
um, is a Type B arterial road, and the proposed
concept plan is illustrated in the staff report.
Um, and here's just an illustration of the draft plan of subdivision,
which is pretty straightforward.
Um, the pre-consultation meeting was held, um,
with municipal departments and external, uh, commenting agencies in
October 2023. And through that process,
staff advised that a zoning bylaw amendment would be required to facilitate
the proposed development. Applications were submitted in March 2026 and
subsequently deemed complete, with the municipality
deeming it complete in April 2026. At that time, supporting plans and
studies have been circulated to departments and agencies for review. We've not received
all comments yet, and we did not receive the
emailed correspondence from residents today, so we're happy to hear about
it today. We're hoping to get a copy of that and, you know, respond to
some of those comments. Um, just to review on the zoning
bylaw, so the property is currently proposing
the townhouses, which requires site-specific zoning permissions to implement the
development concept, and the draft zoning provisions establish the appropriate
development standards related to lot frontage, setback, landscaping,
building height, driveway widths, and other site-specific zoning matters.
The owner of the property is in contact with the resident immediately
to the west. They have a good working relationship,
um, and I can review quite briefly—
I don't have the schematics for it, but the— our
traffic, um, transportation report includes a ghosted-in image
of the, um, the roundabout that's proposed there.
I do see sidewalk crossings in all directions, so that's
a plus for the area. And also the region
has been in contact with us regarding the driveway. And because
of the proximity to the roundabout, our site
has to develop our proposed driveway as far west as possible.
And we have to accommodate the appropriate spacing and
sweep paths for vehicles. And we've been in close contact with
the resident to the west and no major concerns regarding the proximity
of the driveways. Has been identified. With respect to the natural features of the
property, I'm a planner, I'm not an environmental person, but we have been in touch
with, uh, Kloca as of today,
and we are scheduling a site visit to walk the site and see,
um, any, um, wetland features that they want to,
um, identify. Um, our, our EIS report,
uh, didn't identify anything on our subject property, but we are adjacent to a property
So we understand that, you know, stormwater management is not managed
on one site. It's a holistic view that we have to take. And with respect
to the property, it is occupied with a dwelling right
now. And the current owner-developer, when they took over the
property, the previous owner was a landscape company and there was a lot of like
refuge and stone and other materials that was all cleaned up
without Cloca prompting them to do that. They just did that to be a good
neighbor. And they continue to do so, and they're hoping to bring forward
this residential development. Um, I can't speak too
much into detail about the school boards. Um, I do
have their comments. They did talk about how the
Kwatha Pine Ridge District School Board, uh, notes that dedicated pedestrian
pathways are being proposed and would like the sidewalks to remain part of our plan,
which they are, to ensure the safe movement of pedestrians throughout the proposed development,
school bus pickup points will generally be located on a
through street at a location selected by the Student Transportation Services
of Central Ontario. Please be aware school buses will not
travel on private roads. That's, that's pretty standard. So we
do have some of the comments from the school boards. So we
weren't really looking at that area because we didn't have any concerns,
but we do have the matters about
the, the the potential wetland and, and cloaca comments to be addressed, and that's
being taken care of next week. Um, so,
and, um, just to close, um,
we're interested in getting this feedback today. Uh, we will like electric
copies of the one that was sent because we were not provided it just yet,
and we appreciate the opportunity to present the application and welcome
further comments and dialogue from residents and staff.
Thank you.
Sir, thank you again. Members of Council, do we
have any questions?
I don't know if you did a great job or if you wore out your
welcome. I don't see any questions. Thank you ever so
much, and we will, we will get a copy of the correspondence
to you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
Start talking. Oh, you want me to call you out?
The clerk has helped me out here. So that is the
statutory public meeting for this particular file.
We are on PSD-073-26— 072-26.
6. And again, to members of the public, um,
while we are voting on this, no decision is being made.
Uh, this is going back to staff for further processing. Uh, so I'll need a
mover and a seconder. Councillor Jort, you made eye contact. Thank you.
Seconded by Councillor Alhajay. Thank you. Uh,
questions or comments?
Councillor Anderson.
Your mic's on. So I'm just asking for a recorded vote when the
time comes. Uh, and just a quick correction,
I know you— the 1.6 was done for financial
reasons, but trustees have no say.
The province has taken away that authority when it comes to finance
budget, so I don't know where you go
if you need that change, but Trustees have no authority
over that anymore. Just, just wanted to put that out there.
I can guarantee that if you go to the trustees,
they, they have addresses and emails of
the people that have the purse strings, which might be elected
members of the provincial parliament. That's right. So I just
wanted to put that out there. Yeah, no, it's a, it's a good point with
the changes. Yeah, you're right. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Woo.
Yeah, Your Worship, and to the Deputy CAO,
just looking in fact at the map that was supplied by one
of the first delegates, but if you look here,
and I'm surprised that that tributary
to, I guess, the Soper Creek wouldn't be— that
area wouldn't be environmentally protected.
Can you give me an idea why it may not?
So through the mayor, I'm going to ask Sreeja Phora, the planner
on the file, that can respond to that about how we are, where we are
on that. Sreeja. Thank you.
Through you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for that.
So, uh, to answer your question on that, the adjacent
property does have some wetland, uh,
you know, designated on the property. However, this property parcel does not
have any wetland feature. So to, you know,
to work around, uh, the EIS that is supplied by the applicant and
with CLOCA, uh, myself, our ecologist,
that is Paul Finnegan, and the CLOCA team is going to have a
site visit next week. We have a scheduled site visit next week, and we just
want to understand what are the features existing on the property, and, you know,
just to get a better understanding of wetland extension and everything.
Okay, uh, just so I heard, next week you plan on going out—
let's say groundproofing, I guess I'll call it groundproofing,
uh, yourself, Cloca,
through this— yes, that's correct. So it's going me, myself,
Paul Finnegan, that is our ecologist, and Cloca.
And the site visit is scheduled for 27th of
August, that is next Thursday. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Any further questions? Uh,
Sreeja, you know, and Mr. James, uh, one of
the delegates, I, I suspect has intimate knowledge
of of that area. So I would take a close look at
what he has submitted as you're
wandering through the meadow, which makes your job sound
way nicer than what it actually is. Thank you.
Councillor Anderson, you wanted a recorded vote? Oh,
all right, Madam Clerk.
They're working on it. I briefly disappeared from the
microphones. On the matter before you, report PDS 07226.
The motion is showing there to continue processing, beginning with
Councillor Anderson. No.
Councillor Allagé. No. Councillor Rang. Yes.
Councillor Traill. No.
Councillor Woo. No.
Councillor Zwart. Yes. Mayor Foster.
Yes. And that That is lost
4 to 3. So we'll need a different motion.
Councillor Zwart, it's unusual, but— You're
looking for a motion, correct? That was a
motion. You're looking for a new motion, aren't you?
Yes, yes, you're correct. So that the report be
referred back to staff to continue to work on it.
Thank you. I know what you're hoping for. That, that in fact
is— it was the motion. This, this is a public meeting,
slightly different words, but sure, we'll give it a try. Do we have
a seconder for that? Councillor Rang,
thank you. Can we assume that this and this is in place?
Okay, so that's on the floor. I would encourage
councillors to look at the difference
between the recommendation and what we are doing and suggest possible
changes to the recommendations.
Because this, this is going to be very confusing to staff. Uh,
Councillor Elhajji, um, if I could make a suggestion to
the, uh, the motioner, uh, to add a piece in there about,
uh, Cloca, since the concern is, is, uh, waiting for
Cloca's response. So maybe refer to staff until,
um, uh, refer to staff, uh,
waiting for Cloca's response kind of thing. So that,
that's, that's part of what we're doing. So I understand,
for us as an initial public meeting, we're simply gathering
information. Staff will get all of the information
from all of the agencies before they bring something forward. So we can,
we can highlight cloaca, um,
if that's friendly, Councillor, but it's it's
already realistically part of what they're going to do.
So you just want to double make sure that they're talking to Cloca.
Yes? Okay, is that friendly?
It's already intrinsic to what we do.
Oh, I'm sorry. That is friendly,
but maybe with significant attention paid to the wetland
teacher. Would— is that sure?
Okay. Councilor Anderson.
And I would add to that, look at reducing the number of units as
well.
So, Councilor Anderson,
why don't you give me a, a mo— you know, but I— so, so folks,
um, You know, this, this is an initial public meeting where
no decision is being made. Everyone is being circulated
on this. We are simply gathering information at
this point in time. I, you know, so it's— we can certainly
take the request to reduce the numbers,
but there, um, we, we have
no facts to, to support that.
So, so I will ask staff to pay particular attention to that.
Give me that. Give me the most— want to make sure that that's looked
at. So, Councillor, I can— as, as you know, and you've been here for a
very long time, um, that, that is part of this process.
But Councillor Anderson, you're moving that staff pay particular attention
to the number of units? Yes, and safety— and the
safety concerns raised by the events. All righty,
and seconded by Councillor
Alhajji. So on the amendment,
um, questions and comments?
Okay. And Mr. Lyons, I, I know I'm repeating
myself, but you would be doing all of this anyway.
So to the mayor, absolutely. As part of the process, we work closely with
CLOCA. You've heard we have an upcoming meeting to try and figure this matter out.
We work with the school boards. They're all circulated on every planning application
that comes forward to provide advice to us from their professional expertise.
So I would suggest that we are going to do all of those matters.
I just would also just flag that in this situation,
we have an official plan that already enables development on this site.
So we just— it It's fine for staff to get direction about whether
it's reduction or not of units, but we also have to abide by what council
approved as the official plan guiding development on the site. So we're going to call
this the belts and suspenders amendment. How's that, Councillor Anderson?
Uh, all right. Anything further on, uh, on the amendment?
Can I just say the amendment? Uh, so the clerk
is going to repeat it back. Councillor Ward, I, I've We've got you next,
but we're going to get the clerk to repeat that back to make sure that
she has that correctly noted.
No, on the second one, it was moved by Councillor Anderson and
seconded by Councillor Rahelajay. So we had a friendly and now
we have this one.
So the amendment as I have it, that staff pay particular attention
to the number of units and the concerns of residents.
All righty.
Safety concerns. And you don't want to call out the
belts and suspenders.
All righty. On the amendment, any further questions
or comments? Call the question. All in support?
Opposed? That is carried. We're back to the main motion.
All right, Madam Clerk, you're going to read the main motion.
So I am assuming that this first one is in
here, that report PSD 72 and any related communication
items be received for information only, and then it goes,
uh, that the matter be referred to to staff to obtain Kloca's response
and to continue processing the applications,
including the preparation of a subsequent recommendations report.
I'm also assuming that all interested parties listed
in the report and any other delegations be advised of council's decision.
Is that a fair assumption? Plus the
amendment. That's the amendment. Alrighty, so again, we're back,
back to the main report. Further questions,
comments? Don't see any.
Do you need a recorded vote on this, Councillor Anderson? No. All right.
With that, I'll call the question. All in support? Opposed? That is carried.
Councillor Traill, thank you. We saw your, your note there,
or notice. Okay, we will move
further to item 6.2.
This is a public meeting for a zoning bylaw amendment and
draft plan of subdivision. The applicant is Boycefields—
I never get that pronounced correctly— on behalf of Lambs Road Development,
Kaitlin Corporation, 2273 Lambs Road
in Bowmanville. And we've got— where'd
Sarah go? And I lost a councillor.
What did you say? So we're looking for Sarah to do
the presentation. No, staff doesn't do presentation. Oh, never mind.
Yes, you're right. Uh, so with, uh, that,
uh, we will look to, uh, folks in the gallery here,
uh, anyone wishing to speak in support of,
uh, or in opposition to this
application. Councillor Trill,
I'm I'm going to the public first. I will come to you. We have Emma,
who's the applicant, who's going to speak electronically.
Okay. I'm looking again to folks
in the gallery. Anyone willing to speak to or in opposition
of this application?
Seeing none, I'm sorry, the applicant or agent
For the applicant? Okay, and is Emma with us?
Emma West from Blue Streets. Okay, Emma.
Electronic. Emma is with us electronically.
So Emma, you need to hit the talking head button.
She has lots.
Have you got her there? She's with us.
So, Emma, we know that you are online with us.
Okay,
Emma, something is happening, but we still don't see you.
Emma, we can see you, but you'll need to unmute yourself. So leave
the talking head button alone and look for the
mute/unmute. Can you hear me? We can. Perfect.
Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you so much for your help on that.
Right. Well, and so you've got a slight delay. Slide deck, so you need to
hit the share button. Okay, perfect. Thank you.
And I'm
sorry, I haven't used this platform before. Can you see my screen?
I've hit the share button. I appreciate your
accommodation of me here. Yes. Yeah, wait a
minute. Waiting to share. Hang on one second. The, uh,
It would appear that the computer's thinking about— the clerk speaking. So have you hit
the share button, which is in the top left toolbar?
Yes, I, I have. Could you unhit it and then hit
it again, just in case I need to do something here? We rarely have this
happen. Okay, so I've
hit it. Uh, there's something that's prohibiting the
source from your side. But I have your slides,
so I can display them. You'll just have to tell
me when to advance. Just hold on. That would be wonderful.
Thank you. Sorry about that. Looks like my system
settings are not set to share in this platform.
Sorry. Emma, we're going to try one last-ditch effort. Can you share
again? We think we might have hit Hit a new button.
No. Okay. I've hit share screen.
I— No, we're no further ahead. Back to me.
Okay.
Emma, I'm sharing for everyone else. Are you seeing that?
I can see that. That's perfect. Thank you so much.
Tonight, and obviously we're here to listen and to answer questions
if needed, just have a brief presentation location
here. If you can go to the next slide. The site
is located at Lambs
and Concession in the northeast quadrant of that
intersection. The site is approximately 40
hectares in size. It's got about 400
meters of frontage on Concession and about 1,000 on
Lambs Road. Currently, the site is used for
agriculture, and there is a 1.5-storey dwelling
at the south end. Next slide, please. Just to briefly
touch on the planning context, so you can see the
Durham Region Official Plan, which is a part of the Clarington Official Plan now.
You can see the subject site is outlined there. It's a part
of the community areas. On the right-hand
side, you can see the Clarington Official Plan and that the site is designated
urban residential. The yellow, it's got a community park
in green, and there's also a piece of environmental protection.
Next slide, please. Importantly, the secondary plan,
Soper Hill Secondary Plan, applies to the site.
You can see the outline black area in the
northwest quadrant of the secondary plan.
That secondary plan was approved in May of this
year. The application that we are here to discuss tonight
was submitted 2 months before that. I do just want to point out a
few things in the secondary plan. Here you can see the medium
density in orange wraps the northwest
and south edges of the property. The yellow is
a low density residential. In the
approved secondary plan, you can see a school site in the middle. You can
see a neighborhood park, and there are 2 little blue dots
that are probably hard to see from there, that are two stormwater
management ponds. So to the next slide,
just briefly, the site, even though that is the secondary
plan that applies and is designated for residential and some
of the other uses I mentioned, the site is currently zoned for agriculture.
If we go to the next slide, I'd just
like to show a comparison of that approved
secondary plan on the left side and the concept that supports
the zoning bylaw amendment and plan of subdivision that have been submitted
to Clarington. So you can see that the orange,
the medium density, wraps the north, the west, and the south.
The low density is the yellow, that's a mix of singles
and towns. You can see the purple is the school site,
the green is the park in the middle of the plan area, and two stormwater
water management ponds. So if you go to the next slide,
a summary of what that includes. So again, a mix of single
detached dwellings, townhouses, some apartment units
as well. The natural heritage system block up in the
northwest corner is protected. There are storm ponds, there are new
streets identified throughout the plan area. If you
go to the next slide. On this one, you can see what is actually
being proposed through the zoning bylaw amendment and the draft plan of
subdivision that have been submitted. So on the left side,
that's the schedule in the draft zoning bylaw amendment
that was submitted with the application. You can see that it includes
3 zone categories, the green up at the top,
environmental protection, and then the medium density residential
is an R4 zone, and the low density that would
include the school and the park is the R2 zone.
Right-hand side is the plan of subdivision that, as I mentioned,
creates new blocks and streets and the school block and the
park block and the stormwater management ponds. So in conclusion,
on the final slide, the applications again align fully
with the secondary plan that was approved by this council.
They introduced new public roads, a new school block, a new
neighborhood park, All of which integrate the subject
site into the surrounding context and the planned areas in the
surroundings. It optimizes the use of the urban area,
contributes to a greater mix and range of housing
options, and it's consistent with the PPS and the official
plans and the secondary plan. Looking forward to your questions
and hearing the comments. Thank you.
Well, thank you very much. I've got Councillor Traill.
Hi, thank you very much. Um, and I just have some questions
for you arising out of my support for
the Camp 30 site across the road. Um, I would like
to know what the process would be if— so I'm just
going to preface this with saying that I think one option
that, that we may see or we'd like to see is
that perhaps a private investor or a company or
a developer, uh, ends up, say, purchasing the,
the remaining properties in the Ring Road and converting them into, you know, like a
distillery-type district, um, you know, development with, with, with commercial.
But if that doesn't happen, and there's a role for the municipality, I'd like
to know what the planning process would be with respect to the new park
that is put forward in this proposal. So I'm turning
to the new park that you noted next to the school.
Now, it's my understanding that that new park was not in the original
plan. That was on the first slide. There was a
big park at the south end of the development. Now,
in the north end, I see that the park has been added there.
So if there is a role for the municipality and
say they don't end up going with the private sector, my question is,
what would be the process for removing that parkland and applying
applying that parkland credit or that dedication to the Camp 30 site instead,
just hypothetically speaking, what process would we follow to do
that? And I'm assuming this would be in the next term. So these
are two separate parcels of land. We're here to
talk about the land on the east side of Lambs Road. And as I mentioned,
the park site in the center of the proposal that's
before you today, the neighborhood park that's there,
that's— exactly where it's shown in the secondary plan.
So the earlier version of the Soper Hills secondary
plan did show a community park down at the corner
of Concession and Lambs. That was in a draft,
but that wasn't what council ended up approving
back in May. And so— So I'm gonna
jump in here for a moment. We're supposed to be speaking to the application
in front of us. Oh, that's right. I am.
Thank you. Could I not be interrupted? Not the property interrupted.
Councillor Trail. Mr. Mayor, you're interrupting staff. Could you please show some
respect and allow her to finish? Councillor Trail, you are out of order.
I think it would be helpful if you're interrupting people. Emma. Yes,
both of you. You're interrupting both of us now.
Councilor Trail, can you please apologize? Councilor Trail, you are
out of order, right?
Second time. Whatever you say.
So if you would focus your questions on
the report in front of us, please. Councilor Trail,
I have— Mr. Mayor and Miss West
has confirmed that so is she. Would you like to not interrupt either
of us further, please? This is going to be the third time.
I will look to members of the council to ask you to leave
this meeting. I won't make that decision on my own,
but the disrespect that you are showing and the disrespect that you have shown in
the past, I think we have all just about had it.
So if you want to carry on Speaking to
the report in front of us, but I would encourage you to be
respectful.
Mr. Mayor, you're gaslighting me. Miss West had the floor and she just confirmed
I was speaking to the report, and so is she. May we please proceed without
interruption? Thank you. Members, Councilor,
I wonder if you'd give a 5-minute break.
Thank you, Councilor Zwart, seconded by Councilor Alhaj. This is bullying,
Mr. Mayor, and I hope it ends. That is great.
Thank you. Thank you.
Sorry, am I permitted to continue asking my questions?
One moment, Councilor Trill.
All righty, so we'll call the meeting back to order. I'm hoping that
we have a, a bit of a reset
to, to get back to some productive, uh, work and
dialogue, uh, on this. Uh, Councillor Traill, you,
uh, you do have the floor. Oh, I do? Okay.
And hopefully I won't be interrupted again. Thank you. I will keep my comments as
brief as possible. Okay, so although I was democratically elected
to be here to ask— All right, Councillor Traill, I— yep,
you know, we, we could move forward We are— I don't need your editorial comments.
I'm trying to move ahead. Miss West, may I please proceed
to ask my questions? Thank you. When you have the floor, Mr. Mayor,
you can speak. That's how this works. Um, actually, Councillor, that's not how this
works. Um, okay, I am— I am the
mayor. Uh, I am the chair. I— you know,
you, you are— you are being disrespectful, uh,
to myself and all of your colleagues.
Councillor Wu. How so, sir? Your Worship,
Councillor Traill, point of order. Let's just get on with
this and ask your question to Miss West.
Let's just move on. Forget all this other,
uh— This is incredibly belittling. Can I please proceed? Thank you.
I've got Councillor Anderson, I think, has a point of order as well.
Everybody here wants to weigh in on my ability to speak. I think Councillor Wu
has said it quite eloquently. Ask your question. It's no
need for back and forth banter. Just ask the question you
want to ask. So, Councilor Trajan, to the
application. Thank you. Thank you for your permission
to all of my male colleagues who have decided to weigh in to let me
know it's okay for me to do my job. Thank you. Now, getting back to
my question, would anybody else like to let me know it's okay for me to
do my job, please? Well, I think I've got a— I think I've got
a third point of order from Councillor Zwart. Thank you. Point of order.
I'm sure you do. As your female colleague, I would also like this,
uh, the questions be directed to
the report that we are currently discussing. Thank you,
Councillor. I need to do that for the last 5 minutes. So wow,
this is why people are upset. Okay, so I'd like to know, and what I'd
asked you before I was interrupted, is what process we follow if
we want to move the new parkland that has been added,
right, as part of this most recent revision,
if we want to allocate that parkland to the west side of Lambs Road—
this is directly on the report. I asked this 10 minutes ago, and I'm so
sorry, Ms. West, for all of the interruptions that you just had to deal with.
Could, could you please advise what the protocol would be for us to do this
if this is something we'd like to explore, or if today's decision sets this
parkland in stone and we cannot reopen this down the road depending
on what the, the landscape looks what it looks like for the historic World
War II site across the way.
Thank you for the question, and through you, Mr.
Mayor, to Councillor Traill,
I would remind you, and I don't know if the clerk can bring
my presentation back up to slide 7.
So what's before you today is the zoning bylaw amendment
application Apologies, it might be, yes, that one. Thank you.
So what you can see here on the left is the
approved secondary plan that council, this council approved
in May of 2026 of this year.
So you can see in that approved secondary
plan, which is a part of the official plan,
that the secondary plan schedule shows a neighbourhood
park sort of in the middle of the subject lands that
we are here to talk about, that green area. So the
secondary plan and all official
plans that indicate that a park would go somewhere
in a municipality would provide some
flexibility for some modifications to
the location of the park that has been identified.
I was not involved in preparing the secondary plan, but did monitor
the process and understand that a fair amount of thought went into where the
parks and schools would be located within the secondary plan more
broadly because it's much bigger than this area. So if
there was a desire by the municipality
to change the plan, change the secondary plan,
there would need to be an official plan amendment to do that.
If it is a wholesale change to the
secondary plan, more limited modifications
to it, to a secondary plan, can be contemplated
often for the location of a park
or even the precise location of a school or a stormwater
management facility. So you can see all of those things are in
the approved secondary plan and that the application,
the concept is on the right side and that those are
put where the secondary plan put them. So it,
it's something that if the municipality chose to update
the secondary plan, they would need to go through a process to update
the secondary plan. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'm asking
because protecting Camp 30 is in our Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
So when I see that this additional park is being added, in order to ensure
that we follow our Parks and Recreation Master Plan and do everything we can to
preserve that site, I'm wondering if this is something we might want to explore.
So I appreciate you explaining that process to me.
Um, now what about the fact that we do have the Bowmanville Zoo site just
to the south of this development, which includes 34 acres of parkland?
Was that considered when the additional park was added here? Because again,
I'm looking at this from this perspective of somebody saying, hey,
we have one in, you know, probably the only one of its kind
in North America, as from a historical perspective, across the road, but we
were short on parkland there. So with respect to being able to
look at that site, so I just want to ask again, was the Bowmanville Zoo
site factored into this when we're doing the calculation for
how much parkland is needed for new developments? So again,
that's the point I was trying to make. Through the mayor to the councillor,
as I said, I was not involved in the preparation of the secondary
plan. I think that question would be better directed to staff.
I am here on behalf of the applicant who, right, as you can
see with these two images on the screen, we have a proposal to
update the zoning and to create a plan of subdivision. Those are the applications
before you that implement what you see on the left side of the screen,
and that's what staff and council made a decision on
and worked on, that, that's not my work to,
uh, comment on. And you represent— there's a group of landowners
involved in this, right? It's Lambs Road Development is
the owner. Yeah, yeah. Okay, so this was— so I
do appreciate that this would require going back to the table if we,
if we end up reopening this in January, but at this
point You are saying that that is a possibility through an
official plan amendment? The municipality can
update their official plan whenever they choose to,
but we're here to have an application heard,
get some input here, some questions about something that implements
the secondary plan. So definitely the municipality can choose to
update the official plan whenever they choose to. And all
that will result in your clients doing would be essentially
building more houses, to be honest, right? Because if, if we are— if we end
up moving that parkland dedication to the other side, for example,
you would just simply have more room to build more homes there. Is that accurate
or no? That's, that's not something that we've analyzed
in detail, and obviously, you know, the parkland dedication
requirements for this proposal are the
thing that we have focused on in terms of the amount of development the
Planning Act parkland dedication requirements and also following
what was in the approved secondary plan. For sure.
Well, and I appreciate it. However, we do also happen to have, I think,
what will be the biggest park in Clarington on the south side of, uh,
of, of that road with the Bowmanville Zoo site, which we are having the grand
opening for tomorrow. So thank you again, and I do appreciate
your patience. Thank you very much. Those are all my questions. I'm finished asking
questions now. Thank you, Mr. Lyons. You're almost
chewing your tongue off. Would, would you care
to address some of what we just heard? Thank you,
Mr. Mayor. It's not necessarily that I'm chewing my tongue off,
but I would like to clarify a couple of things, in particular for the public
that is joining us today. Emma West is the consultant for the applicant. They are
not a member of of our staff. Staff and council have been involved in the
development of a secondary plan. They are only one voice of an entire
landowners group that we have support letters for on this secondary plan that council
just recently approved. It is before the Ontario Land Tribunal because
we have received an appeal on it. So it is in a litigation as well,
which is why I don't really want to go into a lot of detail myself
about the status of that secondary plan. In order to change policy
policy is different than what we're looking at here, which is implementing approved
policy direction. So in the situation of removal of parkland,
applying it elsewhere, council can approve policy change.
You can direct staff on what to do in litigation and what
decisions to make bringing that forward. But also
in the development of that secondary plan, staff were ensuring
that it conformed to the Parks and Rec Master that already identified
the Camp 30. It already identified all of the other park
space, and I don't have the exact number on the top of my head,
but I believe that the Parks and Rec Plan also spoke to a requirement of
an additional 105 hectares of land that we need to get,
and that was direction from council. So through Planning Act
process, the Planning Act enables the municipality to require
parkland and and/or cash in lieu of parkland.
That would be looked at through this process. So as Emma
has kindly walked through the nuance and the fact that this application
came in prior to the secondary plan being approved,
of course the land use had changed. Council approved a direction for
what should be protected for in that area.
And Emma, and I know that Caitlin Group, who I met with
earlier today, outlined that they were doing work in order to bring it into conformity
with that secondary plan, which is the new map that has been shown.
I do want to flag that none of my staff have had a chance or
opportunity to review that or receive it or even have conversations with
Caitlin Group or with them to sort of walk through that. So that will
be all part of the upcoming process. But I am happy to see
that Caitlin Group as well as, as Bousfield
is already working to try and bring it into alignment with the direction and decision
of council. So with that, staff will
of course take any direction from council on which direction you would like to go,
but I just wanted to sort of bring together all of the different layers and
the pieces that led to where this secondary plan is at.
Thank you, sir. From members of council, do we have,
uh, further questions for Emma.
Oddly, it feels like a lot of energy has left the room,
sadly.
Councillor Woo.
Through Your Worship and to the Deputy CAO,
so the Figure 1 that I have in the report certainly is
different than what was presented by Emma,
and especially with a school block with what we have in
the report that we have before us and what was
presented. There's a school block and no
longer is there a parkland at the corner of
Concession and Lambs, which I think was the community
park that was— I'm
trying to think how far it was back, maybe 2014,
2015. When we decided to move the community park
from the Camp 30 lands, the south park, to this
area. With that parkland now,
and it's 2.4 hectares or about 6
acres, the school right beside it makes sense.
That's what we tried to do, is have a school beside
a park. Is that correct? So through the mayor,
that is absolutely correct. One of the things that I would just like to sort
of add to explain that even further was that through the ongoing work with the
landowners group for this area, there was an identification by the school board of the
number of school sites that were required. There was also trying to figure out what
is the parkland dedication required amongst all of those landowners,
the participating landowners, to define what is an appropriate space,
size, and location in the different areas of the secondary plan for
park space. So what you'll have seen within Emma's
updated version, which is what they're trying to conform to, is there's actually
a school, a neighborhood park, and a school. So we're really
trying to find ways to maximize opportunity for park
space, for play space that's safe for kids, as well as
having it co-located with schools. Okay,
so the parkland that we're seeing in the new updated, which was
posted, that is parkland dedication. The school
beside it, there's no guarantees there will be a school
because the school has to first buy the property, then I guess
go through the whole process with
the Ministry of Education for funding. Is that correct?
So through the mayor, that, that is correct. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor. Do you have any further questions
or comments for Emma?
I don't see any, so that puts
6.2.1 on the
agenda. If I can get a mover and a seconder, please. Moved by Councillor Rang,
seconded by Councillor Elhaj. Questions or
Comments? Make a brief comment. While this is an initial meeting,
um, I, I would be hard-pressed to
support development of this size, uh, with no parks
and more houses. Uh, this council has done a huge amount of work to
make sure that we have green space, but, um,
you know, 1,290 units, uh, to swap
out parkland to add more houses and
no place for people to, to enjoy. It'd be very difficult.
With that, I'll call the question. All in support?
Opposed? And that is carried. Thank you.
That brings us to item 6.3, public meeting
for an official plan amendment. The applicant is Netheri
Planning on behalf of Farsight Investments. The file
is PDS-076-26,
which is an official plan amendment application to facilitate
182 townhouse units within a single site
plan block.
So I will look to the— do we have anyone registered?
Just the planner? So I'll look to the folks Folks in the gallery,
is there anyone willing or wanting to speak in support
or in opposition to this application?
Go for a second time. Anyone speaking
in support of or in opposition to?
And with that, we'll look to the applicant and/or
Good evening, Mayor and members of council. My name is Michelle Diplock.
I am a registered professional planner. Working on behalf
of Farsight Homes. I am joined in the audience by both
Bob Shikinanz and Joe Vaccaro, um, and we are here today
to request approval of our minor official plan amendment in alignment with
planning staff's recommendation.
So we are here to discuss an official plan amendment,
uh, to the policy that limits the number of townhouse block or
townhouse units units on a block to 50 units.
We are requesting council approve this amendment.
As the intent of this policy is to ensure the good
urban design is part of the overall development application.
While this policy in your official plan currently limits the number of townhouse
units on a block, this policy has been exceeded through applications.
When the applicant can demonstrate a
good and thorough attention to detail and urban design for
the site. Um, part of the rationale for the amendment of this project is that
Farsight Homes does have a long history of developing
beautiful homes and neighborhoods with a strong attention and investment
in urban design. Um, and the foundation of the design for the Timber Trails
community is the municipality's own general architectural guidelines.
So what we're seeking from council today is the ability to build
out the 2011 community community design plan for the Timber,
Timber Trails subdivision, um, and builds on Clarington's vision
for design, not just for the Timber Trails community but for the whole
of Bowmanville. So this file does have
a long history. Um, in terms of what we're here for today, uh, we are
talking about the red block on the draft
approved subdivision. The site is currently zoned for
residential development and is designated for a residential development
in the official plan. We are seeking a policy amendment
to enable the development to
proceed in a way that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and
aligns with Bowmanville's housing needs. So in
terms of the site context, we are looking at— you can see on the slide
above that there is currently work on phase 1
of the project being done. We are talking about the block to
the south. There is work being done in that area
as well. But we are looking to get approval to amend the policy
as Phase 1 is under construction. So currently
the proposal includes a total of 182 townhouse units,
86 front lane townhouses, 84 back-to-back townhouses,
and 12 rear lane townhouses. Um, we are meeting all of
the other zoning requirements as it relates to parking space and visitor
parking spaces, as well as proposing a significant central
amenity space. Um, we are continuing to work with staff on
the finalization of the site plan. Um, this is one of the rare planning cases
where we've submitted a site plan application and an official plan amendment application,
um, and we are requiring council approval to proceed
with an official plan amendment as it relates to the urban design
of the site.
So in terms of the policy and regulatory
context, we do comply with all of the provincial legislation,
including the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement. We align with the Durham
Region Official Plan as well as the municip— municipality of
Clarington's Official Plan. as the plan
before you supports a compact urban form and neighborhood
integration through urban design and sustainability.
The OPA is related to allowing a higher number of units on a single block,
um, and the intent of this policy, uh,
that we are amending is to ensure the urban design, uh,
context for the site, uh, matches with the vision for the
community. And so I wanted to just share a little bit about
the urban design context of what we're proposing, um, as it helps to
illustrate the type of development that we are intending to
build. Um, so the proposed development reflects a coordinated and
high-quality built form that is consistent with the established vision for the community
and the architectural design guidelines. The attention to
detail proposed in finishings is really about
proposing a— and creating a new neighborhood
character and building out the neighborhood for the community.
The built form incorporates variation in facade design, materials,
and architectural detailing to provide that visual interest and
avoid repetition while maintaining that cohesive neighborhood
character. Importantly, we did look
at other ways to accommodate this project without needing to seek approval
for an official plan amendment. But the resulting designs to break up
the block into multiple blocks would have made the site significantly
less functional. Um, so we are before you today in support of
the staff recommendation for approval of this OPA so that we
can proceed with a site plan that is functional and
in service of creating a complete and,
um, beautiful community for residents.
So to conclude, uh, the proposal does support
key strategic objectives found within the Clarington Official Plan and doesn't seek
to change anything about the existing land use designations or patterns envisioned
for the Timber Trails community.
Um, the zoning for the site already permit— permits this type of development. The official
plan encourages it. And this really is about implementing the vision
for the area in a way that enables good design and a livable
community. In summary, on the slide is just a summary of
what staff have recommended in terms of the overall proposal.
We do believe it introduces a more efficient low-density townhouse built form,
supports the housing pledge of 13,000 units by 2031.
And provides development at an appropriate scale,
um, height, and massing that is compatible with the surrounding residential
context and planned character for the Timber Trails community.
And so to conclude, we are supportive of the staff recommendation,
uh, that the official plan application submitted by us is
supported and the amendment in Attachment 1 is And
I'm happy to take any questions. Michelle, thank you
ever so much. We've got Councillor Rang. Yeah, thank you,
Chair. And through the chair to Michelle, thank you so much for the presentation.
Um, looking at it in, in toto,
uh, looking at this proposal together with the residential neighborhood
to the north, uh, and given the fact that this calls for increased density,
um, is, uh, retail space
something that is considered in, in a proposal of
this sort? Would that be something that the developer would potentially look
at? Through the
mayor to the councillor, at this time, resident— or sorry, commercial development is
not proposed. This is a townhouse site block, which typically does
not well accommodate
the type of kind of commercial mixed-use development.
And so at this time, we are just considering, uh,
residential development for the site as was envisioned.
Sorry, thank you. Um, yeah, no, and I say that because,
um, again, when we have, uh, when we have, um,
residential neighborhoods of this scale— I'm thinking particularly of Northland,
for example, um, You know, a community like Timber
Trails, I think, could benefit from having some adjacent
retail space or commercial space. So just with respect to,
you know, the overall plan, that's something that I would, I would suggest that the
developer and our planners look at as a possibility for the neighborhood.
Otherwise, it's a long way to the nearest corner store.
That is, is my only comment. Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor. I'll look to members of Council.
I don't see any further questions. Michelle, I'm going to ask you a,
a really unfair question because I'm pretty sure you don't have the answer,
and Mr. Schickendanz might. As,
as we're looking at development like this,
you know, one is is homes. Homes and communities are, are important.
Would you have any idea, boilerplate, on the number of jobs
that are being created? So, you know, I've said it
before, I'll say it again, you know, we need to get those
plumbers, electricians, carpenters,
you know, frame— we need to get all of those folks back working because it's
been exceptionally slow. Would you have any idea at all I
don't have the specific number, uh, for Farsight Homes
in this particular development, but I do know that,
um, the residential construction industry, even the planning industry, has been
significantly impacted by the, I guess,
slowdown in construction with some of the provincial announcements
as well as, um, federal announcements. We are starting
to see a lot more momentum and people kind of coming back to work.
Part of the reason we're here for you— before you today is
to be able to move this project forward, be able to get people working
on the site, building, framing houses.
And Bob may be able to give you a more fulsome answer, but I do
know— thank you. And I'm looking at boilerplate, just,
you know, general, because there, there are a lot of people who have not been
able to find work. Mr. Chikanez.
Thank you, Your Worship, and thank you for the question. If I may,
if it's not inappropriate to answer Councilor Rang's
question through you, our entire
site includes the lands fronting on Highway
2 and King Street as well. Currently, we have a
sales office there that's been there for some time. We'll continue
to use it. While we haven't engaged in specific
applications at this particular time, but I know,
I think previous, actually to this current staff, we've had discussions
with the municipality that that's ideally suited
for some form of commercial uses.
Certainly that we would be looking towards that.
Again, specifically, we haven't made applications, but but
we'd be looking to that. Now, to your question, Mayor Foster,
it's hard to pinpoint exactly how much
additional employment
we would be creating, but we're looking at this particular block
of land to create and augment
and support the offering of units that we have currently
available in our phase 1. We have a mixture of larger single families,
single detached units, smaller single detached units, some street
townhouses. But really, we're looking
at creating a range of product type in that community,
hence the townhouse block.
And it's important for us, we feel right now,
since there is perhaps a limited tax holiday on
new housing to, to move forward with this project.
We'd like to move forward expeditiously to have that to offer
people who want to live in this great community of Bowmanville-Clarington,
to offer that sooner than later. And hence, that's why we're in front
of you today. I will say that we're
not per se looking— it might be viewed as increasing
density and more units. We're really trying
to just, as Michelle mentioned, as a technical amendment,
the OP says shall generally not be more than 50.
I mean, one exercise would be to break it off, that block,
into smaller blocks and have it
not exceed that and we would be in conformity.
But you'd lose a lot of efficiency and create a lot more
cost, which translates to more expensive housing units.
So I hope in a roundabout way that— sorry, I can't be more
specific. So I would ask you,
and you're not the only folks that I've been
picking on with this, perhaps through Build, I would
expect that someone has to have boilerplate numbers for
the person hours,
you know, of work years that we could look— the,
the development industry employs
a massive number of individuals in this
province. And quite frankly, moving forward,
I think it would be interesting for us to understand,
you know, what— a lot of those jobs are local jobs. And, you know,
as I suggested, I, you know, a lot
of, a lot of folks that a few years ago were bringing home good paychecks
are simply not working today. So I
know you don't have the numbers, so I'll bug you at a later date,
remind you at a later date to see. So in this public forum, let me
make the commitment to you and members of council and staff,
let us go back and we'll provide that information to you to give
a framework to better understanding which certainly we
agree and wholeheartedly support that this industry does provide
a lot of economic stimulus, not only locally but
right across the province. And I, you know, I would think that that would be
of interest if those numbers come out, not just, not just to the
council in Clarington, but I, you know, I would think,
you know, councils everywhere looking at this to, to be able to to see again
some tangible benefits for folks. So thank you for that. That, you know,
a bit of a diversion, but thank you.
You're welcome. Alrighty, with that, I've got 6.3.1,
PDF-076-26. If I could get a mover and a seconder. Councillor Rang,
thank you. Councillor Anderson seconding that.
Questions or comments? Councillor Wu, go ahead.
Yes, through you to the Deputy CAO,
and in the report, Official Plan
Amendment Application 2.3,
if we look back in 2020, which was a different time,
Official Plan Policy 9.4.5 was identified
limits multi-unit developments with
a single block to 50 dwellings. And now
we have— how many bills have we had besides Bill 23 and all
of them? And it was mentioned in the pledge the
province would like to have 1.5 million homes by 2031.
Our pledge— when I say our pledge is 13,000.
So Uh, when I look here,
182 units, and it
is supported by 5.10 under,
uh, Clarington's Official Plan.
Staff have reviewed the applicable site development criteria and are
satisfied with the proposed increase in the residential
units from 50 to 182 is appropriate
for the subject site. Are we going to see more of these where pre-pandemic
or during the pandemic, now with the pledge that we
may have the development industry asking for more density.
So through the mayor, thank you for that question, because this is something that
we've had a lot of conversations as staff about. As council knows,
we've relaunched the official plan review process through the Official Plan
review, we're going to be looking at all of our policies. We need to integrate
Envision Durham and then come forward with a future plan for
all of Clarington. And through that, one of the things that
we need to look at is currency of policy. This is a
policy that I believe that we've had 3 or 4 variations
to it in the last year, because what we are seeing is the land
use topology has changed, density is getting higher. We are seeing
squeezing lots, making them a bit smaller, trying to find— as
we know, the development industry is trying to find a way to actually get people
buying homes. And the one of the ways to do that is to reduce the
cost in order to look at smaller land parcels. But of course,
it triggers other things that, as staff outlined in that staff report
that you just quoted, we need to make sure that there's still enough space in
those lots in order to deal with snow storage, softscape,
parking, all of the really critical pieces for land
use planning to make sure that our, our communities are not only efficient, but they
function. So this is a policy, yes, you're going to be
seeing this one coming back numerous times until we update our
official plan. One of the things that I believe we're going to be exploring through
the official plan review is looking at outcome-oriented policy
versus putting a sense, a line in the saying 50,
all of a sudden you're going through a $70,000 official plan amendment. I'd rather see
a framework brought forward that says here's the topology that we're looking for
across different types of built form, and if you meet within that, then through
development review guidelines, all of those pieces, that way we
set forth the recipe for success. And then we're not coming back all
of the time through development applications to look at an arbitrary line in
the sand that is 50. What What happens when you want 51 or 49?
And these are always a challenging piece. There isn't a perfect
answer to it, but I appreciate the question because it's something
that I know we need to look at. The provincial planning statement has come out
from the province. They repealed the growth plan. It has targets, it has framework.
It is driving at all costs an increased supply of housing.
And that is direction right down from the province, which is putting pressure on municipalities
in order to respond in kind. Okay, thank you for
that. Alrighty, do we have
anything further? I'm not
seeing any further questions or comments.
Um, to your staff, thank you for the, uh, the work on this one,
and it is good to see things, uh, coming to
conclusion. Conclusions, you know, actual progress, we hope.
And we hope you'll actually be able to sell that
between the tax holiday, the suggestion that the federal government and
province have on the reductions. We don't know
where that's going yet, but it would be good to see some activity in
the market again. So with that, I will call the question.
All in support? Opposed? And that
is carried. Thank you, thank you. So this
brings us down to the bylaws.
If I can get a mover and a seconder on the bylaws.
Councillor Woo, seconded by Councillor Rang.
Questions or comments on the bylaws?
Call the question. All in support? Opposed?
That is Carried. Apparently my time
is up. Come on, Councillor Rang, that was hilarious.
I will remember that you laughed in a good way.
I need a confirming bylaw.
So let's do the confirming bylaw and right before adjournment. How's that?
Okay, so you're moving the confirming bylaw,
seconded by Councillor Anderson. All in support?
Opposed? That is carried. Councillor Zwart.
Thank you, Chair, and you thanked all of us at the beginning of the meeting,
and I want to thank you for your strong leadership.
We, we got a lot done this this term,
not only down to you but the great staff
that we have in this room and in this building. We've made
great strides this term, and I really want to thank
you for your leadership and for the whole team here. It's been a, it's been
a good team. Thanks, Councillor. Thank you. But, you know, your point,
team, is, is I think the,
the most valid. You know, the last couple
of years working as closely and progressively with staff and
with council has been a true joy. But thank you for that.
I have one last motion.
Councillor Rang, I think it is only appropriate that you move the motion
to adjourn. Do I have a seconder?
Councillor Wu? We have a recorded vote on A
recorded vote. Well, yes we
can. You know,
she's a lot closer to me than you folks, and there
aren't any blunt instruments, so I'm safe.
Madam Clerk.
On the matter, since you want to draw this out,
of the recorded vote, moved by Councillor Rang, seconded by
Councillor Ruh. Beginning with Councillor Wu.
Yes. Councillor Dewart. Yes.
Councillor Anderson. Yes. Councillor Allagé.
Yes. Councillor Rang. Yes,
and thank you very much. Councillor Traill.
Yes, and thank you all. Mayor Foster.
Yes. That carries 7 to 0. So look at that,
the last vote of this term of council was
a unanimous decision. Way to go, guys. Thank you
all. And again, to staff,
you, you are awesome. You are outstanding.
It has been such a pleasure.