Council Agenda
Date: January 18, 2021 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) | Members of the Public (MS Teams)
Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Michelle Chambers, Administrative Assistant to the Clerk, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2101 or by email at [email protected]. Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Audio/Video Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and video record of Council meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a Council meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording public by publishing the recording on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar.
Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non-audible mode during the meeting. Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net *Late Item added after the Agenda was published. Council Agenda January 18, 2021
Pages
1. Call to Order
2. Moment of Reflection
3. Land Acknowledgement Statement
4. Declaration of Interest
5. Announcements
6. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting(s)
6.1. Council Minutes - Minutes of a regular meeting of Council dated 6 December 14-15, 2020
7. Presentations No Presentations.
8. Delegations
8.1. Randy Boissoin, Regarding Report PDS-001-21 Application to Amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law (Item 2 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
9. Communications – Receive for Information
10. Communications – Direction
10.1. Tenzin Shomar, Executive Director, Clarington Youth Council, 25 Regarding Ward Boundary Review - Final Report (Item 3 of the General Government Committee Report) (Motion for Direction)
11. Committee Reports
11.1. Advisory Committee Reports
11.1.1. Minutes of the Agricultural Advisory Committee dated 27 December 10, 2020
31
Page 2 Council Agenda January 18, 2021
11.1.2. Minutes of the Clarington Tourism Advisory Committee dated December 3, 2020
11.1.3. Minutes of the Newcastle Memorial Arena Management Board 35 dated December 8, 2020
11.1.4. Minutes of the Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee dated 38 November 26, 2020
11.2. General Government Committee Report of January 4, 2021 42
11.3. Planning & Development Committee Report of January 11, 2021 48
12. Staff Reports
12.1. FSD-003-21 2021 COVID-19 Property Tax Deferral Program 55
13. Business Arising from Procedural Notice of Motion
14. Unfinished Business
14.1. FSD-004-21 2020/2021 Development Charges Background Study and 65 By-law
14.2. Resolution #GG-429-20, Regarding Correspondence from Melodie 195 Zarzeczny, Regarding Durham Hospice Clarington Update (Referred from the November 30, 2020 General Government Committee Meeting) Link to Correspondence
14.3. LGS-005-20 Municipal Law Enforcement Policy (Referred from the December 14, 2020 Council Meeting) Link to Report LGS-005-20
14.4. Minutes of a Special Meeting of December 9, 2020 (Referred from the January 11, 2021 Planning and Development Committee Meeting) Link to the December 9, 2020 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes
14.5. A.D. Lightstone, President, Valcoustics Canada Ltd., Regarding Noise Studies of CP Railway Operations (Referred from the January 11, 2021 Planning and Development Committee Meeting) Link to Correspondence
Page 3 Council Agenda January 18, 2021
15. By-laws
15.1. 2021-001 - Being a By-law to Exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632 from Part Lot Control (Item 12 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.2. 2021-002 - Being a By-law to Exempt a Certain Portion of Registered Plan 40M-2614 from Part Lot Control (Item 11 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.3. 2021-003 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 2014-059 Entitled “a By- law to Regulate Traffic and Parking on Highways, Private Property and Municipal Property” (Item 4 of the General Government Committee Report)
15.4. 2021-004 - Being a By-law to Delegate Authority to Authorize the Execution of Tax Arrears Extension Agreements Pursuant to Sections 378 of the Municipal Act, 2001 (Item 8 of the General Government Committee Report)
15.5. 2021-005 - Being a By-law to Delegate Authority to the Assessment Review Board to Exercise Certain Powers and Functions of Council Pursuant to Section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 (Item 9 of the General Government Committee Report)
15.6. 2021-006 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive 196 Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (Item 7 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.7. 2021-007 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive 199 Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (Item 5 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.8. 2021-008 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive 200 Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington (Item 8 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
Page 4 Council Agenda January 18, 2021
15.9. 2021-009 - Being a By-law to Constitute and Appoint a Committee of Adjustment for the Municipality of Clarington pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as Amended (Item 10 of the Planning and Development Committee Report)
15.10. 2021-010 - Being a By-law to Impose Development Charges Against Land in the Municipality of Clarington Pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997 (Agenda Item 14.1)
15.11. 2020-011 - Being a By-law to Impose Area-Specific Development Charges Against Land in the Municipality of Clarington Pursuant to the Development Charges Act,1997 (Agenda Item 14.1)
15.12. 2021-012 - Being a By-law to Establish a Transparent, Consistent, Fair, Unbiased, and Effective Process for Municipal Law Enforcement (Agenda Item 14.3)
15.13. 2021-013 Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive 204 Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
15.14. 2021-014 - Being a By-law to Exempt Certain Portions of Registered 208 Plan 40M-2526 from Part Lot Control
16. Procedural Notices of Motion
17. Other Business
18. Confirming By-Law
19. Adjournment
Page 5 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 Council Minutes Date: December 14-15, 2020 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Microsoft Teams
Present Were: Mayor A. Foster
Present Via Electronic Councillor G. Anderson, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Means: Jones, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor C. Traill, Councillor M. Zwart
Staff Present: J. Gallagher, M. Chambers
Present Via Electronic A. Allison, G. Acorn, L. Backus, S. Brake, A. Burke, F. Langmaid, Means: R. Maciver, T. Pinn, C. Salazar, G. Weir ______1. Call to Order Mayor Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Moment of Reflection Councillor Anderson led the meeting in a moment of reflection. 3. Land Acknowledgement Statement Councillor Anderson recited the Land Acknowledgement Statement. Suspend the Rules Resolution # C-504-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to add correspondence from the following individuals regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment to the Agenda (Item 13.2): Michael and Marian Chopik Shawn Berger Diane and Lance Crago Edward Donnelly Dale Hubble Dave Winkle; and
Page 6 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes That Nick Pileggi be added as a delegation (Item 8.9) regarding Item 7 of the General Government Committee Report - Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan - Recommendation Report for Official Plan Amendment 124 -Report PSD-055-20. Carried 4. Declaration of Interest There were no declarations of interest stated at the meeting. 5. Announcements Members of Council announced upcoming community events and matters of community interest. 6. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting(s) 6.1 Minutes of a regular meeting of Council dated November 23-24, 2020 Resolution # C-505-20 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Anderson That the minutes of the regular meeting of the Council held on November 23-24, 2020, be approved. Carried 7. Presentations 7.1 George Rocoski, Chair, Energy from Waste-Waste Management Advisory Committee (EFW-WMAC) , regarding the EFW-WMAC Annual Update George Rocoski, Chair, Energy From Waste - Waste Management Advisory Committee was present via electronic means regarding the Energy from Waste - Waste Management Advisory Committee Annual Update. He made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. Mr. Rocoski reviewed the current Committee members and provided an update on the current Committee's work to date, which included tours of Durham Region Waste Management Facilities. He noted that typically the Committee meets several times per year, with the addition of two special meetings regarding the Durham Region Long-Term Waste Management Plan for 2021-2041. He reviewed the main topics discussed at the meetings held in 2020 and provided details on several motions passed by the Committee with recommendations to be considered by Regional Staff for approval. Mr. Rocoski provided a summary of the 2020 events which including tours of the Durham Region Waste Management Facilities, updates on the Durham York Energy Centre and the progress of the Organics Management proposal in Durham Region, discussions on the Long-Term Waste Management Plan 2021-2041 and the provinces proposed regulatory amendments to make producers responsible for the operation Blue Box Programs. He concluded by noting this is the end of the two-year term of the current Committee and asked Council to consider what they would like the Committee to look like going forward into the new term. Mr. Rocoski answered questions from the Members of Council. 2 Page 7 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes Resolution # C-506-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Neal That the Presentation of George Rocoski, Chair, Energy from Waste-Waste Management Advisory Committee (EFW-WMAC), regarding the EFW-WMAC Annual Update, be received with thanks; and That Council of the Municipality of Clarington encourages the Regional Public Works Committee to ensure that full consideration is given to motions brought forward by the EFW-WMAC. Carried Alter the Agenda Resolution # C-507-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Anderson That the Agenda be altered to consider Agenda Item 13.1 regarding the lifting of the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington, at this time. Carried 13.1 Proposed Lifting Motion regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Resolution # C-508-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That the matter of the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington be lifted from the table. Carried 8. Delegations 8.1 Stephen Shine regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Stephen Shine's name was called, and he was not present. 8.2 Peter Thorne regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Peter Thorne was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment. He explained that the expansion of the Environmentally Protected (EP) designation has been confusing and this large expansion of EP designation is a concern. Mr. Thorne explained that a portion of his land falls within the EP designation. He advised Council that he applied to sever his land which is when he learned about the restrictions of EP land. Mr. Thorne noted that he was advised 3 Page 8 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes that he would not be permitted to sever the land unless he gave 30% of his land to the Municipality. He noted that he wants people to be made more aware of the control of the EP designation. Mr. Thorne explained that Planning Staff visited his property and the decision initially did not change and he was expected to pay for a survey of his property and 5% tax in lieu of the donation of parkland. He added that initially he was advised that five meters would be donated to the Municipal but after the assessment he was asked to donate 15 meters and was told that the proposed trail would start right in front of his home. Mr. Thorne requested a meeting with all parties involved and the trail was redesigned to be further away from his property and the requested land was reduced back to five meters. He added that the land has since been severed, and the property was sold. Mr. Thorne concluded by stating that the expansion of EP designation will result in further frustration and backlash. He asked the Members of Council to come together and make a common sense decision. Mr. Thorne answered questions from the Members of Council. 8.3 Gord Robinson regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Gord Robinson was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment. Mr. Robinson advised the Members of Council that he wanted to address the lifting and the two associated motions regarding rural portion of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. He stated that he feels both proposed motions will allow the rural portion of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment move forward. Mr. Robinson believes the issues were created from the previous Council, and encouraged the Members of Council to listen to the 2016 audio when the Official Plan Amendment was considered and Council decided not to notify the public. He stated that he has asked several times why additional EP designations have been added and that he has not heard back from Staff. Mr. Robinson explained that the rural property owners were advised, at a Town Hall, that going forward the notification would be better. He asked why the motion for the proposed review of the Greenbelt expansion for the properties was addressed so quickly, yet the rural zoning issues have not been dealt with. Mr. Robinson concluded by asking Members of Council to support Councillor Neal's motion and for it not to be referred back to Staff. He answered questions from the Members of Council. 8.4 Alan Herring regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Alan Herring was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment. He explained that he supports the motions to move forward with the rural portion of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Mr. Herring asked for the proper notification, transparency and for Clarington to learn from the lessons of East Gwillimbury. He stated that the mapping is wrong and this issue is weighing heavily on the rural community and property owners. Mr. Herring asked for the overreach to be corrected. He referred to a survey of his property and several
4 Page 9 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes maps including aerial and maps provided by Clarington Staff. Mr. Herring reviewed the features and details of his property in relation to the EP designation. Suspend the Rules Resolution # C-509-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the delegation of Mr. Herring for an additional two minutes. Carried Mr. Herring continued by explaining the issues with the mapping in relation to the 12 acres of his property. He answered questions from the Members of Council. 8.6 Bev Oda regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Bev Oda was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment. She noted the issue of EP land designation in rural Clarington was brought to the attention of the rural property owners over 18 months ago. Ms. Oda noted that the residents have provided comments on the matter by way of correspondence and delegations. She feels there have been some improvements however, as noted in a reply from Minister Steven Clark, Clarington added additional EP land over the provincial requirements. Ms. Oda asked for only the provincial requirements for EP land be included. She stated that she supports Councillor Neal's proposed motion as she feels it is trying to find a solution and shows that Council has listened to the residents. Ms. Oda added that she feels Councillor Anderson's motion is made with the best of intentions but is too open ended and does not address the issues. She reviewed the proposed options are and stated that Councillor Anderson's motion will not satisfy the rural property owners, will cause further frustration, and does not address East Gwillimbury. Ms. Oda concluded by asking the Members of Council to support Councillor Neal's motion. She answered questions from the Members of Council. Recess Resolution # C-510-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That the Council recess for 10 minutes. Carried The meeting reconvened at 9:04 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair.
5 Page 10 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes 8.7 Sandrello Scimo regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Sandrello Scimo's name was called and was not present. 8.5 Carl Van Belle regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Carl Van Belle was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment. He thanked the Members of Council for voting unanimously to remove the review of the proposed Greenbelt expansion for property owners south of Highway 2 in Bowmanville. Mr. Van Belle is asking for Special Area 2 - Greenbelt to be removed from the Clarington Official Plan as a Greenbelt Designation. He asked why the property owners were not notified of Special Study Area 2 and where this area was included in the maps when it was added to the Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Van Belle does not feel that there is a need to add more Greenbelt in Clarington. He asked how Council plans to notify the property owners and he feels all property owners should be notified directly by mail and not by newspaper ad. He concluded by asking for the Members of Council to support Councillor Neal's motion and that Special Study Area 2 be deleted from the Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Van Belle answered questions from the Members of Council. 8.8 Jim Hamilton regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Jim Hamilton was present via electronic means regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment. He explained he was present on behalf of the 200 landowners on south side of Highway 2 in Bowmanville. Mr. Hamilton thanked the Members of Council for rescinding the proposed Greenbelt expansion for this area. He noted that he supports Councillor Neal's motion to specifically remove Special Study Area 2 in the Clarington Official Plan. Mr. Hamilton believes Councillor Neal's motion is very specific, he has done his research, and addresses the issues. He asked the Members of Council to support this motion to give direction Staff. Mr. Hamilton concluded by asking for the proper notification to be given and for transparency on the matter. He answered questions from the Members of Council. 8.9 Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., regarding Report PSD-055-20, Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Study Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., was present via electronic means regarding Report PSD-055-20, Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Study. He explained he was present on behalf of White Owl Properties Ltd. (formerly Miller Group). Mr. Pileggi noted that he provided correspondence which included comments on specific policies and more specifically the policy which deals with warning clauses in purchase and sale agreements. Mr. Pileggi requested that his correspondence be forwarded to the Region of Durham for their consideration as
6 Page 11 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes part of the Official Plan Amendment prior to the final approval of the Secondary Plan. Mr. Pileggi answered questions from the Members of Council. Alter the Agenda Resolution # C-511-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Agenda be altered to consider item 13.2 regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington, at this time. Carried 13.2 Proposed Motion from Councillor Neal for the Rural Portion of Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Resolution # C-512-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That Staff be directed to bring forth a zoning by-law amendment which: i. Retains the EP zoning in place prior to the zoning by-law review; ii. Includes schedules from other authorities as additional information in the zoning by-law listing applicable land use regulations; iii. Contains advisories with respect to the obligations to comply with land use controls of external agencies. That Staff take all steps necessary to amend Clarington’s Official Plan (the “OPA Amendment”) by way of a municipally initiated amendment, with the Natural Heritage designation in Map D and Environmental Protection Area in Map A of the Official Plan being limited to: a. Provincially Significant Wetland; b. Areas designated by CLOCA as being within a floodplain (red line on CLOCA maps); c. Areas designated by the GRCA as being within a floodplain; d. Land designated on the current Region of Durham Official Plan, Schedule B Map B-1 as containing Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features; e. Land which is Significant Woodland; That Section 17.3 of the Official Plan Special Study Area 2-Greenbelt Expansion be deleted. That if any other amendments to the Official Plan are subsequently required as a result of refined mapping, they shall be at no cost to the landowners for application fees.
7 Page 12 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes Yes (7): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, Councillor Traill, and Councillor Zwart Carried as Amended on a Recorded Vote Later in the Meeting, See following Motions (7 to 0) Resolution # C-513-20 Moved by Councillor Anderson Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Council to speak to the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 for a second time. Carried Resolution # C-514-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Council to speak to the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 for a third time. Carried Resolution # C-515-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Traill That the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 be amended with the following changes to paragraph one: "That the words "report together with a draft" be inserted after the words "bring forth".” Yes (6): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill No (1): Councillor Zwart Carried on a recorded vote (6 to 1) Resolution # C-516-20 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 be amended by adding the following as 2f: "That land be included which is mandated by the Province to be designated as Natural Heritage." Carried
8 Page 13 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes Resolution # C-517-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Neal That the foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 be amended with the following changes to Paragraph 3: "That the words "Staff initiate all public consultation such that" be inserted after the word ”That”; and That the word "deleted" be replaced with the word "reconsidered"." Carried The foregoing Resolution #C-512-20 was then carried as amended on a recorded vote. Suspend the Rules Resolution # C-518-20 Moved by Councillor Anderson Seconded by Councillor Neal That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to extend the meeting until 12:00 a.m. Carried Recess Resolution # C-519-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Neal That the Council recess for 10 minutes. Carried The meeting reconvened at 11:00 p.m. with Mayor Foster in the Chair. 9. Communications – Receive for Information None
9 Page 14 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes 10. Communications – Direction 10.1 Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., regarding Report PSD-055-20, Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Study 10.2 Correspondence regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment 10.3 Gioseph Annello, Director, Waste Management Services, Region of Durham regarding the Region of Durham's Long-Term Waste Management Plan 2021- 2041 (Response to Linda Gasser's Comments) Resolution # C-520-20 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Hooper That Communications Item 10.1 to 10.3 be approved on consent as follows: That Correspondence Item 10.1 from Nick Pileggi, Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd., regarding Report PSD-055-20, Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan Study, be referred to the consideration of Item 7 of the General Government Committee Report. That the individuals who submitted correspondence regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment, be advised of actions taken. That the Correspondence Item 10.3 from Gioseph Annello, Director, Waste Management Services, Region of Durham regarding the Region of Durham's Long-Term Waste Management Plan 2021-2041, be referred to the consideration of Item 1a of the Planning and Development Committee Report. Carried 11. Committee Reports 11.1 Advisory Committee Reports 11.1.1 Minutes of the Newcastle Arena Board dated November 10, 2020 11.1.2 Minutes of the Accessibility Advisory Committee dated December 2, 2020 Resolution # C-521-20 Moved by Councillor Jones Seconded by Councillor Neal That Advisory Committee Report Items 11.1.1 and 11.1.2, be approved. Carried
10 Page 15 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes 11.2 General Government Committee Report of November 30, 2020 Resolution # C-522-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the recommendations contained in the General Government Committee Report of November 30, 2020 be approved on consent, with the exception of items 3, 8, and 16. Carried Item 3 - Municipal Law Enforcement Policy Resolution # C-523-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That Report LGS-005-20 - Municipal Law Enforcement Policy, be referred to the January 18, 2021 Council Meeting. Carried Item 8 - Bowmanville Tennis Club – Lease Renewal Resolution # C-524-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That Report FND-050-20 be received; That a lease extension agreement with the Bowmanville Tennis Club for the term January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 be approved and to authorize the Mayor and the Municipal Clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the Municipality; That the current annual rent of $1,630.80 be adjusted on December 31 of each year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Items Ontario, (most current issue) as published by Statistics Canada; That the Board of the Bowmanville Older Adult Association and the Bowmanville Tennis Club be advised of Council’s decision. Yes (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill No (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor Zwart Motion Lost on a Recorded Vote (3 to 4) Resolution # C-525-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That Report FND-050-20 be received;
11 Page 16 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes That a lease extension agreement with the Bowmanville Tennis Club for the term January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021 be approved and to authorize the Mayor and the Municipal Clerk to execute the agreement on behalf of the Municipality; That the current annual rent of $1,630.80 be adjusted on December 31 of each year by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index, All Items Ontario, (most current issue) as published by Statistics Canada; That the Purchasing Manager in consultation with the Director of Community Services be given the authority to extend the lease agreement for up to three (3) additional one (1) year terms to expire on December 31, 2024; That the Board of the Bowmanville Older Adult Association and the Bowmanville Tennis Club be advised of Council’s decision. Yes (4): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, and Councillor Zwart No (3): Councillor Jones, Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill Carried on a Recorded Vote (4 to 3)
Item 16 - 2021 CUPE Negotiations -Open Session Resolution
Resolution # C-526-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), attached to Report CAO-022-20 as Attachment 1, between CUPE Local 74 –Outside Bargaining Unit and the Municipality of Clarington be approved to extend all the terms and conditions for the Outside Bargaining Unit, for one additional year, to expire December 31, 2021; That, consistent with past practice, student, non-permanent part-time employees and special purpose and committee position rates be adjusted at the same rate as the Outside CUPE employees, effective January 1 or July 1, as appropriate for each group, and as included in the annual budget; That, consistent with past practice, the terms and conditions of employment for unionized employees as provided for under the extension MOU, be approved for non-affiliated employees; and That CUPE Local 74 Executive be thanked for their continued efforts to work effectively with the Municipality, and that they be advised of Council’s decision. Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones, and Councillor Zwart No (2): Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill Carried on a Recorded Vote Later in the Meeting, See following Motions (5 to 2)
12 Page 17 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes Resolution # C-527-20 Moved by Councillor Traill Seconded by Councillor Neal That the foregoing Resolution #C-526-20 be referred to the end of the Agenda to be considered during Closed Session. Carried 11.3 Planning & Development Committee Report of December 7, 2020 Resolution # C-528-20 Moved by Councillor Anderson Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the recommendations contained in the Planning and Development Committee Report of December 7, 2020 be approved on consent, with the exception of items 7, 8, and 11 Carried Item 7 - Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan – Recommendation Report for Official Plan Amendment 124 Resolution # C-529-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That Report PSD-055-20 be received; That Official Plan Amendment 124 to include the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan in the Clarington Official Plan be adopted with the addition of Section 5.4.5 as follows: Private streets and private lanes are not permitted within the Low Density Urban Residential Designation; That, upon adoption by Council, the Southeast Courtice Secondary Plan be implemented by Staff as Council’s policy on land use and planning matters and be implemented through the capital budget program; That the Director of Planning and Development Services be authorized to finalize the form and content of OPA 124, the Secondary Plan and the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines resulting from Council's consideration, public participation, agency comments and technical considerations; That the Urban Design and Sustainability Guidelines appended to the Secondary Plan be approved and be used by staff to guide development applications and public projects; That the Director of Planning and Development Services be authorized to execute any agreements to implement the Secondary Plan once adopted by Council; That OPA 124 be forwarded to the Region of Durham for approval; and 13 Page 18 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-055-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision regarding the adoption of the Secondary Plan. Carried Item 8 - Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning to Permit a Block of 17 Townhouse Units within a Common Elements Condominium, Courtice Resolution # C-530-20 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Jones That Report PSD-056-20 be received; That the application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision submitted by LCJ Thomas Estates Inc. c/o Sakmet Developments to permit a townhouse block, be supported subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 2 to Report PSD-056-20; That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and that the Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 3 to Report PSD-056-20 be passed; That, once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved; That no further Public Meeting be required for the future Common Elements Condominium; That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD- 056-20 and Council’s decision; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-056-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Yes (5): Mayor Foster, Councillor Anderson, Councillor Hooper, Councillor Jones, and Councillor Zwart No (2): Councillor Neal, and Councillor Traill Carried on a Recorded Vote (5 to 2) Item 11 - Bill 229 Resolution # C-531-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Anderson That the matter of the Municipality of Clarington's concerns with the passing of Schedule 6, regarding amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act, of Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures), 2020, be received for information. Carried
14 Page 19 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes 11.4 Special Planning and Development Committee Report of December 9, 2020 Resolution # C-532-20 Moved by Councillor Jones Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the recommendations contained in the Special Planning and Development Committee Report of December 9, 2020 be approved on consent, with the exception of Item 2 which is amended as follows: "That the following be added to the end of Confidential Resolution #CPD-008-20, regarding the matter of Home Hardware’s Ministerial Zoning Order for 2423 Rundle Road: That the Mayor and Clerk are authorized to execute the confidential draft agreement, subject to the above modifications.” Carried 12. Staff Reports 12.1 Report LGS-006-20 - Appointment of Deputy Clerk Resolution # C-533-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Anderson That Report LGS-006-20 be received; That John Paul Newman be appointed as Deputy Clerk for the Municipality of Clarington; and That the draft by-law, appointing John Paul Newman as Deputy Clerk, attached to Report LGS-006-20 as Attachment 1, be approved. Carried 13. Business Arising from Procedural Notice of Motion 13.1 Proposed Lifting Motion regarding the Rural Portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment. Item 13.1 was considered earlier in the meeting immediately following the Presentation portion of the Agenda. 13.2 Proposed Motion from Councillor Neal for the Rural Portion of Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Item 13.2 was considered earlier in the meeting immediately following the Delegation portion of the Agenda.
15 Page 20 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes 13.3 Proposed Motion from Councillor Anderson for the Rural Portion of Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington and a Clarington Official Plan Amendment Councillor Anderson withdrew his proposed motion regarding the rural portion of the Zoning By-law Amendment for ZONE Clarington. 13.4 Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (Motion to Remove All Remaining Conditions) Resolution # C-534-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That, in accordance with subsection 10.12.17 of the Procedural By-Law, Resolution #C-418-20, regarding Council’s support of the Ministerial Zoning Order to change the zoning of 2423 Rundle Road Bowmanville, previously adopted by Council at the Special Council Meeting of October 26, 2020, be amended to remove the conditions of support by deleting Paragraphs 2, and 4, which read: That the applicant carrying out the necessary studies and implementing the recommended works from: Traffic Study; Hydrological/Hydrogeological study; Environmental Impact Study; Servicing Study; and Storm water management plan; That should the Bowmanville site be redeveloped, the applicant commit that 25% of the units be developed as affordable housing units (for low income families). That the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be advised of: (i) the foregoing deletion; (ii) that the letter dated October 27, 2020 which was forwarded to the Minister regarding Resolution C-418-20 is withdrawn and rescinded; and (iii) a replacement letter be sent advising the Minister of Resolution #C-418-20, as amended above. Carried
16 Page 21 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes 14. Unfinished Business 14.1 Appointment of Department Liaisons and Deputy Mayor (Referred from the November 30, 2020 General Government Committee Meeting) Resolution # C-535-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Anderson That Resolution #GG-437-20 and Report CAO-023-20 regarding Department Liaisons and the Deputy Mayor Appointments be referred to the January 4, 2021 General Government Committee meeting. Carried 15. By-laws 15.1 2020-082 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 15.3 2020-084 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 15.4 2020-085 - Being a By-law to Appoint a Deputy Clerk 15.5 2020-086 - Being a By-law to Establish a Transparent, Consistent, Fair, Unbiased, and Effective Process for Municipal Law Enforcement 15.6 2020-087 - Being a By-law to Authorize an Interim Tax Levy for 2021 15.7 2020-088 - Being a By-law to Authorize the Borrowing of $15,000,000 to Meet, Until the Taxes are Collected, the Current Expenditures of the Municipality for the Year 2021 15.9 2020-090 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 2009-123, the Sign By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington 15.10 2020-091 - Being a By-law to Amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington Resolution # C-536-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Jones That leave be granted to introduce By-laws 2020-082 to 2020-091 with the exception of By-laws 2020-083, 2020-086 and 2020-089; and That the said by-laws be approved. Carried
17 Page 22 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes 15.2 2020-083 - Being a By-law to Exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632 from Part Lot Control Resolution # C-537-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That Item 15.2 - Being a By-law to Exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632 from Part Lot Control be referred to the January 11, 2021, Planning and Development Committee meeting. Carried 15.8 2020-089 - Being a By-law to Exempt a Certain Portion of Registered Plan 40M-2614 from Part Lot Control Resolution # C-538-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That Item 15.8 - Being a By-law to Exempt a Certain Portion of Registered Plan 40M-2614 from Part Lot Control, be referred to the January 11, 2021, Planning and Development Committee meeting. Carried Closed Session Resolution # C-539-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Anderson That, in accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the meeting be closed for the purpose of discussing a matter that deals with labour relations or employee negotiations. Carried Rise and Report The meeting resumed in open session at 12:14 a.m. Mayor Foster advised that one item was discussed in “closed” session in accordance with Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 and one resolution was passed on procedural matter and no resolutions were passed to provide direction to staff. Item 16 - 2021 CUPE Negotiations -Open Session Resolution - Continued Resolution # C-540-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the foregoing Resolution #C-526-20 for a second time. Carried 18 Page 23 December 14-15, 2020 Council Minutes The foregoing Resolution #C-526-20 was then carried on a recorded vote. 16. Procedural Notices of Motion None 17. Other Business None 18. Confirming By-Law Resolution # C-541-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Jones That leave be granted to introduce By-law 2020-092, being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council of the Municipality of Clarington at a regular meeting held on the 14th to 15th day of December, 2020; and That the said by-law be approved. Carried 19. Adjournment Resolution # C-542-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Zwart That the meeting adjourn at 12:22 a.m. Carried
Mayor Municipal Clerk
19 Page 24
January 14, 2021
RE: Clarington Ward Boundary Review
Mayor Foster and Members of Clarington Council,
The Clarington Youth Council is a newly formed organization that represents youth across Clarington. Over the coming months, we look forward to working with all of you to ensure that the voices of Clarington youth are heard and that civic engagement amongst young people is improved. In terms of our organizational structure, we are composed of an Executive Director and two Youth Councillors representing each ward. We plan on making a delegation in the coming months where we can introduce ourselves to Clarington Council and answer any questions you may have about our organization. However, given that the Ward Boundary Review is being considered at the January Council Meeting, we believe that our perspective should be considered prior to Council making a final decision.
At our inaugural meeting on January 11, Youth Council unanimously passed the following motion:
“That the Clarington Youth Council request that Clarington Council not support the current ward structure for the 2022 municipal election and consider supporting one of the options outlined in the final report, or request that the consultants come back to Council with other options.”
As Council is aware, Clarington is rapidly growing and the community looks much different than in 1996, when Clarington’s ward boundaries were last reviewed. As Clarington changes, so too should its ward boundaries. It is important to emphasize that we are not advocating for change for the sake of change, as this would be unwise and irresponsible. Instead, we see Clarington’s ward boundary review process as an opportunity for Council and the community to prioritize which principles are most important in Clarington’s future ward structure.
Given Clarington’s unique geography, it is likely impossible to create perfect ward boundaries. Youth Council understands that each option presented by Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. has its own strengths and weaknesses. However, while each option presented by Watson and Associates can support at least one of the guiding principles of effective representation, the current ward boundaries fail to adequately meet any of them.
The current ward structure combines urban and rural interests in each of the four wards. Some may argue that the current boundaries ensures that each Councillor has a grasp of both urban and rural issues. However, the main purpose of wards is to allow the community to send representatives to Council who represent their distinct interests. In most cases, the concerns of residents who live along Lake Ontario are different than those who live in the north. This is not
Page 25 to say that our current Council is unable to grasp rural issues. Instead, having distinct urban and rural voices ensures increased accountability between constituents and councillors. There is also the issue of population parity, something that our current structure fails to achieve. As we set ward boundaries for the future, we must consider population trends and the importance of equitable representation.
These principles are important, but they are often difficult to achieve at the same time. Youth Council has analyzed all three options presented by Watson and Associates and feel that they are all viable options for Council to consider. Option A allows for population parity and creates a more natural divider for Bowmanville and slightly improved rural representation. Option B greatly enhances rural representation and the expense of population parity. And while Youth Council feels that the current size of Clarington Council is sufficient, the relatively low cost of an additional ward may be worth a structure that balances competing principles. In any event, Youth Council is of the belief that the current structure should be changed.
The decision before Clarington Council is a difficult one. The decision to undertake a ward boundary review in the first place was an important one and we commend Clarington Council for taking that initial step. The ward boundaries that Clarington Council adopts for the 2022 municipal elections are likely to be in place for the next 10-20 years. As such, the youth of today will be using these ward boundaries to interact with their municipal government in the years to come. With this in mind, we urge Council to change the ward boundaries, given that the current boundaries are unsustainable. We would also suggest that Council can request that Watson and Associates create new options based on further public consultation. If further consultation is desired, we would be more than happy to participate in the process.
Thank you for your consideration and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Best regards,
Tenzin Shomar Executive Director, Clarington Youth Council Email: [email protected]
Page 26
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington Meeting
Thursday, December 10, 2020
Members Present: Eric Bowman John Cartwright Don Rickard Tom Barrie Henry Zekveld Brenda Metcalf Richard Rekker Les Caswell Councillor Zwart
Regrets: Jennifer Knox, Ben Eastman, Ted Watson Staff: Amy Burke, Faye Langmaid – Planning and Development Services Guests: MP Philip Lawrence, Northumberland-Peterborough South; Ryan Cullen; Jordan McKay; Catherine Lokietek; Allison Brown, Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development
Due to COVID 19 restrictions and to ensure social distancing, participation in the meeting was electronic (using Microsoft Teams) and by conference call.
Eric welcomed all to the meeting, with introductions.
Declarations of interest
None.
Adoption of Agenda
020-23 Moved by John Cartwright, seconded by Richard Rekker That the Agenda for December 10, 2020 be adopted. Carried
Approval of Minutes
020-24 Moved by John Cartwright, seconded by Tom Barrie That the minutes of the November 12, 2020 meeting be approved. Carried
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington December 10, 2020 Page 27
Presentation
Philip Lawrence, MP (Northumberland-Peterborough South): MP Lawrence provided an overview and background on the private members bill that he introduced to the legislature and is now in Second Reading. Private Members Bill, Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, if passed, would extend the exemption to paying the Federal Carbon Tax for qualifying farming fuel to marketable natural gas and propane. These fuels are routinely used by farms for drying grain and heating barns. MP Lawrence indicated that these types of farm fuel uses cannot be reduced. As such, applying a Carbon Tax to these fuels would not incentivize an appreciable reduction in their use. MP Lawrence stated that when the Carbon Tax in its current format is fully escalated it will represent approximately 5% of the fuel cost that farmers pay. A timeline for a final decision on the bill is not known at this time.
Delegations
None.
Business Arising from Minutes
“Share the Road” Signage: At the November Committee meeting a concern about the busy nature of new Share the Road signs that have been seen in Durham Region arose. With assistance from Allison Brown, it was clarified that these news signs are from the Township of Scugog. The Region of Durham’s Share the Road signage has not changed.
Request of Ministerial Zoning Order Resolution: Council has approved a reconsideration of Resolution #C-418-20 discussed at the November AACC meeting, and a resolution to revoke the following paragraph from that resolution:
“That the Province commit to reviewing the lands south of Highway 2 between Hwy 418 and Maple Grove Road for inclusion in the Greenbelt based on their contributions to the systems of agriculture, natural heritage and water resources.”
The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been advised of the revocation of this request.
Special Study Area 2 in the Clarington Official Plan contains policies in relation to the rural land located between Courtice and Bowmanville and Bowmanville and Newcastle, north of Highway 401 and south of the Greenbelt Area. Policy direction to study the agricultural value of these lands and to consider seeking the addition of any identified high yielding agricultural lands to the Greenbelt stemmed from recommendation made by the AACC during the Official Plan Review. In light of the growing concern in the community about this policy direction, reconsideration may be needed. Committee members were asked to review the background information and Special Study Area 2 policies previously circulated by Staff in advance of the next meeting. This matter will be included on the January 2021 meeting agenda for discussion.
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington December 10, 2020 Page 28
Correspondence, Council Items and Referrals
AACC 2021 – 2024 Member Appointments: On November 30, 2020 the General Government Committee of Council made four appointment to the AACC for the 2021 – 2024 term, including reappointment of Committee members Brenda Metcalf and Henry Zekveld. The appointments will be considered for ratification by Council on December 14, 2020.
This meeting was the final Committee meeting for longstanding members Ted Watson and Les Caswell. Ted Watson was a founding member of the Committee. Sincere appreciation was extended by the Committee for his hard work over many years to help ensure that Council is informed on agriculture an agriculture-related issues. Great thanks were also extended to Les Caswell for his time spent contributing to the Committee and many of the Committee’s working groups.
Annual Update to Council: Annual AACC Report in development. Tentative dates for the AACC Chair’s annual update are January 11 (Planning & Development Committee) or January 18 (Council).
Liaison Reports
Durham Agriculture Advisory Committee: Tom Barrie provided an update from the December 8 DAAC meeting in his email to all prior to the meeting. No further discussion by the Committee.
Durham Region Federation of Agriculture: Rickard Rekker provided an update from the November 18 DRFA meeting in his email to all prior to the meeting. No further discussion by the Committee.
Clarington Board of Trade: Staff provided an update on the recent official opening of the new Toyota warehouse in Bowmanville. The 350,000 square foot facility has achieved high design standards for both environmental sustainability and accessibility.
New Business
Proposed Study on Soil Health: Correspondence from Hon. Robert Black (Senator – Ontario) regarding this matter was forwarded to the Committee in advance of the meeting. Mr. Black is seeking feedback and support on a potential request to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for a new study to be undertaken on the importance of soil health. The correspondence from Mr. Black indicates that the last Federal report on soil health is 35 years old. Committee members discussed a number of agencies and organizations that are engaged in similar work, including OMAFRA / University of Guelph and the Soil & Crop Association.
Zone Clarington – Rural Areas Phase: Procedural notice was given that on December 14, 2020, Council will consider “lifting” of the rural phase of the comprehensive zoning by-law review project. In October 2019, Clarington’s Planning and Development Committee of Council tabled the Rural Areas Phase of the project indefinitely. This means that work on updating zoning for Clarington’s rural areas was placed on hold. If a “lifting” motion is approved by Council on December 14, Council
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington December 10, 2020 Page 29
may then give direction to Staff with respect to resuming work on reviewing zoning for Clarington’s rural areas.
COVID-19 and Local Economic Impact: Henry Zekveld brought forward concerns regarding the on-going economic / community impact of the restrictions placed on local businesses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Henry questioned whether the number of COVID cases locally warranted the level of restrictions in place and expressed concern about the social, mental and long-term financial implications. While many Committee members expressed agreement with concern for the community, it was acknowledged that the local agricultural sector has adapted and maintained viability.
Next Meeting
Thursday, January 14, 2021 @ 7:30 pm (Virtual Meeting)
Agricultural Advisory Committee of Clarington December 10, 2020 Page 30
CLARINGTON TOURISM ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of Meeting
December 3, 2020, 9 a.m. Garnet B. Rickard Recreation Complex and Teleconference
Members Present in person: Fred Archibald, Chair Petra Schwirtz Ann Harley Evan King Bonnie Wrightman, CBOT
Members Present, virtually: Laura Holmes Christine McSorley Councillor Ron Hooper (left at 10:15 AM) Brandon Pickard, Durham Tourism (arrived at 10 AM)
Regrets:
Amy Verwey
Kim Neziroski
Staff: Ashlee Kielbiski, Tourism Programmer, in person Laura Knox, Tourism Coordinator, virtually
Page 31
1. Call to Order o Meeting was called to order – 9:10 a.m.
2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by, Petra Schwirtz, seconded by, Evan King: That the agenda for December 3, 2020 be adopted. Carried 3. Approval of July 16, 2020, Meeting Minutes Moved by, Ann Harley, seconded by, Evan King: That the meeting minutes of July 16, be approved. Carried
4. Presentations o None
5. Municipal Update TODS report went to Council on November 9. The key discussion was around where the Corporation is with an overall branding strategy. The CAOs office has started preliminary discussions with outside consultants on corporate branding. The recommendation from Councillor Anderson was to refer to staff on outsourcing the billboard graphics and research costs. Tourism staff will defer the billboards at this time and utilize the TIAO funding for other opportunities. TAC has requested to take part with CAO’s office during these brand discussions with consultants, should there be an opportunity. Tourism staff will keep TAC up to date on the corporate branding strategy.
Update from Chair – Fred Archibald Before this meeting, the Chair asked Committee members to create an internal, working slogan/theme they believed encompassed Clarington Tourism for the 2021 marketing season. This was an exercise for Committee members to find a focus for 2021. Key themes shared by members included:
o “Where families come to experience tradition and create everlasting memories.” . Traditions/memories can be a call to action to get people to come o “Something for Everyone.”
Page 32 . This is to pull people in, make them feel welcome without hanging on ‘small town.’ Clarington is too diverse to say small/hometown o “Clarington, where adventure grows.” “Clarington, where adventure awaits.” o “Clarington, a place to grow. “ . Growing families, people, agriculture o “Clearly Clarington.” . Short, quick/easy slogan to use, ‘clearly’ means obvious, clear choice o “Clarington – we know how to grow.” “Come grow with us.” . This was inspired by one of the potential billboards of the farm. ‘Grow’ extends beyond agriculture – towns, families, traditions, memories.
After much discussion, a key theme that the Committee agreed on is ‘agriculture.’ It is important that we recognize the diversity in our offerings is what makes us what we are. The Chair shared, ‘If you want to go fast, go alone, and if you want to go far, work together.’ The Chair asked the Committee to focus on small, bite sized things that we can carry out together. o The Committee has advised Tourism staff to focus on agri-tourism for the 2021 workplan o Staff to pull and share agri-tourism stats from CBOT, OMAFRA and Durham Farm Fresh
Update from Durham Region – Brandon Pickard #ShopInDurham campaign has launched. The focus is to push information and support. The campaign includes prizes and giveaways. Shopdurhamregion.ca is a collection of local shops with over 500 products. Free to join for businesses with an established online store. It is a one stop shop with curbside pickup or shipping options. Durham Tourism has soft launched its brand on social media and website Update from Clarington Board of Trade – Bonnie Wrightman Shop Clarington campaign with advertisements in Clarington This Week and Orono Weekly Times. Promotion on their website and Facebook are to boost and elevate shopping local and linking health and safety as a key to keeping local businesses open. Customer Confidence videos for local businesses are doing very well showcasing how businesses are opening and providing services safely.
6. Other Business Ann Harley advised that pricing for TODS signs have gone up for businesses and wonder if there are alternative signage options for local businesses.
Page 33 o Tourism Staff to investigate and report back The Committee discussed taking more responsibility, being prepared for meetings, and to be involved in discussions in an open and positive way Terms of Reference indicates that the Chair and Vice Chair are to be in place for one year. The Committee would like to move forward with the current Chair and Vice Chair for 2021. Motion: The Tourism Advisory Committee recommends current Chair, Fred Archibald, and Vice Chair, Petra Schwirtz remain in place for 2021 – moved by Ann Harley, seconded by Evan King. Carried.
7. Date of next meeting: Date to be confirmed and Ashlee Kielbiski to send information early in January.
8. Motion to adjourn Moved by Ann Harley, seconded by Evan King. Carried. The meeting concluded at 10:38 a.m.
Page 34 Newcastle Memorial Arena Management Board Municipality of Clarington
Minutes of Meeting – Tuesday, December 8, 2020
(Not yet approved by committee)
In Attendance – Dave Bouma - Chair Bryan Wiltshire – Arena Manager Shea-Lea Latchford, Gary Oliver, Todd Taylor, Jim Vison, Sue White, Councillor Margaret Zwart Regrets – Shane Armstrong Absent – Councillor Granville Anderson
1. Agenda - Motion #20-023 Moved by Todd Taylor, seconded by Sue White Todd THAT: The Agenda be accepted as proposed. CARRIED
2. Acceptance of Minutes - Motion #20-024 Moved by Todd Taylor, seconded by Jim Vison THAT: The minutes of November 10, 2020 meeting be accepted as written.
CARRIED
3. Manager’s Report – Safety: As Durham has gone into the “Red Zone” the numbers for the facility were dropped to 13 on ice and a maximum of 50 people in the building. No games or shinny for the month of December. We experienced a power outage on November 14th and were able to put in place our new protocols for an outage. Once everyone was evacuated the door was locked. The outage lasted approximately 3 hours. Risk Management: With ice and snow season upon us Bryan has stressed to the workers how important it will be to keep the walkways clear and salted as everyone will be using the same path to enter and exit the arena. All employees are required to fill out a COVID questionnaire prior to starting their shift. Rentals: Rentals are down for December. NVMHA have turned back their Sunday ice times as there will be no games scheduled for December. Signs/Advertising: We have four (4) open spots on the boards to fill, and all advertisers have paid in full. Repairs: Cimcoe has collected another sample and we are waiting for the test results. The municipality has confirmed the parking lot light will be repaired early next week.
Page 35 2.
Manager’s Report cont’d: Staff: Bryan will reduce his staff’s hours for the month of December due to the reduced ice time. Inspections: The chiller was inspected in November for the 2020-2021 season We will monitor and contact the municipality if any issues arise. Complaints: Complaint from a neighbour regarding loitering on the arena property. We will remove the router at the end of the night which should eliminate the problem. OFRA Updates: The OFRA has provided an updated circle check for ice resurfacer and hydraulic line inspections. Staff will do these updated circle checks prior to every shift. Other: Parking Lot Lines will not be repainted until Spring 2021. A maintenance plan for the compressor room and equipment will be brought to the Board in January 2021.
4. Financial Report – Motion #20-025 Moved by Gary Oliver, seconded by Dave Bouma THAT: Bryan Wiltshire (Arena Manager) be given three (3) Paid Sick Days.
CARRIED
Todd presented us with a sales forecast for the 4th quarter and a year- end operating loss. There was a discussion on future revenues and additional revenue opportunities.
5. New Business – COVID Update – Bryan continues to work closely with the Municipality for any changes or improvements required. To date we have had no COVID issues. We have implemented the practice that all service people or Board members must complete and sign the COVID questionnaire before entering the arena to assure no symptoms and for contact tracing. Advertising: Futures Sign – we are waiting for a copy of the contract to decide how to proceed. Group Bookings/Community Skate: Bryan has been given permission to both advertise and sell non-prime time ice for reduced pricing. Todd and Councillor Zwart will try to determine what the procedure for the community skate grant will be as we are unable to hold a skate during the holidays due to COVID.
6. Round Table Discussion followed
Next Meeting – Tuesday January 12, 2021
Page 36 3.
Adjournment - Motion #20-026 Moved by Sue White, seconded by Gary Oliver THAT: the meeting be adjourned.
CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM
______Chair
______Secretary
Page 37 Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 26, 2020
Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Thursday, November 26, 2020, 7:00 PM Microsoft Teams
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext 2131
Present: Ashfaque Choudhry (until 8:41 p.m.) Councillor Ron Hooper Derryck Lamptey Meera McDonald Rajeshwari Saharan John Sawdon (until 9:30 p.m.) Rachel Traore
Also Present: Mayor Adrian Foster (until 8:41 p.m.) Erica Mittag – Community Development Coordinator Jack Ammendolia – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (until 7:23 p.m.)
Regrets: Sajida Kadri Laila Shafi
The meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Land Acknowledgement
Rachel Traore read the Land Acknowledgement Statement.
2. Ward Boundary Review
Jack Ammendolia of Watson & Associates Economists presented an update on the Ward Boundary Review currently underway in Clarington. More information can be found at www.clarington.net/wardboundaryreview. Members are encouraged to complete the survey and share with their networks.
Page 1 of 4
Page 38 Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 26, 2020 3. Review of Agenda
Moved by Meera McDonald, seconded by Derryck Lamptey
That the agenda of the meeting of November 26, 2020 be approved
Carried
4. Review of Minutes
Moved by Councillor Ron Hooper, seconded by Councillor Ashfaque Choudhry
That the minutes of the meetings of September 24, 2020 be approved.
Carried 5. Update on Committee Elections
Erica Mittag confirmed with Clarington’s Clerks Department that we can hold elections at the January 2021 meeting. Four members’ terms are ending December 31, 2020 and Council will be appointing members to serve a new four-year term; to be ratified December 14, 2020 at Council.
6. Communications – Received for Information
City of Oshawa – received for information; regarding Mental Health training for Police Services (circulated with the agenda). Anti-Racism Initiatives and the Anti-Racism Directorate – received for information; regarding various initiatives the Directorate has undertaken (circulated with the agenda).
Moved by Derryck Lamptey, seconded by Rachel Traore
That the communications be received for information.
Carried 7. Council and Community Updates
Councillor Ron Hooper shared:
a) Council reviewed applications to the vacancies (4) on the Diversity Advisory Committee; appointments to be ratified at Council on December 14, 2020.
Page 2 of 4
Page 39 Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 26, 2020 b) Council received a letter from a resident regarding to the celebration of the Festival of Diwali. Resident would like to request a permit for fireworks. There is a by-law in place for fireworks. The Committee could look at ways to educate the community about fireworks permitting for this and other similar celebrations. Erica and Councillor Hooper to connect and follow up with By-Law Services for more information. c) The Durham Regional Police Services Board shared an update on their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Plan with Regional Council. This letter is shared for the Committee’s information.
Erica Mittag shared:
d) Engage Clarington – Our Clarington – Diversity and Inclusion Page is active and Members are encouraged to share their stories to promote discussion and engagement. The Community Diversity Survey is also hosted on the site and is being promoted through social media.
7. Update on Anti-Black Racism Subcommittee
Meera McDonald reviewed proceedings of the most recent subcommittee work. Angela Todd-Anderson and Erica Mittag will work with Samantha Aitken from the Clarington Public Library on the planning of a virtual event for Black History Month (February 2021).
An update was provided on two outstanding items requiring approval by the Diversity Advisory Committee. The Terms of Reference were reviewed by the Members. The Social Media Plan is to be reviewed by Members at our next meeting.
Moved by Rajeshwari Saharan, seconded by Derryck Lamptey
That the Terms of Reference for the Anti-Black Racism Subcommittee be approved.
Carried
8. Durham Black Accountability Coalition Meeting
Rachel Traore reviewed the responses to the Durham Black Accountability Coalition petition requests. She will be taking this information and drafting a response letter for further consideration by Council.
9. Black History Month
Erica Mittag shared that the Clarington Public Library is planning events and resources surrounding Black History Month and if the Members have any suggestions of activities or resources to be included, please forward to Erica.
Page 3 of 4
Page 40 Clarington Diversity Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, November 26, 2020 The Diversity and Inclusion Staff Team is also planning recognition and events for the month.
10. Community Support, Multi-Culturalism and Anti-Racism Initiatives
Erica Mittag shared information about this funding opportunity. If Members have thoughts on initiative proposals and potential partners, please share with Erica.
11. Confidential Report
Moved by Councillor Ron Hooper, seconded by Meera McDonald
That in accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the meeting be closed for the purpose of discussing the prohibition of symbols of hate, a matter that deals with advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
Carried
12. Rise and Report
The prohibition of symbols of hate was discussed in “closed” session in accordance with Section 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended and no resolutions were passed.
Moved by Meera McDonald, seconded by Derryck Lamptey
That the General Government Committee recommend to Council that staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the Sign By-law to prohibit the public display of symbols of hate within the Municipality of Clarington; and
That the Mayor and Members of Council of the Municipality of Clarington, in partnership with Clarington’s Diversity Advisory Committee, release an Official Statement condemning the display of symbols of hate in our community.
Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:56 p.m.
Moved by Derryck Lamptey, seconded by Meera McDonald
Carried
Next meeting: Thursday, January 28, 2021, 7:00 p.m. Virtually – Microsoft Teams
Page 4 of 4
Page 41
Committee Report to Council
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council Report Number: GGR-001-21
Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021
Report Subject: General Government Committee Meeting of January 4, 2021 Recommendations:
1. Receive for Information
(a) 9.1 Memo from Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works, Regarding North Bowmanville Dog Park
(b) 9.3 Minutes of the Newcastle Business Improvement Area dated December 10, 2020
(c) 9.4 Minutes from the Tyrone Community Hall Board dated September 10, 2020, October 21, 2020, and November 18, 2020
(d) 9.5 Minutes from the Newcastle Village Community Hall Board dated November 17, 2020 and December 15, 2020
(e) 9.6 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Regarding 2021 Interim Regional Tax Levy
(f) 9.7 Isabel Grace, Superintendent of Business and Finance, Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, Regarding Notice of Passing of an Education Development Charges By-law
(g) 10.1 Memo from Stephen Brake, Director of Public Works, Regarding Public Access Via Stairs to Municipal Property East of Mearns at Longworth Avenue
Page 42 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report GGR-001-21
(h) LGS-001-21 City of Oshawa Licensing of Payday Loan Establishments
(i) LGS-004-21 Fireworks Permitting 2. Sue Bernardi, CMO BA, MPS Team Leader, Municipality of Port Hope, Regarding the Transfer of Low Radioactive Waste Material from Port Granby Site to Port Hope Long-Term Waste Management Facility
Whereas the Municipality of Port Hope, the Municipality of Clarington, and the Government of Canada are parties to the Legal Agreement for the cleanup and the long-term safe management of low level radioactive waste; And Whereas Canadian Nuclear Laboratories request, on behalf of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), for an amendment to the Legal Agreement to allow for the transfer of a limited portion of waste from the Port Granby to Port Hope long term waste management facility; And Whereas the Legal Agreement requires consensus of the parties to support an amendment to the Legal Agreement. Now therefore be it resolved that the Municipality of Clarington agrees to the request of AECL regarding an amendment to the Legal Agreement to allow for the transfer of a limited portion of waste from the Port Granby Project to the Port Hope Long Term Waste Management. 3. Ward Boundary Review – Final Report
That Report LGS-002-21 be received; That the Final Report on Clarington’s Ward Boundary Review, of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., be received; That the Municipality of Clarington maintain the existing four ward boundary system; and That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-002-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. 4. Proposed Amendment to By-law 2014-059, being a By-law to Regulate Traffic and Parking on Highways, Private Property and Municipal Property
That Report PWD-001-21 be received; That the By-law, amending specific schedules of the Traffic By-law, attached to Report PWD-001-21, as Attachment 2, be passed; and That all interested parties listed in Report PWD-001-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Page 43 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report GGR-001-21 5. Contracted Winter Control Services
That Report PWD-002-21 be received; That Council approve the cancellation of Tender CL2020-30 for Winter Control Services and the issuance of a tender for the replacement of four end of service life combination plow trucks that were previously requested in the 2019 and 2020 Capital Budget submissions but have been deferred pending the outcome of the contacted service investigation. 6. Appointments to the Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee
That Report LGS-003-20 be received; That the Committee appoint Kerry Meydam, Sami Elhajjeh, Lyndsay Riddoch, and Jim Vinson to the Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee for a term ending December 31, 2022; and That all interested parties listed in Report LGS-003-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. 7. Request to Amend the Energy from Waste – Waste Management Advisory Committee’s Terms of Reference
That the Municipality of Clarington request that the Region of Durham amend the Terms of Reference for the Energy From Waste - Waste Management Advisory Committee, such that the Committees recommendations go to Regional Council instead of the Region of Durham’s Public Works Committee. 8. Delegation of Authority to enter into Extension Agreements to the Treasurer
That Report FSD-001-21 be received; That the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington delegate authority to the Treasurer to enter into extension agreements pursuant to Section 378 of the Municipal Act, 2001, and; That the By-law attached to Report FSD-001-21, as attachment 1, be approved. 9. Delegation of Authority - Section 357(1) (d.1) Sickness or Extreme Poverty
That Report FSD-002-21 be received; That the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington delegate authority to the Assessment Review Board to determine eligibility for property tax reductions or refunds under the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 357 (1) (d.1) – Sickness or Extreme Poverty; and That the By-law attached to Report FSD-002-21, as attachment 1, be approved. Page 44 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report GGR-001-21 10. Winter Maintenance on Newcastle Trails
Whereas, at the meeting of November 23, 2020, the Council of the Municipality of Clarington approved Resolution #GG-391-20, that directed the Public Works Department to provide winter maintenance on various trails to encourage outdoor exercise in an effort to improve our physical, mental health and general overall well- being due to COVID-19; And Whereas a popular section of the Samuel Wilmot trail system between Cobbledick Road and Toronto Street in Newcastle could not be included with this program due to the steep grades on the trail system that may potentially create an unsafe maintenance situation. Now therefore be it resolved that the Public Works Department be directed to include snow removal on the approximate one kilometer section of trail through the Foster Creek Valley between Sunset Boulevard and Gusel Avenue in Newcastle; That pre-budget approval be given to complete this additional work for the 2020-2021 Winter Season; and That all interested parties be notified of Council’s decision, including the Clarington Active Transportation and Safe Roads Committee. 11. Support of Opening Ski Hills in Ontario
Whereas Clarington Council remains a strong supporter of our Local Businesses and Brimacombe (Oshawa Ski Club) is an important business in our community. Brimacombe laid off 278 people on December 24, 2020 and this is a tremendous loss to this local not-for-profit business and the effects it has on our local economy; And Whereas Ski Hills in Ontario are mandated to be closed during the COVID-19 Province Wide Shut down in effect from December 26, 2020 until January 23, 2021, and this Shutdown has resulted in 9000 job losses and $84 million losses and includes 52 Ski areas in Ontario; And Whereas thousands of Ontarians rely on snow sports over the winter for employment, their physical health and mental Health; And Whereas Snow Resort owners and operators across the Province have implemented new protocols to keep all skiers and Ontarians safe and resorts are separating their inside and outside offerings so adjustments can be made safely and efficiently depending on the current COVID-19 measures in the provincial framework and rules are in place to maintain physical distancing and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE); And Whereas Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America to shut down Ski Resorts because of COVID-19; Now therefore be it resolved: That Clarington Council supports the reopening of the Ontario Ski Hills as soon as possible;
Page 45 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report GGR-001-21 That, if the COVID-19 Province Wide Shutdown was to continue past January 23, 2021, Clarington Council supports removing Ontario Ski Hills from being included in the Shutdown and be permitted to open; and That this motion be distributed to Premier Ford, Minister Lisa MacLeod Minister of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Culture, MPP Lindsey Park, MPP David Piccini, all Durham Region Municipalities, The Ontario Snow Resorts Association, and Oshawa Ski Club (Brimacombe). 12. Review of the Seniors Snow Removal Program
That Staff report back, at a future General Government Committee Meeting, on the Clarington Seniors Snow Removal Program regarding the cost to the Municipality, cost to the resident, how the program is running, any comments that Clarington has received over the past few years as feedback, and a comparison to other Senior Snow Removal Programs in other areas. 13. Statements on Agendas
That the statement regarding motions, in the Committee Agendas, be replaced with a statement regarding Policy F-11 Transparency and Accountability. 14. Appointment of Department Liaisons and Deputy Mayor
That Report CAO-023-20 be received;
That the Members of Council be designated as a Department Liaison, for a one year term ending December 31, 2021 as follows:
Planning & Development Services Councillor Anderson
Public Works Councillor Hooper
Community Services Councillor Traill
Legislative Services Councillor Jones
Financial Services Councillor Neal
Office of the CAO Mayor Foster
Emergency Services Councillor Zwart
That a Member of Council be appointed as a Liaison for Economic Development, to be Council’s representative on the Clarington Board of Trade, to report to Council;
Page 46 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report GGR-001-21 That the Economic Development Liaison be considered at the January 25, 2021 General Government Committee meeting; and That Department Heads, or designate, only be required to attend Council of Committee meetings if there is a matter on the agenda pertaining to their Department, or if a Member of Council requests department representation, prior to the meeting, for the purpose of answering a question(s) pertaining to their department. 15. Item 10. 5 - Confidential Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services, Regarding Potential Acquisition, Future Works Yard
That Resolution #CGG-001-21, passed in Closed Session to give direction to staff, be ratified.
Page 47
Committee Report to Council
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council Report Number: PDR-001-21
Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021
Report Subject: Planning and Development Committee Meeting of January 11, 2021 Recommendations:
1. Receive for Information
(a) 10.2 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Region of Durham, Regarding Support of a Ministers Zoning Order to Permit a Home Hardware Building Centre in the Rural Area at the Southeast Corner of Rundle Road and Regional Highway 2
(b) 10.3 Martha Vandepol, Regarding Support of the Ministerial Zoning Order for 2423 Rundle Road, Bowmanville
(c) 10.4 Memo from Susan Siopis, Commissioner, Works, and Gioseph Anello, Director, Waste Management Services regarding Municipality of Clarington Resolution #C-506-20 regarding Energy from Waste-Waste Management Advisory Committee Motions to Works Committee 2. Applications to Amend the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law to Allow a Nine-Storey Mixed Use Building and 45 Townhouse Units at 1465 Highway 2, Courtice
That Report PDS-001-21 be received; That staff receive and consider comments from the public and Council with respect to the above referenced applications; and That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-001-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Page 48 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PDR-001-21 3. Correspondence of Jeff Kelso regarding Recreational Vehicle Storage on Clarington Lands Zoned "A" and "EP"
That pre-budgetary approval of up to $15,000 to hire an outside planning consultant to provide options for recreational vehicle storage in Clarington; and That Planning Staff report back with a summary of what is currently permitted by the Clarington’s Official Plan and Zoning By-laws with respect to recreational vehicle storage, and to identify any additional land use categories with the potential for this use; and information on how recreational vehicle storage has been addressed in similar municipalities. 4. Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Region of Durham, Regarding Response to November 25, 2020 Notice of Motion Regarding Minister's Zoning Orders
That the following Resolution from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Region of Durham, regarding Response to November 25, 2020 Notice of Motion Regarding Minister's Zoning Orders, be endorsed by the Municipality of Clarington as follows: Whereas increasingly applicants are requesting Minister’s Zoning Orders in order to bypass the public planning process and to expedite development projects; and Whereas there is no defined MZO process to ensure that the appropriate technical issues are fully addressed before an MZO is enacted; and Whereas Regional Council wishes to ensure that all planning-related decisions affecting lands in the Region of Durham are sound and in the public interest; Now therefore be it resolved that: 1. Durham Region request that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing define what are matters of Provincial priority for consideration of MZO’s; 2. Durham Region request the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to clarify when MZOs will (and will not) be used to expedite development, and to clarify what safeguards can and will be put in place to ensure that future land use decisions made by way of an MZO represent good planning and are in the public interest; 3. That the Minister consult with the upper tier municipalities during the consideration of any MZO that affects land in the Region. Since any new development affects Regional infrastructure, (i.e. sewer, water, roads), this consultation with the Region is imperative; 4. That the Minister consider whether the proposal conforms to provincial planning policy and consider whether the proposed development would adversely affect any matter of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act;
Page 49 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PDR-001-21 5. That the Minister consider whether the proposal conforms to Regional planning policy and facilitates uses that advance Provincial and regional priorities; 6. That the Minister consider whether new development permitted by an MZO adversely affects uses in the vicinity of the area; 7. That the Minister assess whether the project is “shovel-ready” and will be constructed in a timely manner. In that regard, the MZO could include a lapsing provision so that if a building permit has not been issued for the proposal within a specified timeframe, the MZO could be repealed; 8. That prior to the issuance of an MZO, the required technical studies have been, or will be, completed to demonstrate there will not be any unacceptable impacts on the natural environment; 9. That prior to the issuance of an MZO, the required technical studies have been, or will be, completed to demonstrate that the Regional infrastructure is sufficient to accommodate the proposal, and where necessary that a development agreement has been executed prior to the enactment of the MZO to secure the necessary infrastructure works and ensure that any fiscal impacts on the Region have been addressed; 10. That the affected municipality/municipalities be reimbursed by the proponent for time spent by municipal staff on the basis that a significant amount of staff time is required to assist affected Councils when considering MZO requests, to compensate for the foregone planning application fee revenue that would otherwise have been collected; and 11. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all local area municipalities in Durham Region.
5. Rezoning to Facilitate 3 Severances at 1535 Ovens Road in Newtonville
That Report PDS-003-21 be received; That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and the By-law contained in Attachment 1 of Report PDS-003-21 be passed; That once all conditions contained in Report PDS-003-21 with respect to Removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the Removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved; That the Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PDS-003-21 and Council’s decision; and
Page 50 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PDR-001-21 That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-003-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. 6. Fred Eisenberger, Mayor, City of Hamilton, Regarding Request for Interim Cap on Gas Plant and Greenhouse Gas Pollution and the Development and Implementation of a Plan to Phase-Out-Gas-Fired Electricity Generation
Whereas the Municipality of Clarington strives to sustain our environment for future generations and to foster a heathy community that nurtures the wellbeing of residents to provide a high quality of life indefinitely; Whereas the Municipality of Clarington declared a Climate Emergency on February 18, 2020, acknowledging the important role of governments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to climate change; Whereas the Municipality of Clarington recognizes governments have an important role in reducing the local and global environmental damages associated with the production, transportation and use of energy; Whereas the Municipality of Clarington is taking action to mitigate climate change through energy conservation and demand management planning and the development of the Clarington Corporate Climate Action Plan; Whereas the Municipality of Clarington has collaborated on the development of the Durham Community Energy Plan, which promotes the transition to low carbon energy to ensure the wellbeing of our community and environment; Whereas the Municipality of Clarington recognizes the need for energy expenses to be minimized to alleviate the financial burden on residents, businesses and the municipality; Now therefore be it resolved that the Municipality of Clarington respectfully requests the Government of Ontario take the following actions to reduce GHG emissions in the energy sector while promoting local economic development: Prioritize the incorporation of carbon-free energy sources into the Ontario power grid including wind, solar and nuclear; Invest in local renewable energy production, transmission and storage, to reduce GHG emissions and household energy expenses and create high quality new jobs in manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and recycling; Introduce programs to incentivize energy retrofits for all buildings, as the single most effective way to reduce energy demand, while encouraging local economic development and jobs in the building sector; Introduce programs and incentives to encourage the use of electric vehicles by the public, businesses and municipalities to offset GHG emissions from the transportation sector;
Page 51 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PDR-001-21 That this resolution be sent to the Honourable Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario; the Honourable Greg Rickford, Minister of Energy, Northern Development and Mines and Minister of Indigenous Affairs; The Honourable Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; Lindsey Park, MPP (Durham), David Piccini, MPP (Northumberland-Peterborough South); That this resolution be sent to the Region of Durham and Durham Area Municipalities; and That this resolution be sent to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Association of Municipalities Ontario (AMO) for circulation to municipalities with a request for endorsement. 7. An Application by 2411 Baseline Limited to Amend the Zoning By-law to Permit the Development of a Commercial Property for a Variety of Uses at 2411 and 2415 Baseline Road, Bowmanville
That Report PDS-002-21 be received; That the application to amend the Zoning By-law submitted by 2411 Baseline Limited be approved and that the Zoning By-law contained in Attachment 1 to Report PDS-002-21 be passed; That a By-law lifting the Holding (H) Symbol be forwarded to Council once Site Plan approval has been granted and including the following items are satisfied: a) Submission and acceptance of the intersection detail design and site entrance design; b) Construction of the access and any associated costs for the construction of the access have been paid; and c) Submission of a Stage One and Two Archaeological Assessment Clearance Letter by the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sports, submission of a Phase Two ESA Report and a Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance to the Region's satisfaction. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PDS-002-21. That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-002-21 and any delegations be advised of Council's decision by the Department. 8. Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited Proposed Red Line Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning North-east Corner of Grady Drive and Rudell Road, Newcastle
That Report PDS-004-21 be received;
Page 52 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PDR-001-21 That the red-lined revision to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision submitted by Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited to alter the lot frontages and road layout, be supported subject to the conditions contained in Attachment 1 to Report PDS-004-21; That the application to amend Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved and that the Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 2 to Report PDS-004-21 be passed; That once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved; That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PDS-004-21 and Council’s decision; and That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-004-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. 9. Seasonal Sidewalk Patio Program 2020 Results, Guidelines, and Procedures
That Report PDS-005-21 be received for information; That Council approve the allocation of $5,000.00 from each of the Bowmanville, Newcastle, and Orono Community Improvement Programs ($15,000 total) to be used to support any additional restaurants that may apply to participate in the Seasonal Sidewalk Patio Program; That $5000.00 be approved, to be used to support any additional restaurants in participating in a Seasonal Sidewalk Patio Program for Courtice, to be allocated at the discretion of the Director of Financial Services; and That all interested parties and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. 10. Committee of Adjustment By-law – New
That Report PDS-006-21 be received; That By-law 83-83, and its amendments, be repealed, and the By-law attached to Report PDS-006-21, as Attachment 2, be passed; and That all interested parties listed in Report PDS-006-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. 11. Former Proposed By-law 2020-089 - Being a By-law to Exempt a Certain Portion of Registered Plan 40M-2614 from Part Lot Control
That the proposed by-law to exempt a certain portion of Registered Plan 40M-2614 from Part Lot Control, be approved.
Page 53 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PDR-001-21 12. Former Proposed By-law 2020-083 - Being a By-law to Exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632 from Part Lot Control
That the proposed by-law to exempt Lot 5 of Registered Plan N632 from Part Lot Control, be approved.
Page 54
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council
Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021 Report Number: FSD-003-21
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: 2021 COVID-19 Property Tax Deferral Program Recommendations:
1. That Report FSD-003-21 be received;
2. That the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer be directed to establish a COVID- 19 Property Tax Deferral Program allowing a deferral of taxes, interest and penalty free, to qualifying taxpayers for a period of up to sixty days for the first six months of the year; and
3. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-003-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Page 55 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report FSD-003-21
Report Overview
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause financial concerns for some taxpayers, as well as physical and mental health concerns. The Municipality of Clarington implemented several financial supports in 2020 during the first wave lockdown. These supports were time specific. With the second lockdown that started on December 26, 2020, the Municipality should consider if a second round of financial support is needed, learning from support offered by other municipalities and feedback from taxpayers regarding the 2020 support. This report explains an administrative change to pre-authorized payment plans that will be implemented in order to make it easier for taxpayers to join this plan and spread their outstanding taxes out over the remaining payment period for 2021. A proposed deferral plan of 60 days for those impacted by COVID-19 is also suggested which will benefit those impacted by COVID while not writing off the interest and penalties that accrued prior to the pandemic.
1. Background
COVID-19 Dates and Restrictions
1.1 On March 17, 2020, the Province of Ontario declared an emergency under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act as it relates to COVID-19.
1.2 On June 19, 2020, the Region of Durham entered Stage 2 of the Provincial restart program for the first wave and entered Stage 3 on July 24, 2020. Stage 3 allowed nearly all businesses and public spaces to open, however restrictions still applied on capacity, operating hours and other public health measures as applicable.
1.3 The Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020 came into force on July 24, 2020 as the provincial declared emergency came to an end. The ROA allows certain orders to be amended, subject to criteria, and does not allow new orders to be created.
1.4 The Province of Ontario announced a lock-down effective December 26, 2020 lasting for at least 28 days, potentially ending on or after January 23, 2021. Many retailers, personal services, restaurants, gymnasiums, and recreational/social businesses are forced to shut down or provide curb-side service.
Page 56 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report FSD-003-21 COVID-19 Financial Support Provided in 2020
1.5 On March 23, 2020, Council approved tax relief measures outlined in report FND-007- 20 which included a 60-day waiver of penalties and interest (May 1, 2020 and June 1, 2020) starting after the April 23, 2020 due date, waiving of service fees and delay in the due date for the June installment by one month. Similar measures were taken by other local area municipalities. This relief provided over $200,000 in financial support through waived penalties and interest to all taxpayers in Clarington.
1.6 On July 6, 2020, Council approved the creation of the COVID Community Support Grant Program, which provided $100,000 to local non-profit organizations who were impacted by COVID-19. This funding provided support to offset increased operating costs or forgone revenues as a result of the first-wave lockdown measures that were in effect from March 2020 to June 2020.
1.7 Council also approved up to $1million for a COVID-19 Property Tax Rebate Program which would provide qualifying residential taxpayers with the local portion of their taxes back in the form of a refund. There were no qualifying applications under this program.
1.8 In September, the COVID-19 CIP Program was approved by Council to provide up to $1million in financial support to local small businesses in addressing capital costs of reopening and adhering to public health measures that are in place. This program would provide funding to qualifying businesses which were forced to close as a result of the emergency orders in March to June 2020 and met a financial means test. This program is still open, and we have approved payments to three businesses so far. Staff will be reporting back to Council in the first quarter of 2021 with an update on the program.
1.9 Municipalities in the Region of Durham passed similar measures as mentioned above.
Legislative Ability to Write-off Taxes
1.10 Section 354 of the Municipal Act, 2001 states that “Taxes shall not be written off except in accordance with this section.” The section goes on to provide three times when the Treasurer of a local municipality shall remove unpaid taxes from the tax roll:
The council of the local municipality, on the recommendation of the treasurer writes off the taxes as uncollectible;
The taxes are no longer payable as a result of tax relief under section 319, 345, 357 358, 362,364,365,365.1 or 365.2 or a decision of any court; or
The taxes are no longer payable because the tax liability arose as result of the assessment of land under subsection 33(1) of the Assessment Act for a period during which a regulation made under subsection 33 (1.1) of that Act provides that subsection 33(1) of that Act does not apply to land.
Page 57 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report FSD-003-21 1.11 At this point, it is my opinion that there are no taxes that are uncollectible from 2020 given the variety of tools that are available for collection and the allowed timeframe for collection. Historically in Clarington, the provision for uncollectible taxes has been used for small value write-offs where the cost to try and collect outweighs the actual amount outstanding.
1.12 Section 319 of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not apply to the Municipality of Clarington as it applies to a municipality other than a lower-tier municipality. This section provides relief to low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities. The relief is in the form of a tax deferral or cancellation of a tax increase on residential property. Any relief under this section is determined by the Region of Durham.
1.13 Section 345 of the Municipal Act, 2001 relates to late payment charges for the non- payment of taxes or any instalment by the due date. The local municipality shall cancel or refund late payment charges for penalties and interest on overcharges of taxes arising as a result of errors or changes (an assessment change, property class change or allocation of property class change). Relief as a result of COVID-19 would not be applicable under this section of the Act.
1.14 Section 357 of the Municipal Act, 2001 allows the local municipality to cancel, reduce or refund all or part of taxes levied on land in respect of which the application is made if:
a. As a result of a change event, as defined by the Assessment Act, during the tax year, the property or portion of the property is eligible to be reclassified in a different class of real property which has a lower tax ratio for the taxation year (e.g. a commercial property becomes a residential property during the year taxes may be written off);
b. The land has become vacant land or excess land during the year or the preceding year;
c. The land has become exempt from taxation during the year or preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year;
d. During the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll
i. a building on the land was razed by fire, demolition or otherwise, or
ii. was damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable;
d.1 The applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty;
e. A mobile unit on the land was removed during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year;
Page 58 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report FSD-003-21 f. A person was overcharged due to a gross or manifest error that is clerical or factual in nature, including the transposition of figures, a typographical error or similar error but not an error in judgment in assessing the property; or
g. Repairs or renovations to the land prevented the normal use of the land for a period of at least three months during the year. (this was removed for years after 2007)
1.15 From the above, the only authority under section 357 would be due to sickness or extreme poverty. This would be on a case by case basis and would not be, in my opinion, justification for a broad write-off of taxes. This section could allow for an application-based program for relief, this could be administratively burdensome and potentially subjective which is why this section is not typically used for tax relief. Report FSD-002-21 recommended that the Municipality delegate authority to the Assessment Review Board for relief sought under this section.
1.16 Section 358 of the Municipal Act, 2001 relates to overcharges. Upon application to the Treasurer of a local municipality, the local municipality may cancel, reduce or refund all or part of taxes levied on land:
a. In one or both of the two years preceding the year in which the application is made for any overcharge caused by gross or manifest error in the preparation of the assessment roll that is clerical or factual in nature;
b. In the year or years in respect of which an assessment is made under section 33 or 34 of the Assessment Act for any overcharge caused by a gross or manifest error in the preparation of the assessment that is clerical or factual in nature.
1.17 Relief under section 358 would not be applicable in the current situation.
1.18 Section 362 of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not apply to lower-tier municipalities and is therefore not applicable to the Municipality of Clarington. This section relates to relief for those properties which are subject to capping on property taxes.
1.19 Section 364 of the Municipal Act, 2001 no longer applies as it related to vacant unit rebates. This program was ended within the Region of Durham, as well as many municipalities throughout the Province of Ontario, in 2019. This program was available to commercial and industrial properties which had vacancies of at least 90 consecutive days.
1.20 Section 365 of the Municipal Act, 2001 the Council of a local municipality may, in any year, pass a by-law to provide for the cancellation, reduction or refund of taxes levied for local and school purposes in the year by the council in respect of an eligible property of any person who makes an application in that year to the municipality for that relief and whose taxes are considered by the council to be unduly burdensome, as defined in the by-law.
Page 59 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report FSD-003-21 1.21 Under section 365, eligible properties are those within residential, farm or the managed forest property class. This would not apply to multi-residential, commercial or industrial properties. Further, there is no requirement that the upper-tier have the same program, if they do not the lower tier municipality would be required to pay the upper tier for the full amount of the taxes. This is the section that the COVID-19 Property Tax Relief Program was established in 2020. Clarington is, to my knowledge, the only municipality in Ontario that established a program under this section for COVID-19.
1.22 Section 365.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides for cancellation of all or a portion of taxes for municipal and school purposes levied on specified properties (a property for which a phase two environmental site condition has been conducted) in respect of the rehabilitation period and/or the development period of the property. This would not be applicable in this situation. This type of relief is common in attempts to redevelopment brownfield sites.
1.23 Section 365.2 allows tax reductions for heritage properties outlined in the Municipal Act, 2001. Again, this would be a targeted relief for specified types of properties that are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. This would not be COVID-19 related.
1.24 The difficulty with application-based programs is the added layer of administration, potential subjectivity unless the program is clearly prescribed. Feedback from the 2020 COVID-19 relief program included statements that the program only applied to residential taxpayers (which legally is all it could apply to), it did not take into consideration self-employed or business owners, it did not assist retired individuals or those who had to quit or reduce their work hours to care for someone with COVID-19. The program was very prescriptive which eliminate subjectivity, ensures equal treatment of taxpayers and is able to be consistently applied; however, this provides limited targeted relief.
Ability to Provide Financial Support
1.25 Section 106 of the Act prohibits a municipality from assisting directly or indirectly any manufacturing business or other industrial or commercial enterprise through the granting of bonuses for that purpose.
1.26 The Municipal Act, 2001 provides municipalities general powers, notwithstanding section 106, to make grants in section 107 of the Act. Grants under this section includes several powers including guaranteeing loans, providing for use of property, staff, sales of property at a nominal price or the donation of foodstuffs and merchandise purchased by the municipality for that purpose. These would be to those organizations that are not considered a manufacturing business or commercial enterprise.
1.27 Using the above authority, the Municipality could provide financial or in-kind support to non-profit organizations that support the community. The Municipality’s Community Grants Program is an example of this.
Page 60 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report FSD-003-21 1.28 Providing support or services for small business counselling is permitted under section 108 of the Municipal Act, 2001. This service could include the ability to acquire land and buildings to provide leased premises to eligible small businesses, provide grants to corporations, lease land to small businesses. 2. Options for Financial Support in 2021
Providing flexible payment options
2.1 While not a relief program, the Municipality does provide taxpayers the ability to have taxes withdrawn from their bank account monthly. This provides taxpayers the ability to spread their payments out monthly rather than four larger payments in February, April, June and September. Staff will be increasing the communication for this program to ensure taxpayers are aware of this option.
2.2 For new registrations enrolled during the year, a lump sum payment is required in order to place the account in a similar position to all accounts on the plan. For example, an account that missed the January first payment would pay the January withdrawal up- front and begin withdrawals on February first. To provide an additional option for residents requesting additional support, upfront payments can be spread over the remaining months. Our pre-authorized payment plan is not currently setup this way due to increased risk of clerical error. Given the pandemic, staff feel this option outweighs the risk and could help residents avoid falling behind if they are unable to pay the catch- up payment.
2.3 Staff will be temporarily changing the normal process, which is more manual due to system limitations, to allow for new registrants to spread the balance of taxes over the remaining period equally.
2.4 Taxpayers enrolled in the pre-authorized payment plan do not pay penalties or interest during the period of enrollment, provided that payments are made as scheduled.
2.5 If taxes are withdrawn as part of the taxpayer’s mortgage payment, any changes to that payment schedule need to be worked out between the mortgage company and the taxpayer. Financial Services staff received many requests to hold payment or skip a payment; however, we are only able to do that with pre-authorized payments set up through the Municipality.
2.6 The Municipality continues to provide the ability to make payments through financial institutions, including the institutions online or telephone banking programs. These payments can be made at the taxpayer’s convenience without having to come to the Municipal Administration Centre.
2.7 Cheques may be mailed to the Municipality or dropped off at the Municipal Administration Centre.
Page 61 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report FSD-003-21 2.8 Currently, the Municipal Administration Centre is open, and payments may be made in person through debit, cheque or cash. Staff are recommending the use of debit cards or cheques.
Changing the due date for payments
2.9 The interim due dates were set in December 2020 with the passing of By-law 2020-087. The due dates are set for February 18, 2021 and April 22, 2021. The interim tax bills are currently being processed and will be mailed no later than January 28, 2021; due to processing times for the tax bills it is not possible to have the due dates changed on the tax bills and meet the statutory timelines. To meet the cash-flow needs of the Municipality it is not recommended to change the interim tax levy due dates at this time.
2.10 In April or May when the final tax by-law is brought to Council, the due dates for the final two installments may be changed from the typical June/September (residential) or August/September (non-residential).
2.11 Taxpayers entering into the pre-authorized payment plan arrangement with the Municipality will be able to spread the payment of taxes over the remaining period for the year which could provide for better cash flow.
Waiving of Interest or Penalties
2.12 As a work-around for the due dates in 2020, staff recommended the waiving of penalties and interest for 60 days which in essence moved the due date by two months. This remains an option for Council.
2.13 One of the drawbacks for this method is that all penalties and interest are waived not just the penalties and interest for those impacted by COVID-19. This costs approximately $100,000 per month in lost revenue, most of which would not be related to COVID-19. Administratively, this is the easiest option to process; however, it is felt that this does not provide fair and equitable treatment to taxpayers as those who were in arrears prior to March 2020 when COVID-19 started would have no interest and penalties on their total arrears.
Deferral Program
2.14 An option that has been used by several municipalities including the City of Ottawa and the City of Kitchener is an application-based tax deferral program. This program allows qualifying taxpayers to defer payment of their taxes for a set period of time and avoid penalties and interest, if the deferred amount is paid by the due date in full.
Page 62 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report FSD-003-21 2.15 Unlike the property tax relief program, there is no requirement to meet the criteria under a by-law defining “unduly burdensome taxes”; this would eliminate the need to provide personal financial information and would be easier to administer as financial means would not need to be required. It also does not provide interest and penalty relief to all taxpayers, even those not impacted by COVID-19.
2.16 This program would also be eligible for business owners as it would not be considered bonusing as no financial support is being provided.
2.17 It is recommended that the deferral program be administratively easy to apply. Staff will utilize online forms for taxpayers to register for their property and answer a series of questions to determine if they meet the criteria. They will be required to certify that they are providing accurate information and that if the information is not accurate that they will be removed from the deferral program.
2.18 While the wording of the program will be determined, the criteria is suggested to include:
a. Experienced a financial hardship such as a loss of pay/employment, excessive revenue loss (greater than 30 per cent), business closure;
b. Taxes were current as at December 26, 2020;
c. Residential property tax class;
d. Commercial business property owners with an assessed value of less than $5 million;
e. Cannot receive compensation from business interruption insurance for property taxes; and
f. Taxes deferred under the program must be paid in full by June 21, 2021 (60 days).
2.19 The tax deferral program would provide qualifying taxpayers an extension on their tax due date which could assist in cash flow issues resulting from the second wave.
2.20 Depending on the economic situation in June 2021, a second intake for this program could occur to provide a 60-day deferral. The 60-day deferral appears to be the length of time most commonly used for deferral programs or penalty/interest waivers in Ontario.
2.21 A concern with the deferral program would be that two payments would be due in June, as well, regardless of the payment arrangements the Municipality puts into place there are still obligations to make payments to the Region of Durham and the School Boards. Extending payment terms too far could result in cash flow issues for the Municipality.
Page 63 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report FSD-003-21 2.22 We hope that more taxpayers would opt for the pre-authorized payment plan which allows for monthly payments (interest free) rather than deferring two payments and having three payments due in June. The pre-authorized payment plan, modified from current practice, provides a win-win for the Corporation and taxpayers.
Tax Rebate Program
2.23 Council could consider re-instituting the COVID-19 Property Tax Rebate Program under S.365 of the Municipal Act, 2001 for “unduly burdensome taxes”. This program requires a means test be established to ensure equitable treatment and objective decisions on qualification for the program.
2.24 The program would not take as long to set up this year as the means tests, by-laws and research to establish the program have already occurred.
2.25 Staff do not recommend this approach, it is administratively burdensome, requires personal information such as bank statements to be collected, which taxpayers are hesitant to do, and in 2020 did not result in any fiscal support being provided. 3. Concurrence
Not Applicable. 4. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the creation of a tax deferral program for qualifying taxpayers. This program as well as a change in the administration of the pre-authorized payment plan for the 2021 tax year will provide payment options for taxpayers seeking to mitigate personal cash flow concerns.
Staff Contact: Jessica James, CMRP(A), Taxation Services Manager, 905-623-3379 ext 2609 or [email protected].
Attachments:
Not Applicable
Interested Parties:
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
Page 64
Staff Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: Council
Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021 Report Number: FSD-004-21
Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services
Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: 2020/2021 Development Charges Background Study and By-law Recommendations:
1. That Report FND-053-20 be received;
2. That Report FSD-004-21 be received;
3. That the Draft Development Charges Background Study, October 15 2020 and the Addendum to the Development Charges Background Study, November 3, 2020 prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. be approved and the development-related capital program included therein be adopted, subject to annual review through the Municipality’s normal capital budget process
4. That the municipal-wide development charges quantum for residential and non- residential charges be approved as follows, subject to annual indexing:
Type of Development Development Charges
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling $ 21,461 per unit
Apartments – 2 Bedrooms or More $ 11,426 per unit
Apartments – Bachelor and 1 Bedroom $ 7,014 per unit
Other multiples $ 17,590 per unit
Industrial $ 37.46 per sq.m $ 107.30 per sq.m Non-Industrial
Page 65 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report FSD-004-21 5. That Council in approving the Background Study, expresses its intent to ensure that the increase in the need for services attributable to the anticipated development will be met and any future excess capacity identified in the Study will be paid for by development charges or other similar charges.
6. That for completed applications as determined by the Chief Building Official received on or before January 18, 2021 and (where the development charges have been paid by January 18, 2021) that the applicable development charges be calculated based on By-law 2015-035;
7. That the By-law attached to Report FSD-004-21, as attachment 1, be approved to repeal and replace By-law 2015-035;
8. That the Clarington Technology Park Area Specific development charges quantum be approved as follows, subject to annual indexing:
Service $ Per Net Hectare
Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control $ 38,840
Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control $ 29,268
Lands Benefitting from Quality and Quantity Control $ 68,107
9. That the By-law attached to Report FSD-004-21, as attachment 2, be approved
10. That the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer be directed to bring back an amendment to the Development Charges By-law in 2021 or 2022 upon the approval of pending secondary plans to update the capital program for those plans; and
11. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-004-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Page 66 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report FSD-004-21
Report Overview
The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Development Charges Act, to obtain Council approval of a new Development Charges Background Study and By-law to establish new development charge fees upon expiry of the existing By-law. A public meeting was held on November 30, 2020 with five responses coming to the Municipality afterwards (one being in late December 2020 and another in early January 2021).
1. Background
Update to Report FND-053-20
1.1 On November 30, 2020 Council referred report FND-053-20 to the Council meeting of January 18, 2021. The January 18, 2021 Council meeting is the last scheduled meeting prior to the expiry of the existing Development Charges By-law 2015-035 on January 24, 2021.
1.2 Since Report FND-053-20 was provided to Council there have been no changes to the proposed charges, legislation, or study. This report should be read in addition to that report. The attached by-laws take into account feedback received as part of the public process including wording changes from the Municipal Solicitor and Chief Building Official. 2. Proposed Future Amendment to the By-law
2.1 Feedback received to date from many developers has been that there are projects that are not included in the DC background study that should be. These projects are in areas that are currently undergoing the secondary plan process.
2.2 Given that the design of the secondary plan areas have not been finalized, the secondary plan themselves have not been approved, and the costing of the capital requirements cannot be estimated until the design and needs are established, it has been recommended from our consultant that these costs not be included in the study at this time. Capital items should only be included in the development charge study if there is a document that supports their eventual inclusion (for example a traffic needs study, secondary plan, recreation needs study or Council approved resolution). If projects are not supported they may be appealable as there is no basis for their inclusion.
Page 67 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report FSD-004-21 2.3 It is recommended, and other municipalities in similar high-growth areas have, that the by-law be amended before the next five-year review to include the capital projects once they are approved and the costs can be better estimated. As the only change for the amendment will be the capital program, the whole project will be scoped to just the secondary plan areas that have changes in capital needs. In this case, as the population growth for the secondary plans are in the study, but not all of the costs are in the likelihood is that the charge will increase.
2.4 Undergoing a mid-study amendment promotes equity for developers. Currently there are projects that may not be included as they within the secondary plan areas but they realistically will be needed in four to six years from now. If we wait until five years to include in the study any development that occurs in years one to five will benefit from this infrastructure and likely should have contributed to this infrastructure but the cost would be borne by later developers. It is anticipated that an amendment could be completed prior to the actual start of construction within the secondary plan areas.
2.5 Similarly, there has been discussion at Council regarding a potential trail that would be available in the winter for skating purposes. As this trail has not been identified in any of the park needs studies, to date, and Council has not provided direction that they are in support of this trail (the matter has been referred several times) at this point it is recommended that it not be included in the study. An amendment to include the trail could occur once there is supporting documentation that the trail is to be built. To be clear, the skating trail is an eligible development charge project (subject to other limitations), there just has to be an indication from Council (through approval of a plan or a resolution itself) that the project will go ahead. At this time we do not have a location, or proposed location, so waiting a year to two years for the amendment will not jeopardize the projects ability to be recovered from development charges.
2.6 The Municipality of Clarington is a relatively high growth area with increasing growth related capital costs. Reviewing the capital program more frequently, particularly in light of the anticipated development within the secondary plan areas, will ensure that growth continues to pay for growth. 3. Communication with Stakeholders
Responses to feedback prior to November 30, 2020
3.1 Attachment 3 provides the Municipality’s response to SCS Consulting’s October 21, 2020 letter.
3.2 Attachment 4 provides the Municipality’s response to Durham Region Homebuilders’ Asssociation’s letter dated November 12, 2020.
Page 68 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report FSD-004-21 Biglieri Group
3.3 The Municipality received feedback on November 30, 2020 (Attachment 5) from the Biglieri Group. The feedback is an identification of projects that are not in the DC Background study which related to the Soper Hills Secondary Plan area. A response was provided on January 4, 2021.
3.4 The Soper Hills Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by Council at this time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide more certainty for the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is required in that area.
Reg Webster Consulting Sub-heading
3.5 The Municipality received feedback on November 30, 2020 (Attachment 6) from Reg Webster Consulting. The feedback is an identification of projects that are not in the DC Background study which related to the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan area as well as the identification of benefit to existing taxpayer concerns. A response was provided on January 4, 2021
3.6 The Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by Council at this time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide more certainty for the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is required in that area.
SCS Consulting
3.7 SCS Consulting provided a letter (attachment 7) dated November 27, 2020 regarding the Brookhill North Secondary Plan area identifying projects for that secondary plan to be added to the study. A response was provided on January 4, 2021.
3.8 The Brookhill North Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by Council at this time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide more certainty for the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is required in that area.
Weston Consulting
3.9 Weston Consulting provided a letter (attachment 8) dated December 22, 2020 regarding the Soper Hills Secondary Plan and Soper Springs Secondary Plan. A letter of response was provided on January 7, 2021.
3.10 Both the Soper Hills and Soper Springs Secondary Plans are have not been completed or approved by Council. The completion of the design of both plans will provide more certainty for the necessity, design and ultimate cost of capital required to service those areas.
Page 69 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report FSD-004-21 UrbanMetrics
3.11 A letter from UrbanMetrics Inc was received on January 8, 2021 (attachment 9) the letter was similar to the above letter from Weston Consulting. This has been forwarded to our DC consultants for a response. 4. Concurrence
Not Applicable. 5. Conclusion
It is respectfully recommended that the recommendations outlined above are approved and that the development charges bylaws be approved with an implementation date of January 19, 2021
Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext.2602 or [email protected].
Attachments:
Attachment 1 – Draft Municipal Wide Development Charges By-law
Attachment 2 – Draft Area Specific Development Charges By-law
Attachment 3 – Response to SCS Consulting dated November 30, 2020
Attachment 4 – Response to Durham Region Homebuilders’ Association dated November 30, 2020
Attachment 5- Letter from The Biglieri Group dated November 30, 2020 and response
Attachment 6 - Letter from Reg Webster Consulting Inc dated November 27, 2020 and response
Attachment 7 – Letter from SCS Consulting Group Ltd dated November 27, 2020 and response
Attachment 8 – Letter from Weston Consulting Group Dated dated December 22, 2020 and response
Attachment 9 – Letter from Urban Metrics Inc dated January 7, 2021
Interested Parties:
List of Interested Parties available from Department.
Page 70 Attachment 1 to FSD-004-21
Appendix E Proposed Municipal-wide D.C. By-law
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE E-1 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\856663492\856663492,,,Attachment 1 - DraftPage Municipal Wide71 By-law.docx Attachment 1 to FSD-004-21
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 2021-0XX
to impose development charges against land in the Municipality of Clarington pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997
WHEREAS subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27 provides that the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from the development of the area to which the by-law applies.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
Part 1 — Interpretation
Definitions
1. In this by-law,
"accessory", where used to describe a building or structure, means that the building or structure or part thereof that is naturally and normally incidental, subordinate in purpose or floor area or both, and exclusively devoted to a principal use, building or structure;
"Act" means the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27;
"air-supported structure" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992;
"apartment building" means (a) a residential building (other than a fourplex or sixplex) containing 4 or more dwelling units that have a common entrance to grade, common corridors, stairs and/or yards; and (b) the residential portion of a mixed-use building containing 4 or more dwelling units that are located behind or above a non-residential use and may have a separate entrance to grade, and includes stacked townhouse;
“bedroom ”means a habitable room, including a den, study, loft, or other similar area, but does not include a living room, a dining room, a bathroom, or kitchen;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE E-2 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\856663492\856663492,,,Attachment 1 - DraftPage Municipal Wide72 By-law.docx
"building" means a building or structure that occupies an area greater than 10 square metres consisting of a wall, roof and floor or a structural system serving the function thereof, and includes an air-supported structure;
"Building Code Act, 1992" means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23 and all Regulations thereunder including the Ontario Building Code, 2012;
"Council" means Council of the Municipality;
"development" means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that requires one or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 and includes redevelopment;
"development charge" means a development charge imposed by this by-law;
"duplex" means a residential building containing 2 dwelling units divided horizontally from each other;
"dwelling unit" means one or more habitable rooms designed or intended to be used together as a single and separate housekeeping unit by one or more persons, containing its own full kitchen and sanitary facilities, with a private entrance from outside the unit itself;
“existing” means the number, use and size that existed at least 2 years before the date of building permit application;
"fourplex" means a pair of duplexes divided vertically from the other by a common wall;
"floor" includes a paved, concrete, wooden, gravel or dirt floor;
"grade" means the average level of the proposed finished surface of the ground immediately abutting each building or mixed-use building at all exterior walls;
"gross floor area" means the total area of all floors, whether above or below grade, measured between the outside surfaces of exterior walls, or between the outside surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of a party wall or a demising wall as the case may be, including mezzanines, air-supported structures, interior
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-3 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 73
corridors, lobbies, basements, cellars, half-stories, common areas, and the space occupied by interior walls or partitions, but excluding any areas used for,
(a) loading bays, parking of motor vehicles, retail gas pump canopies; and
(b) enclosed garbage storage in an accessory building;
"heritage building" means a building designated under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 and, for purpose of subsection 36(7), includes any building identified as "primary resource" in the registry maintained by the Municipality pursuant to section 28 of such Act;
"industrial", in reference to use, means any land, building or structure or portions thereof used, designed or intended for or in connection with manufacturing, producing, processing, fabricating, assembling, refining, research and development, storage of materials and products, truck terminals, warehousing, but does not include,
(a) retail service sales or rental areas, storage or warehousing areas used, designed or intended to be used in connection with retail sales, service or rental areas, warehouse clubs or similar uses, self-storage mini warehouses, and secure document storage; and
(b) office areas that are not accessory to any of the foregoing areas or uses or accessory office uses that are greater than 25% of the gross floor area of the building;
“institutional”, in reference to use, means development of a building or structure intended for use,
(a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007;
(b) as a retirement home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Retirement Homes Act, 2010;
(c) by any of the following post-secondary institutions for the objects of the institution:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-4 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 74
(i) a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and ongoing operating funding from the Government of Ontario,
(ii) a college or university federated or affiliated with a university described in subclause (i), or
(iii) an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017;
(d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by an Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or
(e) as a hospice to provide end of life care.
"linked building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to contain only two separate dwelling units, connected underground by footing and foundation, each of which has an independent entrance directly from the outside of the building and is located on a separate lot;
"lot" means a parcel of land within a registered plan of subdivision or any land that may be legally conveyed under the exemptions provided in clause 50(3)(b) or 50(5)(a) of the Planning Act;
"mezzanine" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992;
"mixed-use building" means a building used, designed or intended to be used either for a combination of non-residential and residential areas and uses, or for a combination of different classes or types of non-residential areas and uses;
"mobile home" means a dwelling unit that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent or temporary residence for one or more persons, but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer;
"multiple unit building" means a residential building or the portion of a mixed-use building that contains multiple dwelling units (other than dwelling units contained in an apartment building, linked building, semi-detached building or single detached dwelling) and includes plexes and townhouses;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-5 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 75
"Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the geographic area of the Municipality of Clarington, as the context requires;
“non-industrial” in reference to use, means lands, buildings or structures used or designed or intended for use for a purpose which is not residential or industrial;
“non-profit housing development” means development of a building or structure intended for use as residential premises by,
(a) a corporation without share capital to which the Ontario Corporations Act (or its successor legislation) applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing;
(b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing; or
(c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under the Co-operative Corporations Act;
"non-residential", in reference to use, means a building or portions of a mixed- use building containing floors or portions of floors which are used, designed or intended to be used for a purpose which is not residential, and includes a hotel, motel and a retirement residence;
"owner" means the owner of land or a person who has made application for an approval for the development of land against which a development charge is imposed;
"party wall" means a wall jointly owned and jointly used by 2 parties under an easement agreement or by right in law and erected on a line separating 2 parcels of land each of which is, or is capable of being, a separate lot;
"Planning Act" means the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13;
"plex" means a duplex, triplex, fourplex or sixplex;
“rental housing” means development of a building or structure with four or more dwelling units all of which are intended for use as rented residential premises;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-6 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 76
"residential", in reference to use, means a building or a portion of a mixed-use building and floors or portions of floors contained therein that are used, designed or intended to be used as living accommodation for one or more individuals provided in dwelling units and any building accessory to such dwelling units;
"retirement residence" means a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building that provides living accommodation, where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided for the residents of the building, and where each unit or living accommodation has separate sanitary facilities, less than full kitchen facilities and a separate entrance from a common corridor;
“retirement residence unit” means a unit within a retirement residence;
"semi-detached building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to contain only two separate dwelling units, each of which has an independent entrance directly from outside of the building;
"service" means a service designated by section 10;
"single-detached dwelling" means a residential building containing only one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other building or structure except its own garage or shed and has no dwelling units either above it or below it, and includes a mobile home;
"sixplex" means a pair of triplexes divided vertically one from the other by a common wall;
"stacked townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, townhouse or apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units that (a) are joined by common side walls with dwelling units entirely or partially above another; and (b) have a separate entrance to grade;
"townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, stacked townhouse or apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units, each of which (a) is separated from the others vertically; and (b) has a separate entrance to grade;
"triplex" means a residential building containing 3 dwelling units; and
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-7 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 77
"Zoning By-laws" means the Municipality's By-law No. 84-63 and By-law No. 2005-109.
References
2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law is reference to the Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time.
3. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Schedules, Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs are to Schedules, Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs in this by-law.
Word Usage
4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context may require.
5. In this by-law, a grammatical variation of a defined word or expression has a corresponding meaning.
Schedules
6. The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this by-law:
Schedule 1 —Municipal-Wide Development Charges Schedule 2A — Clarington Energy Business Park Schedule 2B — Clarington Science Park Schedule 3A — Revitalization Area — Newcastle Village Schedule 3B — Revitalization Area — Orono Schedule 3C — Revitalization Area — Bowmanville Schedule 3D — Revitalization Area — Courtice
Severability
7. If, for any reason, any section or subsection of this by-law is held invalid, it is hereby declared to be the intention of Council that all the remainder of this by-law shall continue in full force and effect until repealed, re-enacted or amended, in whole or in part or dealt with in any other way.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-8 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 78
Part 2 — Development Charges
Designated Services and Classes
8. It is hereby declared by Council that all development in the Municipality will increase the need for services.
9. Development charges shall apply without regard to the services which in fact are required or are used by any individual development.
10. Development charges shall be imposed for the following categories of service and class to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development:
(a) Fire Protection Services; (b) Growth Studies; (c) Library Services; (d) Parks and Recreation Services; and (e) Services Related to a Highway.
Rules
11. For the purpose of complying with section 6 of the Act, the following rules have been developed:
(a) The rules for determining if a development charge is payable in any particular case and for determining the amount of the charge shall be in accordance with sections 12 through 20.
(b) The rules for determining the indexing of development charges shall be in accordance with section 21.
(c) The rules for determining exemptions shall be in accordance with Part 3 (sections 22 through 34).
(d) The rules respecting redevelopment of land shall be in accordance with Part 4 (sections 35 through 39).
(e) This by-law does not provide for any phasing in of development charges.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-9 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 79
(f) This by-law applies to all lands in the Municipality.
Imposition of Development Charges
12. Development charges shall be imposed on all land, buildings or structures that are developed if the development requires,
(a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment thereto under section 34 of the Planning Act;
(b) the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act;
(c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act applies;
(d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act;
(e) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act;
(f) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.19; or
(g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building or structure.
13. Not more than one development charge for each service shall be imposed upon any land, building or structure whether or not two or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 are required before the land, building or structure can be developed.
14. Notwithstanding section 13, if two or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 occur at different times, additional development charges shall be imposed in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by the subsequent action or decision.
Basis of Calculation
15. Development charges for all services shall be calculated,
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-10 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 80
(a) in the case of residential buildings and the residential portions of mixed- use buildings, on the basis of the number and type of dwelling units contained in them; and
(b) in the case of non-residential buildings and the non-residential portion of mixed-use buildings, on the basis of the gross floor area contained in the non-residential building or in the non-residential portion of the mixed-use building.
Amount
16. (1) The amount of the development charges payable in respect of residential development shall be determined in accordance with clause 15(1) (a) and Schedule 1.
(2) The amount of the development charges payable in respect of non- residential development shall be determined in accordance with clause 15(1)(b) and Schedule 1.
Timing of Calculation
17. (1) The total amount of a development charge is the amount of the development charge that would be determined under the by-law on,
(a) the day an application for an approval of development in a site plan control area under subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act was made in respect of the development that is subject of the development charge;
(b) if clause (a) does not apply, the day an application for an amendment to a by-law passed under section 34 of the Planning Act was made in respect of the development that is the subject of the development charge; or
(c) if neither clause (a) or clause (b) applies, the day the first building permit is issued for the development that is the subject of the development charge.
(2) Subsection (1) applies even if this by-law is no longer in effect.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-11 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 81
(3) Where clause (1)(a) or (b) applies, interest shall be payable on the development charge, at the rate established by the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy, from the date of the application referred to in the applicable clause to the date the development charge is payable.
(4) If a development was the subject or more than one application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b), the later one is deemed to be the applicable application for the purposes of this section.
(5) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply if, on the date the first building permit is issued for the development, more than two years has elapsed since the application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b) was approved.
(6) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply in the case of an application made before January 1, 2020.
Timing of Payment
18. (1) Subject to subsections 18(2) and 18(3), development charges shall be payable in full on the date the first building permit is issued for the development of the land against which the development charges apply.
(2) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for rental housing and institutional developments are payable in 6 installments commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter.
(3) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for non-profit housing developments are payable in 21 installments commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter.
(4) If the development of land is such that it does not require that a building permit be issued before the development is commenced, but the development requires one or more of the other actions or decisions referred to in section 12 be taken or made before the development is
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-12 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 82
commenced, development charges shall be payable in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by such action or decision prior to the action or decision required for the increased or additional development being taken or made.
(5) In accordance with section 27 of the Act, where apartment buildings having a minimum of 3 stories are being developed, the Municipality may enter into an agreement with a person who is required to pay a development charge providing for all or any part of a development charge to be paid after it would otherwise be payable.
(6) For the purpose of subsections 18(2) and 18(3) herein, “interest” means the interest rate outlined in the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy.
Method of Payment
19. Payment of development charges shall be in a form acceptable to the Municipality.
Unpaid Charges
20. Where a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid at any time after it is payable, the amount shall be added to the tax roll and collected in the same manner as taxes.
Indexing
21. The development charges set out in Schedule 1 shall be adjusted without amendment to this by-law annually on July 1st in each year, commencing on July 1, 2021, at the rate identified by the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for Toronto based on the 12 month period most recently available.
Part 3 - Exemptions
Specific Users
22. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to land, buildings or structures that are owned by,
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-13 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 83
(a) a hospital as defined in section 1 of the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40 and used, designed or intended for the purposes set out in such Act;
(b) the Municipality, the Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Durham, or their local boards as defined in section 1 of the Act and used, designed or intended for municipal purposes;
(c) a board of education as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act, 1990, S.O. 1990, c.27 and used, designed or intended for school purposes including the administration or the servicing of schools; and
(d) a college or a university as defined in section 171.1 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 and used, designed or intended for purposes set out in such Act.
Specific Properties
23. Buildings that are or will be located either in the Clarington Science Park or the Clarington Energy Park (as shown in Schedule 2) are exempt from development charges if the owner can provide evidence satisfactory to the Director of Finance that the building will be used for research purposes including laboratories, offices, amenity areas and service areas for staff who conduct research.
Existing Residential
24. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to residential development if the only effect of such development is,
(a) an interior alteration to an existing residential building which does not change or intensify the use of the building;
(b) the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit;
(c) the creation of a second or third dwelling unit in an existing single detached dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross floor area of the additional unit(s) does not exceed the original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit; or
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-14 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 84
(d) the creation of a second dwelling unit in a semi-detached building or townhouse dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross floor area of the additional unit does not exceed the original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit.
New Residential
25. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to new residential development if the only effect of such development is the creation of a second dwelling unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential buildings, including structures ancillary to dwellings, subject to the following restrictions:
Name of Class Description of Class of of Proposed Item Proposed New Restrictions New Residential Residential Buildings Buildings The proposed new Proposed new residential detached dwelling must buildings that would not only contain two dwelling be attached to other units. buildings and that are
Proposed new permitted to contain a The proposed new 1. detached second dwelling unit, that detached dwelling must dwellings being either of the two be located on a parcel of dwelling units, if the units land on which no other have the same gross floor detached dwelling, semi- area, or the smaller of the detached dwelling or row dwelling units. dwelling would be located. Proposed new residential The proposed new semi- buildings that would have detached dwelling or row one or two vertical walls, dwelling must only contain but no other parts, two dwelling units. attached to other Proposed new buildings and that are The proposed new semi- semi-detached 2. permitted to contain a detached dwelling or row dwellings or row second dwelling unit, that dwelling must be located dwellings being either of the two on a parcel of land on dwelling units, if the units which no other detached have the same gross floor dwelling, semi-detached area, or the smaller of the dwelling or row dwelling dwelling units. would be located. Proposed new Proposed new residential The proposed new residential buildings that would be detached dwelling, semi- buildings that ancillary to a proposed detached dwelling or row would be new detached dwelling, dwelling, to which the 3. ancillary to a semi-detached dwelling or proposed new residential proposed new row dwelling and that are building would be detached permitted to contain a ancillary, must only dwelling, semi- single dwelling unit. contain one dwelling unit.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-15 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 85
detached dwelling or row The gross floor area of the dwelling dwelling unit in the proposed new residential building must be equal to or less than the gross floor area of the detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling to which the proposed new residential building is ancillary.
Agricultural Development
26. (1) In this section,
"agricultural", in reference to use, means land, buildings or structures used, designed or intended to be used solely for an "agricultural operation" as defined in section 1 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.1 but does not include any facilities located within urban areas as defined in the Municipality’s Official Plan;
"agri-tourism" has the same meaning as in Zoning By-law 2005-109; and
"farm bunkhouse" means a building or buildings that are constructed on land zoned agricultural ("A") in a Zoning By-law and is used, designed or intended to be used exclusively to provide seasonal, interim or occasional living accommodation to farm labourers.
(2) Land, buildings or structures used, designed or intended for agricultural purposes or for agri-tourism are exempt from development charges.
(3) Farm bunkhouses are exempt from development charges provided there is an existing dwelling unit on the same lot.
Places of Worship
27. (1) In this section, "place of worship" means a building or structure or part thereof that is used primarily for worship and is exempt from taxation as a place of worship under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-16 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 86
(2) Places of worship are exempt from non-residential development charges.
Garden Suites
28. (1) In this section, "garden suite" means a one unit detached residential structure containing bathroom and full kitchen facilities that is (a) ancillary to an existing residential structure; (b) designed to be portable; and (c) for purposes of section 16, considered to be a dwelling unit in an apartment building.
(2) The development charges paid in regard to a garden suite shall be refunded in full, without interest, to the then current owner of the garden suite, upon request, if the garden suite is demolished or removed within the period of time that Council has authorized its temporary use.
Temporary Buildings
29. (1) In this section,
"temporary building" means a building or structure constructed, erected or placed on land for a continuous period not exceeding twelve months and includes an addition or alteration to a building or structure that has the effect of increasing the gross floor area thereof for a continuous period not exceeding 12 months; and
"sales office" means a building or structure constructed, erected or placed on land to be used exclusively by a realtor, builder, developer or contractor on a temporary basis for the sale, display and marketing of residential lots and dwellings within a draft approved subdivision or condominium plan.
(2) Temporary buildings and sales offices are exempt from development charges.
(3) If a temporary building remains for a continuous period exceeding 12 months, it shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been, a temporary building, and the development charges thereby become payable.
Existing Industrial Development
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-17 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 87
30. (1) In this section, "existing industrial building" has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of O.Reg. 82/98. For ease of reference, the current definition in the Regulation reads as follows:
"existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection with:
(a) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something,
(b) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something,
(c) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place,
(d) office or administrative purposes, if they are,
(i) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing of something, and
(ii) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution;
(2) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with this section.
(3) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 100 per cent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero.
(4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 100 per cent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-18 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 88
1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 100 per cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement.
2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement.
(5) The exemption provided in this section shall apply equally to a separate (non-contiguous) industrial building constructed on the same lot as an existing industrial building.
(6) The exemption provided in subsections (1) though (5) above shall not apply to existing industrial buildings located on land that is in the "large industrial property class" as defined in subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 282/98 passed under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, however the exemption provided in section 4 of the Act shall apply to such buildings.
New Industrial Development
31. The amount of the development charge payable in respect of a new industrial building constructed on a vacant lot is 50% of the amount that would otherwise be payable.
Purpose Built Rental Housing Development
32. (1) This section only applies to Purpose Built Rental Housing Developments on lands within the Regional Urban Centres and Regional Corridors designated in the Clarington Official Plan.
(2) In order to incent development, the amount of the residential development charge payable in respect of development that is eligible pursuant to this section is 50% of the residential amount that would otherwise be payable.
(3) To be eligible under this section buildings must conform to the Land Use and Urban Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the Director of Planning and Development.
Affordable Housing Development
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-19 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 89
33. (1) This section only applies to Affordable Housing defined as new housing developments qualifying under the Ontario Community Housing Renewal Strategy and/or the National Housing Strategy Co-Investment Fund.
(2) In order to incent development, the amount of the residential development charge payable in respect of development that is eligible pursuant to this section is zero.
(3) To be eligible under this section buildings must conform to the Land Use and Urban Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the Director of Planning and Development.
Small Business Expansion
34. (1) This section only applies to specific areas in Newcastle Village (Schedule 3A), Orono (Schedule 3B), Bowmanville (Schedule 3C) and Courtice (Schedule 3D) as Revitalization Areas.
(2) In this section, "existing commercial building" means an existing non- residential building that,
(a) is not used, designed or intended for any industrial use;
(b) has a gross floor area of less than 250 square metres; and
(c) is located on land that is zoned commercial ("C") in a Zoning By- law.
(d) Building expansions must conform to the Land Use and Urban Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the Director of Planning and Development
(3) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing commercial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with this section.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-20 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 90
(4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 per cent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero.
(5) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 per cent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows:
1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50 per cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement.
2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement.
Part 4 - Redevelopment
Demolition and Conversion Credits
35. (1) In this section, "conversion" means the change in use of all or a portion of a building as permitted under the provisions of a Zoning By-law.
(2) Where an existing building or structure is to be converted to another use, in whole or in part, or converted from one principal use to another principal use on the same land, the amount of the development charge payable shall be determined in accordance with this section.
(3) Where a building or structure is destroyed in whole or in part by fire, explosion or Act of God or is demolished and the property redeveloped, the amount of the development charge payable in respect of the redevelopment shall be determined in accordance with this section.
(4) The development charges otherwise payable in respect of redevelopment described in subsections (2) and (3) shall be reduced by the following amounts:
(a) in the case of a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building or structure, an amount calculated by multiplying the applicable development charges under Schedule 1 by the number, according to type of dwelling units that have been
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-21 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 91
demolished or converted to another principal use or demolished and reconstructed as the case may be; and
(b) in the case of a non-residential building or the non-residential portion of a mixed-use building or structure, an amount calculated by multiplying the applicable development charges under Schedule 2 by the non-residential gross floor area that has been demolished or converted to another principal use or demolished and reconstructed as the case may be.
(5) Unless a building permit for the redevelopment has been issued, and not revoked prior to the fifth anniversary of the date on which a demolition permit was issued for the demolished building or structure or the date on which the building or structure was destroyed in whole or in part by fire, explosion or Act of God, whichever is applicable, the credit provided under subsection (3) shall expire.
(6) The amount of any credit under subsection (4) shall not exceed the total development charges otherwise payable.
(7) No development charge is payable for the conversion of a heritage building located in any Revitalization Area described in section 34.
(8) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no credit shall be provided if,
(a) the demolished building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under this by-law;
(b) the building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under this by-law prior to the conversion, redevelopment or reconstruction as the case may be; or
(c) the development is exempt in whole or in part or eligible for any other relief under this by-law.
Brownfield Credit
36. (1) The amount of development charges otherwise payable for the redevelopment of contaminated property shall be reduced by an amount
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-22 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 92
equal to the actual costs directly attributable to the environmental assessment and rehabilitation of the property, as approved by the Municipality, and provided a Record of Site Condition has been filed for the intended future use.
(2) The amount of any credit under subsection (2) shall not exceed the total development charge otherwise payable.
Credit for Relocation of Building
37. No development charge shall be payable for any building or structure that is relocated or reconstructed at a different location on the same lot.
Relocation of Heritage Buildings
38. (1) Where a heritage building is relocated to a different lot, an amount equal to the development charge shall be refunded to the owner upon the building being redesignated as a heritage building on the new lot.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection 35(3), no credit shall be provided in relation to the property on which the heritage building was originally located.
Occupancy During Construction
39. A full development charge refund shall be given if an existing dwelling unit on the same lot is demolished within 6 months or such longer period as may be permitted by Council following the date of issuance of the building permit for a new dwelling unit that is intended to replace the existing dwelling unit.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-23 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 93
Part 5 - General
Cancelled Permits
40. A full development charge refund shall be given if a building permit is cancelled prior to the commencement of construction.
Onus
41. The onus is on the owner to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the Municipality which establishes that the owner is entitled to any exemption, credit or refund claimed under this by-law.
Interest
42. The Municipality shall pay interest on a refund under sections 18 and 25 of the Act at a rate equal to the Bank of Canada rate on the date this By-law comes into force updated on the first business day of every January, April, July and October until the date of the repeal or the expiry of this by-law.
43. Except as required under section 40, there shall be no interest paid on any refunds given under this by-law.
Front-Ending Agreements
44. The Municipality may enter into front-ending agreements under section 44 of the Act.
Effective Date
45. This by-law comes into force and is effective on December 15, 2020.
Expiry
46. This by-law expires five years after the day on which it comes into force.
Repeal
47. By-law No. 2015-035 is repealed effective January 19, 2021.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-24 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 94
PASSED this 18th day of January 2021.
______Adrian Foster, Mayor
______June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-25 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 95
SCHEDULE 1
SCHEDULE OF MUNICIPAL-WIDE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
NON-RESIDENTIAL (per sq.m. of RESIDENTIAL Gross Floor Area) Service Single and Semi- Apartments - Apartments - 2 Detached Bachelor and 1 Other Multiples Industrial Non-Industrial Bedrooms + Dwelling Bedroom Services Related to a Highway 12,006 6,392 3,924 9,841 34.02 103.86 Fire Protection Services 454 242 148 372 2.47 2.47 Parks and Recreation Services 7,678 4,088 2,510 6,293 - - Library Services 1,007 536 329 825 - - Growth Studies 316 168 103 259 0.97 0.97 Total Municipal Wide Services 21,461 11,426 7,014 17,590 37.46 107.30
NOTE: Charges are subject to indexing in accordance with section 21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-26 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 96
Schedule 2A — Clarington Energy Business Park
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-27 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 97
Schedule 2B — Clarington Science Park
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-28 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 98
Schedule 3A — Revitalization Area — Newcastle Village
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-29 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 99
Schedule 3B — Revitalization Area — Orono
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-30 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 100
Schedule 3C — Revitalization Area — Bowmanville
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-31 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 101
Schedule 3D — Revitalization Area — Courtice
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-32 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Page 102 Attachment 2 to FSD-004-21
Appendix F Proposed Area-Specific D.C. By-law
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-1 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx Page 103 Attachment 2 to FSD-004-21
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BY-LAW NO. 20202021-0XX
to impose area-specific development charges against land in the Municipality of Clarington pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997
WHEREAS subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27 provides that the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from the development of the area to which the by-law applies.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
Part 1 — Interpretation
Definitions
1. In this by-law,
"accessory", where used to describe a building or structure, means that the building or structure or part thereof that is naturally and normally incidental, subordinate in purpose or floor area or both, and exclusively devoted to a principal use, building or structure;
"Act" means the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27;
"air-supported structure" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992;
"apartment building" means (a) a residential building (other than a fourplex or sixplex) containing 4 or more dwelling units that have a common entrance to grade, common corridors, stairs and/or yards; and (b) the residential portion of a mixed-use building containing 4 or more dwelling units that are located behind or above a non-residential use and may have a separate entrance to grade, and includes stacked townhouse;
“bedroom” means a habitable room, including a den, study, loft, or other similar area, but does not include a living room, a dining room, a bathroom, or kitchen;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-2 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx Page 104
"building" means a building or structure that occupies an area greater than 10 square metres consisting of a wall, roof and floor or a structural system serving the function thereof, and includes an air-supported structure;
"Building Code Act, 1992" means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23 and all Regulations thereunder including the Ontario Building Code, 2012;
"Council" means Council of the Municipality;
"development" means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that requires one or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 and includes redevelopment;
"development charge" means a development charge imposed by this by-law;
"duplex" means a residential building containing 2 dwelling units divided horizontally from each other;
"dwelling unit" means one or more habitable rooms designed or intended to be used together as a single and separate housekeeping unit by one or more persons, containing its own full kitchen and sanitary facilities, with a private entrance from outside the unit itself;
“existing” means the number, use and size that existed at least 2 years before the date of building permit application;
"fourplex" means a pair of duplexes divided vertically from the other by a common wall;
"floor" includes a paved, concrete, wooden, gravel or dirt floor;
"grade" means the average level of the proposed finished surface of the ground immediately abutting each building or mixed-use building at all exterior walls;
"gross floor area" means the total area of all floors, whether above or below grade, measured between the outside surfaces of exterior walls, or between the outside surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of a party wall or a demising wall as the case may be, including mezzanines, air-supported structures, interior
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-3 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 105
corridors, lobbies, basements, cellars, half-stories, common areas, and the space occupied by interior walls or partitions, but excluding any areas used for,
(a) loading bays, parking of motor vehicles, retail gas pump canopies; and
(b) enclosed garbage storage in an accessory building;
"heritage building" means a building designated under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 and, for purpose of subsection 36(7), includes any building identified as "primary resource" in the registry maintained by the Municipality pursuant to section 28 of such Act;
"industrial", in reference to use, means any land, building or structure or portions thereof used, designed or intended for or in connection with manufacturing, producing, processing, fabricating, assembling, refining, research and development, storage of materials and products, truck terminals, warehousing, but does not include,
(a) retail service sales or rental areas, storage or warehousing areas used, designed or intended to be used in connection with retail sales, service or rental areas, warehouse clubs or similar uses, self-storage mini warehouses, and secure document storage; and
(b) office areas that are not accessory to any of the foregoing areas or uses or accessory office uses that are greater than 25% of the gross floor area of the building;
“institutional”, in reference to use, means development of a building or structure intended for use,
(a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007;
(b) as a retirement home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Retirement Homes Act, 2010;
(c) by any of the following post-secondary institutions for the objects of the institution:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-4 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 106
(i) a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and ongoing operating funding from the Government of Ontario,
(ii) a college or university federated or affiliated with a university described in subclause (i), or
(iii) an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017;
(d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by an Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or
(e) as a hospice to provide end of life care.
"linked building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to contain only two separate dwelling units, connected underground by footing and foundation, each of which has an independent entrance directly from the outside of the building and is located on a separate lot;
"lot" means a parcel of land within a registered plan of subdivision or any land that may be legally conveyed under the exemptions provided in clause 50(3)(b) or 50(5)(a) of the Planning Act;
"mezzanine" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992;
"mixed-use building" means a building used, designed or intended to be used either for a combination of non-residential and residential areas and uses, or for a combination of different classes or types of non-residential areas and uses;
"mobile home" means a dwelling unit that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent or temporary residence for one or more persons, but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer;
"multiple unit building" means a residential building or the portion of a mixed-use building that contains multiple dwelling units (other than dwelling units contained in an apartment building, linked building, semi-detached building or single detached dwelling) and includes plexes and townhouses;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-5 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 107
"Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the geographic area of the Municipality of Clarington, as the context requires;
"net hectare" means the area in hectares of a parcel of land exclusive of the following:
(a) lands conveyed or to be conveyed to the Municipality of Clarington or the Region of Durham or a local board thereof;
(b) lands conveyed or to be conveyed to the Ministry of Transportation for the construction of provincial highways;
(c) hazard lands conveyed or to be conveyed to a conservation authority as a condition of development; and
(d) lands for centralized storm water management facilities and naturalized channel areas;
“non-industrial” in reference to use, means lands, buildings or structures used or designed or intended for use for a purpose which is not residential or industrial;
“non-profit housing development” means development of a building or structure intended for use as residential premises by,
(a) a corporation without share capital to which the Ontario Corporations Act (or its successor legislation) applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing;
(b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing; or
(c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under the Co- operative Corporations Act;
"non-residential", in reference to use, means a building or portions of a mixed- use building containing floors or portions of floors which are used, designed or intended to be used for a purpose which is not residential, and includes a hotel, motel and a retirement residence;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-6 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 108
"owner" means the owner of land or a person who has made application for an approval for the development of land against which a development charge is imposed;
"party wall" means a wall jointly owned and jointly used by 2 parties under an easement agreement or by right in law and erected on a line separating 2 parcels of land each of which is, or is capable of being, a separate lot;
"Planning Act" means the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13;
"plex" means a duplex, triplex, fourplex or sixplex;
“rental housing” means development of a building or structure with four or more dwelling units all of which are intended for use as rented residential premises;
"residential", in reference to use, means a building or a portion of a mixed-use building and floors or portions of floors contained therein that are used, designed or intended to be used as living accommodation for one or more individuals provided in dwelling units and any building accessory to such dwelling units;
"retirement residence" means a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building that provides living accommodation, where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided for the residents of the building, and where each unit or living accommodation has separate sanitary facilities, less than full kitchen facilities and a separate entrance from a common corridor;
“retirement residence unit” means a unit within a retirement residence;
"semi-detached building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to contain only two separate dwelling units, each of which has an independent entrance directly from outside of the building;
"service" means a service designated by section 10;
"single-detached dwelling" means a residential building containing only one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other building or structure except its own garage or shed and has no dwelling units either above it or below it, and includes a mobile home;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-7 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 109
"sixplex" means a pair of triplexes divided vertically one from the other by a common wall;
"stacked townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, townhouse or apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units that (a) are joined by common side walls with dwelling units entirely or partially above another; and (b) have a separate entrance to grade;
"townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, stacked townhouse or apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units, each of which (a) is separated from the others vertically; and (b) has a separate entrance to grade;
"triplex" means a residential building containing 3 dwelling units; and
"Zoning By-laws" means the Municipality's By-law No. 84-63 and By-law No. 2005-109.
References
2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law is reference to the Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time.
3. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Schedules, Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs are to Schedules, Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs in this by-law.
Word Usage
4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context may require.
5. In this by-law, a grammatical variation of a defined word or expression has a corresponding meaning.
Schedules
6. The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this by-law:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-8 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 110
Schedule 1 — Clarington Technology Park Area-Specific Development Charge Schedule 2 – Clarington Technology Park Development Charge Area Classification and Benefitting Properties
Severability
7. If, for any reason, any section or subsection of this by-law is held invalid, it is hereby declared to be the intention of Council that all the remainder of this by-law shall continue in full force and effect until repealed, re-enacted or amended, in whole or in part or dealt with in any other way.
Part 2 — Development Charges
Designated Services
8. It is hereby declared by Council that development within the Clarington Technology Park in the Municipality will increase the need for Stormwater Management Services.
9. Development charges shall apply without regard to the services which in fact are required or are used by any individual development.
10. Development charge shall be imposed for the following categories of service to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development:
(a) Storm Water Management Services.
Rules
11. For the purpose of complying with section 6 of the Act, the following rules have been developed:
(a) The rules for determining if a development charge is payable in any particular case and for determining the amount of the charge shall be in accordance with sections 12 through 20. (b) The rules for determining the indexing of development charges shall be in accordance with section 21.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-9 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 111
(c) The rules for determining exemptions shall be in accordance with Part 3 (sections 22 through 25). (d) The rules respecting redevelopment of land shall be in accordance with Part 4 (section 26). (e) This by-law does not provide for any phasing in of development charges. (f) This by-law applies to all lands within the Clarington Technology Park, as defined in Schedule 2, in the Municipality.
Imposition of Development Charges
12. Development charges shall be imposed on all land, buildings or structures that are developed if the development requires,
(a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment thereto under section 34 of the Planning Act; (b) the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act; (c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act applies; (d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act; (e) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act; (f) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.19; or (g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building or structure.
13. Not more than one development charge for each service shall be imposed upon any land, building or structure whether or not two or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 are required before the land, building or structure can be developed.
14. Notwithstanding section 13, if two or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 occur at different times, additional development charges shall be imposed in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by the subsequent action or decision.
Basis of Calculation
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-10 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 112
15. Development charges for all services shall be calculated based on the number of net hectares of the entire parcel of land on which development will occur in accordance with benefits accrued per Schedule 2.
Amount
16. The amount of the development charges payable in respect of development shall be determined in accordance with clause 15 and Schedule 1.
Timing of Calculation
17. (1) The total amount of a development charge is the amount of the development charge that would be determined under the by-law on,
(a) the day an application for an approval of development in a site plan control area under subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act was made in respect of the development that is subject of the development charge; (b) if clause (a) does not apply, the day an application for an amendment to a by-law passed under section 34 of the Planning Act was made in respect of the development that is the subject of the development charge; or (c) if neither clause (a) or clause (b) applies, the day the first building permit is issued for the development that is the subject of the development charge.
(2) Subsection (1) applies even if this by-law is no longer in effect.
(3) Where clause (1)(a) or (b) applies, interest shall be payable on the development charge, at the rate established by the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy, from the date of the application referred to in the applicable clause to the date the development charge is payable.
(4) If a development was the subject or more than one application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b), the later one is deemed to be the applicable application for the purposes of this section.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-11 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 113
(5) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply if, on the date the first building permit is issued for the development, more than two years has elapsed since the application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b) was approved.
(6) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply in the case of an application made before January 1, 2020.
Timing of Payment
18. (1) Subject to subsections 18(2) and 18(3), development charges shall be payable in full on the date the first building permit is issued for the development of the land against which the development charges apply.
(2) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for rental housing and institutional developments are payable in 6 installments commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter.
(3) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for non-profit housing developments are payable in 21 installments commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter.
(4) If the development of land is such that it does not require that a building permit be issued before the development is commenced, but the development requires one or more of the other actions or decisions referred to in section 12 be taken or made before the development is commenced, development charges shall be payable in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by such action or decision prior to the action or decision required for the increased or additional development being taken or made.
(5) In accordance with section 27 of the Act, where temporary buildings are being developed, the Municipality may enter into an agreement with a person who is required to pay a development charge providing for all or
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-12 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 114
any part of a development charge to be paid after it would otherwise be payable.
(6) For the purpose of subsections 18(2) and 18(3) herein, “interest” means the interest rate outlined in the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy.
Method of Payment
19. Payment of development charges shall be in a form acceptable to the Municipality.
Unpaid Charges
20. Where a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid at any time after it is payable, the amount shall be added to the tax roll and collected in the same manner as taxes.
Indexing
21. The development charges set out in Schedule 1 shall be adjusted without amendment to this by-law annually on July 1st in each year, commencing on July 1, 2021, at the rate identified by the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for Toronto based on the 12-month period most recently available.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-13 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 115
Part 3 - Exemptions
Specific Users
22. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to land, buildings or structures that are owned by,
(a) the Municipality, the Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Durham, or their local boards as defined in section 1 of the Act and used, designed or intended for municipal purposes; and (b) a board of education as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act, 1990, S.O. 1990, c.27 and used, designed or intended for school purposes including the administration or the servicing of schools.
Existing Residential
23. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to residential development if the only effect of such development is,
(a) an interior alteration to an existing residential building which does not change or intensify the use of the building; (b) the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit; (c) the creation of one or two additionala second or third dwelling units in an existing single detached dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross floor area of the additional unit(s) does not exceed the original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit; or (d) the creation of one additionala second dwelling unit in a semi-detached building or townhouse dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross floor area of the additional unit does not exceed the original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit.
New Residential
24. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to new residential development if the only effect of such development is the creation of a second dwelling unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential buildings, including structures ancillary to dwellings, subject to the following restrictions:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-14 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 116
Name of Class Description of Class of of Proposed Item Proposed New Restrictions New Residential Residential Buildings Buildings The proposed new Proposed new residential detached dwelling must buildings that would not only contain two dwelling be attached to other units. buildings and that are
Proposed new permitted to contain a The proposed new 1. detached second dwelling unit, that detached dwelling must dwellings being either of the two be located on a parcel of dwelling units, if the units land on which no other have the same gross floor detached dwelling, semi- area, or the smaller of the detached dwelling or row dwelling units. dwelling would be located. Proposed new residential The proposed new semi- buildings that would have detached dwelling or row one or two vertical walls, dwelling must only contain but no other parts, two dwelling units. attached to other Proposed new buildings and that are The proposed new semi- semi-detached 2. permitted to contain a detached dwelling or row dwellings or row second dwelling unit, that dwelling must be located dwellings being either of the two on a parcel of land on dwelling units, if the units which no other detached have the same gross floor dwelling, semi-detached area, or the smaller of the dwelling or row dwelling dwelling units. would be located. The proposed new detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling, to which the proposed new residential Proposed new building would be residential Proposed new residential ancillary, must only buildings that buildings that would be contain one dwelling unit. would be ancillary to a proposed ancillary to a new detached dwelling, The gross floor area of the 3. proposed new semi-detached dwelling or dwelling unit in the detached row dwelling and that are proposed new residential dwelling, semi- permitted to contain a building must be equal to detached single dwelling unit. or less than the gross floor dwelling or row area of the detached dwelling dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling to which the proposed new residential building is ancillary.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-15 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 117
Existing Industrial Development
25. (1) In this section, "existing industrial building" has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of O.Reg. 82/98. For ease of reference, the current definition in the Regulation reads as follows:
"existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection with:
(a) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something, (b) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something, (c) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place, (d) office or administrative purposes, if they are, (i) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing of something, and (ii) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution;
(2) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with this section.
(3) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 per cent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero.
(4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 per cent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows:
1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50 per cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-16 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 118
2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement.
(5) The exemption provided in this section shall apply equally to a separate (non-contiguous) industrial building constructed on the same lot as an existing industrial building.
Part 4 - Redevelopment
Demolition and Conversion Credits
26. (1) In this section, "conversion" means the change in use of all or a portion of a building as permitted under the provisions of a Zoning By-law.
(2) Where an existing building or structure is to be converted to another use, in whole or in part, or converted from one principal use to another principal use on the same land, the amount of the development charge payable shall be determined in accordance with this section.
(3) Where a building or structure if is destroyed in whole or in part by fire, explosion or Act of God or is demolished and reconstructedthe property redeveloped, the amount of the development charge payable in respect of the redevelopment shall be determined in accordance with this section.
(4) The development charges otherwise payable in respect of redevelopment described in subsections (2) and (3) shall be reduced by the amount calculated by multiplying the applicable development charges under Schedule 1 by the net hectares under of the redeveloped property as enumerated in Schedule 2.
(5) The amount of any credit under subsection (4) shall not exceed the total development charges otherwise payable.
(6) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no credit shall be provided if,
(a) the demolished building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under this by-law;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-17 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 119
(b) the building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under this by-law prior to the conversion, redevelopment or reconstruction as the case may be; (c) the development is exempt in whole or in part or eligible for any other relief under this by-law; or (d) development charges on the property were not paid under this by-law.
Part 5 - General
Cancelled Permits
27. A full development charge refund shall be given if a building permit is cancelled prior to the commencement of construction.
Onus
28. The onus is on the owner to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the Municipality which establishes that the owner is entitled to any exemption, credit or refund claimed under this by-law.
Interest
29. The Municipality shall pay interest on a refund under sections 18 and 25 of the Act at a rate equal to the Bank of Canada rate on the date this By-law comes into force updated on the first business day of every January, April, July and October until the date of the repeal or the expiry of this by-law.
30. Except as required under section 39, there shall be no interest paid on any refunds given under this by-law.
Front-Ending Agreements
31. The Municipality may enter into front-ending agreements under section 44 of the Act.
Effective Date
32. This by-law comes into force and is effective on January 19, 2021.
Expiry
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-18 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 120
33. This by-law expires five years after the day on which it comes into force.
PASSED this 18th day of January 2021.
______Adrian Foster, Mayor
______C. Anne GreentreeJune Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-19 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 121
SCHEDULE 1
CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK AREA-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
$ Per Net Service Hectare Stormwater Management Services - Quality Control 38,840 Stormwater Management Services - Quantity Control 29,268 Total - Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control 38,840 Total - Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control 29,268
Total - Lands Benefitting from Quality and Quantity Control 68,107
NOTE: Charges are subject to indexing in accordance with section 21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-20 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Page 122 Attachment 2 to FSD-004-21
SCHEDULE 2 CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AREA CLASSIFICATION
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-21 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:Page\Clarington 123\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx Attachment 2 to FSD-004-21
CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AREA BENEFITTING PROPERTIES
Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control Assessment Roll No. Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares) 181701001006000 2911 HIGHWAY 2 5.06 181701001006320 1100 BENNETT RD 2.72 181701001006400 2885 HIGHWAY 2 8.64 Total 16.41
Lands Benefitting from Both Quality and Quantity Control Assessment Roll No. Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares) 181701001001310 CON BF PT LOT 5 NOW RP 10R3357 PART 2 19.99 181701001001700 585 LAMBS RD 13.03 181701001001800 641 LAMBS RD 3.55 181701001001900 295 BASELINE RD 2.19 181701001002100 582 LAMBS RD 0.61 181701001002200 542 LAMBS RD 4.29 181701001006000 2911 HIGHWAY 2 2.93 181701001006300 1078 BENNETT RD 0.44 181701001006320 1100 BENNETT RD 1.96 181701001006400 2885 HIGHWAY 2 4.43 181701001008800 2805 HIGHWAY 2 0.67 181701001008900 2821-2825 KING ST E 0.27 181701001009100 2831 HWY 2 0.27 181701001009200 2839 HIGHWAY 2 0.42 181701001009300 2845 HIGHWAY 2 0.11 181701001009305 2849 HIGHWAY 2 0.25 181701001009400 1200 LAMBS RD 12.18 181702012019840 250 BASELINE RD 1.50 181702012019845 1122 HAINES ST 0.48 Total 69.59
Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control Assessment Roll No. Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares) 181701001001930 271 BASELINE RD E 1.45 181702012019830 210 BASELINE RD E 0.81 181702012019835 222 BASELINE RD E 1.29 181702012019840 250 BASELINE RD 2.13 181702012019844 1084 HAINES ST 0.57 Total 6.26
* Areas shown are net of (exclude) land for future right-of-ways, channels, etc.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-22 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx Page 124 Attachment 3 to FND-004-21 Pinn, Trevor
From: Pinn, Trevor Sent: November 30, 2020 8:49 AM To: 'Ward, Candice' Subject: Clarington DC Questions Attachments: SCS Response - Southwest Courtice.pdf
Hi Candice,
Please find attached a response to your questions regarding the draft DC Study and By-law for the Municipality of Clarington.
If there are any questions please let me know.
Thanks,
Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services / Treasurer Financial Services Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 905-623-3379 ext. 2602 | 1-800-563-1195 www.clarington.net
1 Page 125 Memorandum
Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality To of Clarington
From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Date November 27, 2020
Southwest Courtice Landowners Group Submission re: October Re: 15, 2020 Development Charge Background Study ☒ Fax ☐ Courier ☐ Mail ☐ Email
The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from SCS Consulting Group (SCS) on behalf of the Southwest Courtice Landowners Group dated October 21, 2020 regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background Study. Subsequently Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. received this letter from the Municipality on November 24, 2020.
The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded through with stakeholders and Council are follows:
• February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session, including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix substantiating the preliminary calculations; • April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council; • October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s website; and • November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study.
The questions and comments in the October 21, 2020 SCS letter and our responses to those questions are addressed in this memorandum and follow the order and titling of the SCS letter for consistency and ease of reference. 1. General Comments
1.1 Development Forecast
SCS has suggested that the D.C. Background Study growth forecast to 2031 does not include future population growth associated with the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan.
Address Contact Information Filepath Plaza Three Office: 905-272-3600 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Fax: 905-272-3602 H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\SCS Response - Mississauga, Ontario www.watsonecon.ca Southwest Courtice.docx L5N 1V9
Page 126
The growth forecast has been prepared based on the Municipality’s Official Plan population projections to 2031. Furthermore, the Municipality has confirmed that the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan is within the 2031 urban boundaries and as such, the population growth associated with the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan area is contained within the D.C. Background Study growth forecast to 2031.
1.2 Proposed Municipality Road Network
Table 1 of the SCS letter identifies the following four road projects for potential inclusion in the D.C. Background Study:
1. Towline Road Extension
a. The Clarington Transportation Master Plan identified the extension of Townline Rd. from Southport Dr. to Prestonvale Rd. as a long-term project that would be required beyond 2031. As such, the associated oversizing of this project has not been included in the D.C. Study. Furthermore, the traffic impact study for the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan identifies that a two-lane road provides adequate capacity for forecast traffic demands.
2. Fenning Drive Extension
a. Based on the local service policy contained in the Appendix D of the 2020 D.C. Background Study, the intersection works and sidewalk and cycling facility would be considered a local service and direct developer responsibility.
3. Prestonvale Road
a. This road has been included within the 2020 D.C. Background Study as Services Related to a Highway, project #80 (Prestonvale Rd. from CPR level crossing to 262m S. Southfield Ave.). This project includes associated active transportation facilities and intersection works.
b. Services Related to a Highway, project #28 is included for the Prestonvale Rd. Railroad Crossing at CPR level crossing. However, a grade separation is not proposed to be included during the forecast period to 2031.
4. Proposed Collector Road (North-South Route between Townline Extension and Prestonvale Rd.)
a. Based on the local service policy contained in the Appendix D of the 2020 D.C. Background Study, the intersection works, sidewalk and cycling
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 SCS Response - Southwest Courtice Page 127
facility would be considered a local service and direct developer responsibility.
1.3 Proposed Active Transportation
SCS has identified proposed active transportation projects to be included in the 2020 D.C. Background Study to connections to a future rail station, and connections across the Hwy 401 corridor to ensure connectivity with the Energy Park employment lands, Darlington Provincial Park, and a future community park.
The D.C. Background Study includes road works with active transportation components, as well as sidewalk and cycling facility projects throughout the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan Area. The proposed active transportation projects identified in Table 2 of the SCS letter are not currently envisioned by the Municipality within the forecast period to 2031. However, road improvements are proposed for a portion of Prestonvale Road from Bloor Street to Proposed Townline Extension (i.e. D.C. project #80 – Prestonvale Road from CPR level crossing to 262m S. Southfield Ave.) This project will contain active transportation components within the design.
1.4 Benefit to Existing
No benefit to existing development has been included for bridge structure works, culvert works, intersection works, sidewalk and cycling facility works, or streetlighting works as the projects that have been identified are in response to future traffic demands and are not required in the absence of increased traffic demands from new development.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 SCS Response - Southwest Courtice Page 128 Attachment 4 to FND-004-21 Pinn, Trevor
From: Pinn, Trevor Sent: November 30, 2020 8:48 AM To: Stacey Hawkins ([email protected]) Cc: Lynch, Heather ([email protected]) Subject: Response to DC questions Attachments: DRHBA Response.pdf
Hi Stacey,
Please find the responses to the questions DRHBA had about the 2020 Draft DC Study and By- law. If there are any additional questions please let me know.
Thanks,
Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services / Treasurer Financial Services Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville ON L1C 3A6 905-623-3379 ext. 2602 | 1-800-563-1195 www.clarington.net
1 Page 129 Memorandum
Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality To of Clarington
From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Date November 27, 2020
Re: DHHBA Submission re: Clarington D.C. By-Law Update 2020 ☒ Fax ☐ Courier ☐ Mail ☐ Email
The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from the Durham Region Homebuilders’ Association (DRHBA) dated November 12, 2020 regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background Study. Subsequently Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. received this letter from the Municipality on November 23, 2020.
The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded through with stakeholders and Council are follows:
• February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session, including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix substantiating the preliminary calculations; • April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council; • October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s website; and • November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study.
The November 12, 2020 DRBHA letter contained a memorandum from Altus Group (Altus) including questions about the Municipality’s 2020 D.C. Background Study. Our responses to those questions are addressed in this memorandum and follow the order and titling of the Altus memorandum for consistency and ease of reference. 1. General Questions
1.1 Residential / Non-Residential Splits – Roads
Altus questions why the incremental employment growth forecast in the D.C. Background Study does not include no-fixed-place-of-work (NFPOW) employment and why this employment was not included in the residential/non-residential cost allocations.
Address Contact Information Filepath Plaza Three Office: 905-272-3600 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Fax: 905-272-3602 H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\DRHBA Mississauga, Ontario www.watsonecon.ca Response.docx L5N 1V9 Page 130
The increase in need for services for roads is based on the Municipality’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The future travel demands in the TMP are forecast based on the projected population and employment growth for the Municipality to 2031. The employment projections utilized in the TMP explicitly exclude NFPOW employment. To be consistent with the travel demands identified in the TMP and associated increase in need for service, the allocation of D.C.-eligible costs to residential and non-residential development is been based on the incremental population and employment growth (excluding NFPOW) in the Municipality over that period.
1.2 Relationship of Calculated Maximum Allowable to D.C. Recoverable Costs
Altus suggests that the D.C. recoverable costs exceed the historical level of service cap for Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Library Services. Furthermore, the Altus memo acknowledges that interest costs are not counted against the historical level of service cap.
The following table summarizes the D.C. recoverable costs (net of interest costs) and the historical level of service cap for Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Library Services. For each service the D.C. recoverable costs (net of interest costs) are less than the historical level of service cap and is therefore compliant with the requirements of the Development Charges Act.
Service Description Fire Parks and Recreation Library D.C. Recoverable Costs 5,594,609 77,619,427 10,179,948 less: Interest Costs - 7,491,053 113,584 Net D.C. Recoverable Costs 5,594,609 70,128,374 10,066,364
Historical Level of Service Cap 10,919,837 74,611,352 10,720,664
Difference 5,325,227 4,482,978 654,300 2. Service Specific Questions
The service specific questions provided in the Altus memorandum are summarized and responded to in the following subsections
2.1 Fire Services
2.1.1 Question regarding the increase in land values between the Municipality’s 2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies
Land valuations in the 2020 D.C. Background Study have been increased for inflation based on the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index over
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 DRHBA Response Page 131 the 2015-2020 period (i.e. 16.7% increase). Please note that the while the 2020 Background Study presents building values including items such as land, siteworks, parking, landscaping, and furniture and equipment, the 2015 D.C. Background Study presented these items separately. A true comparison of the facility replacement costs contained in the 2015 D.C. Background Study should also contain the costs for land, developed land and furniture and equipment.
2.1.2 Question regarding the differences between the number of vehicles identified in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study
The inventory of vehicles that were in service for the 2010-2019 period have been included reflective of updated information provided by the Municipality. The 2020 D.C. Background Study includes additional types of vehicles and equipment that were not included in the 2015 D.C. Background Study, i.e.:
• Trailers; • Heavy Duty Trucks; • Medium Duty Trucks; • Polaris ATV; and • Hurst Tools.
2.1.3 Question regarding cost increases for Fire Services, Projects #2 and #6
The costs for the Fire Services project #2 (Expansion of Headquarters #1) is based on the current building replacement costs per sq.ft. (i.e. $385 from the historical level of service calculation) and the anticipated facility size of 4,500 sq.ft. The cost estimates for project #6 (New Station #6 in Bowmanville) is based on the current building replacement costs per sq.ft. (i.e. $385 from the historical level of service calculation) plus 15% for equipment and siteworks and the anticipated facility size of 12,000 sq.ft. Furthermore, costs for land acquisition have been included for 1 ha of land. In total, the New Station #6 in Bowmanville has been included at a cost estimate of $501 per sq.ft.
2.2 Services Related to a Highway
2.2.1 Question regarding missing project numbers in the Services Related to a Highway capital needs listing
This discrepancy was addressed in the November 3, 2020 addendum to the 2020 D.C. Background Study.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 DRHBA Response Page 132
2.2.2 Question regarding the differences in costs per km for roads in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study
Updated replacement costs were provided by the Municipality using benchmark cost calculations based on the past 3-5 years historical costs.
2.2.3 Question regarding the differences in the replacement costs of the Hampton Operations Centre and Orono Operations Centre in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study.
The Municipality has undertaken an Operations Needs Assessments to assess the future facility needs and construction costs. Replacement costs for the Hampton Operations Centre and Orono Operations Centre have been updated based anticipated facility construction costs identified in the 2020 Operations Needs Assessment and staff direction. By way of comparison, the construction cost estimates in Operations Needs assessment range between $456 to $869 per sq.ft. vs. $365 per sq.ft. in the D.C. Background Study.
2.2.4 Question regarding inconsistencies with the Benefit to Existing (BTE) deduction for roads projects
The BTE deductions have been developed by CIMA+ on a project by project basis for improvements to existing roads. The BTE development has been calculated based on the road treatment costs that are anticipated over a 20-year forecast period under a no growth scenario. As such, the BTE deductions will differ by road based on the condition of the existing road segment.
2.2.5 Question regarding the BTE deductions for sidewalk and cycling facilities
New sidewalk and cycling facilities have been allocated 100% to new development, consistent with the approach utilized in the Municipality’s 2015 D.C. Background Study. Projects #108, #124, #158, and #159 are for upgrades of an existing sidewalk to a multi- use path, and as such, a 38% BTE deduction has been applied to recognize the replacement of the existing sidewalk.
2.2.6 Question regarding BTE deductions for Streetlights compared to Streetscape works
Similar to the approach for sidewalk and cycling facilities, new streetlights have been allocated 100% to new development. Streetscape works are for improvements to existing corridors and have been allocated to existing and new development on the basis of population growth to existing population (i.e. 24% new development / 74% existing development).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 DRHBA Response Page 133
2.2.7 Question regarding the increase capital cost estimates for roads projects in the 2020 D.C. Background Study vs. the 2015 D.C. Background Study
The D.C. program has been updated by staff, in consultation with CIMA+, for the 2020 D.C. Background Study. The costs include various road components such as:
• Road Construction; • Storm Sewer; • Sidewalk; • Streetlight; • Utility; • Streetscape; • Structures; • EA Costs; and • Land
With regard to the specific projects identified by Altus, the following breakdown of the capital cost estimates are provided:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 DRHBA Response Page 134
Length Road Road Storm Sidewalk Streetlight Streetscape Structure Project # Road/Project Description From To Year (metres) Factor Construction Sewer Construction Installation Works Works Total At Foster 4 Grady Dr. Structure (and Road Link) Creek 2024 70 1 749,397 - - 41,530 - 2,196,527 2,987,454
West Bowmanville 42 Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing) Boundary Green Rd. 2020 420 1 186,663 260,930 119,497 50,854 71,275 - 689,219
Bloor St. 64 Trulls Rd. (Reg. Rd. 22) Baseline Rd. 2023 1820 1 3,759,597 1,315,193 588,431 250,420 327,975 - 6,241,615
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6 DRHBA Response Page 135
2.2.8 Question regarding the decrease in BTE deductions for specific roads projects
As identified above, the BTE deductions have been developed by CIMA+ on a project by project basis for improvements to existing roads. The BTE deductions have been calculated based on the road treatment costs that would have been required over a 20- year forecast period under a no growth scenario. With the BTE deductions having been reassessed through the preparation of the 2020 D.C. Background Study, there are expected differences between the 2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies.
2.3 Parks and Recreation Services
2.3.1 Question regarding the costs for debt and future expansions of the Diane Hamre Recreation Complex
Capital costs have been included for the growth-related share of remaining debt payments for a prior expansion to the Dian Hamre Recreation Complex. This debt was issued in 2007 and will expire in 2022. The Diane Hamre Recreation Complex – Ph1 Expansion project is related to a future expansion of this facility.
2.3.2 Question regarding debt included for additional Operations Centre facility space
The Municipality has determined the need for additional operations facility space to meet the needs of future development through the 2020 Facility Needs Assessment. Furthermore, this need has been identified in prior D.C. Background Studies approved by Council. It is anticipated that the facility will be funded through the issuance of debt and as such the anticipated principal and interest costs have been included in D.C. calculation.
2.3.3 Question regarding the D.C. eligible share for the Diane Hamre Recreation Centre Debt payments and Bowmanville Indoor Soccer facility
Ten percent (10%) of the growth-related debt payments for the above referenced facilities had been funded from non-D.C. sources, as municipalities were required to witness this statutory deduction under the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.) under the 2015 D.C. Background Study. With the recent amendments to the D.C.A., the 10% statutory deduction has been removed, and as such the full amount of the remaining growth-related debt payments have been included in the calculation of the charge.
2.3.4 Question regarding differences between the number of parkland amenities in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study
The inventory of parkland amenities that were in service for the 2010-2019 period have been included reflective of updated information provided by the Municipality. It is not
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7 DRHBA Response Page 136
uncommon for these inventories to be revised and updated between study periods as municipalities gain a better understanding of their assets and improve asset management practices.
2.3.5 Question regarding the cost estimate of the Courtice Waterfront Park
The Courtice Waterfront Park capital cost estimate was provided by staff based on recent expenditures and the intended project scope.
2.3.6 Question seeking further detail on Parks and Recreation Projects #51-#55
Further detail on these projects can be found in the Municipality’s 2017 Indoor Facilities Development Strategy.
2.3.7 Question regarding clarification on the lack of a BTE deduction for the South Bowmanville Facility (Phase 2)
The BTE deductions for each of the new indoor recreation facility projects (i.e. projects #49-55) were assessed based on whether the facility components address the needs of the existing community or are being created to meet the needs of new development. Phase 2 of the South Bowmanville Facility is for the creation of additional indoor aquatic facility space in the Municipality. The full costs of the project have been allocated to new development, with 55% of the costs being attributed to growth beyond the 10-year forecast period, as the existing indoor aquatic facility needs of the Municipality are being addressed through the Courtice Community Complex – Aquatic Expansion project.
2.3.8 Question regarding the attribution of trail projects and waterfront park development projects to new development
The need to expand the provision of parkland and recreational trails in response to new development has been assessed by the Municipality. Consistent with the approach utilized by the Municipality in prior D.C. Background Studies, 100% of these costs have been allocated to new development as the existing community has a sufficient level of service.
2.4 Library Services
2.4.1 Question regarding the increase in land values between the Municipality’s 2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies
Building and land valuations in the 2020 D.C. Background Study have been increased for inflation based on the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index over the 2015-2020 period (i.e. 16.7% increase). Please note that the while the 2020 Background Study presents building values including items such as siteworks, parking, landscaping, and furniture and equipment, the 2015 D.C. Background Study presented these items separately. A true comparison of the facility replacement costs
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8 DRHBA Response Page 137 contained in the 2015 D.C. Background Study should also contain the costs for parking lots, access roads, other paved infrastructure, furniture and equipment.
2.4.2 Question regarding the Courtice Library projects
Library Services Projects #2 and #3 reflect the outstanding growth-related debt payments for the Courtice Library Branch. Project #4 (Provision for Courtice Street Library Space) is for the costs of a future growth-related expansion to Library facility space in Courtice.
2.5 Growth Studies
2.5.1 Question regarding the potential duplication of D.C. Study costs
The 10-year capital program for Growth Studies includes cost for the preparation of the 2020 D.C. Background Study (Project #1) and the subsequent review in 5-years (Project #26). The timing for project #26 should be 2024-2025.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9 DRHBA Response Page 138 Attachment 5 to FND-004-21
BUILDING YOUR IDEAS - INTO BIG PLANS THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
November 30, 2020
Municipality of Clarington Finance Department 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6
Attention: Trevor Pinn, Treasurer
Dear Mr. Pinn,
RE: 2020 Development Charges Background Study Soper Hills Secondary Plan Municipality of Clarington TBG Project No. 19568
On behalf of our client, Soper Hills Holdings Inc., The Biglieri Group Ltd. is pleased to submit our comments relating to the 2020 Development Charges Background Study, prepared by Watson & Associates (October 15, 2020) and the Soper Hills Secondary Plan study, which is currently on-going. Soper Hills Holdings Inc. is a member of the Bowmanville East Developers Group. Soper Hills Holdings Inc. property is legally described as Part of Lot 6, Concession 1 (Darlington) and is located on the south side of Concession Street East, east of Lambs Road.
SOPER HILLS SECONDARY PLAN AREA
The Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area is bounded by the CPR Tracks to the north, Lambs Road to the west, Durham Highway 2 to the south, and Providence Road/road allowance between lots 4 and 5 to the east. The lands are mostly comprised of agricultural and rural residential uses.
Our comments relate to the various Municipal Roads and Related Costs identified in the 2020 Development Charges Background Study within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area.
Road Network Upon review of the list of Services Related to a Highway, we have identified various items in and around the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area that are consistent with the transportation network within the adopted Official Plan (June 2018 Consolidation) and Clarington Transportation Master Plan (December 2016). These include:
➢ Lambs Road Box Culvert at Soper Creek Tributary (Project No. 8); ➢ Highway 2 sidewalk and street lighting between Soper Creek and Bennett Road (Project Nos. 152 and 172); ➢ Improvements to Lambs Road between Baseline Road and Concession Road 3 (Project Nos. 48, 55, 61 and 86); ➢ Improvements to Concession Street E. between Soper Creek Drive and Providence Road (Project Nos. 70 and 94);
PLANNING | DEVELOPMENT | PROJECT MANAGEMENT | UBAN DESIGN 20 Leslie Street, Suite 121, Toronto, Ontario M4M 3L4 126 Catharine Street, Hamilton, Ontario L8R 1J4 Office: (416) 693-9155 Fax: (416) 693-9133 [email protected] Page 139 THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD. 2
➢ Improvements to the Lambs Road and Concession Street E. intersection (Project No. 30); and, ➢ Extension of Bennett Road between Highway 2 and Concession Street E. (Project No. 101).
In addition, we have identified several items that should be considered in the 2020 Development Charges Background Study. These items are as follows:
➢ Lambs Road Grade Separation at CPR Tracks; ➢ East-West Collector Road between Lambs Road and Providence Road, north of Concession Street E.; ➢ East-West Collector Road between Lambs Road and future Bennett Road, south of Concession Street E.; ➢ North-South Collector Road between Highway 2 and the future Collector Road north of Concession Street E.
Please refer to Attachment 1 for the included items and recommendations listed above.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2020 Development Charges Background Study. We look forward to hearing back from Municipal staff shortly on this matter.
We trust you will find all in order, however, if you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience.
Respectfully, THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD.
Mark Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Planner
Attachments: Attachment 1 – Map J3 Clarington Official Plan (redlined) cc. Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning and Design Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting (Bowmanville East Developers Group) Joe Valela, Soper Hills Holdings Inc.
Page 140 T
E
E
R
T
S
Y
T
R
2
E
4
B
I
D
L
A
O
R ATTACHMENT 1
L
A
N
O
I
D1-Deferred by the G D
E A Region of Durham
R
O
R
EN BO ULEVARD
NORTHGL
E Appealed by L
D PL170817 D I PL171459 M ³ NASH ROAD CONCESSION ROAD 3 CPR Grade
Separation
D
A O
D2-Deferred by the R
48 Region of Durham E
AVENUE C New
H N
RT E Collector T
O D
W I
G E
N V LO E
O Roads
R (! (! R
T 86
P S .
Y R T T P
E E
D . 7 R C
V (!
5
E
A
E
O
R
O
B
D
I T
R
D
R
A
L
S
A
G
O
70 N
O G
E R E D1-Deferred by the (!
R
L
O
E
E L
P
R
G A
U Region of Durham
A
U
G
N N
M
C
E
O
I
S
V G (! A E 94
R (! (! CONCESSION STREET (!
S 101 N
(! R 30
A
D
E
A
O M
(! R
! 55 G!O S New ! 8 B ! M A Collector ! L (!! KING STREET ! Roads
! 152,E ! U ! N 172 ! E
! V A ! ! N 61 ! ! ! ! ! O ! ! ! ! S ! ! ! D ! ! ! (!! P ! ! ! ! A
! ! ! M ! I !(! O
! S ! R BASELINE ROAD
! ! ! ! T ! ! T ! ! E
! N ! HIG
H N ! ! WAY ! 401 E XYC B . N XY(! . R. XY (! XY XY D1-Deferred by the Region of Durham (! XY (!
Lake Ontario DEFERRED BY THE RECOMMENDED REGION OF DURHAM ADDITION TO 2020 DCBS URBAN AREA RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION HUB FREEWAY GO
EXISTING TYPE A ARTERIAL ROAD MAP J3 FREEWAY INTERCHANGE XY TYPE B ARTERIAL ROAD TRANSPORTATION NETWORK FUTURE TYPE C ARTERIAL ROAD ROADS AND TRANSIT FREEWAY INTERCHANGE XY COLLECTOR ROAD BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA ! EXISTING ( GRADE SEPARATION REGIONAL TRANSIT SPINE OFFICIAL PLAN MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PROPOSED ! ! ! ! (! RAIL TRANSIT LINE OCTOBER, 2017 GRADE SEPARATION PageIDENTIFIED 141 PROJECT OFFICE CONSOLIDATION IN 2020 DCBS Attachment 5(a) to FND-004-21
January 4, 2021
The Biglieri Group Ltd. 20 Leslie Street, Suite 121 Toronto, Ontario M4M 3L4
Attention: Mark Jacobs, Planner
Dear Mark:
Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge Background Study, received on November 30, 2020.
Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs.
We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law.
Yours truly,
Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | [email protected] | www.clarington.net Page 142 Attachment 6 to FND-004-21
To: Mr. Trevor Pinn, Treasurer – Finance Department, Municipality of Clarington cc: Mr. Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning and Design Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc. (Filipe Dias) From: Michael May, P.Eng., Reg Webster Consulting Inc. Date: November 27, 2020 Project: Brookhill Secondary Plan Area Re: Municipality of Clarington – Proposed DC Background Study ______
On behalf of Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc., please find attached the following comments as it relates to the review of the Municipality of Clarington – Proposed Development Charge Background Study, dated October 15, 2020 and subsequent Addendum dated November 3, 2020. For reference, Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc. is the owner of the following properties within the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Area: • 2499 Nash Road; • 2538 Bowmanville Avenue (Regional Road 57); and • 2494 Bowmanville Avenue (Regional Road 57).
While it is understood that the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Area is not completed at the time of preparing these comments, however, the below comments will in the near future have impact to the Proposed DC Background Study.
1. Services Related to a Highway within the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area Upon review of the Proposed DC Background Study, all Services Related to a Highway pertaining to the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area, (i.e. bridge structure works, intersection works, roads, sidewalks and cycling facilities, and streetlighting) have been marked on the included Attachment 1: Draft Brookhill Secondary Plan – Land Use and Transportation.
Based on review of Attachment 1: Draft Brookhill Secondary Plan – Land Use and Transportation, the below road works (illustrated in red) are not included in the Proposed DC Background Study. Please provide a response to why these road works are not included in the Proposed DC Background Study.
• Nash Road (Arterial Road Type B with dedicated bicycle lanes) from West Boundary Limit of the Brookhill Neighbourhood to the Future Clarington Boulevard. • Green Road (Arterial Road Type B with dedicated bicycle lanes) from 670m North of Longworth Avenue to Nash Road. • Clarington Boulevard (Collector Road with on-street bicycle lanes) from Brookhill Boulevard to Longworth Avenue.
Page 143 Page 2 of 2
o While it is noted that this is a collector road, refencing Appendix D: Local Service Policy, the inclusion of on-street bicycle lanes would require oversizing costs to accommodate the road structure. • Clarington Boulevard (Collector Road with on-street bicycle lanes) from Longworth Avenue to South 90 degree curve. o While it is noted that this is a collector road, refencing Appendix D: Local Service Policy, the inclusion of on-street bicycle lanes would require oversizing costs to accommodate the road structure.
2. Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area Parks and Recreation Services projects within the Proposed DC Background Study were compared by the September 2020 version of the Brookhill Neighbourbood Secondary Plan – Schedule B: Open Space and Parks, with the following comments:
• There are two additional Neighbourhood Parks included (Project Nos. 32 and 39) in the Proposed DC Background Study that are not reflective in the current Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan information. • On the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan – Schedule B, dated September 2020, there are 6 total parkettes, however, the Proposed DC Background Study includes one (1) parkette for “Brookhill”. • Brookhill Neighbourhood Park 2 (Project No. 26) net capital cost of $1.5M is much larger than the other neighbourhood park infrastructure costs. • No trails illustrated within the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan – Schedule B are included in the Proposed DC Background Study.
Please provide a response to the above discrepancies.
3. Benefit to Existing Development There appears to be inconsistencies with the application of benefit to existing development for several infrastructure categories in the costs covered in the DC Calculations. Under the Services Related to a Highway, the Bridge/Culvert Works, Intersection Works, Road Works, Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works, and Street Light Works all include a varying number of projects that have no benefit to existing reduction. Please provide clarification related to the inconsistencies of the application within each category.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions and/or comments.
Regards,
Michael May, P.Eng. Reg Webster Consulting Inc. 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 104 | Vaughan, ON | L4K 0C5 | Tel: 905-660-7667 Ext. 231 | Cell: 905-243-9161 E-mail: [email protected] | Visit us at: www.rwconsultinginc.net
Page 144 Markup of Proposed DC Background Study Projects Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc.
Project Project No. 75 No. 137 Project No. 136
Project No. 85
Project No. 1 Project No. 17 Project No. 56
Project No. 42
Project No. 47
Project No. 14
Project No. 116 Project No. 114
!"#$"%&"'()*)* Page 145 Attachment 6(a) to FND-004-21
January 4, 2021
Reg Webster Consulting Inc. 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 104 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5
Attention: Michael May, P.Eng., General Manager
Dear Mike:
Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge Background Study, received on November 27, 2020.
Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway and Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs.
In response to your questions about the benefit to existing deductions for Services Related to a Highway, the attached letter from CIMA is provided for information.
We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law.
Yours truly,
Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | [email protected] | www.clarington.net Page 146
December 18, 2020
Municipality of Clarington Public Works Department [via email]
Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure
RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Bagshaw:
The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program.
1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS
1.1 DEFERRED COSTS For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020 dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road conditions. This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc. This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads.
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 cima.ca Page 147
December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3
1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth.
1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established.
2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three components making-up the project cost: • BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and 77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth. • Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects. • Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably to growth with no BTE. For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year.
3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS
3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility (i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth.
3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE).
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca Page 148
December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3
4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population.
5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth.
6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road corridors due to growth.
Sincerely, CIMA Canada Inc.
Dan Campbell Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure [email protected]
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca Page 149 Attachment 7 to FND-004-21
File #: 2320 Date: November 27, 2020
Mr. Trevor Pinn, Treasurer Finance Department Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 3A6
Dear Mr. Pinn,
Proposed October 15, 2020, Development Charge Background Study Re: Brookhill North Landowners Group Municipality of Clarington, Ontario
We are pleased to provide you with our comments regarding the proposed 2020 Municipality Development Charge (DC) Background Study (DCBS), prepared by Watson & Associates, dated October 15, 2020, and the associated Addendum, dated November 3, 2020, for the Municipality of Clarington on behalf of the Brookhill North Landowners Group (the “Group”), concerning the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area (the “BSPA”).
Our general comments regarding the proposed 2020 DC Background Study, and the associated Addendum (refer to Attachment No. 3), and how it relates to our Group’s lands are as follows.
Brookhill North Secondary Plan Area
The Brookhill Secondary Plan is approximately 150 ha in size and is bound by Bowmanville Avenue (Durham Road 57) and Bowmanville Creek in the east, Highway 2 in the south, an environmental protection area and agricultural lands to the west, and Nash Road in the north (refer to Figure 1). The north half of the BSPA, bounded by Bowmanville Avenue (Durham Road 57) and Bowmanville Creek in the east, Longworth Avenue in the south, an environmental protection area and agricultural lands to the west (refer to orange dashed linework), and Nash Road to the north, is of main concern to the Brookhill North Landowners Group.
Our comments regarding the Municipal Roads and Related Costs and how the projects relate to our Group’s lands (refer to Attachment No. 1) are as follows.
30 Centurian Drive, Suite 100 Markham, Ontario L3R 8B8 Phone 905 475 1900 Fax 905 475 8335 www.scsconsultinggroup.com Page 150 Re: Proposed October 15, 2020, Development Charge Background Study File #: 2320 Brookhill North Landowners Group November 27, 2020 Municipality of Clarington, Ontario Page 2 of 5
Figure 1 – Brookhill Secondary Plan Area (BSPA)
Proposed Road Network
R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited has prepared the Transportation Technical Memorandum for the Brookhill Secondary Plan, dated August 28, 2020. Based on R.J. Burnside's technical summary, there have been several road network solutions proposed. We understand a combination of corridor improvements, road extensions, and new collector roads are planned to support the development of the Secondary Plan Area and that all arterial, collector, and local collector roads shall have sidewalk and cycling facility works, street lighting, and street trees on both sides of the right-of-way, which should be accounted for in the proposed
30 Centurian Drive, Suite 100 Markham, Ontario L3R 8B8 Phone 905 475 1900 Fax 905 475 8335 www.scsconsultinggroup.com
Page 151 Re: Proposed October 15, 2020, Development Charge Background Study File #: 2320 Brookhill North Landowners Group November 27, 2020 Municipality of Clarington, Ontario Page 3 of 5
DC Background Study. Table 1 below outlines our understanding of the proposed road networks and a summary of the additional items that should be added to the 2020 DC Background Study.
Table 1 – Proposed Road Network to be Added to the 2020 DC Background Study Road Items to be Added in 2020 No. Road From To Standard DCBGS 1. Clarington Nash Road Longworth 26.0m wide New Collector Roadworks Boulevard Avenue Collector Intersection works at: (Future) Road o Nash Road and Clarington Boulevard o Future Longworth Avenue and Clarington Boulevard Multi-Use Path and Cycling Facility Works (On-Street Bicycle Lane) Note: A portion of these road improvement works have been included in proposed 2020 DC Background Study (Project No. 75). 2. Green Road Nash Road Longworth 30.0-36.0m Urbanization Roadworks Avenue wide Intersection works at: (Future) Arterial B o Nash Road and Green Road o Future Longworth Avenue and Green Road Sidewalk and Cycling Facility Works (Dedicated Bicycle Lane) Note: 670m of road improvement works have been included in proposed 2020 DC Background Study (Project No. 85). 3. Nash Road Western Proposed 30.0-36.0m Urbanization Roadworks Bowmanville Clarington wide Sidewalk and Cycling Facility Limits Boulevard Arterial B Works (Dedicated Bicycle Lane) 4. Longworth Western Green Road Arterial 100% of costs where the right-of- Road Bowmanville Road Type way abuts an Environmental Limits C protection area and oversizing elsewhere New Arterial Roadworks Multi-Use Path and Cycling Facility Works (Dedicated Bicycle Lane) Note: A portion of these road improvement works have been included in proposed 2020 DC Background Study (Project No. 42).
30 Centurian Drive, Suite 100 Markham, Ontario L3R 8B8 Phone 905 475 1900 Fax 905 475 8335 www.scsconsultinggroup.com
Page 152 Re: Proposed October 15, 2020, Development Charge Background Study File #: 2320 Brookhill North Landowners Group November 27, 2020 Municipality of Clarington, Ontario Page 4 of 5
As per the draft 2020 Development Charge Background Study, we acknowledge and understand that the following services related to a Highway (refer to Attachment No. 3 for details) located near this development are as follows:
Bowmanville Avenue (Durham Road 57) is scheduled to be widened from 2 to 4 lanes from Baseline Road to Nash Road by 2026. The widening has already begun; Longworth Avenue will be realigned at Bowmanville Avenue and extended west to the Western Bowmanville Boundary, including the Brookhill tributary crossing (DC Project No. 1) and widening (DC Project No. 17, 42, 56 & 74). However, costs have only been included for oversizing, and no consideration for the right-of-way that dissects Environmental Protection Area. A Class Environmental Assessment is currently underway for the further extension of Longworth Avenue west of Green Road; Construction of Green Road from Ross Wright Avenue to 670m north of Longworth Avenue (DC Project No. 47 & 85), including intersections works at Longworth Avenue (DC Project No. 17); and Reconstruction of Nash Road (Future Clarington Boulevard) from South 90-degree curve to North 90- degree curve (DC Project No. 75).
Proposed Active Transportation
Based on R.J. Burnside’s technical summary, there have been several active transportation initiatives proposed. Identified as a priority, and Active Transportation network will be developed in coordination with the Municipality’s Complete Streets and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) initiatives. Regional and municipal cycling facilities and active transportation additions are planned throughout the study area as both primary, long-term improvements. The TMP identifies a desire for active transportation to see an increase in mode share over the years, by making walking and cycling more practical and attractive (refer to Table 2 and Attachment No. 2).
Table 2 – Proposed Active Transportation to be Added in 2020 DC Background Study No. Active Transportation Location Description Category 1. Off-Road Path bounded by Nash Road to the north, west Within Environmental Trail Bowmanville limits to the west, Longworth Avenue to the Protection Area around South, and Green Road to the east Brookhill Tributary 2. Off-Road Path bounded by Nash Road to the north, Green Within Environmental Trail Road to the west, Longworth Avenue to the South, and Protection Area around Clarington Boulevard to the east Brookhill Tributary 3. Off-Road Path bounded by Nash Road to the north, Within Environmental Trail Clarington Boulevard to the west, Longworth Avenue to Protection Area around the South, and Bowmanville Avenue to the east Bowmanville Creek 4. Off-Road Path bounded byBowmanville Avenue (Durham Within Environmental Trail Road 57) in the west, an environmental protection area and Protection Area around Bowmanville Creek in the north and east, and Longworth Bowmanville Creek Avenue in the south,
30 Centurian Drive, Suite 100 Markham, Ontario L3R 8B8 Phone 905 475 1900 Fax 905 475 8335 www.scsconsultinggroup.com
Page 153 Re: Proposed October 15, 2020, Development Charge Background Study File #: 2320 Brookhill North Landowners Group November 27, 2020 Municipality of Clarington, Ontario Page 5 of 5
Benefit to Existing
The Group requests that the Municipality consider allocating Benefit to Existing Development shares to the above-mentioned new Roads Network and Active Transportation projects as existing residents will benefit from these new rights-of-way.
We also would like the Municipality to confirm the basis for not including Benefit to Existing to the Bridge Structure Works, Culvert Works, Intersection Works, Sidewalk and Cycling Facility Works, and Streetlighting Works Project Costs.
We trust the above-mentioned is complete. We look forward to hearing from the Municipality of Clarington Staff shortly. For that reason, we would appreciate the Municipality of Clarington acknowledge the above- mentioned requests in writing.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
SCS Consulting Group Ltd.
Julie Bottos, A.Sc.T. [email protected]
Attachments: Attachment No. 1 - Schedule A - Land Use and Transportation, dated September 2020 Attachment No. 2 - Schedule B - Open Space and Parks, dated September 2020 Attachment No. 3 - Municipality of Clarington Draft November 3, 2020 DC Background Study Addendum (Section 5.15 - Services Related to a Highway) prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
c. Mr. Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning and Design Mr. Greg Bunker, Planner, Planner and Development Services Mr. Robert Webb, Webb + Company Brookhill North Landowners Group
P:\2320 Brookhill Landowner Group\Correspondence\Letters\2020 11(Nov) 27-Clarington-jlb-DC Background Study Review Letter.docx
30 Centurian Drive, Suite 100 Markham, Ontario L3R 8B8 Phone 905 475 1900 Fax 905 475 8335 www.scsconsultinggroup.com
Page 154 Attachment 7(a) to FND-004-21
January 4, 2021
SCS Consulting Group ltd. 30 Centurian Drive, Suite 100 Markham, Ontario L3R 8B8
Attention: Candice Ward
Dear Candice:
Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge Background Study, received on November 27, 2020.
Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway and Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs.
In response to your questions about the benefit to existing deductions for Services Related to a Highway, the attached letter from CIMA has been provided for information.
We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary Plan and future amendment to the D.C. Background Study and By-law.
Yours truly,
Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | [email protected] | www.clarington.net Page 155
December 18, 2020
Municipality of Clarington Public Works Department [via email]
Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure
RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Bagshaw:
The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program.
1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS
1.1 DEFERRED COSTS For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020 dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road conditions. This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc. This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads.
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 cima.ca Page 156
December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3
1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth.
1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established.
2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three components making-up the project cost: • BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and 77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth. • Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects. • Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably to growth with no BTE. For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year.
3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS
3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility (i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth.
3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE).
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca Page 157
December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3
4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population.
5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth.
6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road corridors due to growth.
Sincerely, CIMA Canada Inc.
Dan Campbell Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure [email protected]
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca Page 158 Attachment 8 to FND-004-21
Page 159 Page 160 Page 161 Page 162 Schaeffers Consulting Engineers DRAFT Revised: Dec 5, 2020 Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58
DC Roads Projects Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020 Table 1
Roadworks Type DC Project Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031) Timing (year) Gross Capital Grants, Subsidies and Net Capital Cost Benefit to Post Period Potential D.C. Residential Share Non- Residential No. Cost Estimate Other Contributions Existing Benefit Recoverable Cost 83% Share (2020$) Attributable to New Development 17% Development
Road From To
Bridge Structure Works Bridge Structure Works 1 Longworth Ave. Structure at Brookhill Brookhill Tributary Crossing 2022 1,213,228 1,213,228 - - 1,213,228 1,006,979 206,249 2 Baseline Rd. At Bennett Rd. Channel Crossing 2023 1,108,501 1,108,501 - - 1,108,501 920,056 188,445 3 Lambs Rd. At Bennett Rd. Channel Crossing 2023 1,108,501 1,108,501 - - 1,108,501 920,056 188,445 4 Grady Dr. Structure (and Road Link) At Foster Creek 2024 2,987,454 2,987,454 - - 2,987,454 2,479,587 507,867 5 Lambs Rd. Grade Seperation at CNR Crossing 2030 15,006,547 15,006,547 - - 15,006,547 12,455,434 2,551,113 6 Bennett Rd. At Soper Creek Tributary 2031 1,108,501 1,108,501 - - 1,108,501 920,056 188,445 Culvert Works Culvert Works ------7 Hancock Rd. Box Culvert (99077) at Black Creek Tributary 2022 1,012,600 1,012,600 679,000 - 333,600 276,888 56,712 8 Lambs Rd. Box Culvert (99069) at Soper Creek Tributary 2023 286,059 286,059 - - 286,059 237,429 48,630 9 Baseline Rd. Culvert (99065) at Darlington Creek West of Green Rd. 2027 286,059 286,059 - - 286,059 237,429 48,630 10 Baseline Road Culvert (99063) 140m East of Holt Rd. 2028 286,059 286,059 - - 286,059 237,429 48,630 11 Baseline Rd. Culvert (99055) at Robinson Creek (w. of R.R. 34) 2028 286,059 286,059 - - 286,059 237,429 48,630 12 Baseline Rd. Culvert (99057) at Tooley Creek (e. of R.R. 34) 2029 286,059 286,059 - - 286,059 237,429 48,630 Intersection Works Intersection Works 13 George Reynolds Dr. At Courtice Rd. 2020 821,850 821,850 - - 821,850 682,136 139,715 14 Green Rd. At Brookhill 2021 207,746 207,746 152,996 - 54,750 45,443 9,308 15 King Ave./Baldwin St./North Street 2021 316,231 158,116 316,231 122,916 - 35,200 29,216 5,984 16 King St. At Ontario St. 2021 207,746 207,746 152,996 - 54,750 45,443 9,308 17 Longworth Ave./Green Rd. (Intersection) 2022 316,231 316,231 122,916 - 193,316 160,452 32,864 18 Bennett Rd. At Lake Road 2022 432,377 432,377 241,598 - 190,779 158,347 32,432 19 Bennett Rd. Railroad Crossing at CNR Level Crossing 2022 381,670 381,670 - - 381,670 316,786 64,884 20 Trulls Rd. At Sandringham Dr. 2022 432,377 432,377 241,598 - 190,779 158,347 32,432 21 Baseline Rd. At Haines St. 2023 310,925 310,925 - - 310,925 258,068 52,857 22 Baseline Rd. At Caristrap St. 2023 310,925 310,925 - - 310,925 258,068 52,857 23 Baseline Rd. At Mearns Ave./Mearns Ct. 2023 621,850 621,850 - - 621,850 516,136 105,715 24 Arthur St. Railroad Crossing at C.P.R Level Crossing 2024 636,117 636,117 - - 636,117 527,977 108,140 25 Clarington Blvd. At Prince William Blvd 2024 506,000 506,000 282,736 - 223,264 185,309 37,955 26 Prestonvale Rd. At Robert Adams Dr. 2024 316,231 316,231 122,916 - 193,316 160,452 32,864 27 Mearns Ave./Concession St. (Signals) 2026 316,231 316,231 122,916 - 193,316 160,452 32,864 28 Prestonvale Rd. Railroad Crossing at CPR Level Crossing 2026 636,117 636,117 - - 636,117 527,977 108,140 29 Baseline Rd. At Maple Grove Rd. 2027 621,850 621,850 - - 621,850 516,136 105,715 30 Conc. St. E/Lambs Rd. Intersection 2027 316,231 316,231 122,916 - 193,316 160,452 32,864 31 King St./Simpson Ave. (Intersection) 2028 432,377 432,377 241,598 - 190,779 158,347 32,432 32 King St./Scugog St. (Intersection) 2030 432,377 432,377 241,598 - 190,779 158,347 32,432 33 Toronto St./Mill St. Intersection 2030 207,746 51,937 207,746 152,996 - 2,813 2,335 478 34 Trulls Rd. At George Reynolds Dr. 2031 432,377 432,377 241,598 - 190,779 158,347 32,432 35 Baseline Rd./Holt Rd. (Signals) 2031 316,231 316,231 122,916 - 193,316 160,452 32,864 36 Baseline Rd. At Simpson Ave. 2031 532,377 532,377 - - 532,377 441,873 90,504 37 Holt Rd./Bloor St. (Signals) 2031 316,231 316,231 122,916 - 193,316 160,452 32,864 38 Longworth Ave. At Mearns Ave. 2031 207,746 207,746 152,996 - 54,750 45,443 9,308 Road Works Road Works 39 Baseline Rd. Trulls Rd. Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.) 2020 2,463,898 2,463,898 945,020 - 1,518,878 1,260,669 258,209 40 George Reynolds Dr. Courtice Rd. Harry Gay Dr. 2020 2,439,499 2,439,499 - - 2,439,499 2,024,784 414,715 41 Lake Rd. (Through Existing GFL Site) Bennett Rd. 250m West of Bennett Rd. 2020 1,512,666 348,000 1,512,666 - - 1,164,666 966,673 197,993 42 Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing) West Bowmanville Boundary Green Rd. 2020 689,219 689,219 - - 689,219 572,051 117,167 43 Rudell Rd. Grady Dr. CPR 2020 1,521,372 1,521,372 - - 1,521,372 1,262,739 258,633 44 Conc. Rd. 3 500m East of Middle Rd. Liberty St. 2021 1,131,721 1,131,721 327,748 - 803,974 667,298 136,676 45 Conc. Rd. 3 Liberty St. 90m W. of Jollow Dr. 2021 1,283,828 1,283,828 347,338 - 936,490 777,287 159,203 46 Darlington Blvd. Highway 2 Foxhunt Trail 2021 2,265,924 2,265,924 538,710 - 1,727,214 1,433,588 293,626 47 Green Rd. Ross Wright Future Longworth Avenue 2021 514,419 514,419 12,481 - 501,938 416,608 85,329 48 Lambs Rd. CPR Tracks Conc. Rd. 3 2021 451,491 451,491 332,504 - 118,987 98,759 20,228 49 Maple Grove Rd. Hwy 2 Future Longworth Ave 2021 383,768 383,768 282,628 - 101,139 83,946 17,194 50 Middle Rd. 890m N of Conc 3 Taunton Rd. 2021 1,498,951 1,498,951 1,103,914 - 395,038 327,881 67,156 51 Bennett Rd. South Service Rd. South End (East Beach Rd.) 2022 1,756,744 1,756,744 243,804 - 1,512,940 1,255,740 257,200 52 Conc. Rd. 3 200m East of Reg. Rd. 57 100m West of Middle Rd. 2022 1,783,319 1,783,319 661,886 - 1,121,432 930,789 190,643 53 Hancock Rd. Nash Rd. 0.65km North 2022 1,308,832 1,308,832 38,730 - 1,270,102 1,054,185 215,917 54 Hancock Rd. 275m South of Nash. Rd. Nash Rd. 2022 543,699 543,699 126,691 - 417,008 346,117 70,891 55 Lambs Rd. Highway 2 Concession St. E 2022 4,629,770 4,629,770 163,844 - 4,465,926 3,706,718 759,207 56 Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing) Bowmanville Creek Green Rd. 2022 2,527,135 2,527,135 - - 2,527,135 2,097,522 429,613 57 Nash Rd. 50m East of Harry Gay Dr. Hancock Rd. 2022 1,011,422 1,011,422 187,935 - 823,487 683,495 139,993 58 Port Darlington Rd. Port Darlington East Beach East Shore Drive 2022 1,505,603 1,505,603 - - 1,505,603 1,249,650 255,952 59 Baseline Rd. Mearns Ct. Haines St. 2023 1,356,387 1,356,387 600,171 - 756,216 627,659 128,557 60 Baseline Rd. Haines St. Lambs Rd. 2023 1,382,584 1,382,584 255,286 - 1,127,298 935,657 191,641 61 Lambs Rd. 300m North of Baseline Rd. Highway 2 2023 1,152,153 1,152,153 393,520 - 758,633 629,666 128,968 62 Queen St. Extension St. George St. Frank St. 2023 719,084 719,084 - - 719,084 596,840 122,244 63 Trulls Rd. 230m South of Yorkville Dr. Reg. Rd. 22 2023 2,374,768 2,374,768 432,707 - 1,942,061 1,611,910 330,150 64 Trulls Rd. Bloor St. (Reg. Rd. 22) Baseline Rd. 2023 6,241,615 6,241,615 1,797,196 - 4,444,419 3,688,868 755,551 65 Conc. Rd. 3 Mearns Ave. Reg. Rd. 42 2023 1,498,951 1,498,951 1,103,914 - 395,038 327,881 67,156 66 East Shore Dr. Port Darlington Rd. Lake Rd. 2023 1,457,520 1,457,520 318,728 - 1,138,792 945,197 193,595 67 Maple Grove Rd. Baseline Rd. Bloor St. 2023 880,408 880,408 648,383 - 232,025 192,581 39,444 68 Prince William Blvd. Pethick St. Reg. Rd. 57 2024 1,129,295 1,129,295 - - 1,129,295 937,315 191,980 69 Arthur St. CPR Level Crossing 1.13km N. of CPR 2024 2,236,086 2,236,086 1,135,694 - 1,100,392 913,325 187,067 70 Concession St. E. Soper Creek Dr. Lambs Rd. 2024 1,930,435 1,930,435 599,758 - 1,330,677 1,104,462 226,215 71 Haines St. Baseline Rd. Reg. Highway 2 2024 3,155,102 3,155,102 55,386 - 3,099,716 2,572,764 526,952 72 Holt Rd. Reg. Highway 2 Future Longworth Ave. 2025 948,597 948,597 188,648 - 759,949 630,758 129,191 73 Longworth Ave. Holt Rd. Maple Grove Rd. 2025 3,062,447 3,062,447 - - 3,062,447 2,541,831 520,616 74 Longworth Ave. Maple Grove Rd. West Bowmanville Boundary 2025 1,485,515 1,485,515 - - 1,485,515 1,232,978 252,538 75 Nash Rd. (Future Clarington Blvd.) South 90 degree Curve North 90 degree Curve 2025 2,023,381 2,023,381 21,211 - 2,002,170 1,661,801 340,369 76 Old Scugog Rd. Conc. Rd. 4 Taunton Rd. 2025 952,647 952,647 701,584 - 251,063 208,383 42,681 77 Pebblestone Rd. Reg. Rd. 55 (Townline Rd.) Tooley Rd. 2025 555,334 555,334 408,980 - 146,354 121,474 24,880 78 Pebblestone Rd. Trulls Rd. Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.) 2025 370,223 370,223 272,653 - 97,570 80,983 16,587 79 Lambs Rd. Highway 401 Baseline Rd. 2026 1,646,140 1,646,140 39,940 - 1,606,200 1,333,146 273,054 80 Prestonvale Rd. CPR Level Crossing 262m S. Southfield Ave. 2026 3,559,778 3,559,778 345,023 - 3,214,756 2,668,247 546,508 81 Simpson Ave. Extension King St. Future Church St. 2026 505,624 505,624 - - 505,624 419,668 85,956 82 Arthur St. 1.13 km North CPR Level Crossing Conc. Rd. 3 2027 1,018,200 1,018,200 508,547 - 509,652 423,012 86,641
P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx Page 163 1 of 4 Schaeffers Consulting Engineers DRAFT Revised: Dec 5, 2020 Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58
Roadworks Type DC Project Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031) Timing (year) Gross Capital Grants, Subsidies and Net Capital Cost Benefit to Post Period Potential D.C. Residential Share Non- Residential No. Cost Estimate Other Contributions Existing Benefit Recoverable Cost 83% Share (2020$) Attributable to New Development 17% Development
Road From To 83 Baseline Rd. 170m East of Darlington Creek Holt Rd. 2027 5,057,010 5,057,010 286,546 - 4,770,464 3,959,485 810,979 84 Energy Drive 410m East of Osborne Rd. Crago Rd. 2027 1,677,870 1,677,870 - - 1,677,870 1,392,632 285,238 85 Green Rd. Future Longworth Ave. 670 m North of Longworth Ave. 2027 2,297,737 2,297,737 55,749 - 2,241,989 1,860,851 381,138 86 Lambs Rd. Concession St. E CPR Tracks 2027 3,806,699 3,806,699 522,388 - 3,284,311 2,725,978 558,333 87 Stevens Rd. Reg. Rd. 57 East End 2027 766,489 766,489 44,985 - 721,504 598,848 122,656 88 Baseline Rd. Prestonvale Rd. Trulls Rd. 2028 3,621,633 3,621,633 220,198 - 3,401,435 2,823,191 578,244 89 Osbourne Rd. Energy Dr. Megawatt Dr. 2028 994,543 994,543 116,404 - 878,139 728,856 149,284 90 Baseline Rd. Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.) Hancock Road 2029 2,547,039 2,547,039 150,182 - 2,396,857 1,989,391 407,466 91 Conc. Rd. 3 Reg. Rd. 17 Arthur St. 2029 1,459,090 1,459,090 428,376 - 1,030,714 855,493 175,221 92 Crago Rd. Osbourne Rd. South Service Rd. 2029 5,315,661 5,315,661 401,190 - 4,914,471 4,079,011 835,460 93 Bennett Rd. Highway 401 Reg. Highway 2 2030 1,858,462 1,858,462 545,628 - 1,312,834 1,089,652 223,182 94 Concession St. E. Lambs Rd. Providence Rd. 2030 2,846,451 2,846,451 498,815 - 2,347,636 1,948,538 399,098 95 Green Rd. Widening Baseline Rd. Reg. Highway 2 2030 1,461,983 1,461,983 - - 1,461,983 1,213,446 248,537 96 Green Rd. Baseline Rd. South End 2030 2,366,327 2,366,327 567,446 - 1,798,881 1,493,071 305,810 97 Lambs Rd. Port Darlington Rd. Lake Rd. 2030 1,057,049 1,057,049 12,852 - 1,044,197 866,684 177,514 98 Mearns Ave. Conc. Rd. 3 300m North Conc. Rd. 3 2030 1,028,838 1,028,838 57,162 - 971,676 806,491 165,185 99 Toronto St. Mill St. CNR Level Crossing 2030 3,823,847 3,823,847 185,276 - 3,638,571 3,020,014 618,557 100 Baseline Rd. Lambs Rd. Bennett Rd. 2031 1,788,454 1,788,454 - - 1,788,454 1,484,416 304,037 101 Bennett Rd. Hwy 2 Conc. St. East 2031 4,537,040 4,537,040 - - 4,537,040 3,765,743 771,297 102 Holt Rd. Baseline Rd. 300m South of Baseline Rd. 2031 900,628 900,628 55,514 - 845,114 701,444 143,669 103 Holt Rd. Baseline Rd. Bloor St. 2031 5,621,532 5,621,532 134,977 - 5,486,555 4,553,840 932,714 104 Holt Rd. Bloor St. Reg. Highway 2 2031 2,043,132 2,043,132 124,027 - 1,919,105 1,592,857 326,248 105 Trulls Rd. Billett Gate Pebblestone Rd. 2031 3,669,521 3,669,521 183,273 - 3,486,248 2,893,586 592,662 Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works 106 Bloor St. Sidewalk Townline Rd. S 210m E of Townline Rd. 2020 47,299 47,299 - - 47,299 39,258 8,041 107 Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 Sidewalk Prestonvale Rd. 65m E of Prestonvale Rd. 2020 38,033 38,033 - - 38,033 31,567 6,466 108 Highway 2 Sidewalk 271m East of Clarington Blvd. Reg. Rd. 57 2020 192,676 192,676 74,168 - 118,508 98,362 20,146 109 Manvers Road (East Side Sidewalk) Mill St. Remi Court 2020 76,579 76,579 - - 76,579 63,561 13,018 110 North St. Sidewalk George St. Remi Court 2020 39,416 39,416 - - 39,416 32,715 6,701 111 Prestonvale Rd. Sidewalk Bloor St. 230m N of Bloor St. 2020 51,803 51,803 - - 51,803 42,997 8,807 112 Prestonvale Rd. Sidewalk 230m N of Bloor St. Meadowglade Rd. 2020 37,163 37,163 - - 37,163 30,846 6,318 113 Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP) Aspen Springs Dr. Hwy 2 2020 286,707 286,707 - - 286,707 237,967 48,740 114 Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP) Highway 2 Stevens Rd. 2020 157,982 157,982 - - 157,982 131,125 26,857 115 Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East Side CPR Hwy 2 2020 56,308 56,308 - - 56,308 46,736 9,572 116 Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East Side Hwy 2 Stevens Rd. 2020 60,813 60,813 - - 60,813 50,475 10,338 117 Trulls Rd. Sidewalk Strathallan Dr. Highway 2 2020 54,056 54,056 - - 54,056 44,866 9,189 118 Liberty St. Sidewalk Bons Ave. Concession Rd. 3 2021 374,342 374,342 - - 374,342 310,704 63,638 119 Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East Side 140m N of Baseline Rd. Waverly Rd. 2021 40,542 40,542 - - 40,542 33,650 6,892 120 Regional Rd. 34 Sidewalk Nash Rd. North Urban Boundary 2021 1,183,581 1,183,581 - - 1,183,581 982,372 201,209 121 Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk East Side Remi Ct. 375m N of CPR 2021 130,635 130,635 - - 130,635 108,427 22,208 122 Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk West Side Remi Ct. 375m N of CPR 2021 131,761 131,761 - - 131,761 109,362 22,399 123 Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP) Baseline Rd. Prestonway Dr. 2021 496,179 496,179 - - 496,179 411,829 84,350 124 Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP) Prestonway Dr. Aspen Springs Dr. 2021 275,005 275,005 104,502 - 170,503 141,518 28,986 125 Tooley Rd. Sidewalk 265m N of Nash Rd. Adelaide Ave. 2021 169,609 169,609 - - 169,609 140,775 28,834 126 Hancock Rd. Highway 2 275m South of Nash. Rd. 2022 363,332 363,332 - - 363,332 301,565 61,766 127 Highway 2 Sidewalk 35/115 GO Parking Lot Rudell Rd. 2022 217,349 217,349 - - 217,349 180,400 36,949 128 Highway 2 Sidewalk Newcastle Fire Hall Rudell Rd. 2022 96,850 96,850 - - 96,850 80,385 16,464 129 Regional Highway 2 Police Station (2046 Maple Grove Rd.) 170m West of Maple Grove Rd. 2022 38,289 38,289 - - 38,289 31,780 6,509 130 Regional Highway 2 170m West of Maple Grove Rd. Boswell Dr. 2022 357,827 357,827 - - 357,827 296,996 60,831 131 Frank St. Future Queen St. Prince St. 2023 28,154 28,154 - - 28,154 23,368 4,786 132 Lambs Rd. Baseline Rd. 300m North of Baseline Rd. 2023 67,570 67,570 - - 67,570 56,083 11,487 133 Rudell Rd. Sidewalk Sunset Blvd. Hart Blvd. 2023 141,503 141,503 - - 141,503 117,448 24,056 134 Courtice Rd. Sidewalk Stagemaster Cr. Bloor St. 2024 254,513 254,513 - - 254,513 211,245 43,267 135 Coutice Rd. (Regional Road 34) Bloor St. CPR/Future GO Station 2024 1,971,916 1,971,916 - - 1,971,916 1,636,690 335,226 136 Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East Side Stevens Rd. Nash Rd. 2024 1,453,327 1,453,327 - - 1,453,327 1,206,262 247,066 137 Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP) Stevens Rd. Nash Rd. 2024 772,354 772,354 - - 772,354 641,054 131,300 138 Trulls Rd. Sidewalk Sandringham Dr. Strathallan Dr. 2024 70,948 70,948 - - 70,948 58,887 12,061 139 West Scugog Lane Sidewalk Mill Ln (south leg) Bons Ave. 2024 126,130 126,130 - - 126,130 104,688 21,442 140 West Townline Rd. Sidewalk Dudley Court South Regional Urban Limit 2024 264,241 264,241 - - 264,241 219,320 44,921 141 Bloor St. (North Side Sidewalk) Courtice Rd. Hancock Rd. 2025 193,700 193,700 - - 193,700 160,771 32,929 142 Bloor St. Sidewalk 210m E of Townline Rd. 415m Easterly 2025 46,173 46,173 - - 46,173 38,323 7,849 143 Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 Sidewalk 65m E of Prestonvale Rd. Courtice Rd. 2025 585,117 585,117 - - 585,117 485,647 99,470 144 Bloor St. (South Side Sidewalk) Trulls Rd. Courtice Rd. 2025 897,319 897,319 - - 897,319 744,775 152,544 145 Bloor St. (South Side Sidewalk) Robinson Creek Trulls Rd. 2025 180,186 180,186 - - 180,186 149,554 30,632 146 Bloor St. (South Side MUP) Prestonvale Rd. Robinson Creek 2025 320,116 320,116 - - 320,116 265,696 54,420 147 Bloor St/Reg. Rd. 22 MUP Townline Rd. Prestonvale Rd. 2025 620,224 620,224 - - 620,224 514,786 105,438 148 Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 MUP Trulls Rd. Courtice Rd. 2025 1,024,372 1,024,372 - - 1,024,372 850,229 174,143 149 Nash Rd. Green Rd. Future Clarington Blvd. 2025 284,759 284,759 - - 284,759 236,350 48,409 150 Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East Side Hartwell Ave. CPR 2025 123,878 123,878 - - 123,878 102,819 21,059 151 Scugog St. Sidewalk King St. Rehder Ave. 2025 141,896 141,896 - - 141,896 117,774 24,122 152 Highway 2 Sidewalk Soper Creek Bennett Rd. 2026 333,794 333,794 - - 333,794 277,049 56,745 153 Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk East Side 375m N of CPR Conc. Rd. 3 2027 229,737 229,737 - - 229,737 190,682 39,055 154 Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk West Side 375m N of CPR Conc. Rd. 3 2027 229,737 229,737 - - 229,737 190,682 39,055 155 Nash Rd. (Cycling Lanes) Solina Rd. Maple Grove Rd. 2028 2,372,992 2,372,992 - - 2,372,992 1,969,583 403,409 156 Highway 2 Sidewalk on South Side East End of Plaza Hancock Road (Realigned) 2029 120,049 120,049 - - 120,049 99,641 20,408 157 Baseline Rd. Green Rd. Spicer Sq. 2030 608,522 608,522 - - 608,522 505,073 103,449 158 Baseline Rd. Regional Rd. 57 Spry Ave. 2030 246,334 246,334 94,823 - 151,511 125,754 25,757 159 Baseline Rd. Spicer Sq. Regional Rd. 57 2030 122,875 122,875 47,299 - 75,576 62,728 12,848 160 Baseline Rd. (South Side Cycling Facility) Spry Ave. Liberty St. 2030 1,042,971 1,042,971 - - 1,042,971 865,666 177,305 161 Courtice Rd. MUP Highway 2 South End of Plaza 2030 73,140 73,140 - - 73,140 60,706 12,434 162 Courtice Rd. MUP South End of Plaza South Urban Boundary 2030 204,874 204,874 - - 204,874 170,046 34,829 163 Courtice Road (East Side Sidewalk) Sandringham Dr. Bloor St. 2030 1,792,651 1,792,651 - - 1,792,651 1,487,900 304,751 164 Highway 2 (North Side Cycling Facility) Courtice Rd. Future Transit Hub 2030 160,605 160,605 - - 160,605 133,302 27,303 165 Liberty St. Sidewalk Conc. Rd. 3 North Urban Boundary 2030 527,044 527,044 - - 527,044 437,446 89,597 166 Baseline Rd. Liberty St. Haines St. 2031 1,475,545 1,475,545 - - 1,475,545 1,224,702 250,843 167 Baseline Rd. Haines St. Lambs Rd. 2031 242,823 242,823 - - 242,823 201,544 41,280 Street Lighting Works Street Lighting Works 168 Reg. Rd. 57 Streetlighting CPR Baseline Rd. 2021 413,028 413,028 - - 413,028 342,813 70,215 169 Highway 2 Boswell Dr. Courtice Rd. 2022 446,283 446,283 - - 446,283 370,415 75,868 170 Hancock Rd. Highway 2 275m South of Nash. Rd. 2022 35,833 35,833 - - 35,833 29,741 6,092 171 Highway 2 Streetlighting East of Firehall 35/115 GO Parking Lot 2022 125,123 125,123 - - 125,123 103,852 21,271
P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx Page 164 2 of 4 Schaeffers Consulting Engineers DRAFT Revised: Dec 5, 2020 Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58
Roadworks Type DC Project Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031) Timing (year) Gross Capital Grants, Subsidies and Net Capital Cost Benefit to Post Period Potential D.C. Residential Share Non- Residential No. Cost Estimate Other Contributions Existing Benefit Recoverable Cost 83% Share (2020$) Attributable to New Development 17% Development
Road From To 172 Highway 2 Streetlighting Soper Creek Bennett Rd. 2023 360,063 360,063 - - 360,063 298,853 61,211 173 Reg. Rd. 57 Streetlighting Highway 2 Nash Rd. 2024 379,500 379,500 - - 379,500 314,985 64,515 174 Courtice Rd. Streetlighting Stagemaster Cr. Bloor St. 2024 274,542 274,542 - - 274,542 227,870 46,672 175 Coutice Rd. (Regional Road 34) Bloor St. Highway 401 Interchange 2024 506,567 506,567 - - 506,567 420,450 86,116 176 Regional Rd. 17 Streetlighting Remi Ct. 375m N of CPR 2024 142,130 142,130 - - 142,130 117,968 24,162 177 Courtice Road Streetlighting Sandringham Dr. Stagemaster Cr. 2024 29,318 29,318 - - 29,318 24,334 4,984 178 Bloor St. (Streetlighting) Courtice Rd. Hancock Rd. 2025 208,944 208,944 - - 208,944 173,423 35,520 179 Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 Streetlighting Prestonvale Rd. Courtice Rd. 2025 437,324 437,324 - - 437,324 362,979 74,345 180 Regional Rd. 17 Streetlighting 375m N of CPR Conc. Rd. 3 2027 247,817 247,817 - - 247,817 205,688 42,129 Streetscape Works Streetscape Works 181 Newcastle Streetscape Phase 1 North St. Mill St. 2021 781,043 781,043 575,205 - 205,838 170,846 34,992 182 Frank St. (Streetscape) King St. Future Queen St. 2023 423,297 423,297 311,740 - 111,557 92,592 18,965 183 Newcastle Streetscape Phase 2 Mill St. Beaver St. 2023 260,553 260,553 191,886 - 68,667 56,994 11,673 184 St. George St. Tree Planting (Streetscape) King St. Queen St. 2023 12,678 12,678 9,337 - 3,341 2,773 568 185 Newcastle Streetscape Phase 3 Beaver St. Arthur St. 2025 567,617 567,617 418,026 - 149,591 124,161 25,431 186 King St. Corridor Improv. (Streetscape) Liberty St. Simpson Ave. 2028 1,341,525 1,341,525 987,975 - 353,549 293,446 60,103 187 King Street Corridor Improv. (Streetscape) Simpson Ave. Mearns Ave. 2028 1,289,426 1,289,426 949,607 - 339,819 282,050 57,769 188 Highway 2 Streetscape Townline Rd. Darlington Blvd. 2029 368,323 368,323 271,254 - 97,069 80,567 16,502 189 Highway 2 Streetscape Darlington Blvd. Centrefield Dr. 2029 417,105 417,105 307,180 - 109,925 91,238 18,687 190 Highway 2 Streetscape Centrefield Dr. Prestonvale Rd. 2030 848,176 848,176 624,646 - 223,531 185,531 38,000 191 Highway 2 Streetscape Prestonvale Rd. Trulls Rd. 2030 989,158 989,158 728,472 - 260,685 216,369 44,317 192 Highway 2 Streetscape Trulls Rd. Maplefield Drive 2031 1,066,425 1,066,425 785,376 - 281,049 233,270 47,778 193 Highway 2 Streetscape Richard Gay Ave. Courtice Rd. 2031 811,461 811,461 597,607 - 213,855 177,500 36,355 194 Highway 2 Streetscape Courtice Rd. Hancock Rd. (Realigned) 2031 686,721 686,721 505,741 - 180,980 150,214 30,767 Engineered Services Studies & Non Site- Engineered Services Studies & Non Site-Specific Improvements Specific Improvements 195 Bowmanville Waterfront Redevelopment Transportation Network 2020 60,000 60,000 - - 60,000 49,800 10,200 Needs and Feasibility Study 196 Active Transportation and Trails MP 2020 60,000 60,000 - - 60,000 49,800 10,200 197 Development Traffic Monitoring Studies for D.C. Project 2020-2031 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400 Implementation 198 Erosion Protection Works 2020-2031 2,675,046 2,675,046 882,765 - 1,792,281 1,487,593 304,688 199 ES Report to Establish an East/West Transportation Corridor North of 2023 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400 Highway No.2 200 ES Report to Establish an East/West Transportation Corridor South of 2023 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400 Highway No.2 Recovery of Debenture Recovery of Debenture 201 NPV Principal Payments - Green Rd Debenture 2020-2029 3,988,753 3,988,753 - - 3,988,753 3,310,665 678,088 202 NPV Interest Payments - Green Rd Debenture 2020-2029 779,211 779,211 - - 779,211 646,745 132,466 Operations Operations 203 Provision for additional fleet - Roads (24) 2020-2031 2,786,561 2,786,561 - - 2,786,561 2,312,845 473,715 204 Provision for additional facility space - Roads (NPV of Future Debt 2020-2031 6,091,842 6,091,842 - - 6,091,842 5,056,229 1,035,613 Payments) Other Studies Other Studies 205 Hospital Transportation Review 2020-2031 40,000 40,000 10,000 - 30,000 24,900 5,100 206 Transportation Master Plan Update 2021 75,000 75,000 18,750 - 56,250 46,688 9,563 207 Operations Needs Assessment Study Update 2024 50,000 50,000 12,500 - 37,500 31,125 6,375 208 Transportation Master Plan Update 2026 150,000 150,000 37,500 - 112,500 93,375 19,125 209 Transportation Master Plan Update 2031 75,000 75,000 18,750 - 56,250 46,688 9,563
Reserve Fund Adjustment (20,917,074) (17,361,171) (3,555,903)
Total 223,962,001 558,053 223,962,001 31,938,781 - 170,548,102 141,554,932 28,993,176 223,403,948 170,548,093 141,554,917 28,993,176
P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx Page 165 3 of 4 Schaeffers Consulting Engineers DRAFT Revised: Dec 5, 2020 Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58
Roadworks Type DC Project Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031) Timing (year) Gross Capital Grants, Subsidies and Net Capital Cost Benefit to Post Period Potential D.C. Residential Share Non- Residential No. Cost Estimate Other Contributions Existing Benefit Recoverable Cost 83% Share (2020$) Attributable to New Development 17% Development
Road From To
DRAFT Proposed projects to be added to DC Roads project list Table 2
Road Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW) Highway 2 Concession St E Road Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW) Concession St E East-West Collector 'M' Road Works Add BEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW) Lambs Rd North-South Collector 'N' Road Works Add BEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW) North-South Collector 'N' Bennett Rd. Road Works Add Bennett Rd. Concession St E East-West Collector 'M' Bridge Structure Works Add Bennett Rd. Grade Seperation at CNR Crossing Culvert Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Soper Creek Tributary 286,059 286,059 286,059 237,429 48,630 Intersection Works Add Lambs Rd at East-West Collector 'M' Intersection 316,231 316,231 193,316 160,452 32,864 Intersection Works Add Lambs Rd at Highway 2 Intersection 2022 316,231 316,231 TBC 193,316 160,452 32,864 Intersection Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Highway 2 I'N'tersectio'N' 316,231 316,231 193,316 160,452 32,864 Intersection Works Add Bennett Rd at Highway 2 Intersection 2031 316,231 316,231 193,316 160,452 32,864 Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd 300m North of Baseline Rd. Highway 2 2023 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd. Highway 2 Concession St. E 2022 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd. Concession St. E CPR Tracks 2027 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd. CPR Tracks Conc. Rd. 3 2021 TBC
Road Works Add Concession Rd. 3 90m W. of Jollow Dr. Mearns Ave. 2023 TBC Road Works Add BEDG West-South Collector 'A' (26m ROW) 300m North Conc. Rd. 3 Liberty St N Road Works Add Liberty St N Conc. Rd. 3 West-South Collector 'A' 2030 Road Works Add Liberty St N West-South Collector 'A' North Urban Boundary Culvert Works Add Liberty St N north of Concession Rd 3 2030 286,059 286,059 286,059 237,429 48,630 Culvert Works Add Mearns Ave north of Concession Rd 3 2030 286,059 286,059 286,059 237,429 48,630 Intersection Works Add Liberty St N at West-South Collector 'A' Intersection 2030 316,231 316,231 193,316 160,452 32,864 Intersection Works Add Concession St 3 at Mearns Ave intersection 2030 316,231 316,231 TBC 193,316 160,452 32,864 Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Concession St 3 Sidewalk Liberty St N Mearns Ave 2030 TBC Street Lighting Works Add Concession St 3 Street Lighting Liberty St N Mearns Ave TBC
25
Colour Legend Project located in vicinity of eastern Soper Hills secondary plan area Project located in vicinity of northern Soper Springs secondary plan area
Notes Refer to Development Concept plans by Weston Consulting dated Jan 24, 2018. Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020. It is unknown if current municipal roadworks project estimates already include for all cost components per DC Study sub-headings: intersections, culvert works, sidewalks, cycling facilities. ROW land will need to be acquired/ expropriated from Non-Participant at Concession Rd 3 at Liberty St N. for West-South Collector A. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund. Additional ROW land will need to be acquired from Participant for future CNR crossing at Bennett Rd extension. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund.
Abbreviations Bowmanville East Developers Group (BEDG) Development Charge (DC)
Current DC Amounts by BEDG Secondary Plan Area Location
North 5,470,382 - 5,470,3821,836,162 0 3,634,222 3,016,403 617,817 East 38,322,975 - 38,322,9752,633,745 0 35,689,231 29,622,062 6,067,170 Total BEDG 43,793,357 - 43,793,357 4,469,907 - 39,323,453 32,638,465 6,684,987
Proposed Additional Projects by BEDG Secondary Plan Area Location
North East Total BEDG ------
P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx Page 166 4 of 4 Proposed Additional DC Road Needs 07-Dec-20 Bowmanville East Developers Group
Project Type per DC Study DC Project Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031) No.
Road From To
Road Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW) Highway 2 Concession St E Road Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW) Concession St E East-West Collector 'M' Road Works Add BEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW) Lambs Rd North-South Collector 'N' Road Works Add BEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW) North-South Collector 'N' Bennett Rd. Road Works Add Bennett Rd. Concession St E East-West Collector 'M' Bridge Structure Works Add Bennett Rd. Grade Seperation at CNR Crossing Culvert Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Soper Creek Tributary Intersection Works Add Lambs Rd at East-West Collector 'M' Intersection Intersection Works Add Lambs Rd at Highway 2 Intersection Intersection Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Highway 2 I'N'tersectio'N' Intersection Works Add Bennett Rd at Highway 2 Intersection Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd 300m North of Baseline Rd. Highway 2 Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd. Highway 2 Concession St. E Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd. Concession St. E CPR Tracks Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd. CPR Tracks Conc. Rd. 3
Road Works Add Concession Rd. 3 90m W. of Jollow Dr. Mearns Ave. Road Works Add BEDG West-South Collector 'A' (26m ROW) 300m North Conc. Rd. 3 Liberty St N Road Works Add Liberty St N Conc. Rd. 3 West-South Collector 'A' Road Works Add Liberty St N West-South Collector 'A' North Urban Boundary Culvert Works Add Liberty St N north of Concession Rd 3 Culvert Works Add Mearns Ave north of Concession Rd 3 Intersection Works Add Liberty St N at West-South Collector 'A' Intersection Intersection Works Add Concession St 3 at Mearns Ave intersection Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Concession St 3 Sidewalk Liberty St N Mearns Ave Street Lighting Works Add Concession St 3 Street Lighting Liberty St N Mearns Ave
25
Colour Legend Project located in vicinity of eastern Soper Hills secondary plan area Project located in vicinity of northern Soper Springs secondary plan area
Notes Refer to Development Concept plans by Weston Consulting . Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020. It is unknown if current municipal roadworks project estimates already include for all cost components per DC Study sub-headings: intersections, culvert works, sidewalks, cycling facilities. ROW land will need to be acquired/ expropriated from Non-Participant at Concession Rd 3 at Liberty St N. for West-South Collector A. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund. Additional ROW land will need to be acquired from Participant for future CNR crossing at Bennett Rd extension. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund.
Page 167
December 7, 2020
Our File: 4987
Bowmanville East Developers Group c/o Weston Consulting
201 Millway Ave
Suite 19 6 Ronrose Drive, Concord, Ontario L4K 4R3 Vaughan, ON Tel: (905) 738-6100 Fax: (905) 738-6875 L4K 5K8 Tor. Line: (416) 213-5590 Email: [email protected]
Attn: Ryan Guetter
Re: DC Roads Projects Review Clarington 2020 Development Charges Background Study Addendum Bowmanville East Developers Group
Dear Mr. Guetter,
We have reviewed the roads project list included in the Clarington DC Background Study Addendum dated November 3 ,2020. The DC projects were reviewed in conjunction with the anticipated development concept plans for the eastern Soper Hills Secondary Plan and the northern Soper Springs Secondary Plan.
We also participated in the meeting coordinated by Weston Consulting today with Trevor Pinn of the municipality. Mr. Pinn suggested that we provide our initial questions in writing for his more effective follow up with technical engineering staff.
Current DC Projects
Attached is a working table containing the DC road projects shown in the Addendum to the DC Background Study (see Table 1). The table was colour coded to flag those DC projects located in vicinity of either of the two above mentioned Secondary plans.
We have the following questions regarding the current DC project list at this time.
Scopes
1. Can it be clarified if the colour coded projects under the sub-heading ‘Road Works’ already include for all other cost components listed under adjacent sub-headings on the same list: intersections, culvert works, sidewalks, cycling facilities.
2. The location of DC No. 3 is not clear. Does it overlap with DC project No. 8?
3. Can it be clarified if the project descriptions assume the railway north of Concession Street East is owned by CNR ?
4. Regarding DC No. 5 future arterial grade separation at railway, does the project amount include for any additional ROW land to be acquired from the adjacent Participating Owner?
5. There appears to be a section of Concession Road 3 which is missing in the DC list: Concession Rd 3 (from 90m west of Jollow Dr to Mearns Ave.). Can this project be included in the DC list?
SCHAEFFER & ASSOCIATES LTD. Page 168
Page 169
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local
ISSUE DATE: June 11, 2019 CASE NO(S).: DC150017
The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant: Amacon Development (City Appellant: Centre) Corp. Fogerhill Equities Inc. Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 46-2015 Municipality: Regional Municipality of Peel OMB Case No.: DC150017 OMB File No.: DC150017 OMB Case Name: Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. v. Peel Regional Municipality)
Heard: May 8 – 12 and October 3 – 6, 2017 in Brampton, Ontario and Written Submissions to December 18, 2017
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
Regional Municipality of Peel P. DeMelo
Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. S. Rosenthal I. Banach
Page 170 2 DC150017
DECISION DELIVERED BY SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
[1] The Regional Municipality of Peel (“Region”) adopted Development Charges By- law No. 46-2015 (“By-law”). The By-law was appealed to this Board by various interests. The Region engaged in extensive consultation and discussions with these various interests. By the time of the hearing of the merits, the only appeal that remained outstanding was that of Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. (“Amacon”). This decision deals with the Amacon appeal.
LEGISLATION
[2] The Development Charges Act (“Act”) is specific and precise. The Tribunal’s role in deciding this appeal does not include analysis of the policy preference that may underlay a municipality’s decision on the form and application of its By-law. For example, there may be a policy preference to encourage a particular sector and a wish to do so through discounted development charges. The policy preference remains that of the municipality. The Tribunal’s role is simply to determine if the expression of that policy preference in the By-law and its application has met the requirements of the Act.
[3] Section 2(1) of the Act sets out the principle to guide the development of the By- law. This principle is often summarized as “growth pays for growth”:
The council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development of the area to which the by-law applies.
[4] If a cost is unrelated to an increased need that arises because of growth then it cannot be included in the By-law. If there is benefit to existing development, that benefit must be identified and deducted in the calculation of the By-law’s charge. This is set out in section 5(1)6:
Page 171 3 DC150017
The increase in the need for service must be reduced by the extent to which an increase in service to meet increased need would benefit existing development…
[5] Similarly, s. 5(1)4 requires that if there is a benefit that extends beyond the period permitted by the Act then that, too, must be identified and deducted in the calculation of the By-law’s charge.
[6] Where a municipality has identified different types of development it may only impose a development charge on that type of development for the increased need that is generated by growth in that particular type of development. The Region recognizes two basic types of development: residential and non-residential. Having recognized different types of development, the Region is then constrained to ensure that the development charge applied to either category results solely from the increased need generated by growth in that category. Phrased another way: one category cannot subsidize the other category.
[7] A development charge by-law is forward looking in that it is based on projected growth. Identifying that projected growth requires a background study that must meet certain requirements that are set out in the Act. Central to the requirements of the background study is that it must analyze and set out clearly the basis for the proposed charges to ensure that they are for the increased service needs that are required by the anticipated growth within a specified category within the period. The study must be transparent in its analysis and its chosen methodology must support development charges that conform to the requirements of the Act.
ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[8] There is no dispute between the parties about the works to be undertaken or the costs of the works.
[9] The elements of this dispute may be grouped into two main issues:
Page 172 4 DC150017
1. Have the increased costs required by the increased need from growth been properly allocated between the residential and non-residential categories?
2. Have the proposed charges been based on an analysis that:
i. included only the increased costs required because of increased needs of growth within the period; and
ii. excluded benefits to existing development and benefits to the post-period?
Witnesses Heard
[10] The Tribunal heard from six witnesses whom the Tribunal qualified to provide independent expert opinion evidence in their respective fields. The Region called a land economist, a transportation planner and a professional engineer expert in water and wastewater matters. Amacon called a professional engineer expert in water and wastewater matters, a traffic engineer who is also a transportation planner, and a land economist who is also a land use planner.
Allocation between Categories
[11] Amacon contends that the allocation of costs between categories for some works and services, and some administrative practices, result in the residential category subsidizing the non-residential category contrary to the Act. Included in this topic are a service, known as Transhelp, to assist the physically disabled to reach various locations in the Region, paramedics, police, water and wastewater and administrative treatment of the reserve fund.
Transhelp:
[12] Transhelp is a service to assist the physically disabled to get to various locations in the Region. The Region acknowledges that Transhelp is a shared ride service and
Page 173 5 DC150017
describes the service as being the same as public transit with the same fares.
[13] Transhelp rides are not based on the purpose of the trip. Although Transhelp operates within the Region, it does not distinguish eligible riders by whether they are residents or non-residents or whether the purpose of the trip is recreational, commercial or personal. The service is available to the full population, including non-resident employees, yet Transhelp is attributed entirely to the residential category.
[14] The background study, required by the Act before a By-law may be adopted, contains no rationale or calculation that supports attributing Transhelp entirely to the residential category. Transhelp clearly benefits the non-residential employment sector and warrants a non-residential attribution.
[15] The Tribunal finds that attributing Transhelp entirely to the residential category constitutes a subsidy from residential to non-residential that is contrary to the Act. In the absence of appropriate analysis to justify allocation entirely to the residential sector, the Tribunal is persuaded that a reasonable basis for allocation is the ratio of the projected population to projected employment growth.
Paramedics:
[16] Paramedics respond to emergencies. Paramedics do not withhold service based on residential or employment status nor do they withhold emergency services until those in need identify themselves as either residents or employees. Like Transhelp, the Region attributes all the increased need for these services to the growth in the residential category.
[17] The Region’s justification for attributing all the increased need for these services to growth in the residential category is that this is a policy that has been in place for many years. If the Region’s policy preference is not to attribute any increases to the non-residential category, that is the Region’s business. Any shortfall that results from that policy cannot then be made up by placing all the development charges for
Page 174 6 DC150017
paramedics on the residential category.
[18] The Tribunal finds that attributing all increases in the need for paramedic services to the residential category constitutes a subsidy from residential to non- residential that is contrary to the Act. The Tribunal further finds that the appropriate attribution should be based on the ratio of the projected population to employment growth.
Police:
[19] The Region’s police force serves Mississauga and Brampton. At the time of this hearing, Caledon was served separately by arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police.
[20] The attribution for police is based on a weighted taxable assessment of real property. In summary, this approach uses the value of residential and non-residential real property, weighted to account for different tax rates and other assessment adjustments. The resulting data is exactly as its name implies: a ratio of the weighted residential taxable assessment to the weighted non-residential taxable assessment. The result is not the ratio of the projected growth in residential population to the projected growth in employment.
[21] The differences in the value of inputs to determine the weighted taxable assessment of residential real property versus the weighted taxable assessment of non- residential real property results in an oversized figure for the residential component by comparison to that of the non-residential.
[22] The Region’s witness testified that this approach and resulting attribution was appropriate, based on his professional opinion that police services dealt overwhelmingly with residents. He acknowledged that the police deal with a broad range of matters from criminal to educational, responding to calls that may originate and/or arise from the needs of residents or business, but presented no data to support the suggestion that the
Page 175 7 DC150017
police services and calls were primarily for residents. Like paramedics and other first responders, police do not fail to answer a call or withhold service until they are satisfied that the police service in question is being provided solely to residents.
[23] The Region suggested the weighted taxable assessment approach simply provided a proxy to the attribution of services to the residential sector versus the employment sector. If it is a proxy, and the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is, then it is a particularly faulty proxy. With no identifiable equivalence to projected residential and employment growth, the weighted taxable assessment approach results in a subsidy from residential to non-residential that is contrary to the Act.
[24] The Tribunal finds that the appropriate methodology for determining the attribution between residential and non-residential is the ratio of the projected residential growth to the projected employment growth and not a weighted taxable assessment basis.
Water and Wastewater:
[25] Amacon is not challenging the total capital costs inclusive of both water and wastewater projects, excluding reserves and encumbrances. Amacon is also not challenging the assumptions used or the Region’s flow, demand and design criteria. In this service as well, Amacon is challenging the allocation of costs between the residential and the non-residential sectors.
[26] The Region uses historic billings as the basis to project need into the future. It has done so as a policy matter for many years. This is the basis for the Region’s attribution between the residential and the non-residential categories for development charges.
[27] The Region acknowledges that not all treated water is metred. Non-metred, and therefore non-revenue, treated water may be lost through various combinations of leaks, fighting fires, flushing water mains, and so on. The Region did not use historic
Page 176 8 DC150017
billings as the data basis to support the analysis of need for the capital plan in the Water and Wastewater Master Plan analysis. Here, the Region used historic flow data, not historic billings, to support the capital plan and applied an analysis of population and employment growth.
[28] The Tribunal is not persuaded that historic billings are able to identify needs arising from growth. Without that analysis, the Tribunal finds that the use of historic billings to set the attribution between residential and non-residential is contrary to the Act. The Tribunal is persuaded that historic flow data to which is applied the projected population and employment growth is an appropriate and reasonable basis to set development charges for water and wastewater.
Cash Flow and the Reserve Fund:
[29] For the analysis of this matter, the Tribunal will focus on two principal components of the reserve fund: residential and non-residential. These separate components respond to the requirements of the Act that each type of development pays only for the increase in needs generated by that type of development. The Act requires that the development charge that is calculated for each type of development must be exact in order to result in a zero balance for each type of development at the end of the period. Calculating the development charge to achieve a zero balance at the end of the period is one element to ensure that the development charges are attributed to the correct development type.
[30] Rather than keep each component separate, achieving a zero balance within each, the Region blends the closing balances for all types of development and achieves a zero closing balance overall. Doing so for administrative convenience is not the problem as long as the individual components reach a zero balance for purposes of the development charges. The problem arises in the fact that those individual components are not tracked separately. In fact, the Region’s witness suggested that blending the balances in the categories to achieve an overall zero balance reflected the fact that
Page 177 9 DC150017
capital works may have to be undertaken prior to the actual development occurring. With a higher balance in the residential component, blending the balances would act as an internal loan from the residential stream to the non-residential stream. That is what creates the problem.
[31] The Act makes no mention of one type of development lending its reserve fund monies to the reserve fund component of another type of development. In doing so, the development charges collected from, in this case residential, development effectively subsidizes the development charge of the non-residential development. That is contrary to the Act.
[32] Here, again, if the Region’s policy is to accord a beneficial rate to one type of development, it may do so but not by overcharging another type of development. Shortfalls cannot be made up in that fashion.
[33] The Tribunal finds that the manner in which the calculations are done as a consequence of the blending of the funds has resulted in overcharging the residential component for the service needs created by growth in the residential sector.
Proper Exclusions
[34] The Act requires two key exclusions to ensure that only the costs for increased need required by growth within the period are charged. Benefits to existing development (“BTE”) and post-period benefits (“PPB”) must both be deducted. The analysis of both of these benefits, and their appropriate deduction, must be made in the background study that supports the particular By-law.
[35] Amacon takes the position that the requisite analysis and consequent deductions were not made for two elements of transportation services:
1. Road construction projects, including stand-alone intersections
Page 178 10 DC150017
2. Road and rail grade separations
Road Construction Projects:
[36] For road construction projects, the primary matter in dispute is the question of whether some elements of the road construction benefit existing development or whether all elements of road construction provide some level of BTE.
[37] A number of elements go into road construction projects. Some elements clearly occur in all road construction projects and include things like background studies and design work. Other elements may only occur in certain road projects, depending on the area and the particular needs or prevailing transportation policy preferences that are being applied. These might include matters from utilities, bridges, culverts and traffic signals to bicycle or multi-use paths, sidewalks and street lighting. Whether the project is a stripped down rural road segment or a fully dressed urban segment, there is always some resulting BTE.
[38] The Region tends to take a flat percentage and attribute that to BTE. Amacon does not take much issue with the flat percentage approach. The Tribunal accepts that a flat percentage approach reflects a common standard and is reasonable.
[39] The Tribunal is not persuaded that cherry-picking the elements against which the flat percentage is to be applied is either reasonable or reflects the actual BTE. For example, if a road construction project takes a rural segment and brings it to what would be recognized as more of an urban segment, both urban and rural residents who use the road benefit from all the elements of the road improvements. It is insufficient to say, as the Region does, that perhaps not all residents adjacent to the road want all the additional improvements.
[40] The Region, by its policies, has determined that certain elements should be included in a particular road project. If it is included in the road project, then it is appropriate to allocate a portion of the overall cost to BTE. The Tribunal is persuaded
Page 179 11 DC150017
that applying a BTE to construction only, and not to the total cost, does not comply with s. 5(1)6 of the Act.
Road and Rail Grade Separations:
[41] The Region has proposed two grade separations in the vicinity of King Street and Coleraine Drive. In both cases the Region has attributed the costs of these grade separations to the residential sector.
[42] The Region contends that the need for the grade separations results from increases in both vehicular and train traffic that leads to delays at the at-grade crossings. These delays hold up goods movement as well as creating potential delays for emergency services and first responders.
[43] To understand the issue, it is first necessary to understand the suggested cause of the need for the grade separations.
[44] The Region’s transportation planner was clear that one of the elements of vehicular traffic was the growth in truck traffic, particularly goods movement that may be entering the Region from elsewhere. A second element of vehicular traffic increase was attributed to residential growth.
[45] There are no capacity improvements proposed for the roadway. This raises the very real question in the Tribunal’s mind whether growth, expressed as an increase in the number of vehicles, is identified properly as an underlying need for the proposed grade separations.
[46] Train traffic on the rail line is expected to increase, particularly for commuter services. With an increase in train traffic, there may be some increases in the number of incidents where there is a delay at a level crossing. The delay was acknowledged as being minor where the train is a fast moving commuter train. Where the train is a slower moving freight train, that condition exists now. In reference to first responders, the
Page 180 12 DC150017
Region acknowledges that there are delays occasioned now if the crossing is necessary and it occurs at the time that a slow moving freight train is using the rail line.
[47] It is clear to the Tribunal that two elements are problematic here. The first is that the grade separations are allocated entirely to growth with no allocation to BTE, when clearly and unequivocally existing development would benefit from such grade separations.
[48] The second problem is the fact that the Region has made no allocation for any post-period benefit.
[49] Section 5(1)4 of the Act is clear. The estimate of costs attributable to anticipated development:
…must not include an increase in the need for service that relates to a time after the 10-year period immediately following the preparation of the background study unless the service is set out in subsection (5).
[50] The Tribunal finds that the Region has failed to make appropriate deductions when determining the development charge payable for grade separations.
CONCLUSION
[51] Having considered all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that there are necessary reductions to the residential development charge resulting from allocations that do not comply with the Act and from the lack of appropriate deductions for benefits to existing development and for post-period benefits.
ORDER
[52] The Tribunal Orders that the appeal by Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. is allowed and that:
1. By-law No. 46-2015 is amended to delete and replace Schedules “A” and
Page 181 13 DC150017
“B” with those tables set out in the witness statement of Rowan Faludi and in the replacement tables at Exhibit 3, Tab 1, Attachment 12.
2. Residential development charges paid under the current version of By-law No. 46-2015 are to be refunded in accordance with the Act.
“Susan de Avellar Schiller”
SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER VICE-CHAIR
If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
Page 182
DRAFT Minutes Prepared by: Paul Tobia Meeting Date: December 7, 2020 Meeting Purpose: Municipality of Clarington DC By-law Meeting Location: MS Teams File: 7929-00
Attendees: • Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting • Paul Tobia, Weston Consulting • Trevor Pinn, Finance, Municipality of Clarington • Hal Beck, Schaeffers
Ryan Guetter began the conversation and introduced Hal Beck and Paul Tobia to Trevor Pinn. Trevor Pinn went on to provide an update regarding the Municipality of Clarington DC By-law. Ryan indicated that Weston is involved with the Soper Hills and Soper Springs Secondary Plans and the Subwatershed Study (SWS) for that area. He noted that these privately funded initiatives should not be included in the DC charge.
Trevor indicated that the DC By-law is usually done every 5 years but is putting forth a recommendation to do DC study again once the Secondary Plans are approved ie. within two years’ time. This was done in Whitby but was not a recommendation of Watson (the consultant who did the study). Hal Beck indicated that the study is lacking in detail on some DC roads and needs to include for the Group’s oversized internal collectors. Trevor indicated that it was a recommendation from Watson to not include collector roads until the locations are finalized. Hal noted that reasonable estimates of confirmed needs of study horizon growth should be included.
Hal indicated that if DC studies are updated in two year intervals, it may trigger requests for transition rates which can burden post period growth. Ryan asked Trevor if the funding of the Secondary Plans and SWS was captured in the DC By-law as he was concerned regarding possible double counting. Trevor indicated that he needed to review and provide an answer at a later date.
Hal proceeded to ask Trevor a series of technical questions regarding DC roads projects he prepared for the meeting, however the majority of them were engineering-based and Trevor found it more helpful if questions were provided in writing as they would be passed on to the Municipality’s engineer for review and response.
Action items of note were for Hal to prepare a list of questions and for Weston to submit them to Trevor for his review and response from technical staff. Page 183 Attachment 8(a) to FND-004-21
January 7, 2021
Weston Consulting 201 Millway Avenue, Suite 19 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5K8
Attention: Ryan Guetter, Senior Vice President
Dear Ryan:
Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge Background Study, received on December 22, 2020.
Your questions regarding the secondary plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs.
In response to your questions pertaining to the municipal-wide by-law, please find attached a memorandum from Watson & Associates Economists, as well as a letter from CIMA regarding the benefit to existing deductions for Services Related to a Highway.
We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law
Yours truly,
Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | [email protected] | www.clarington.net Page 184 Memorandum
Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality To of Clarington
From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Date January 5, 2021
Municipal Development Charges By-law Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) and Bowmanville North (Soper Re: Springs) Secondary Plan Areas Municipality of Clarington December 22, 2020 ☒ Fax ☐ Courier ☐ Mail ☐ Email
The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from Weston Consulting (Weston) on behalf of the Bowmanville East Developers Group dated December 22, 2020 regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background Study.
The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded through with stakeholders and Council are follows:
• February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session, including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix substantiating the preliminary calculations • April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council • October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s website • November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study • November 30, 2020 – Public Meeting of Council
The December 22, 2020 Weston letter contains various questions related to Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) and Bowmanville North (Soper Springs) Secondary Plan Areas as well as two specific questions pertaining the municipal development charges by-law. The Municipality will be corresponding regarding their proposed approach to address questions pertaining to the secondary plan areas. This memorandum has been prepared to address the municipal development charge by-law questions related to the Rail Grade Separation, the Allocation of Capital Costs in Recreation, Parks, and Library Services, and funding of growth-related studies
Address Contact Information Filepath Plaza Three Office: 905-272-3600 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Fax: 905-272-3602 H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\Weston Mississauga, Ontario www.watsonecon.ca Response.docx L5N 1V9
Page 185 1. Rail Grade Separation Services Related to a Highway project #5 (Lambs Rd. Grade Separation) has been included as 100% benefit to growth over the 2020 to 2031 period. This project was also identified in the Municipality’s 2015 D.C. Background Study as 100% benefit to growth over the period to 2031. The growth forecast contained within the 2020 D.C. Background Study has been prepared on the same basis as that for the 2015 D.C. Background Study). Furthermore, the Municipality’s 2016 Transportation Master Plan identifies that a grade separation on Port Darlington Rd. and the CNR crossing is warranted based on growth in Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) to 2031. It is proposed that this need will be met through the Lambs Rd. Grade Separation south of the 401 Highway.
The Municipality’s approach for benefit to existing development for Services Related to a Highway projects has been summarized in the attached letter from CIMA+. Consistent with the approach used for culvert and bridge structure projects, no benefit to existing has been applied for the project as it is not required to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population.
2. Allocation of Capital Costs in Recreation, Parks, and Library Services
Growth related capital costs have been allocated 100% to residential development within Parks and Recreation and Library Services. While some municipalities may allocate a nominal share of growth-related costs to non-residential development (e.g. 5%) for Parks and Recreation Services and Library Services, the approach used in the Municipality’s 2020 D.C. Background Study to allocate 100% of the growth-related costs to residential development is consistent with the Municipality’s policy used in their 2015 D.C. Background Study as well as many other D.C. background studies across the Province.
3. Funding of Growth-Related Studies
The future Subwatershed Studies and Municipal Secondary Plans that have been included within the Administration Studies Service do not include the privately funded Subwatershed Studies and Municipal Secondary Plans that have already been undertaken. As such, no D.C. credits would be available for those works. To the extent that development provides up-front financing for D.C. eligible studies or other D.C. eligible works, the Municipality would enter into D.C. credit agreements in this regard.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 Weston Response Page 186
December 18, 2020
Municipality of Clarington Public Works Department [via email]
Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure
RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS
Dear Mr. Bagshaw:
The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program.
1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS
1.1 DEFERRED COSTS For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020 dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road conditions. This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc. This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads.
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 cima.ca Page 187
December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3
1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth.
1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established.
2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three components making-up the project cost: • BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and 77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth. • Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects. • Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably to growth with no BTE. For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year.
3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS
3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility (i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth.
3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE).
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca Page 188
December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3
4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population.
5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth.
6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road corridors due to growth.
Sincerely, CIMA Canada Inc.
Dan Campbell Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure [email protected]
C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx
cima.ca Page 189 Attachment 9 to FND-004-21
January 8, 2021
Bowmanville East Developers Group c/o Weston Consulting 201 Millway Avenue, Suite 19 Vaughan, ON L4K 5K8
Dear Mr. Guetter:
RE: Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study urbanMetrics inc. is pleased to present this letter that summarizes our concerns and questions with the 2020 Development Charges Background Study, Municipality of Clarington, October 15, 2020 (the “DCBS”) prepared by Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. (“Watson”). 1. Allocation of Capital Costs for Grade Separations to BTE and PPB Project Number 5 in the Services Related to a Highway capital program is a rail grade separation on Lambs Road with a cost of approximately $15 million, to be constructed in 2030. The entirety of the capital costs for this grade separation are allocated to in-period growth between 2020 and 2031, despite this grade separation being constructed at the end of the period. The DCBS does not allocate any of the costs to Benefit to Existing (“BTE”) to reflect the benefit of the grade separation to existing residents/employees or to Post Period Benefit (“PPB”) to reflect the benefit to new residents/employees post-2031. The lack of an allocation of capital costs to BTE and PPB for the grade separation at Lambs Road is inconsistent with the recent Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) decision in Case No. DC150017 in Peel Region.
www.urbanMetrics.ca | 67 Yonge Street, Suite 804, Toronto, ON, M5E 1J8 | 416-351-8585 (1-800-505-8755) | [email protected] Page 190 Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 2
2. Allocation of Capital Costs for Recreation, Parks and Library The DCBS allocates 100% of capital costs for Parks and Recreation Services and Library Services to the Residential Sector. The DCBS states that this is done to be “consistent with the Municipality’s current D.C. policy”. Although the allocation of 100% of costs to the residential sector is consistent with the DC policy in Clarington, it is not necessarily consistent with who uses these services (i.e. residents or people employed in Clarington). There are many municipalities that allocate 5% of capital costs for recreation and library services to the non-residential sector to reflect the use of these facilities by non-residents. 3. Recreation Capital Program Exceeds Maximum Funding Envelope The capital program for Parks and Recreation Services has a total Development Charge (DC) recoverable capital cost of $77,619,427. Based on our review of the Historical Level of Service Calculations in Appendix B of the DCBS, the 10-year maximum funding envelope for Parks and Recreation Services should only be $74,611,353, as shown below. Therefore, the capital program for Parks and Recreation Services should be reduced by approximately $3.0 million to ensure it does not exceed the 10-year eligible amount identified in the DCBS. Exceeding the 10-year eligible amount violates Section 5(1)4 of the Development Charges Act (the “Act).
10-Year Eligible Amount Parkland Development $4,811,478 Parkland Trails $1,119,102 Recreation Vehicles and Equipment $741,549 Parkland Amenities $9,193,575 Operations Facilities $983,810 Indoor Recreation Facilities $57,761,839 Total $74,611,353 SOURCE: urbanMetrics inc. based on Appendix B of the DCBS.
4. Uncommitted Excess Capacity in Parks and Recreation Services It appears appropriate reductions have not been made to account for uncommitted excess capacity in the existing inventory that is available to accommodate population and employment growth. As shown below, by not making appropriate reductions for uncommitted excess capacity in the existing inventory of Parks and Recreation Services, it results in the 2030 level of service ($2,551 per capita) exceeding the previous 10-year average ($2,477 per capita). This increase in the level of service violates Section 5(1)4 of the Development Charges Act.
Page 191 Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 3
Parks and Recreation A 2019 Population 99,025 B 2030 Population 129,157
C Replacement Value of 2019 Inventory $251,851,176
D 10-Year Average Level of Service (Per Capita) $2,477 Based on Appendix B of DCBS E Proposed DC Eligible Capital Infrastructure $77,619,428 F Total Value of 2030 Inventory $329,470,604 =D + F G 2030 Level of Service $2,551 = F / B SOURCE: urbanMetrics inc. based on DCBS. 5. Benefit to Existing (BTE) on Roads Projects The capital program for Services Related to a Highway includes 115 projects that do not allocate any capital costs to BTE. These projects have DC recoverable costs of approximately $96.3 million. Many of the categories that do not allocate capital costs to BTE include:
• Bridge and structure works
• Culvert works
• Sidewalk and cycling facilities works
• Street lighting works In the decision for LPAT Case No. DC150017, Ms. de Avellar Schiller state that “whether the project is a stripped down rural road segment or a fully dressed urban segment, there is always some resulting BTE”. The LPAT decision identifies that there should always be a BTE component associated with a roads project. Appropriate BTE allocations should be made for all projects included in the Services Related to a Highway capital program. 6. Inclusion of Capital Projects Benefiting the Soper Springs and Soper Hills Secondary Plans Within the DCBS An analysis completed by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers on behalf of the Bowmanville East Developers Group has identified projects that will benefit new residents and jobs located within these Secondary Plan Area that are not included in the DCBS. It is our understanding that the population and employment forecasts to 2030 and 2031, which are included in the DCBS, include new residents and jobs that will be in these two secondary plan areas. Therefore, DC eligible capital projects within these two Secondary Plan Areas should be included in the DCBS. There are examples of other municipalities that have included
Page 192 Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 4
“placeholder” amounts in the DC capital program for capital works related to a secondary plan area, despite the specific projects not being known at the time the background study was completed. For example, the Town of Caledon 2014 Development Charges Background Study, included a capital cost “placeholder” for the Bolton Residential Expansion, although the location for this expansion was not known at the time the Town of Caledon 2014 Development Charges Background Study was being prepared. Therefore, the capital projects identified by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers should be included in the DCBS. 7. Questions Through our review of the DCBS, we have identified questions that require further clarification from the Municipality of Clarington. a. Part 3 – Exemptions of By-Law 2015-035 includes a number of non-statutory exemptions. Can you please provide evidence that an off-setting deposit has been made to the DC reserve funds for these non-statutory exemptions? b. The DCBS identifies five Secondary Plan studies in the Administration Studies capital program. Can you please confirm if these Secondary Plan studies include the Soper Springs and Soper Hills Secondary Plans? c. In Library Services, it appears land values associated with the library facilities have increased significantly since the 2015 Development Charges Background Study. Can you please provide the background information to support the increase in land prices between 2015 and 2020? d. Please provide details related to the South Bowmanville Library Expansion project included in the Library Capital Budget. e. It is our understanding that the South Bowmanville Recreation Facility will include space for two ice surfaces, indoor walking track, gymnasium, multi-purpose community space, library, office space, aquatic facility, pool and fitness facility. Can you please provide a breakdown of the space allocated to each of these uses within the proposed facility? f. What interest rate and term have been assumed on future debt payments for the South Bowmanville Recreation Facility? g. Can you please confirm if the capital costs for the South Bowmanville Recreation Centre excludes the costs associated with library space proposed in the facility?
Page 193 Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 5
h. Staff Report Number FND-031-20 states that 70% of the South Bowmanville Recreation Facility will be funded through development charges. Therefore, the remaining 30% will be funded through the tax base. However, in reviewing the Capital Budget in the DCBS, it appears that the allocation to benefit to existing (BTE) is only 17%. Can you please provide an explanation for the difference between the staff report and DC capital program? If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, urbanMetrics inc.
Craig Ferguson Associate Partner [email protected]
Page 194 Unfinished Business Item 15.1
Correspondence from Melodie Zarzeczny, Regarding Durham Hospice Clarington Update
At the November 30, 2020 General Government Committee Meeting, Committee referred Resolution #GG-429-20 to the January 18, 2021 Council meeting:
That the security deposit and development charges for Durham Hospice be waived.
Page 195 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2021-006
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA 2018-0029 to permit the development of a commercial property for a variety of uses;
Now Therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 20.4. “Special Exceptions – Special Purposed Commercial (C5) Zone” is hereby amended by introducing a new Sub-section 20.4.17 as follows: “ 20.4.17. Special Purpose Commercial Exception (C5-17) Zone”
Notwithstanding Sections 19.1 b, 19.3.d., e. and f. and 3.12 c. those lands zoned C5-17 on the Schedules to this By-law shall be used subject to the following zone regulations:
a. Definitions i) Department Store: Shall mean a retail/commercial establishment organized into a number of individual departments and primarily engaged in the sale to the public a wide variety of commodities, including clothing, hardware, home furnishings and household appliances.
b. Non-Residential Uses i) Business, Professional or Administrative Offices; ii) Building supply outlet; iii) Beer, liquor or wine outlet; iv) Eating establishment; v) Eating establishment, take-out; vi) Garden or nursery sales and supply establishment; vii) Laundry; viii) Retail/Commercial Establishment, excluding department stores, supermarkets, and sales of furniture, major appliances and office furniture; ix) Service shop, personal; x) Service shop, light; xi) Veterinarian clinic;
Page 196 xii) No drive-through facility is permitted for an eating establishment; and, xiii) No outdoor storage and display are permitted;
c. Loading Spaces (minimum) 3 spaces, one at 7.5 metres x 3 metres, all others 11 metres x 4 metres
d. Regulations for Non-Residential Uses
i) Front Yard and Exterior Yard (minimum) 3 metres (maximum) 6 metres ii) Interior Side Yard (minimum east side) 10 metres iii) Interior Side Yard (minimum west side) 5 metres
2. Schedule ‘3’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from:
Holding - Light Industrial ((H)M1) Zone” to “Special Purpose Commercial Exception ((H)C5-17) Zone”;
“Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” to “Special Purpose Commercial Exception ((H)C5-17) Zone”; and
“Holding-Light Industrial ((H)M1) Zone” to “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone”
as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’.
3. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act.
Passed in Open Council this 18th day of January, 2021
______Adrian Foster, Mayor
______June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 197 006 18th January
Page 198
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2021-007
Being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2019-0015;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Schedule ‘16’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone from "Agricultural (A) Zone" to "Holding - Residential Hamlet ((H)RH) Zone" and “Environmental Protection (EP) Zone” as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
2. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act.
By-Law passed in open session this 18th day of January, 2021
______Adrian Foster, Mayor
______June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 199
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law 2021-008
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2020-0013;
Now Therefore the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Section 13.4 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Two (R2) Zone” is amended by adding Special Exception Zone 13.4.89 as follows:
“13.4.89 Urban Residential Exception (R2-89) Zone”
Notwithstanding Sections 13.2 a., b., c. ii. iii, e., and h. those lands zoned R2-89 on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following regulations:
a. Lot Area (minimum) 350 square metres
b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
i) Interior Lot 11.3 metres ii) Exterior Lot 14.4 metres
c. Yard Requirements (minimum)
i) Exterior Side Yard 6.0 metres to private garage or carport and 4.3 metres to dwelling ii) Interior Side Yard With attached private garage of carport 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side; without an attached private garage or carport 3.0 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side iii) Setback from railway property line 30 metres
Page 200
d. Lot Coverage One and a Half-Storey and Two Storey Dwelling (maximum)
i) Dwelling 40 percent ii) Total 45 percent
e. Lot Coverage Single-Storey Dwelling (maximum)
i) Dwelling 45 percent ii) Total 50 percent
f. Garage Requirements
i) All garage doors shall be located no closer to the street line than the dwelling’s front wall or exterior side wall or covered porch projection; ii) In no case shall the garage door be closer than 6.0 metres from the front lot line or exterior side lot line; and iii) The outside width of the garage shall be a maximum of 55% of the width of the lot frontage.
2. Section 13.4 “Special Exceptions – Urban Residential Type Two (R2) Zone” is amended by adding Special Exception Zone 13.4.90 as follows:
“13.4.90 Urban Residential Exception (R2-90) Zone”
Notwithstanding Sections 13.2 a., b., c. ii. iii, e., and h those lands zoned R2-90 on the Schedules to this By-law shall be subject to the following regulations:
a. Lot Area (minimum) 350 square metres
b. Lot Frontage (minimum)
i) Interior Lot 11.3 metres ii) Exterior Lot 14.4 metres
c. Yard Requirements (minimum)
i) Exterior Side Yard 6.0 metres to private garage or carport and 4.3 metres to dwelling ii) Interior Side Yard With attached private garage of carport 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side; without an attached private garage or carport 3.0 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side
Page 201
d. Lot Coverage (maximum)
i) Dwelling 45 percent ii) Total 50 percent
e. Garage Requirements
i) All garage doors shall be located no closer to the street line than the dwelling’s front wall or exterior side wall or covered porch projection; ii) In no case shall the garage door be closer than 6.0 metres from the front lot line or exterior side lot line; and iii) The outside width of the garage shall be a maximum of 55% of the width of the lot frontage.
3. Schedule ‘5’ to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from:
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-67)" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-89) Zone"
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-44)" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-89) Zone"
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-45)" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-89) Zone"
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-44)" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-90) Zone"
"Holding – Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-45)" to "Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-90) Zone"
as illustrated on the attached Schedule ‘A’ hereto.
4. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.
5. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act.
Passed in Open Council this 18th day of January, 2021
______Adrian Foster, Mayor
______June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 202 008 18th January
Page 203
MEMO
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
To: June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk From: Cynthia Strike, Manager, Development Review Branch Date: January 11, 2021 Re: By-law to Remove (H) Holding Symbol Applicant: Akero Developments/Highcastle Homes File No.: ZBA2017-0024
On April 3, 2018, Council endorsed the recommendations contained in PSD-028-18 (Resolution PD-031-18) approving the above noted Rezoning as follows:
1. That Report PSD-028-18 be received;
2. That the proposed amendment to draft approved plan of subdivision submitted by Akero Developments Inc. to permit one additional residential lot be supported as contained in Attachment 1 of Report PSD-028-18;
3. That the proposed application for Rezoning ZBA 2017-0024 submitted by Akero Developments Inc. be approved as contained in Attachment 2 of Report PSD-028- 18;
4. That once all conditions contained in the Official Plan with respect to the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol are satisfied, the By-law authorizing the removal of the (H) Holding Symbol be approved;
5. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD- 028-18 and Council’s decision; and
6. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-028-18 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.
Council endorsed the recommendation that a by-law to remove the (H) Holding symbol be forwarded directly to Council once the conditions of the related applications and as outlined in the Clarington Official Plan have been fulfilled. Staff are satisfied that all conditions related to the consent have or will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Municipality and holding may now be removed.
Page 204 Page 2
As such, please forward the attached Zoning By-law to remove the (H) Holding Symbol to Council for approval.
Once approved, please forward the attached by-law to the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC).
Notice of Council’s decision should be provided to the following:
Domenic Tassone Highcastle Homes 7600 Highway 7, Unit 1 Woodbridge, Ontario L4H 0P8
Thank-you,
______Cynthia Strike Manager of Development Review /nl
Attachments
I:\^Department\Application Files\ZBA-Zoning\2017\ZBA2017-0024 Northglen East\(H) Removal\2021\ZBA(H) 4 - Memo to Clerks Removing Holding Symbol_11'01'21.docx
Page 205
If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2021-013
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington to permit one block with 54 townhouse dwellings on the subject lands ZBA 2017-0024
Now Therefore the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
1. Schedule “3” (Bowmanville)” to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from: “Holding – Urban Residential ((H)R3-31) Zone” to “Urban Residential (R3-31) Zone”
as illustrated on the attached Schedule “A” hereto.
2. Schedule “A” attached hereto shall form part of the By-law.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Sections 34 and 36 of the Planning Act.
Passed in Open Council this 18th day of January, 2021
______Adrian Foster, Mayor
______June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\9325823761\9325823761,,,2021-013.docx Page 206
013 18th January
C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\9325823761\9325823761,,,2021-013.docx Page 207 MEMO If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Cynthia Strike, Manager of Development Review Date: January 13, 2021 Re: By-law to Remove Part Lot Control Applicant: 1638393 Ontario Inc. File No.: ZBA2020-0023
On June 26, 2000, Council endorsed the recommendations contained in PD-061-00 (Resolution #C-365-00) approving draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-8087.
On February 26, 1990, Council endorsed the recommendations contained in PD-73-90 (Resolution #C-158-90) approving draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-89021
Both subdivisions were merged and registered as one block being 40M- 2526 registered on September 22, 2014.
Site Plan approval for 120 townhouse condominium units was issued in October 2014. All obligations from the developer have been met. The units have been occupied since 2016.
By-law 2016-027 being a by-law to exempt By-law Control was adopted by Council on February 29, 2016. The by-law expired after 2 years.
In 2016, Units 10 and 12 on Ken Bromley Lane were purchased in the same name. The owners now wish to sell the individual units, but the 2 units have merged on title.
The attached by-law exempts Part of Block 2, Plan (40M-2526) more specifically Parts 109 and 110, 40R-29082 from Part Lot Control which will enable the transfer of the individual units.
No new development is attributed to the adoption of the by-law.
Staff are recommending Council adopt the attached by-law. Thank-you, ______Cynthia Strike Manager of Development Review /nl
Attachments cc: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services
Page 208 If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington By-law Number 2021-014
being a By-law to exempt certain portions of Registered Plan 40M-2526 from Part Lot Control
1. Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to exempt from Part Lot Control for Block 2, Parts 109 to 110, 40R-29082 in Plan 40M-2526, registered at the Land Titles Division of Whitby (File # ZBA2020-0023);
Now therefore the Council of the of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:
2. That Subsection 5 of Section 50 of the Planning Act shall not apply to those lands described in Paragraph 2 within the By-law.
3. That this By-law shall come into effect upon being approved by the Municipality of Clarington and thereafter Subsection 5 of Section 50 shall cease to apply to Block 2, Plan 40M-2526 as Parts 109 to 110, 40R-29082.
4. Pursuant to Subsection 7.3 of Section 50 of the Planning Act, this By-law shall be in force for a period of two (2) years ending on January 18, 2023
Passed in Open Council this 18th day of January, 2021
______Adrian Foster, Mayor
______June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk
Page 209