THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING
SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, APRIL 24th, 2018
MUNICIPAL OFFICE COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2075 KING ROAD, KING CITY, ON Page
1. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS 1.1 Any additional items not listed on the agenda would be identified for approval.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
4. AGENDA ITEMS 3 4.1 Update from Township Administration on Sustainability Successes/Initiatives
4 4.2 Action Items from March 27th, 2018
5-7 4.3 Community Calendar for May, June & July 2018
4.4 Sustainable King Presentation for Volunteer Appreciation Night
4.5 Eco-School Certification Presentations at Country Day School - Update from Presenters (Susan Beharriell & Rick Sikorski)
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 5.1 Sustainability Advisory Committee Minutes
8-12 5.2 Minutes of the Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting of March 27th, 2018
6. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION ITEMS 13-155 6.1 Zoning By-law Amendment Application and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application for Roselena Drive and Church Street, Schomberg
Page 1 of 155 Sustainability Advisory Committee Agenda Page
6. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION ITEMS 6.2 Nominate a Watershed Hero for a 2018 Conservation Award
6.3 Core Area Parking Study - Complete Survey by May 4th
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. NEXT MEETING 8.1 Tuesday, May 29th at 7:00pm (Location TBD)
9. MOTION TO ADJOURN MEETING
Page 2 of 155 Township Sustainability Initiatives & Successes Administration on Update from Township April 2018
PILLAR(S) Initiative/Success & Theme(s)
Experience KING & Community Tourism Plan Progress Report - provides an update on the progress ECONOMIC of the Experience KING tourism and marketing campaign and the Community Tourism Plan. A web- based interactive report/presentation is available at the following link: Tourism Advancement & http://www.economicking.ca/experience-king-2017-update/ Promotion
Page 3 of 155
Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting – Action Items 27th, 2018 Action Items from March Tuesday, March 27th, 2018
Agenda Item Action Assigned To/ Status Person(s) Responsible
4.4 Closure of Ontario Tree Seed Plant Send Committee’s response to the plant closure. Sara Sent on April 3rd, 2018.
4.5 Sustainable King Grant Application – Sara to advise Horticultural Society of funding Sara Advised Nobleton King City Horticultural Society approval and to prepare approval letter on behalf of Horticultural Society the Committee. of funding request approval on March 28th. Formal letter sent April 3rd.
6.1 OP Amendment Application, Zoning By- Sara to pass along Committee’s comments relating Sara Comments law Amendment Application & Site Plan to what is proposed to Colin Pang (Planner). submitted to Colin Development Approval Application for 10 Pang on March 28th. Spring Hill Drive, King City
Page 4 of 155 Sustainability Advisory Committee Community Calendar
May, June & July 2018 Community Calendar for
MAY 2018 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 Youth Week Wildflower Electronics Recycling & King City Community Garden Planting 5:00-6:30pm @ Indoor Community Yard Opens Tasca Park Sale 8am-12 Noon @ Trisan Centre
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Council & Committee Heritage Advisory Compost & Mulch @ 6pm in Council Committee @7pm Giveaway @ Works Yard Chambers King Township 8am -12 Noon Schomberg Horticultural Society Annual Plant Sale @ Schomberg Community Hall 9am-1pm 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Ramadan Starts
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Building Department Schomberg Agricultural Schomberg Agricultural Schomberg Agricultural Information Open House Spring Fair Spring Fair Spring Fair @ Township Office from Nobleton Victoria Day 5-8pm 11am-4pm
Page 5 of 155 27 28 29 30 31 Schomberg Council & Committee Sustainability Advisory Agricultural Spring @ 6pm in Council Committee @7pm Fair Chambers King Township
Lions Club of Bike to Work Day! Balcony Gardening Workshop Nobleton Walk for 10am @ King City Arena
Dogs @10am at the Dufferin Marsh Nature Container Planting Workshop Nobleton Gazebo Connection Spring Bird Walk @6:30am 10:30am-11:30am @ King City Community Garden
JUNE 2018 May, June & July 2018 Community Calendar for
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 Garden Week: June 16th – June 24th - Pick up a free pack of Milkweed Seeds at the Nobleton Arena to take home and plant! Pollinator Week: June 18th – June 24th
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 King City Beer & Food Truck World Environment Day Festival @ Memorial Park 12 Noon-9pm
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Council & Committee Heritage Advisory Garden Week Begins @ 6pm in Council Committee @7pm King Township Chambers Schomberg Farmers Market 9am-1pm Schomberg Agricultural Arena 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Summer Solstice Pollinator Week Planting at @ Father’s Day Pollinator Week Begins Blue Heron Park in King City
Schomberg Farmers Market 9am-1pm Schomberg Agricultural Arena Page 6 of 155 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Summer Solstice Schomberg Farmers Market Event @ Shomberg Council & Committee Sustainability Advisory 9am-1pm Community Farm with @ 6pm in Council Committee @7pm Schomberg Agricultural Arena BBQ Chambers King Township Schomberg Horticultural Society Annual Garden Tour 10am-4pm
May, June & July 2018 Community Calendar for JULY 2018
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Schomberg Farmers Market 9am-1pm Schomberg Agricultural Arena 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Council & Committee @ Mayor’s Annual Golf Schomberg Farmers 6pm in Council Tournament Market 9am-1pm Chambers Nobleton Lakes Golf Club Schomberg Agricultural Arena 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Schomberg Farmers Market 9am-1pm Schomberg Agricultural Arena 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Schomberg Farmers Market 9am-1pm Schomberg Agricultural Arena 29 30 31
Page 7 of 155
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING
SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 27th, 2018 AT 7:00 P.M.
MUNICIPAL OFFICE – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 2075 KING ROAD, KING CITY
Members of the Sustainability Advisory Committee of the Township of King met on Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Members of Committee present were;
John Bartella Councillor Debbie Schaefer Joel Carcone Councillor Avia Eek Councillor David Boyd Mayor Steve Pellegrini
Brent King chaired the Sustainability Advisory Committee meeting.
Members of staff present were;
Sara Olivieri, Sustainability Coordinator Jason Ballantyne, Communications Officer Susan Plamondon, CAO
Regrets,
Nancy Belo Gomes Susan Beharriell Rick Sikorski Tashko Sarakinov Derek Nardone
1. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS
None.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Councillor Debbie Schaefer to approve the Agenda.
3. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
None.
4. AGENDA ITEMS
4.1 Update from Township Administration on Sustainability Successes/Initiatives
Committee reviewed the list of Sustainability Successes for February 2018. Links were provided where more information can be accessed and which theme in the Sustainability Plan the success/initiative links to.
Minutes of the Sustainability Page 8 of 155 Advisory Committee Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 27th, 2018
4.2 Action Items from February 27th, 2018.
Committee reviewed the Action Items from February 2018.
4.3 Community Calendar for April, May & June 2018
The Committee received the calendars for April, May & June 2018 listing upcoming events in the community. The intent of the calendar is for Committee members to be aware of what is happening in the community and attending events as members of the Sustainability Advisory Committee. Committee members are asked to advise Sara Olivieri if they are planning on attending or have already attended any of the events listed.
The following items are to be added to the Calendar:
Nobleton Victoria Day The Schomberg Fair Future King Chamber Events Lions Dog Walk Meet the Mayor & Local Councillors
4.4 Closure of Ontario Tree Seed Plant – Review draft letter on behalf of the SAC
Sara Olivieri shared with the Committee some of the details from the response letter the LSRCA received from the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. Committee agreed to send the letter Sara prepared on to the Ministry explaining the Committees position on the closure of the Ontario Tree Seed Plant.
Action: Sara to send the Committee’s response to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.
4.5 Sustainable King Grant Application – Nobleton & King Horticultural Society
Committee reviewed the grant application from the Nobleton & King Horticultural Society. Committee agreed that the project in a great location and an excellent initiative to carry out in celebration of the Garden Club’s 60th anniversary. A motion was made that the $700 funding request be approved and carried with all in favour.
Action: Sara to advise the Garden Club of their successful grant request.
Minutes of the Sustainability Page 9 of 155 Advisory Committee Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 27th, 2018
4.6 Sustainability Plan Update/Refresh
Jason Ballantyne, Communications Officer, provided the Committee with a presentation of Bang the Table, an online community engagement platform that King will be using moving forward. The platform has a suite of tools that can be used to interact with the community. The tools include surveys, polls, questions, a guestbook, stories, an ideas forum, etc. Jason advised Committee that the Sustainable King refresh would be the perfect project to launch the platform to the community. Jason advised Committee that he is hoping to have it up and running in the next month. The Committee thanked Jason for his presentation.
5. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
5.1 Sustainability Advisory Committee Minutes
(a) Minutes of the Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting of March 27th, 2018
A motion was made by Councillor Debbie Schaefer that the Minutes of the Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting of Tuesday, March 27th, 2018 be adopted.
6. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION ITEMS
6.1 OP Amendment Application, Zoning By-law Amendment Application & Site Plan Development Approval Application for 10 Spring Hill Drive, King City
Committee received the information provided by Colin Pang, Township Planner and had the following comments: Given that a large portion of the property is paved, the Committee would like to see some permeable pavement incorporated The Committee would like to see a gateway feature and suggests one at the corner of King Road and Spring Hill Drive The Committee is of the understanding that many Starbucks stand-alone buildings are built to achieve LEED Certification. The Committee asks that this building be built to achieve LEED Certification, however understands if the owner does not want to pursue the actual certification and maintenance process
Action: Sara to provide the Committee’s comments to Colin.
6.2 King Loves Spring – 2018 Schedule of Events
Committee received the 2018 King Loves Spring Calendar of events.
Minutes of the Sustainability Page 10 of 155 Advisory Committee Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 27th, 2018
6.3 King’s Community Seed Saving Program
Sara advised Committee of King’s Community Seed Saving Program and that any questions about the program should be directed to Kathryn McClellan.
7. NEW BUSINESS
7.1 CHATS Walk for Wellness
Councillor Schaefer advised Committee that she will be participating in the CHATS Walk for Wellness on April 7th and invited the Committee to join in or make a donation.
7.2 York Region Agricultural Advisory Liaison Group
Councillor Eek advised Committee that the York Region Agricultural Advisory Liaison Group will be meeting Thursday, April 5th in East Gwillimbury from 1-3pm.
7.3 Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidance Document
Councillor Eek advised Committee that agricultural impact assessments are now required under certain Provincial land use plans. The Province is seeking input on the guidance document that outlines the conditions for completing an assessment. Councillor Eek advised Committee that the Planning Department will be submitting comments.
7.4 Edge Planning Background Report
Councillor Eek advised Committee of an Edge Planning Background Report from York Region’s Long Range Planning Department.
7.5 History of the Holland Marsh Drainage Scheme
Councillor Eek advised Committee that a document has been put together detailing the complete history of the Holland Marsh Drainage System. Copies are available for purchase.
8. NEXT MEETING
8.1 Tuesday, April 24th at 7:00pm in the Council Chambers (Information sharing session at 6:30pm)
9. MOTION TO ADJOURN MEETING
A motion was made by Joel Carcone that the Sustainability Advisory Committee meeting be adjourned.
Minutes of the Sustainability Page 11 of 155 Advisory Committee Sustainability Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, March 27th, 2018
The meeting adjourned at 8:50pm.
______Brent King (Acting Chair)
Minutes of the Sustainability Page 12 of 155 Advisory Committee I CIRCULATION MEMO Township of King Planning Department \ 2075 King Road, King City, L7B 1A1
TO: Sara Olivieri, Sustainability Coordinator
FROM: Paul Kulyk, Planner
DATE: April 3, 2018
RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application File No.2Z-2017-11 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application File No.: 19T-17-K02 Part of the East Half of Lot 32, Concession 9 Roselena Drive and Church Street, Schomberg Owners: Sycamore Construction Ltd. & 2395959 Ontario Ltd. File Name: Forestbrook Hills Phase II Aqent: Thorstone Consultinq Services, per Dan Stone
We are in receipt of information submitted in support of applications to amend the Township of King Zoning By-law and consider a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a development consisting of fifty one (51) residential lots for the purposes of supporting single detached dwellings. The application also proposes to extend Roselena Drive across the Schomberg Creek with connection to Church Street. The development site is located on the south side of Church Street and west of the current limit of Roselena Drive in the Village of Schomberg. The lands identified by the Draft Plan of Subdivision are currently vacant and measure 8.1 hectares (20 acres) with approximately 188 metres (620ft.) of frontage on Church Street. The retained lands are situated outside of the Schomberg Urban Boundary and are zoned Institutional and Open Space by Zoning By-law 74-53, as amended by By-law 88-86.
The subject site is designated ‘Low Density Residential’ and ‘Environmental Constraint Area’ by the Schomberg Community Plan (OPA #47) and is zoned Institutional (I) and Open Space (OS) by Zoning By-law #74-53, as amended by By-law 88-86. Township Council has adopted a new zoning by-law for the Schomberg Community Area (2017-66) which zones the subject site as Future Use (F). The new By-law was adopted by Township Council in June 2017 and was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Township currently awaits final approval of the by-law.
The purpose of the Zoning By-law Amendment application is to establish appropriate residential zones and development provisions for the proposed lots and identify environmentally sensitive areas and place them in an Environmental Protection (EP) zone. Additional blocks of land have been identified for a pumping station and for the purposes of identifying the retained lands.
The applications have been submitted with the attached information for your review and comment.
- Draft Plan - Planning Justification Report, prepared by Thorstone Consulting Services (includes Draft Zoning By-law & Sustainability Checklist);
The Corporation of the Township of King Zoning By-law Amendment Page 13 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of The following documents are available from the Planning Department upon request:
Functional Stormwater Management Report, prepared by Cole Engineering; Functional Servicing Report, prepared by Cole Engineering; Preliminary Hydrogeological Investigation Report, prepared by Cole Engineering; Environmental Impact Study Characterization (Part 1), prepared by Cole Engineering (including Tree Inventory); Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Cole Engineering; Transportation MobilityPlan, prepared by Cole Engineering Zoning By-law Amendment Application form; Draft Plan of Subdivision Application form; Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by This Land Archaeology lnc.; Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Cole Engineering; Preliminary Source Water Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan, prepared by Cole Engineering; Urban Design Vision & Principles Report, prepared by Williams & Stewart Associates Limited; Hydraulic Analysis Report (Floodplain Analysis), prepared by Cole Engineering.
Please review the attached plans/reports and provide your comments to the undersigned no later than May 11, 2017. If you are unable to provide written comments within the specified time period, please advise. Please do not hesitate to contact myself should you require any further information or have any questions. Thargkyou
PaulKulyk< Planner ll 905-833-5321 X4063 [email protected]
The Corporation of the Township of King Zoning By-law Amendment Page 14 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Application for Zoning By-Law Amendment & Draft Plan of Subdivision
Forestbrook Hills Phase II 2395959 Ontario Ltd & Sycamore Consulting Ltd 199 Church Street Community of Schomberg
Prepared by: Dan Stone, MCIP, RPP, LEED-GA Principal, Thorstone Consulting Services, Inc.
FINAL REPORT DECEMBER 2017
P.O. Box 116 | Sutton, Ontario, L0E 1R0 | 289-338-5101 Zoning By-law Amendment Page 15 of 155 [email protected] and Draft Plan of | www.thorstoneconsulting.ca PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT
Forestbrook Hills Phase II Application for Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application
Contents Section 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 Overview ...... 4 1.2 Purpose of Report ...... 4 1.3 Existing Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Use ...... 5 Section 2 BACKGROUND ...... 6 2.1 Forestbrook Hills Phase 1 ...... 6 2.2 Environmental & Sustainability Considerations ...... 6 2.3 Pre-Consultation Meeting...... 7 2.4 Community Consultation ...... 7 Section 3 PLANNING CONTEXT & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 8 3.1 Introduction ...... 8 3.2 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014 ...... 8 3.3 Provincial Growth Plan (2017) ...... 9 3.4 Greenbelt Plan ...... 9 3.5 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (2009) ...... 10 3.6 Region of York Official Plan (2010) ...... 11 3.7 Township of King Schomberg Community Plan (OPA #47) ...... 12 3.8 Townships of King Zoning By-Law ...... 18 Section 4 SUBDIVISION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ...... 19 4.1 General Design and Subdivision Layout ...... 19 4.2 Urban Design & Architecture ...... 19 4.3 Environmental Sustainability ...... 20 Section 5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 20
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 16 of 155 2 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
Appendix A – Figures Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Parcel Fabric & Surrounding Land Use Figure 3: Air Photo of the Subject Lands Figure 4: Registered Plan – Forestbrook Hills Phase 1 Figure 5: Ecological Land Classification Map - Cole Engineering Figure 6: Schedule A Land Use & Transportation Plan – OPA 47 Figure 7: Schedule C Environmentally Sensitive Areas – OPA 47 Figure 8: Schedule A-1 – Zoning By-Law 2017-66 Figure 9: Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision - Thorstone Consulting Figure 10: Conceptual Urban Design & Open Space Plan
Appendix B – Enbridge “Savings by Design” Report Sustainable Development Design Charrette Sustainable Buildings Canada, SBC
Appendix C – Pre-Consultation Meeting Notes, May 17, 2017 Appendix D – Community Consultation Outcome Report – June 2017 (Tandem Thinkers) Appendix E – Proposed Draft Zoning By-Law Appendix F – Sustainable King Development Standards Checklist
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 17 of 155 3 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 PLANNING JUSTIFICATION REPORT
FORESTBROOK HILLS PHASE II 2395959 Ontario Ltd & Sycamore Construction Ltd
Application for Zoning By-Law Amendment & Draft Plan of Subdivision Application
Section 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview
Thorstone Consulting was retained by 20395959 Ontario Ltd and Sycamore Construction Ltd in March 2016 to assist with the necessary planning approvals for the development of the subject lands and to provide professional planning advice and project management.
The subject properties are located in the Community of Schomberg along Church Street and Roselena Drive (refer to Figures 1, 2 and 3 for location surrounding land use and air photo of the subject properties). The subject properties comprise two separate parcels and ownerships which are shown and described on Figure 2 to this report. For the purposes of this report the westerly ownership will be referred to as the “Lloyd’s Mill Property” while the easterly parcel abutting the Roselena cul-de-sac will be referred to as the “Sycamore Lands”.
The proposed development involves the creation of 51 lots for detached residential purposes and a crossing of the Schomberg River with the extension of Roselena Drive to Church Street. The proposed development is the second and final phase of the Forestbrook Hills subdivision plan as contemplated by the approved Secondary Community Plan for Schomberg.
1.2 Purpose of Report
The purpose of this Planning Justification Report (Report) is to provide the land use planning support for the proposed development and the associated planning applications. The planning approvals include a Plan of Subdivision and an amendment to the Zoning By-law which have been submitted concurrently to the Township of King. The Report will:
Provide an overview and background of the activities and events leading up to the preparation of the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and submission of the planning applications
Provide a review and analysis of applicable land use planning and policy instruments that apply to the development of the subject lands with a particular focus on the following:
o Provincial Policy Statement (2014) o Provincial Growth Plan (2017) o Greenbelt Plan
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 18 of 155 4 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 o Lake Simcoe Protection Plan o Region of York Official Plan (2010) o Schomberg Community Plan (OPA 47) o Township of King Zoning By-law for Schomberg (proposed) o Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority policies
Provide an overview of the background technical, engineering and environmental work completed by Cole Engineering to address the policy requirements of the Township of King and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA).
In addition to the planning analysis and information provided in this Report, reference is made to the extensive amount of background information and technical work which has been undertaken in support of the development applications. This additional work includes:
o Functional Servicing Report (FSR) – Cole Engineering (Dec. 2017) o Functional Stormwater Management Report - Cole Engineering (Dec. 2017) o Hydraulic Analysis Report (Floodplain Analysis) - Cole Engineering (Dec. 2017) o Hydrogeological Investigation Report - Cole Engineering (Dec. 2017) o Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) - Cole Engineering (September 2017) o Source Water Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan (SWIAMP) - Cole Engineering (Dec. 2017) o Transportation Mobility Plan - Cole Engineering (Dec. 2017) o Environmental Impact Statement / Natural Heritage Report – Cole Engineering (Dec. 2017) o Geotechnical Report – Sirati & Partners Consultants Ltd o Bathymetric Survey – Sirati & Partners Consultants Ltd o Erosion Hazards Assessment – Geomorphix
Provide a professional planning opinion and recommendations for: o the application for Plan of Subdivision Approval, including draft plan conditions to be addressed prior to plan registration, and o the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment.
1.3 Existing Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Use
The Sycamore Lands are currently vacant of buildings and structures. The Lloyd’s Mill Property portion is bisected by the Schomberg River and associated stream valley. The westerly portion of the Lloyd’s Mill property is occupied by a significant residential building which has been approved for conversion to a retirement home and a significant man-made pond adjacent to the River. Surrounding land uses include a cemetery and the Lloydtown hamlet to the west, agricultural land to the south and developed areas of the Schomberg Village to the east and north (refer to Figure 2).
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 19 of 155 5 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
Section 2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Forestbrook Hills Phase 1 The proposed development is Phase 2 of the original Forestbrook Hills Subdivision approved in 1999. The first phase included the extension of Roselena Drive across the Schomberg River at the Kitchen-Breedon Manor and consisted of 90 single detached lots. The first phase of the subdivision has been fully developed and has been completed and assumed by the Township of King (Township).
Some of the key elements and features of the Phase 1 development include the significant amount of open space blocks dedicated to the Township, the hardwood forest and parkette with a trails system in the valley areas which define both side of the development.
At the time of the approval of Phase 1, the planned extension of Roselena Drive to Church Street was contemplated and shown on the original approval documents. Refer to Figure 4 containing the Draft Plan for Phase 1 dated August 1999 showing the continuation of Roselena Drive/Church Street onto Phase 2 lands.
2.2 Environmental & Sustainability Considerations The process to develop and design the proposed Phase 2 of the subdivision began in 2016 when the two landowners, 2395959 Ontario Ltd (Lloyd’s Mill Property) and Sycamore Construction Ltd (Sycamore Lands) partnered to advance and complete Phase 2 in a comprehensive manner and as a single set of planning applications.
In the summer of 2016, the landowners met with representatives from Enbridge Gas, the LSRCA and the Township to review the Enbridge “Savings by Design” (SBD) program for sustainable community design. The owners enrolled into the SBD, and three (3) separate one-day design Charrettes were facilitated through Sustainable Building Canada in the fall of 2016 as follows:
1. Residential Energy Efficiency for the Single Detached Home 2. Sustainable Community Design 3. Institutional Energy Efficiency for the Retirement Home
The Enbridge SBD program is authorized by the Ontario Energy Board and is designed to offer opportunities for developers to achieve more environmentally sustainable and energy efficient developments. The Charrettes provide an Integrated Design Process approach to the development which examines the design through a sustainability lens before the development application is finalized for submission.
For each Charrette, the owner’s consulting team worked with Township staff, LSRCA staff and subject matter experts from Sustainable Buildings Canada (SBC) to explore different ideas around technologies, engineering design, building materials, energy efficiency and land use planning for Phase 2 development. The 3rd Charrette examined technologies and engineering solutions to achieve optimal energy savings and efficiencies for the retirement home. In
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 20 of 155 6 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 addition, the Township’s “Draft” Sustainable Development Checklist was reviewed for the development.
The outcome of the SBD Charrette’s include various options for the layout, configuration and design, opportunities for Low Impact Development (LID) approaches for stormwater management, and technologies to achieve energy efficiency over the Ontario Building Code for the typical dwelling unit. The Outcome Reports prepared by SBC from the SBD Charrette’s are attached to this report as Appendix D.
A presentation was also made to the King Township Sustainability Advisory Committee in October of 2016 to introduce the project and considerations were made to include King Township’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plan in the subdivision design.
2.3 Pre-Consultation Meeting Based on several meetings with Township and LSRCA staff, field inspections of the property with the project teams’ ecologist and LSRCA through 2016, and, the outcome and input provided during the SBD Charrette’s, a conceptual draft plan of subdivision was prepared and submitted to the Township’s pre-consultation process in early 2017.
The pre-consultation meeting took place on April 28, 2017 at the Township offices and the attendees included staff from:
- the Township of King Planning, - Engineering and Public Works, - Parks, Recreation and Culture Department, - Fire and Emergency Services and - the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority.
The Pre-Consultation notes are attached to this Report in Appendix C. These notes outline the discussion and provide an extensive listing of the various studies and information required to support the proposed development and constitute “complete” planning applications.
2.4 Community Consultation Following the Township’s Pre-Consultation meeting, the owners organized and held a Community Consultation Session to present the proposed development concept to the local community before finalizing the development proposal and submitting the application to the Township. The purpose of the meeting was to introduce the development concept to residents and the community, and to provide an overview of the development application process. It also provided an opportunity to receive input from the community.
The public consultation meeting was advertised in the local newspaper, posted in local facilities and notices were delivered to each household in the existing Phase 1 development. Township staff and Council were also invited to attend the consultation meeting. The session was held on June 22, 2017 at the Schomberg Library and was attended by approximately 50 members of the public, including members of the Township and councilors.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 21 of 155 7 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
The public consultation meeting was moderated by Tandem Thinkers, an independent facilitator, who provided an overview of the activities undertaken by the consultants and project management teams. The presentation also provided an outline of the different designs and configurations for the subdivision that were considered during the community planning design Charrettes. The consultation also briefly outlined the required studies that were currently underway and provided the next steps in the development application process. The Community Consultation Outcome Report is attached to this Report as Appendix D and highlights the areas of public concern and key points of feedback.
Section 3 PLANNING CONTEXT & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
3.1 Introduction
This section focuses on the planning approvals context under which the application must be evaluated and includes a review of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014; the 2017 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; the Greenbelt Plan; the 2009 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan the Region of York Official Plan; and the Township of King’s Community Plan for Schomberg (OPA 47). We have also reviewed the proposed development against the provisions of the Township of King’s Zoning By-law for the Schomberg Urban Area which was enacted by Council in June as By-law 2017-66.
3.2 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2014
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on all applications, matters and proceedings commenced on or after April 30, 2014 under The Planning Act. The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural environment. Section 3 of The Planning Act establishes that matters of provincial interest will be set out in policy statements issued from time to time and that municipal decisions must be consistent with these policy statements.
The PPS provides for appropriate development while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning system.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 22 of 155 8 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
The proposed development is consistent with the applicable policies of the PPS as outlined below:
The proposed development represents an appropriate form of residential development within a defined and designated settlement area. The proposed development is supported by the PPS policies for Building Strong Healthy Communities (Section 1.0). Section 1.0 promotes the efficient use of municipal infrastructure and for providing a range and mix of housing types and densities.
The proposed development also meets the goals of the PPS through its environmentally sustainable and energy efficient approach. The proposed development has been designed based on the outcome of the SBD Charrettes focus on sustainable community design and energy efficient housing.
3.3 Provincial Growth Plan (2017)
The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was prepared under the Places to Grow Act, 2005. The Plan develops a framework to implement the Government of Ontario’s vision for building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe to 2031, and has been amended to 2041 with the 2017 Growth Plan. The Plan provides growth management policy direction for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH), but works in conjunction with municipal plans and key initiatives such as the PPS and the Greenbelt Plan.
The community of Schomberg is defined as a rural settlement area in the Growth Plan. The proposed development is within the boundaries of the urban settlement area defined by the approved Schomberg Community Plan (OPA 47) and is therefore considered as a “Designated Greenfield Area”. The Growth Plan generally supports and promotes a wide range of services and activities within rural settlement areas to promote complete communities and contribute to economic vitality.
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision conforms to the policies and objectives of the Provincial Growth Plan by directing growth to defined settlement areas and promoting a design which contributes to a complete community.
3.4 Greenbelt Plan The subject properties are subject to the Greenbelt Plan and are considered to be within a Settlement Area in the Protected Countryside. Settlement areas have been placed into two categories: Towns/Villages and Hamlets. These settlement areas vary significantly in both spatial and population size, economic activity, diversity/intensity of uses, the type(s) of water
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 23 of 155 9 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 and sewage services and the role they play within their municipalities. To determine the precise settlement area boundaries, reference should be made to official plans.
The area of the proposed development is recognized as Towns/Villages within the Protected Countryside as the lands are within the limits of the urban settlement area defined by the approved Schomberg Community Plan (OPA 47).
For lands within Towns/Villages in the Protected Countryside, the following policies shall apply: Towns/Villages are subject to the policies of the Growth Plan and continue to be governed by official plans and related programs or initiatives and are not subject to the policies of this Plan, save for the policies of sections 3.1.5, 3.2.3, 3.2.6, 3.3 and 3.4.2.
The specific Greenbelt Plan policies referenced above primarily address natural heritage features as well as water resources which are addressed by the various technical engineering and environmental studies and reports which have been completed with the subject applications. The proposed development conforms to the Greenbelt Plan policies.
3.5 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (2009)
The Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008 (Act) was passed by the Legislature and received Royal Assent in December 2008. The Act provides the authority for the establishment of, and amendments to a Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. The policies of the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) address the protection of features and functions of the natural heritage system in the Lake Simcoe watershed with development setback and minimum buffers.
The LSPP includes policies which identify the preferred methods for managing stormwater runoff and approaches that encourage infiltration at the source also referred to as Low Impact Development (LID). The proposed stormwater management system for the site has been prepared by Cole Engineering and has been designed based on the input received from both the Township and the LSRCA through the Pre-Consultation process, the Savings by Deign charrettes and field work. Opportunities to maximize the infiltration of storm run-off have been examined and several options been identified for LID technologies to be employed on the site and the Open Space blocks in
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 24 of 155 10 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 particular. The details of the LID options and the extent to which stormwater can be infiltrated on site will be examined more thoroughly through the detailed design process prior to plan registration.
In addition to the Functional Stormwater Management Report, Cole Engineering Group Ltd. also prepared the required Source Water Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan for the proposed development. Potential water quality threats include the application of road salt and proposed municipal sanitary servicing. The handling and storage of fuel would also be a threat during construction.
All identified potential drinking water quality threats were determined to have a low rating. Fuel handling and storage was not found to be a risk post-construction, and risk during construction should be minimized by storing fuel in accordance with the requirements of the MOECC (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change) and other applicable authorities. Salt application can also be managed through optimizing application efficiency by implementing Best Management Practices for Road Salt Management. In terms of proposed municipal servicing, risk was found to be low since sewers must be installed in accordance with Municipal standards and therefore should not cause any adverse effects.
In conclusion, the proposed plan of subdivision has been designed with consideration to the required studies referenced in the LSPP and the project will be designed to employ Low Impact Development techniques to maximize on-site infiltration and water balance to the greatest extent possible.
3.6 Region of York Official Plan (2010)
The Schomberg Community is identified as a Town or Village on Map 1 to the Regional Plan. The Regional Official Plan policies generally promotes a range of uses within Towns and Villages and the creation of complete communities. The Region Official Plan generally defers to the local secondary or community plans for specific land use policy.
The Community Building polices under Section 5 of the Region of York Official Plan encourage good urban design to promote compact and connected communities which support active transportation. Additional policies speak to the importance of design to incorporate energy efficiency and attractive streetscapes, all of which have been considered through the preparation of the Phase 2 development plans.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 25 of 155 11 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
The following policy applies specifically to the land to be developed as a new development area with the approved settlement area boundary for Schomberg.
5.6.22 That new development areas within Towns and Villages, be subject to comprehensive secondary plans based on the following: a. water and wastewater services are available; b. the plan considers the entire Town or Village and integrates the development into the existing community; c. best efforts to achieve a minimum density requirement of 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare in the developable area; d. best efforts are made to incorporate policies 5.6.4 through 5.6.16 of this Plan; and, e. best efforts to encourage development within the built-up area of the Towns and Villages that is consistent with the appropriate policies in Section 5.3 of this Plan.
The proposed plan of subdivision conforms to the applicable policies of the Region of York Official Plan. The more detailed policies of the Schomberg Community Plan are discussed in Section 3.7 below.
3.7 Township of King Schomberg Community Plan (OPA #47)
The subject property is located within the Community of Schomberg within the Township of King. The Schomberg Community Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on December 24, 1996, and by the Region of York on July 2, 1998.
The subject property is designated “Low Density Residential” and “Environmental Constraint Area” on Schedule A – Land Use and Transportation Plan (refer to Figure 6 to this Report). Schedule A also includes the identification of Roselena Drive extending through the subject property to Church Street as a “proposed Minor Collector”. The limit of the urban boundary for the Schomberg Community is generally defined by the Schomberg River.
Part 9 - Implementation Section 9.1 – Boundaries and Alignments
It is intended that the boundaries of the land use designations as delineated on Schedule “A”, and the boundaries and alignments of the various components set forth on Schedules “B”, “C”, “D” and “E” are considered as approximate. Such boundaries and alignments are considered absolute only where bounded by roads, watercourses, transmission lines or other clearly discernible geographic features. Amendments to this Plan will not be required in order to make minor adjustments to the approximate land use boundaries or the location of roads or other boundaries provided the general intent of this Plan is maintained.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 26 of 155 12 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
The proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision conforms to the approved Community Plan and implements the applicable land uses designation in the following manner:
The development consists of low density residential development The environmental constraint areas have been identified and will be conveyed to the Township as public open space The development completes the Roselena Drive connection to Church Street as indicated in the Community Plan The technical engineering and environmental support documents prepared by Cole Engineering in support of the proposed development have helped to define the limits of the various features on the site and define the location of the road alignment
The following subsections will address the specific policy areas of the Schomberg Community Plan in greater detail.
Environmental / Natural Heritage
As noted, a significant portion of the subject property is identified as Environmental Constraint Area referencing the Schomberg River and associated floodplain areas and valley system. In addition, as shown on Schedule C to the Community Plan, the development lands area adjacent to the Hardwood Forest Area and the river itself is identified as a Warm-water Fishery (refer to Figure 7 attached to this Report). The following policies are excerpted from the Community Plan and apply specifically to the environmental features on the site.
Environmental Constraint Area
3.2.3 b) The boundaries of the Environmental Constraint Areas are delineated in a conceptual manner on Schedule “A”. The extent and exact location of the boundaries of the Environmental Constraint Areas shall be delineated in the implementing zoning by-law in accordance with detailed flood line mapping in consultation with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources. In the absence of such detailed mapping, Council will seek the technical assistance of the Conservation Authority and/or the Ministry of Natural Resources and shall use the boundaries of the Environmental Constraint Areas delineated on Schedule “A”, as a general guideline in the preparation of the zoning by-law and in the assessment of development proposals.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 27 of 155 13 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
The applicable policies for the Environmentally Sensitive Areas are found under Section 5 of the Schomberg Community and provide the following:
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
5.3 b) Where, due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the area, an analysis of the impact of the development is considered necessary, no change may be made to the natural environment until such time as the proponent undertakes a detailed assessment of the area in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (a). Such a report shall be prepared to the satisfaction of Council, the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources.
5.3 g) A vegetative buffer having a minimum width of fifteen metres or which is defined as the top of bank, whichever is greater, shall be provided adjacent either stream bank of the Schomberg River, a warm water fishery resource. All remaining watercourses identified on Schedule “C” as cold-water fishery resources shall be protected with vegetative buffer having a minimum width of 30 metres or which is defined as the top of bank, whichever is the greater, adjacent either stream bank.
In order to address the applicable environmental policies that apply to the proposed development, several field studies and inspections have been carried out by the owners’ ecologist and staff for the Township and LSRCA. In addition, an arborist was engaged to address the vegetation and forest edge as it relates to the proposed development. Figure 5 to this Report is excerpted from the more detailed Environmental Impact Study and identifies the various ecological features of the subject property.
The various technical reports and studies prepared in support of the proposed development are designed to address the above-referenced policies of the Schomberg Community Pan as well as the requirements of the LSRCA and the Watershed Management Guidelines and the policies of the LSPP. In particular, the specific technical and environmental work includes: o Functional Stormwater Management Report o Hydraulic Analysis Report (Floodplain Analysis) o Hydrogeological Investigation Report o Source Water Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan (SWIAMP) o Geotechnical Report o Bathymetric Survey o Erosion Hazards Assessment
These technical reports referenced above and the Environmental Impact Study have worked collectively to define the limits of the development, the preferred location and design of the required creek crossing for Roselena Drive and modifications to the regulatory floodline. Together with a series of restoration and enhancement strategies on the areas to be dedicated to the Town as public open space, the development will provide the opportunity for an
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 28 of 155 14 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 overall net improvement to the ecological features on the site and better connectivity between important ecological areas from the river and the associated wetland areas and the forested valley to the east. Specific environment enhancements are detailed in the Environmental Impact Study and include: - The addition of open space lands to be dedicated to the Township to augment the size of the forest block - Compensatory tree-planting at strategic locations to enhance ecological function - Open-bottom structure for creek crossing to enhance the biological functions of the watercourse for habitat, and - Avoidance, protection and dedication of the identified march/wetland areas to the northeast limit of the site to enhance ecological connectivity
Based on the technical and environmental work undertaken throughout the subdivision design process, the proposed plan of subdivision satisfies the environmental policies of the Schomberg Community Plan.
Parks and Open Space
The following policies under Section 3.4.3 of the Schomberg Community Plan address the Township’s requirements for recreational and open space areas in new developments.
Section 3.4.3i: It shall generally be the policy of his Plan that one or more neighbourhood parks will be developed within each neighbourhood which provide for a range of recreational facilities, including passive outdoor areas for all age groups.
Neighbourhood parkland areas will generally vary in size from 1.6 to 3.2 hectares and, where possible, shall be centrally located within the neighbourhood depending on the population density of each area.
It shall further be the policy of this Plan, wherever possible and practical, to locate neighbourhood parkland areas adjacent elementary school playgrounds, so as to maximize the recreational opportunities and the utilization of such facilities.
Through the approval of the Phase 1 development in 1999, a significant amount of public land was dedicated to the Township together with the development of a connected trails system. For Phase I, 2.9 ha (7.2 acres) or 17% of the land area was dedicated to the Township for open space, not including walkways. The following lands have been dedicated to the Township through the Phase 1:
North river valley with walking trails South river valley with walking trails Woodlot – Hardwood Forest with connected trails system Parkette – Fox Trail Park
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 29 of 155 15 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 Active parkland has not been requested by the Township through the pre-consultation process for Phase 2. Of the 8.1 ha of land in Phase 2, 2.2 ha (5.4 acres) is proposed to be dedicated to the Township for open space under the proposed draft plan which amounts to a total of 27% of the total land area. The open space dedications include the river and associated floodplain areas, the valley corridor and additions to the woodlot areas which were dedicated under Phase 1 north of the Fox Trail parkette.
Subject to the review and approval of the Township’s Parks and Recreation Department, the proposed Draft Plan complies with the Open Space policies of the Schomberg Community Plan.
Housing and Density of Development
The Schomberg Community Plan includes policies for the housing stock in the community and within the Low Density Residential designation in particular. Section 3.5 of the Plan addresses housing types, and subsections 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 are particularly relevant to the proposed development.
3.5.3c: It is the policy of Council to provide the opportunity for a range of housing types which are suitable for different income and age levels and household structures of the future residents of the Schomberg Community. This would include a varied selection of low and medium density residential units, in terms of unit size, bedroom count, built form, tenure, and affordability to reflect the private/public sector housing needs and targets (to be identified by the Township, from time to time).
3.5.4a: The uses permitted shall be limited to single attached or detached dwellings, two-unit dwellings such as semi-detached and duplex dwellings, home occupation uses, and, public and institutional uses which are complementary and compatible with the basic residential function of the area. In addition, a limited number of conversions of older dwelling houses to create a maximum of four dwelling units shall also be permitted provided the relevant policies and provisions of this Plan are complied with.
3.5.4b: It is the policy of this Plan that the predominant form of housing within a low density residential designation shall be single detached dwellings. Single attached and two-unit dwellings shall also be permitted provided that the overall density of development does not exceed 15 units per gross hectare.
Subsection 3.5.4 is particularly relevant to the development as the lands are designated Low Density Residential. While the Official Plan advocates for a varied selection of housing stock, the existing land use designation only permits single detached and semi-detached forms of housing. Townhouse forms of development are not permitted in the Low Density Residential designation. The proposed development consists of a total of 51 single detached lots with minimum lot frontages of 12.2 m (40 ft) which is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood in Phase 1 of Forestbrook Hills.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 30 of 155 16 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
In terms of density of development, the proposed development has a calculated density of 15.5 units per net hectare and a density of 6.2 units per gross hectare using the entire site area for the subject lands. The proposed density conforms with the maximum density policies of the Schomberg Community Plan.
Transportation & Traffic
As shown on the Land Use and Transportation Plan for the Schomberg Community Plan (Figure 6), the extension of Roselena Drive to Church is identified and required to complete the Minor Collector Road function. Transportation policies are found in Section 4 of the Official Plan, and subsection 4.2 provides the policies relating to the road network and the functional classification of roads.
Subsection 4.2.3 of the Community Plan includes the policies that apply to the transportation and road network in the community. Specific policies here that apply to the proposed development include subsections b, d and o.
4.2.3b: The road alignments for existing facilities, as delineated on Schedule A2, the Land Use and Transportation Plan, generally follow existing right-of-way. Minor intersection improvements and realignments of such families shall not require an amendment to this Plan. The alignments of proposed arterial and collector roads is approximate and subject to detailed engineering design studies. Where the general intent of this Plan is maintained, no amendment shall be necessary to provide for the construction of the proposed roads.
In considering an application to develop lands by means of a registered plan of subdivision, Council shall have regard for the need to provide for a well defined and integrated road system. Wherever practical and feasible, Council shall encourage that the proposed system of internal subdivision roads be integrated with the existing road network to provide for two principal access points, preferably by means of a collector road, upon ultimate development of the area and in accordance with the Land Use and Transportation Plan.
4.2.3o: Where a proposed collector or local road crosses a watercourse, the crossing shall, wherever possible be made at right angles to the watercourse and shall be designed to accommodate the flows associated with a Regional Storm event. Wherever practical and feasible, watercourse crossings shall be designed and constructed in a manner which minimizes any adverse impacts upon the hydraulic characteristics of the watercourse and the use of adjacent lands.
In addition to the proposed collector depiction on Schedule A to the Community Plan, the policies referenced have provide the support and basis for the proposed road extension and connection to Church Street.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 31 of 155 17 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 As part of the proposed plan of subdivision application process, a Transportation Mobility Plan (TMP) has been prepared to address a number of matters. The TMP’s purpose was to determine whether the extension of Roselena Drive to Church Street would have an impact on the traffic for the surrounding community, in addition to the increased traffic caused by the addition of 51 residential dwellings.
The study found that the intersections would operate at level of service “A” and well below capacity at both weekday AM and PM hours. The “A” level of service at AM and PM peak times continued when growth rates were applied up to the year 2024. The proposed development was also found to have negligible impacts on the surrounding road network, and that current pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes will continue to operate similar to their existing performance. The Plan also found that the available site lines for the proposed site access/Roselena Drive Extension at Church Street met the minimum site distance requirements.
The proposed plan of subdivision conform with the Schomberg Community Plan in terms of implementing the proposed transportation network.
3.8 Townships of King Zoning By-Law
The Township of King Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 2017-66 was given three readings and passed by Council in June 2017 following an extensive public review process. While the By-law is currently under appeal, it is expected to be approved shortly and the provisions of By-law 2017-66 is considered appropriate to apply to the subject development. Under By-law 2017-66, the lands are zoned “F” – Future Use - which is applied to lands in transition where future development is anticipated (refer to Figure 8 to this Report).
The Zoning By-Law proposed for the subject applications is attached as Appendix E to this Report. The proposed Zoning By-law proposes the same residential zoning which applies to the adjacent existing developed areas for consistency and compatibility. It is proposed that lands be rezoned as “Residential Single Detached” (R1-2) and (R1B). It is also proposed that “Residential Single Detached” zoning continue along both sides of the extension of Roselena Drive. The “EP” Environmental Protection zone is proposed for the open space lands, floodplain areas and forest restoration lands to be dedicated to the Township.
The portion of the subject property outside the urban boundary is currently zoned for institutional / retirement home uses under site-specific Zoning By-law 88-86. It is proposed that this permission be carried forward with revised lot area and frontage requirements for this portion of the property with the proposed “I-4” Institutional zone.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 32 of 155 18 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 Section 4 SUBDIVISION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 General Design and Subdivision Layout One of the largest single design considerations for the Phase 2 development is the location and alignment of the Roselena Road extension to Church Street. The road extension and connection to Church Street is a requirement of the Community Plan. The proposed road alignment and location of the river crossing has been influenced by the following technical and environmental considerations:
a) The environmental objective to cross the watercourse at right angles b) The LSRCA requirements and environmental objective to retain and protect the wetland / meadow marsh area at the northeast portion of the subject lands c) Achieving optimal site lines for the proposed intersection with Church Street
It is proposed that the road alignment travel through the northern portion of the pond on the Lloyd’s Mill property in order to protect the identified wetland area and minimize environmental impact. The lands east of the proposed road alignment will be dedicated to the Township for open space purposes and will be added to the natural public open space areas to the east to provide better ecological function.
In addition, the amount of land available for development has been influenced by the hydraulic analysis and proposed modifications to the Region Floodline through the site. The detailed engineering, hydraulic analysis and modeling prepared by Cole Engineering provides the basis for the modifications to the floodline and the identification and land capable of being developed for residential purposes.
As noted, earlier, the proposed design of the residential development consist of single detached lots with minimum lot frontage of 12.2 m or 40 ft which is consistent and compatible with the surrounding development.
4.2 Urban Design & Architecture
The initial phase of the Forestbrook Hills subdivision was developed by Sycamore Construction and the home builder was Bayview Wellington Homes. Phase 1 is generally considered to be a well-designed plan with an attractive streetscape and quality architecturally designed homes. As a Draft Plan condition of the approval of the Phase I, the developer was required to submit an urban design and architectural control guidelines for review and approval of the Township. The guidelines provided the details of how the design of the homes would be controlled through a "control architect" as part of the building permit process. This would include details such as exterior finishes and materials, architectural fenestration, exterior elements such as porches and garage locations, etc. In this manner, the Township's control architect would ensure that each dwelling addresses the architectural control guidelines and includes the necessary features, finishes and design elements outlined in the Guidelines.
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 33 of 155 19 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 It is recommended and proposed that a similar Draft Plan condition be imposed for Phase 2 with a similar architectural control mechanism to ensure that quality design, and compatibility with the Phase I development.
In terms of the public realm, the Phase 2 subdivision proposes to provide a significant contribution to the public open space system in the community and complement the existing network of trails and public open space. As discussed previously in this report, the preliminary concept for the open space system is shown on Figure 10 to this Report and generally describes opportunities for open space linkages and trail connections through the significant amount of open space lands to be dedicated to the Township.
It is recommended and proposed that a detailed Public Realm Urban Design Guideline document be prepared by the proponent as a condition of Draft Plan approval for review and approval of the Township and LSRCA. The detailed design guidelines for the public realm will provide additional detail for the trail locations and matters such as sidewalk location, crosswalks and street furniture.
4.3 Environmental Sustainability As discussed in Section 2.2 of this report, environmental sustainability and energy efficiency has been a main focus of the proposed development application. Through the integrated design program of the Enbridge SBD Charrette, a typical or reference model Bayview Wellington home was tested for various improvements to achieve energy savings. The design code Charrette achieved an energy efficient design that was 56.9% better than the Ontario Building and exceeds the goals of the program and helps to achieve the Township’s goals for sustainability.
The second SBD Charrette focused on the subdivision design and potential areas and technologies for LID approaches to manage stormwater. As part of this report, the LSRCA and the Township of King both provided input as how to best achieve regulatory compliance and explore alternatives to provide the project with higher environmental performance. The “Draft” Sustainable King Development Standards Checklist was also utilized while making decisions regarding the proposed development. The completed checklist for the proposed development has been completed and is attached to this report as Appendix E.
Section 5 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed development will provide for the completion of the initial development which was registered in 1999 and will allow for the completion of the community and would conform with the purpose, intent and policies of the Schomberg Community Plan. The following points highlight some of the key benefits of the proposed development:
- Provides for transportation connectivity through the extension of Roselena Drive to Church Street as required by the approved Schomberg Community Plan - Provides for a higher degree of public safety through improved fire safety and access for emergency vehicles and the looping of the municipal watermain - Provides for the extension and continuation of the existing public trails system through the valley corridors
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 34 of 155 20 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017
- Provides for additional housing stock for the community - Provides the opportunity for enhancement to the ecological functions of the natural heritage features on the site and improving ecological connectivity, and - Conforms to the polices and growth management requirements of the Provincial Policy Statement, Provincial Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan and region of York Official plan by directing growth to defined settlement areas.
The proposed development has been carefully designed with close attention to the requirements of the Township and the LSRCA, input from the public and Township’s general objectives for sustainable development. The required technical and environmental studies and report have been completed and all studies support the proposed development. The proposed development satisfies all applicable land uses policies and requirements, represents good planning and is in the public interest.
It is recommended that the application be supported and that the Draft Plan be approved with conditions and that the Zoning By-law be approved.
Dan Stone, MCIP, RPP, LEED-GA Principal
ForestbrookZoning ByHills- lawPhase Amendment II THORSTONEPage CONSULTING 35 of 155 21 Application and Draft Plan of Planning Justification Report December, 2017 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By - law Amendment Page 36 of 155
Thorstone Consulting Services Land Use Planning and Development P.O. Box 116, Sutton, Ontario Zoning By-law Amendment Page 37 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By - law Amendment Page 38 of 155
Thorstone Consulting Services Land Use Planning and Development P.O. Box 116, Sutton, Ontario
SCALE: Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By - law Amendment Page 39 of 155
Thorstone Consulting Services Land Use Planning and Development P.O. Box 116, Sutton, Ontario Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By - law Amendment Page 40 of 155
Thorstone Consulting Services Land Use Planning and Development P.O. Box 116, Sutton, Ontario Zoning By-law Amendment Page 41 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of FIGURE 7
SCHEDULE C-OPA47 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By
HIGHWAY 9 FORESTBROOK HILLS PHASE 2
PART OF EAST HALF OF LOT 32, - law Amendment CONCESSION 9 TOWNSHIP OF KING REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
WETLANDS 1 MARSH
HARDWOOD FOREST AREAS
-- COLD WATER FISHERY
-- WARM WATERFISHERY Page 42 of 155
}OAD
PREPARED FOR: CHRIS KANDELAS ••••• DATE: SCHEDULE C DEC 17, 2017 THIS SCHEDULE FORMS PART OF SCHOMBERG ••••• REv1SION COMMUNITY PLAN AND MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS ••••• WITH THE WRITTEN TEXT SCALE:(m)f SCHOMBERG COMMUNITY PLAN ••••• 0 100 200 300 400 • • i...r----- I Thorstone Consulting Services TOWNSHIP OF KING Land Use Planning and Development P.O. Box 116, Sutton, Ontario Zoning By-law Amendment Page 43 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By-law Amendment Page 44 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By - law Amendment Page 45 of 155
Thorstone Consulting Services Land Use Planning and Development P.O. Box 116, Sutton, Ontario
Prepared for: Sycamore Construction Ltd. (ARG Group) Schomberg, ON FINAL REPORT
Residential Workshop October 4, 2016
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 46 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
Table of Contents1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 THE SBD ENERGY MODEL...... 4 2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 5 3. OPENING SESSION ...... 6 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 8 4. ENERGY MODELLING ...... 8 REFERENCE AND BASELINE MODELS ...... 8 ELIGIBLE ENERGY CREDITS ...... 9 5. ONTARIO BUILDING CODE SB -12 2017 ...... 11 6. HEALTHY SITE AND HEALTHY HOMES ...... 12 WASTE MANAGEMENT ...... 12 SUSTAINABLE HOMES ...... 13 7. ENERGY MODEL REVIEW ...... 19 BUILDING ENVELOPE ...... 19 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ...... 24 8. SAVINGS BY DESIGN MODEL ...... 27 INCREMENTAL MEASURES SUMMARY ...... 38 APPENDICES...... 43
1 Workshop presentations have been provided as appendices under separate cover
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 47 ONof 155 2 Application and Draft Plan of
This report has been prepared by Sustainable Buildings Canada (SBC) and is confidential to the program proponent. We thank the proponents and participating subject matter experts for their time, open dialogue, and contributions to the day. SBC assumes full responsibility for all information presented herein. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of SBC.
Copyright © 2016
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 48 ONof 155 3 Application and Draft Plan of
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Sustainable Buildings Canada (SBC) is pleased to present the key outcomes from this workshop, a core program element of the Savings By Design (SBD) program. The qualifying project under consideration was Sycamore Phase II located in Schomberg, ON. This program designed for production Home Builders consists of a series of activities including a planning session (Visioning Session) leading to a full day IDP Workshop to improve the energy and environmental performance of the buildings and a more sustainable development in the long term. The quantitative objective is to improve the energy performance of the subject home design by 15% compared to the building code as defined in the Supplementary Bulletin SB-12 (2017). For this exercise we use NRCAN’s energy performance modeling software, HOT2000 to analyze individual design alternatives and to create a model by the end of the day that achieves the objective noted above. While the “15% better than code” performance metric is important, it is but one element of sustainable development. Among the dimensions of sustainable development we addressed were: ▪ Durability – Is it designed and built for long-term performance? ▪ Constructability - Which changes are most feasible to implement? ▪ Water Efficiency – How can we reduce consumption and minimize storm water? ▪ Environmental Footprint – How can we support, not damage the natural habitat? ▪ Health and Wellness – How to create a healthier (and marketable) home? ▪ Homeowner Satisfaction – How does all this map to increased customer satisfaction? This program takes a holistic view of the development from a full lifecycle cost and operation perspective: “Design it Right” – A home is a complex system. Design it to perform and consider alternatives; “Build it Right: – Performance is in the details. Incorporate best practices, provide training and involve your materials and service suppliers early in the process. “Run it right” – Homes are becoming more complex. Your customers require both information they can understand and tools to optimize their operation. This Workshop convenes a multi-disciplinary team to discuss design and construction enhancements that work for everyone “around the table” and to demonstrate the interactions and dependencies of the components that contribute to the performance of the structure. THE SBD ENERGY MODEL As we have mentioned, the “SBD” model produced over the course of the workshop is for illustrative purposes and to highlight the design insights offered by the performance compliance path (energy modeling).
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 49 ONof 155 4 Application and Draft Plan of
For this workshop, we also discussed higher performance strategies to approach NET ZERO ready, (energy consumption reduced to the point that a reasonably sized solar array could offset it). The SBD model achieved 15.2% better than 2017 Reference Package A1, which achieves and marginally exceeds the Savings By Design program objective. The following measures created the Savings By Design Model: • A/G Walls: R5 exterior rigid insulation • Basement; R20 blanket • Slab Insulation: 2' perimeter 2” XPS rigid insulation+ slab thermal Break • Windows: 1.6 U-value and SHGC=0.35 • Air Tightness: ACH@50Pa = 2.0 • Furnace: 96% AFUE • Lighting: 100% LED • DWHR - 42"drain water heat recovery (code) For the homeowner, the SBD design predicts an annual energy cost savings for the home of $258 with a total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction of 944 kg eC02. The group also acknowledged that the success of any proposed changes requires coordinated implementation, careful consideration of cost, detailing, training, installation, commissioning and importantly, homeowner education.
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Participants of this workshop included representatives from the proponent team, SBD program staff, Enbridge staff, and subject matter experts who provided specific insights related to key areas of discussion for the day. (See list of attendees in Appendix B for complete list of participants). The workshop focused on identifying opportunities to enhance the energy and environmental performance of the development, as well as alternative design approaches to implement those opportunities and enhance sustainability. The “Visioning Session” convened in advance of this workshop provided the context and goals for this full day activity.2 The SBD program is part of the Enbridge portfolio of conservation initiatives delivered in their franchise territory as directed by the Ontario Energy Board.
2 See Appendix A for the summary of the Visioning Session
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 50 ONof 155 5 Application and Draft Plan of
3. OPENING SESSION
Real-time energy modeling is conducted during the workshop to track the impact of design alternatives that are discussed. Selected changes will be compiled to track our progress to the design objective. Constantine outlined the agenda and goals of the day’s activities and described the concept of Integrated Design Process (IDP) 3 for this workshop and set the context for the day. The concept is described in the introductory presentation and in the Visioning Report, both included in the appendices of this report. In brief, the integrated approach redefines the design process, from a linear and sequential series of independent decisions, to a concurrent process where all elements are considered at each design stage, acknowledging that every decision affects (and restricts) all downstream decisions. Achieving consensus from all stakeholders early in the design process saves time, money and produces a better product.
3 See Appendix C for the IDP Workshop Introduction presentation
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 51 ONof 155 6 Application and Draft Plan of
Savings By Design Program
While this program has a quantitative energy savings objective, (15% better than code), its larger purpose is to encourage change in the marketplace. This “market transformation” objective is achieved by creating discussion forums to share best practices, address barriers (technical, regulatory etc.) and offer financial incentives to help builders test concepts, new techniques and technologies. The Savings by Design is a process-based approach involving:
Planning Session ▪ Half-day briefing session: priorities and opportunities
Building Energy Modeling ▪ Performance baseline is evaluated
IDP Workshop ▪ Full day session with industry experts ▪ Identify and evaluate strategies to meet sustainability goals and program targets
Financial Incentives ▪ Submit final energy model demonstrating a 15% reduction in energy versus the Ontario Building Code ▪ Collect a performance incentive of $2,000 per home up to 50 homes (Note: For first time participants)
Audit of Results ▪ Engage a certified energy advisor to verify the results
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 52 ONof 155 7 Application and Draft Plan of
PROJECT OVERVIEW: Neil Palmer introduced the project, which includes 45 residential lots in Schomberg Ontario and is “phase II” of the adjacent existing development of some 90 single family units built about 10 years ago. This workshop is part of a three-session series that together examine this project which includes a residential project, a commercial retirement (re-purpose of an existing building), and a land development session. Dan Stone, consultant to the proponents is taking the lead on the preparation of a submission to the Township for this development project.
4. ENERGY MODELLING
The energy models were constructed in NRCAN’s HOT2000 v10.51.4 In accordance with the SBD modeling protocol, 3 models were used over the course of the day. HOT2000 is a recognized Canadian standard for modeling energy use in residential single-family buildings, calculating heat-loss & heat-gain from thermal conduction, ventilation, infiltration, internal loads, and solar radiation. It also simulates a number of mechanical systems. Please refer to the Appendix for model reports.
REFERENCE AND BASELINE MODELS
Please refer to Appendix for the models developed. The Reference model was developed following 2017 SB-12 Prescriptive Compliance Package “A1” and represents the minimum acceptable performance under the code. This is our “starting point” along the path to (minimum) 15% better energy performance. The Baseline Building was developed from building drawings prior to this session.5
4 See Appendix D for Modelling presentation 5 Some inputs have been updated from what was presented at the IDP Workshop
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 53 ONof 155 8 Application and Draft Plan of
ELIGIBLE ENERGY CREDITS
The SBD program objective can be achieved using a combination of simulated performance and “energy credits” derived from installing specific measures that are not modeled but assigned an equivalent energy saving value. These credits originate from Natural Resources Canada as part of the ENERGY STAR program and include devices that save energy and whose impact has been studied and validated.
List of Available Credits
Origin Measure Value (kWh) Value (GJ)
Attached Garage Variable NRCan Housing Program Credits Lighting 75% 295 1.06
Lighting 100% 420 1.51
Lighting Per Room Variable Variable ENERGY STAR Refrigerator 50 0.18
ENERGY STAR Freezer 40 0.14
ENERGY STAR Dishwasher 20 0.07
ENERGY STAR Clothes Dryer 25 0.09
Drain Water Heat Recovery Variable
ENERGY STAR Electrical ENERGY STAR Exhaust Fan 10 cfm to 89 cfm 5 0.02 Credits ENERGY STAR Exhaust Fan Over 90 cfm 10 0.04
ENERGY STAR Range Hood 30 0.11
Advanced Credits In Home Energy Display6 383 1.38
All Off Switch with Split Green Plug 383 1.38
All Off Switch with one receptacle per room7 300 1.08
6 Reduce credit by 83 kWh where NRCan Lighting Credit has already been applied 7 Ineligible where NRCan Lighting Credit has already been applied
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 54 ONof 155 9 Application and Draft Plan of
All Off Lighting with one fixture per room15 300 1.08
Dimmer Switch (per switch) 15 23 0.08 Indoor Motion Sensor 42 0.15
Outdoor Motion Sensor (per fixture) 15 160 0.58
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 55 ONof 155 10 Application and Draft Plan of
5. ONTARIO BUILDING CODE SB -12 2017
Supplementary Standard SB-12 (2017) comes into effect on January 1st, 2017.8 and sets out a 15% increase in energy performance. The new Ontario Climate Change Action Plan may also affect the Code in the future, as will measures to achieve Net Zero by 2030. There will be a focus on carbon as a metric in addition to energy performance as part of the Action Plan. There are likely to be related incentive programs in the market as well. Key changes include: • Fewer prescriptive packages (A-D vs. A-M); Package A is the default • A new version of HOT2000 v10.51 is used for performance path compliance • Both imperial and metric units are specified • Both nominal and effective R-values are listed • Prescriptive packages require heat recovery ventilation • Drain water heat recovery is mandatory • Continuous insulation will be required in all packages except A1 • ACH is now supplemented with NLA (Normalized Leakage Area) and NLR (Normalized Leakage Ratio) as alternate acceptable metrics • ENERGY STAR and R2000 are recognized in the code The group discussed the anticipation of new products that will come on the market to address new code requirements. Building codes would need to evolve aggressively to be Net Zero by 2030.9 in 3 code cycles.
8 See Appendix E for the SB-12 2017 Code presentation 9 See Appendix I for information on “Zero Net Energy Labelling in Homes”
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 56 ONof 155 11 Application and Draft Plan of
6. HEALTHY SITE AND HEALTHY HOMES
This section focused on minimizing the construction footprint and the consideration of building practices materials that can contribute to a long-term healthier indoor environment.10
WASTE MANAGEMENT • 40% of landfill is construction waste • A waste management plan including recycling and waste diversion practices, including monitoring and tracking saves money • Single stream collection reports are available from provider • Review to understand how much of its waste was diverted from landfill. This information may be required for future legislation of construction waste management. • Ensure that all suppliers take away their own garbage, packaging, etc. • Sites typically have one bin for lumber and another for mixed waste • Waste reports show tonnage, surcharges for contamination fees etc. • More complex architectural design and framing elements require more cutting and create often more construction • Work with architects to optimize dimensions for minimal cutting/waste • Review estimation practices and eliminate “double error margins” • Don’t pay for the waste of their suppliers Consider building materials with significant recycled content; steel, concrete, asphalt, and drywall. Concrete can contain 30% fly-ash/40% slag. Many suppliers can offer this as well as an eco-line of products. For example, CertainTeed Gypsum products manufactured at the location in Toronto contain a total recycled content of 95%.1112 New waste management regulations would come into effect in 2017 which include construction and demolition waste.13 This could mean significant additional expense for some builders.
10 See Appendix J for the Waste Management presentation 11 http://www.certainteed.com/resources/Green%20info%20sheet_English_final.pdf 12 Embodied energy is the initial energy required needed to produce a material. 13 https://www.ontario.ca/document/guide-waste-audits-and-waste-reduction-work-plans-construction-demolition-projects- required-under
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 57 ONof 155 12 Application and Draft Plan of
Money saved on waste management fees could be directed towards additional energy saving features.
SUSTAINABLE HOMES
90% of a person’s time is spent indoors; Indoor environment has enormous impact.14 Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) refers to the characteristics of the conditioned space such as comfort, health, safety, and functionality. These include: ▪ Thermal Comfort – e.g. proper room temperature, humidity ▪ Ergonomics – e.g. operability, accessibility, physical stress ▪ Vision – e.g. visibility, glare, ambiance, natural light, variability of views ▪ Acoustics – e.g. privacy, home entertainment systems, mechanicals ▪ Biophilia – connection to the outside world, circadian rhythm ▪ Indoor Air Quality – Components of air BUILDING PRODUCTS Most of today’s building products contain carcinogens, neurotoxins, reproductive toxins, and a host of other chemicals that can have a profound impact on our health. There are many contaminants in buildings due to off-gassing of construction materials, décor, and furnishings, etc. Ventilation systems allow for the introduction of fresh air, however, the objective is to reduce contaminants to improve air quality. It is important to mitigate dust and other contaminants that reside on interior surfaces and materials; Poor Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) is caused by: chemicals, dust, mould, bacteria, gases, vapour, and odours. These can be brought into the building through construction activities, materials, and other external sources. Current air quality standards are for acceptable IAQ and were developed for a 170 lb. male. Of particular concern are Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) – which are organic chemicals that evaporate at WELLNESS PREMIUM BY AGE OF HOMEOWNERS room temperature. VOCs can negatively affect the air quality of a home for many years. Low VOC products can have a significant impact on improving IAQ. Formaldehyde is a particularly common VOC found in many building products despite being banned in other jurisdictions. Bettina noted that 90% of formaldehyde used in the world is for building products.
14 See Appendix F Healthy Homes presentation
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 58 ONof 155 13 Application and Draft Plan of
Building products that are applied “wet” on-site can be some of the worst offenders when it comes to off-gassing toxins. As paint and stains, glues, and foams cure and dry, their ingredients may be released into the atmosphere. Even after drying, these chemicals may continue to off-gas. Bettina recommended “green products” should be human friendly as well environmentally friendly. She suggested third-party environmental certifications and labels when considering green products. Third-party certification will identify products that have a proven environmental preference within a specific product category.15 A survey of suppliers and trades will inform their current practices are with regards to using products containing VOCs and formaldehyde.
CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
• Develop a plan to consider all source contamination • Inspect products specifications from supplier’s • Protect materials from elements
15 Eco-labels in addition to those found in the presentation can be found at http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/downloads/2012/qog-ecolabelguide.pdf
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 59 ONof 155 14 Application and Draft Plan of
Best practice recommendations for builders include: ▪ Keep ducts sealed during all construction activities including clean-up, keep duct openings covered16 ▪ Dust control measures – Shop-Vac with HEPA filters; HEPA-filters in each room during construction and clean-up; use microfibre products ▪ Designated areas for cutting and sanding where possible ▪ Avoid using HVAC during construction ▪ Non-toxic cleaning products, e.g. Gloves Off and Planet People ▪ Proper drying and dehumidification of basements ▪ Ensure that product specifications and protocols are well understood by trades and suppliers ▪ Good site supervision, on-going inspection, monitoring, and record keeping ▪ Ensure transport of materials is protected from the elements ▪ Keep absorptive materials – stored off-ground and covered ▪ No smoking in or in proximity to houses/buildings • Clean fans and motors • Vacuums deliver better results than sweeping • Consider soap, vinegar, and water and avoid harsh cleaning products for the final pre-occupancy cleaning. • Homeowners are increasingly ask for specific cleaning practices (allergies etc.)
PRODUCT AND MATERIAL CHOICES
BUILDING MATERIALS • VINYL: Consider alternatives e.g. electrical work and using recycled Ecolotube PVC for piping (IPEX). Vinyl is toxic; • WET PRODUCTS; Sealants and adhesives are available in low VOC formats; • GREEN CERTIFICATIONS: Look for GREENGUARD or Green Seal labels. These certifications are broadly recognized and accepted by sustainable building programs and building codes around the world. COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS FORMALDEHYDE
16 The Ontario Building Code (OBC) 2012 has introduced new duct sealing requirements for both conditioned and unconditioned spaces.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 60 ONof 155 15 Application and Draft Plan of
• An ubiquitous and toxic chemical in construction materials; • Source no added Urea-formaldehyde (NAUF) composite wood products (OSB, Plywood, MDF, etc.) and also for cabinets; • Exterior grade/marine grade plywood contains less formaldehyde; • Low- or zero-VOC adhesives, binders, and finishes; • FSC Certified solid or engineered wood; • Choose a local cabinetmaker to reduce packaging and shipping expense and energy.
FLOORING
• Carpets have fallen out of favour with many consumers. Issues include off-gassing, allergies and cleanliness; • Stain-repellant treatments contain harsh chemicals. COUNTERTOPS • Granite has high embodied energy (mined and transported from great distances; • Consider Quartz, an extremely hard natural substance; • Advantages include low maintenance, (no sealing required). Quartz countertops are also GREENGUARD approved.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 61 ONof 155 16 Application and Draft Plan of
RADON
The group also discussed emerging focus on radon and occupant health. Key Points: • Regulations exist for Radon mitigation but currently sparsely enforced; • There is a Supplementary Standard SB-9, 2012 Part 9 and NBC Changes.17 • Testing can only be conducted in a closed volume • Standards for acceptable levels are lower in Canada • Onus is on builder to provide mitigation system; o 2-inch pipe sealed to floor up through the slab o Capped at the floor o Impervious barrier under slab o Active ventilation up through roof or sidewall (see figure above) Radon is the second largest cause of lung cancer. o Discuss with the building inspector early in the construction process – remediation could be very expensive for the builder.18 o Test kits for consumers are widely available. o Builder is responsible if radon detected
17 http://obec.on.ca/sites/default/uploads/files/members/CCBST-Oct-2014/B6-2-b.pdf
18 http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/alt_formats/pdf/pubs/radiation/radon_canadians-canadiens/radon_canadians-canadien- eng.pdf
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 62 ONof 155 17 Application and Draft Plan of
URETHANE SPRAY FOAM INSULATION
• Widely used for niche cavities exposed floors rim joists etc. • Toxic when wet • Effectiveness a function of installation quality • Look for certified installers • Product is environmentally inert after cure period • Improper mixing or pass thickness will deteriorate performance or create hazards • Generally, if more than 2-inches of spray foam is required it must be applied in coats with adequate time (manufacturer’s specifications) in between applications
THIRD PARTY ENDORSEMENTS
Labels help consumers make choices. Energy Star and Greenguard are examples. Choosing products for your homes that carry such labels builds your brand and gives confidence to prospective purchasers that you are offering a quality product. There are many label programs in the market. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created Indoor Air Plus as an additional certification for ENERGY STAR homes. Michelle offered to reach out to ENERGY STAR to learn about eligibility for this program.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 63 ONof 155 18 Application and Draft Plan of
7. ENERGY MODEL REVIEW
BUILDING ENVELOPE
The group discussed the performance and strategies for wall systems and the construction details.19 The discussion has two core requirements; minimize thermal losses and maximize durability (long-term resistance to environment).
To focus the major opportunities, the group referred to the components of annual heat loss, from the modeling outputs, noting 29% of heat loss is through walls. AIR TIGHTNESS
• CHALLENGES: MOLD BEHIND RIM JOISTS, ON DELIVERED MATERIALS KEY POINTS: • Air leakage is a major component of heat loss. • Barrier continuity is key • Focus on training and detailing at interfaces and transition areas (attic/wall, windows and doors, footings and slabs). • Clearly mark BOTH air barrier and vapour barrier on construction drawings – often the air barrier is not shown. • Examine process and trade sequencing to minimize penetrations and damage • Consider smart membranes facilitate drying to the inside • De-humidify basements and defer finishing of basements at lest 12 months • Warm air tight basement walls • Stop moisture wicking • Advanced framing can create architectural and some structural challenges with an existing design • 24” O.C. walls create installation issues for cabinet (kitchen) walls
EXTERIOR INSULATION • Spray foam can help with air tightness but it does not mitigate thermal bridging when sprayed within the stud cavity • Exterior insulation blunts the thermal bridging from framing
19 See Appendix F for the Building Envelope presentation
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 64 ONof 155 19 Application and Draft Plan of
• Exterior insulated sheathing reduces heat loss • Continuous insulation helps the insulation perform closer to its nominal value. • Consider other options such as SilveRboard. It is an EPS product, coated with a layer of reflective lamination on both sides. The reflective laminated surfaces are micro perforated for water vapour permeance. • Extruded Polystyrene (XPS) vs Polyisocyanurate (polyiso) - polyiso products not ideal at colder temperatures; XPS provides more reliable thermal performance than polyiso. • Ensure proper inward and outward drying potential and inward vapour-drive issues when using reservoir claddings (i.e. brick and stone). Different claddings will require different strategies; it is important that products work together and are applied correctly – involve manufacturers in training for trades • Mineral wool - Better drying potential since more permeable than XPS. Does not slump, hydrophobic • De-coupling of air/moisture barriers evolving but depends on jurisdiction and code interpretation • NET ZERO requires ACH of 1.0 or less • Moves dewpoint outward and reduces risk of condensation • 1” can be accommodated on 8-inch foundation but move is to 9” and 10” pours BASEMENTS • 10” foundation (see above) to accommodates 2” continuous exterior insulation o Provides option for higher ceilings • De-humidifying basements early is an important “future-proofing” strategy • Use of Industrial dehumidifiers during/post construction • Foundation wicking a major source of moisture infiltration • Consider footing “boots” – capillary breaks • Exterior waterproofing • Under slab insulation/poly; a must have for NET ZERO caliber performance The footings are often sitting in water, wicking moisture up the walls. These systems provide a definitive moisture barrier.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 65 ONof 155 20 Application and Draft Plan of
Possible to obtain a continous R-20 using XPS foam board from the top to the bottom agains the foundation. There are hybrid options including other hydrophobic mineral wool insulation boards. Moisture management includes a strategy that allows the assembly to dry out in both directions. An optimal basement system includes “smart membrane” or “smart poly”. Relative humidity at 75% is the threshold for mould. Smart poly water permeability increases with relative humidity allowing water vapour to escape. Perimeter thermal breaks mitigate heat loss, resulting in both energy savings and greater occupant comfort. 6 mil poly between the footing and the foundation wall, or alternatively a pre- engineered peel and stick solution are ideal. Proper detailing is critical to prevent condensation due to changes in relative humidity, and more importantly to prevent air leakage, which transfers moistures.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 66 ONof 155 21 Application and Draft Plan of
BUILDING ENVELOPE – FENESTRATION (WINDOWS) • NET ZERO performance requires triple glazing specification and U-values 1.1 or less • Impact of window frames on effective performance values • Requires purpose built frame, not just an additional pane • Frame, dual operators, special chases and reinforcement indicate quality design • Brick swelling and frame shrinking – creates gaps around installation • Need to align window in opening • Buck frames ¾” over foam – connection to air barrier? • Connection to ice and water shield • Proper gap to allow continuous foam of sufficient thickness • Deeper interior extensions required as wall thickness increases due to exterior insulation • Installation details are critical to achieving the performance o Using pressure treated wood o Sloped drainage plain o Continuous flashing system over ice & water shield o <10 min per window ▪ Cost for this enhancement is low vs. service calls for leaky windows o US window manufacturers not warrantying work if not a “system” installation o Not expensive ($30/window), can enhance air tightness, need to determine who’s scope of work o Zone U/ER chart U-value of 1.4 vs. ER29 The ER compliance path has become popular again because it meets both prescriptive and performance path requirements. ER compliance path considers the ratio of glass-to-frame, the center of glass, and the U-value – mullions will affect the ratio. Mid-solar heat gain a good all-round choice Elevation-specific glazing needs to be considered particularly in homes with south and west facing windows. Work with HVAC to match glazing specifications to heat load calculations and prevent overheating. Note the energy model does not have this granularity to predict Orientation can have a significant impact on the energy consumption for homes with higher Window-to- Wall Ratio (WWR), in this case 11%, which is a typical value. Mechanical systems are designed for worst-case scenarios. The window design is extremely important for the rightsizing of the mechanical system. Air conditioners that are sized properly have longer running periods, which provide better efficiency, and potentially a longer compressor life.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 67 ONof 155 22 Application and Draft Plan of
Where compatible with the design, externally mounted shading is very effective, blocking out almost 100% of the solar radiation on south elevations. West and east elevations are more difficult to shade from the exterior. For this home, extremely large overhangs would be required. Based on various window design factors such as orientation, climate, building design, etc., a best practice is to consider different types of glazing for different window orientations throughout the home. High performance windows with multiple low emissivity (Low-e) coatings can block out 80-82% of solar heat gain. Triple-glazed products having two surfaces coated with Low-e, typically sides 2 and 5. Some triple pane windows utilize Krypton. Triple glazing has not become an industry standard primarily due to its cost, however can enhance the overall occupant comfort mitigating overheating/cooling issues. Double-glazed products have Low-e coating on sides 2 and 4. A Low-e coating on the 4th surface of the window will allow near triple-pane performance in a double-pane unit. A dual-coat or twin-coat Low-e product better rejects infrared heat in the summer and reject internal heat loss in the winter resulting in better energy performance in both seasons. IG products with side 4 sputter coatings require specific care and maintenance. If spectrally selected coatings are not possible, then a more balanced comfort could be achieved with a mid-solar gain low-e product. Installation best practice includes an exterior fin-and-ice and water shield tape system, e.g. Blueskin. Tuck tape is not recommended because it has no elasticity and will tear away as the different substrates move, shrink, dry, etc. Outboard insulation details must ensure there is alignment of the window glazing with the primary plane. Windows should be aligned with the insulation plane (‘outie’ installation), with the sill and head flashings in place. A combination of ice and water shield and rigid flashing ensures that water is directed away from the envelope.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 68 ONof 155 23 Application and Draft Plan of
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS
• Right-sizing of space conditioning means matching capacity to an envelope that loses less heat. Ducting still needs to be sized for the AC load if homes are designed AC ready20. • Engage HVAC designer/contractor early in the design process; ensure sufficient wiring for sensors, controls etc. • Window specification could result in 0.5 ton reduction for the AC • Strategic placement of systems is important • Awkward locations increase cost and reduce efficiency of distribution system • Provide allowance for increased air filter slots (4”) in plenum ducting • HRVs vs ERVs – HRVs exchange heat between incoming and out-going air. ERVs do the same plus also exchange moisture to preserve it in the winter and expel it in the summer. Reduces load on humidifier in winter and air conditioner in summer. NRCAN recommends ERVs in extreme climates like Ontario. The group discussed the benefits of zone capable systems. Zoning allows the heat to be directed where it is required in the home. Floor plans and the orientation of the home should be considered to optimize the benefits of zoning. Zoning ensures that the house has been designed to recognize balanced loads rather than designing for the worst-case scenario. Zoned systems target and balance thermal comfort, especially in large dwellings. Two-stage air conditioners also provide enhanced comfort and reduced energy consumption. The team considered they typical heat loss and cooling requirements by floor in a 2-storey home noting the significant difference between heating and air conditioning requirements as show in the following:
20 See Appendix G for the Mechanical Systems presentation
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 69 ONof 155 24 Application and Draft Plan of
Typical HVAC Loads by Floor
A fully dedicated ERV is more effective. Although this requires more ductwork, the ducts can be smaller. CONTROLS • Integrated controls are effective in synchronizing various systems; heating de-humidification, ventilation • Bathroom fans feature humidity sensors • The more these controls can manage without human intervention, the more likely they will operate as designed. HEAT PUMPS • Heat pumps transport heat from one environment to another. An an air conditioner removes heat from the indoor environment and a heat pump captures heat from the outdoor environment and delivers it to the interior • Heat pump technology has been limited historically to moderate climates as the performance deteriorates significantly below design temperatures • Advanced cold climate air-source heat pumps are becoming competitive to ground-source systems especially when combined with variable refrigerant flow • Heat pumps make a large contribution to achieve high performance (Net Zero) • Where builders offer air conditioning as part of the standard package, an option to upgrade to a heat pump could be an attractive and reasonable upsell Total energy consumption and energy cost do not necessarily align. Natural gas is significantly less expensive on a per unit basis than electricity; however, GHG emissions are much lower for Ontario’s electricity. It is important to consider energy consumption, energy costs, and emissions in any analysis.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 70 ONof 155 25 Application and Draft Plan of
The provincial government is signaling significant financial incentives to homebuilders to equip homes with heat pumps in conjunction with furnaces for the coldest conditions
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 71 ONof 155 26 Application and Draft Plan of
8. SAVINGS BY DESIGN MODEL
MODEL INPUTS The inputs to the model related to the building envelope, mechanical systems and lighting systems are summarized in the following tables. These inputs were used to generate the SB-12 Reference Model, representing a building which meets the energy performance levels of the OBC, and for the Baseline Model, representing the current design, and the Savings by Design Model.
SEE NEXT PAGE FOR COMPLETE MODELLING REPORT
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 72 ONof 155 27 Application and Draft Plan of
The OBC 2017 SB-12 bulletin requirements are used here. Simulations were performed using HOT2000 v10.51.
Total Project Size: Total Annual Energy Annual Electricity Annual Natural Energy Performance Projected Energy Utilization Consumption Gas Compared to 4430 ft2 21 Consumption Intensity Consumption Baseline
Without and With Without/With Energy Energy Credits Credits
GJ/yr GJ/m2-yr kWh/yr m3/yr %
Reference 140.69/135.14 0.34/0.33 10,394/8,852 2,772 - Package “A1”22
Baseline– 321523 152.45 0.37 10,646 3,063 -8.4/-12.8
Savings By Design– 123.28/114.65 0.30/0.28 10,255/7,828 2,321 12.4/15.2 321524
21 Exact size used in HOT2000 v9.34c 22 Just meets the current Building Code 23 As designed by Lindvest 24 Incorporates suggested measures and applied Energy Credits
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 73 ONof 155 28 Application and Draft Plan of
Upgrades to the Baseline: ▪ Wall assembly upgraded to include R-22+ R-5 ▪ Attic space upgraded to R-60 ▪ Basement insulation upgraded to include R-10 perimeter for 2-ft perimeter with thermal break ▪ Windows upgraded U-value 1.6 w/ SHGC 0.35 ▪ Foundation wall upgraded to Blanket R-20 ▪ Air Changes per Hour (ACH) reduced to 2.0 @ 50 Pa ▪ Upgraded HRV to SRE 75% ▪ DHW upgraded to condensing 0.80 Energy Factor ▪ Furnace upgraded to 96% AFUE ▪ Upgraded with DWHR (42", 2-Showers) ▪ 100% energy efficient lighting ▪ Energy Star appliances ▪ In Home Energy Display
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 74 ONof 155 29 Application and Draft Plan of
BUILDING OVERVIEW
Key features of the home include: ▪ Single detached home Bayview ▪ 2–storey, 5 bedroom Wellington ▪ Total internal floor area including S42-5 basement: 4,430ft2 – Basement: 1,406 ft2 – Ground Floor: 1,371 ft2 – Second Floor: 1,653 ft2 ▪ 12% Window to Wall Ratio (WWR) ▪ Two-car garage ▪ Front elevation facing west (worst case orientation >1.3% vs. west facing homes)25
25 On this site, homes facing west have the highest overall energy consumption
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 75 ONof 155 30 Application and Draft Plan of
MODEL INPUTS Building Envelope
Component Reference Baseline Savings by Design SB-12 Package “A1” “Bayview Wellington” “Baseline+Upgrades” Nominal Nominal Nominal
Ceiling with Attic Space 2 x 6” @ 24” o.c. 2 x 6” @ 24” o.c. 2 x 6” @ 24” o.c. Minimum R-Value R-60 R-50 R-60
Above Grade Walls 2 x 6” @ 16” o.c. 2 x 6” @ 16” o.c. 2 x 6” @ 16” o.c. Minimum R-Value R-22 R-22 R-22+R-5 c.i.
Exposed Floor R-31 R-31 R-31 Minimum R-Value
Basement Walls Blanket R-20 Blanket R-12 Blanket R-20 Minimum R-Value
Below Grade Slab – – – Minimum R-Value
Windows and Sliding Glass U-1.6 W/m2-°K, U-1.8 W/m2-°K, U-1.6 W/m2-°K, Doors SHGC 0.40 SHGC 0.40 SHGC 0.35 Maximum U-Value
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 76 ONof 155 31 Application and Draft Plan of
Mechanical Systems
Component Reference Building Baseline Building Savings by Design SB-12 Package “A1” “Bayview Wellington” “Baseline+Upgrades”
Minimum AFUE Condensing Furnace Condensing Furnace Space Heating Equipment 96% AFUE 94% AFUE 96%
Heat Recovery Ventilator Minimum SRE 75% Efficiency @ 0C 60% Efficiency @ 0C 75%
Minimum Energy Factor Condensing Condensing Domestic Hot Water 0.80 Energy Factor 0.67 Energy Factor 0.80
Drain Water Heat DWHR 42” long, 3” wide DWHR 42” long, 3” Recovery _ wide
Fireplace Spark-ignition sealed Spark-ignition Sealed Spark-ignition Sealed
Air Conditioning SEER 14 SEER 14 SEER 14
Air Tightness 3.0 ACH @ 50 Pa 3.0 ACH @ 50 Pa 2.0 ACH @ 50 Pa
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 77 ONof 155 32 Application and Draft Plan of
Energy Credits
Program Credit Baseline Building Savings by Design “Bayview Wellington” “Baseline+Upgrades”
NRCan 100% Energy Efficient – 1.50 Credits Lighting
Appliances – 0.50 ENERGY STAR Electrical: Exhaust Fans – –
Energy Display – 1.08 SBD Program Outdoor Motion Sensor – –
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 78 ONof 155 33 Application and Draft Plan of
REFERENCE VS BASELINE Fuel Consumption Breakdown
Reference Building Baseline Building
27% 25%
Electricity Electricity Gas Gas
73% 75%
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 79 ONof 155 34 Application and Draft Plan of
Components of Annual Energy Consumption
Reference Building Baseline Building
1% 1% Heating 6% -7% Heating Cooling 9% 7% 3% Cooling Hot Water Hot Water 8% Lights Lights 2% Other 12% Appliances Other 58% 13% Exterior 4% 65% Appliances Savings Exterior 4%
Components of Annual Heat Loss
Reference Building Baseline Building
5% Ceiling -7% 5% Ceiling 24% Walls Walls 22% Floors 26% Floors 22% Windows Windows Doors Doors 2% Basement 19% Basement 2% Ventilation Ventilation 19% 18% 22% Savings 2% 2%
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 80 ONof 155 35 Application and Draft Plan of
SBD ENERGY MODEL RESULTS Overall Performance
Component Reference Building Baseline Building Savings by Design SB-12 Package “A1” “Bayview Wellington” “Baseline+Upgrades”
Consumption (GJ) 140.692 152.45 123.28
Improvements without Credits – -8.4 12.4 (%)
Energy Credits (GJ) 5.55 - 8.63
Adjusted Consumption (GJ) 135.14 152.45 114.96
EUI (GJ/m2) 0.33 0.37 0.28
Improvement (%) – -12.8 15.2
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 81 ONof 155 36 Application and Draft Plan of
Utility Cost and GHG Emission Reduction
Component Reference Building Baseline Building Savings by Design SB-12 Package “A1” “Bayview Wellington” “Baseline+Upgrades”
Natural Gas – -291 451 Savings (m3)
Natural Gas Savings ($) – -$76 $117
Electricity Savings (kWh) – -1,794 1,024
Electricity Savings ($) – -$251 $143
Total Annual Savings ($) – -$327 $261
Reductions kg CO2Eq – -745 960
▪ Electrical savings include energy credits ▪ Natural gas savings based on estimated cost of $0.26/m3 ▪ Electricity savings based on estimated of cost of $0.14/kWh ▪ GHG emission reductions based on 0.11 kg CO2e/kWh for electricity, 1.88 kg CO2e /m3 of natural gas
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 82 ONof 155 37 Application and Draft Plan of
INCREMENTAL MEASURES SUMMARY26
Total Incremental Cumulative Natural Total Cumulative Electricity Upgrade Description Consumption Change to Change to Gas Annual Change to kWh GJ Baseline Reference % $ m3 $ Cost Reference SB12 A-1 Reference Building 135.14 - - 8,852 $1,239 2,772 $721 $1,960 Baseline Building 152.45 - -12.8% 10,646 $1,490 3,063 $796 $2,287 - Envelope Upgrades All Floors/Ground Floor UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 16" oc - R22 + R5 (1" XPS) 147.57 3.2% -9.2% 10,651 $1,491 2,932 $762 $2,253 -15.0% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 24" oc - R22 batt 152.17 0.2% 10,645 $1,490 3,056 $794 $2,285 -16.6% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 24" oc - R22 + R5 (1" XPS) 145.46 4.6% 10,647 $1,491 2,875 $748 $2,238 -14.2% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 16" oc - R22 + R10 (2" XPS) 142.74 6.4% 10,646 $1,490 2,802 $729 $2,219 -13.2% Roof / Roof #1 UG: Roof R60 151.62 0.5% 14.9% 10,640 $1,490 3,041 $791 $2,280 -16.3% Slab UG: Basement: Full R10 under slab 150.09 1.5% 10,681 $1,495 2,996 $779 $2,274 -16.0% UG: Basement: R10 under slab for 2' perimeter 151.67 0.5% 10,657 $1,492 3,041 $791 $2,283 -16.5% UG: Basement: R10 for 2' perimeter with thermal break 150.24 1.5% 16.7% 10,648 $1,491 3,003 $781 $2,272 -15.9% UG: Basement: Full R10 under slab & thermal breaks 147.82 3.0% 10,682 $1,495 2,935 $763 $2,259 -15.2% Below Grade Wall UG: Basement: 2x4 (R-12) stud wall with interior R10 c.i. 148.62 2.5% 10,627 $1,488 2,962 $770 $2,258 -15.2% UG: R20 Blanket for Foundation 148.78 2.4% -10.1% 10,628 $1,488 2,966 $771 $2,259 -15.3% UG: Combination R10 ext c.i. (xps) and interior 2x4 (R12) wall*TB 143.16 6.1% 10,612 $1,486 2,817 $732 $2,218 -13.2% UG: R-20 (4" xps) exterior c.i. 152.46 0.0% 10,659 $1,492 3,062 $796 $2,288 -16.8% Windows UG: Fenestration USI-1.6 w/ SHGC-0.35 151.41 0.7% -12.0% 10,268 $1,438 3,072 $799 $2,236 -14.1% UG: Fenestration USI-1.4 / SHGC 0.38 147.49 3.3% 10,360 $1,450 2,957 $769 $2,219 -13.2% UG: Fenestration USI-1.1 / SHGC 0.30 (triples) 144.19 5.4% 10,120 $1,417 2,892 $752 $2,169 -10.7% Air Tightness UG: Air Tightness @ 2.5 ACH 147.38 3.3% 10,621 $1,487 2,929 $762 $2,249 -14.7% UG: Air Tightness @ 2.0 ACH 142.36 6.6% 10,607 $1,485 2,796 $727 $2,212 -12.9% Mechanical Upgrades HRV UG: HRV 75% Efficiency 150.24 1.5% -11.2% 10,639 $1,489 3,004 $781 $2,271 -15.9% UG: HRV 84% Efficiency 148.89 2.3% 10,635 $1,489 2,969 $772 $2,261 -15.3% Air Conditioner/Heat Pump UG: Heat Pump with 7.13 HSPF and 14 SEER (Restricted to 0) 124.44 18.4% 11,555 $1,618 2,223 $578 $2,196 -12.0% UG: Heat Pump with 7.13 HSPF and 14 SEER (Restricted to -20) 105.18 31.0% 14,777 $2,069 1,395 $363 $2,431 -24.1% Furnace UG: Furnace at 96% AFUE 151.11 0.9% 10,646 $1,490 3,027 $787 $2,277 -16.2% UG: Furnace at 98% AFUE 149.80 1.7% 10,646 $1,490 2,992 $778 $2,268 -15.7% Domestic Hot Water UG: Condensing DHW 0.80 Energy Factor 150.75 1.1% 10,652 $1,491 3,017 $784 $2,276 -16.1% UG: Condensing DHW 0.86 Energy Factor 150.16 1.5% 10,653 $1,491 3,001 $780 $2,272 -15.9% Program Credits Lighting UG: LED Lighting (75% Efficient Lighting) 151.39 0.7% UG: 100% Energy Efficient Lighting 150.94 1.0% 19.1% 10,226 $1,432 3,001 $780 $2,212 -12.9% DWHR DWHR (42" 2-Shower on 3" drain) 152.45 0.0% -12.8% 9,104 $1,275 3,001 $780 $2,055 -4.8% DWHR (48" 2-Shower on 3" drain) 149.35 2.0% DWHR (60" 2-Shower on 3" drain) 148.92 2.3% ENERGY STAR Electrical Credits Energy Star Exhaust Fans (Three, each 50 cfm) 152.34 0.1% Energy Star Range Hood 152.34 0.1% Energy Star Appliances 151.95 0.3% 24.0% 10,511 $1,472 3,001 $780 $2,252 -14.9% Advanced Credits SBD: In Home Energy Display 151.37 0.7% -12.0% 10,646 $1,490 3,001 $780 SBD: All Off Switch with Green Plug 151.07 0.9% SBD: Outdoor Motion Sensor 151.88 0.4% Savings by Design Building - Cumulative Change to Reference Building 114.65 24.8% 15.16% 7,828 $1,096 2,321 $603 $1,699 13.3% Incremental Measures Summary27
26 Measures highlighted were incorporated into Savings By Design model. Measures not highlighted were assessed during the IDP Workshop as possible options but not adopted in the final SBD Building model. Note that the utility cost results are driven by the combination of the estimated savings and the current natural gas and electricity prices. Electricity prices are significantly higher than natural gas prices on a per BTU basis.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 83 ONof 155 38 Application and Draft Plan of
Total Incremental Cumulative Natural Total Cumulative Electricity Upgrade Description Consumption Change to Change to Gas Annual Change to kWh GJ Baseline Reference % $ m3 $ Cost Reference SB12 A-1 Reference Building 135.14 - - 8,852 $1,239 2,772 $721 $1,960 Baseline Building 152.45 - -12.8% 10,646 $1,490 3,063 $796 $2,287 - Envelope Upgrades All Floors/Ground Floor UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 16" oc - R22 + R5 (1" XPS) 147.57 3.2% 10,651 $1,491 2,932 $762 $2,253 -15.0% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 24" oc - R22 batt 152.17 0.2% 10,645 $1,490 3,056 $794 $2,285 -16.6% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 24" oc - R22 + R5 (1" XPS) 145.46 4.6% 10,647 $1,491 2,875 $748 $2,238 -14.2% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 16" oc - R22 + R10 (2" XPS) 142.74 6.4% 10,646 $1,490 2,802 $729 $2,219 -13.2% Roof / Roof #1 UG: Roof R60 151.62 0.5% 14.9% 10,640 $1,490 3,041 $791 $2,280 -16.3% Slab UG: Basement: Full R10 under slab 150.09 1.5% 10,681 $1,495 2,996 $779 $2,274 -16.0% UG: Basement: R10 under slab for 2' perimeter 151.67 0.5% 10,657 $1,492 3,041 $791 $2,283 -16.5% UG: Basement: R10 for 2' perimeter with thermal break 150.24 1.5% 10,648 $1,491 3,003 $781 $2,272 -15.9% UG: Basement: Full R10 under slab & thermal breaks 147.82 3.0% 10,682 $1,495 2,935 $763 $2,259 -15.2% Below Grade Wall UG: Basement: 2x4 (R-12) stud wall with interior R10 c.i. 148.62 2.5% 10,627 $1,488 2,962 $770 $2,258 -15.2% UG: R20 Blanket for Foundation 148.78 2.4% -10.1% 10,628 $1,488 2,966 $771 $2,259 -15.3% UG: Combination R10 ext c.i. (xps) and interior 2x4 (R12) wall*TB 143.16 6.1% 10,612 $1,486 2,817 $732 $2,218 -13.2% UG: R-20 (4" xps) exterior c.i. 152.46 0.0% 10,659 $1,492 3,062 $796 $2,288 -16.8% Windows UG: Fenestration USI-1.6 w/ SHGC-0.35 151.41 0.7% 10,268 $1,438 3,072 $799 $2,236 -14.1% UG: Fenestration USI-1.4 / SHGC 0.38 147.49 3.3% 10,360 $1,450 2,957 $769 $2,219 -13.2% UG: Fenestration USI-1.1 / SHGC 0.30 (triples) 144.19 5.4% 10,120 $1,417 2,892 $752 $2,169 -10.7% Air Tightness UG: Air Tightness @ 2.5 ACH 147.38 3.3% 10,621 $1,487 2,929 $762 $2,249 -14.7% UG: Air Tightness @ 2.0 ACH 142.36 6.6% 10,607 $1,485 2,796 $727 $2,212 -12.9% Mechanical Upgrades HRV UG: HRV 75% Efficiency 150.24 1.5% -11.2% 10,639 $1,489 3,004 $781 $2,271 -15.9% UG: HRV 84% Efficiency 148.89 2.3% 10,635 $1,489 2,969 $772 $2,261 -15.3% Air Conditioner/Heat Pump UG: Heat Pump with 7.13 HSPF and 14 SEER (Restricted to 0) 124.44 18.4% 11,555 $1,618 2,223 $578 $2,196 -12.0% UG: Heat Pump with 7.13 HSPF and 14 SEER (Restricted to -20) 105.18 31.0% 14,777 $2,069 1,395 $363 $2,431 -24.1% Furnace UG: Furnace at 96% AFUE 151.11 0.9% 10,646 $1,490 3,027 $787 $2,277 -16.2% UG: Furnace at 98% AFUE 149.80 1.7% 10,646 $1,490 2,992 $778 $2,268 -15.7% Domestic Hot Water UG: Condensing DHW 0.80 Energy Factor 150.75 1.1% 10,652 $1,491 3,017 $784 $2,276 -16.1% UG: Condensing DHW 0.86 Energy Factor 150.16 1.5% 10,653 $1,491 3,001 $780 $2,272 -15.9% Program Credits Lighting UG: LED Lighting (75% Efficient Lighting) 151.39 0.7% UG: LED Lighting + Controls (100% Efficient Lighting) 150.94 1.0% 19.1% 10,226 $1,432 3,001 $780 $2,212 -12.9% DWHR DWHR (42" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 152.45 0.0% -12.8% 9,104 $1,275 3,001 $780 $2,055 -4.8% DWHR (48" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 152.45 0.0% DWHR (60" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 152.45 0.0% ENERGY STAR Electrical Credits Energy Star Exhaust Fans (Three, each 50 cfm) 152.34 0.1% Energy Star Range Hood 152.34 0.1% Energy Star Appliances 151.95 0.3% 24.0% 10,511 $1,472 3,001 $780 $2,252 -14.9% Advanced Credits SBD: In Home Energy Display 151.37 0.7% 10,646 $1,490 3,001 $780 SBD: All Off Switch with Green Plug 151.07 0.9% SBD: Outdoor Motion Sensor 151.88 0.4% Savings by Design Building - Cumulative Change to Reference Building 90.04 40.9% 33.38% 12,584 $1,762 1,201 $312 $2,074 -5.8%
27 Sycamore team requested second summary package that included an ASHP and reduced other measures. .
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 84 ONof 155 39 Application and Draft Plan of
Components of Annual Energy Consumption (GJ) Credits Reference Cooling Baseline Base Loads DHW Savings By Design Heating
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Annual Energy Consumption (GJ)
Components of Annual Heat Loss (GJ)
Ventilation Basement Reference Doors Baseline Windows Exposed Floor Savings By Walls Design Ceiling 0 10 20 30 40
Annual Heat Loss (GJ)
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 85 ONof 155 40 Application and Draft Plan of
Energy Cost By Component28
$2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $- Domestic Hot Heating Base Loads Cooling Water Reference $608 $112 $1,455 $219 Baseline $672 $124 $1,490 $237 SBD Building $264 $49 $1,762 $192
28 Credits are included in baseline and in SBD Building’s energy costs
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 86 ONof 155 41 Application and Draft Plan of
10. CONCLUSION The integrated design process undertaken yielded a design that met the program requirements. It provided a forum for bringing together the ideas of stakeholders and subject matter experts to work interactively and exchange ideas and concerns. The group achieved an energy efficient design 56.9% better than the 2017 Reference model exceeding the goal of the program and moving significantly towards Net Zero performance levels. Proper commissioning of the systems and homeowner education will be integral to the optimization of the homeowner’s comfort and financial investment. A number of technologies, practices, and opportunities exist for consideration and for future projects. The results presented represent one potential path for consideration. Further review and analysis by the proponents in concert with their selected Certified Energy Advisor to finalize the optimal design for achieving the Savings By Design target.
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 87 ONof 155 42 Application and Draft Plan of
APPENDICES
UNDER SEPARATE DOCUMENT
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 88 ONof 155 43 Application and Draft Plan of
Overall Energy Performance
Total Annual Energy Annual Annual Energy Performance Projected Utilization Electricity Natural Gas as Compared to Energy Intensity Consumption Consumption OBC Consumption
Without Energy Without Energy Without Energy Credits Credits Credits
GJ/yr GJ/m2-yr kWh/yr m3/yr %
OBC Reference Building 167.6 0.37 12,458 3,301 Package “A129
Builder Baseline 159.6/157.5 0.35 12,408 3,085 4.8/6.1 Building – Leslie30
Savings By Design 142.8/140.7 0.32 12,210 2,652 14.9/16.1 Building – Leslie
With Energy Credits, the Leslie Savings By Design Building impressively performs 16.1% better than the 2017 OBC.
29 A1 Reference Building based on 3.0 ACH 30 Baseline Building and SBD Building based on 2.5 ACH – model credits for increased air tightness included in results
ZoningSAVINGS By-law BY DESIGNAmendment WORKSHOP | Sycamore Construction Ltd (ARG Group) Schomberg,Page 89 ONof 155 44 Application and Draft Plan of
Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By - law Amendment
Sponsored by: Enbridge Gas Distribution
Presented by: Sustainable Buildings Canada
Page 90 of 155 2395959 Ontario Inc. Sycamore Phase II Tuesday Oct.4, 2016 Methodology Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Pre-Charrette: Homes simulated to current OBC to represent - law Amendment the Reference energy performance
• Bayview Wellington S42-5 modeled as prescriptive compliance package A-1 (SB-12 2017) IDP seminar activities:
Simulate home in its current design to represent the Builder’s Baseline energy performance
• Baseline developed from current drawings and visioning session details Outcome: Create a Savings By Design home model which Page 91 of 155 exceeds the Reference energy performance by 15% or more Building Overview – Bayview Wellington S42-5 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By
The model was developed to provide support for the energy analysis of the single
detached- home (Bayview Wellington S42-5 Elevation A - Schomberg, ON) law Amendment • Two storey detached home with 5 bedrooms • Two car garage • ~12% window to wall ratio for detached unit • Front elevation facing West (worst case orientation) • Total floor area 4430 ft2 • Basement Floor 1406 ft2 • Ground Floor 1371 ft2 • 2nd Floor 1653 ft2 Page 92 of 155 Simulation Software Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By HOT2000 Version 10.51 - law Amendment • NRCan approved • Energuide, R2000 rating systems • Whole building energy simulation tool
• Performs heat loss/gain calculations for thermal conduction, ventilation and infiltration, passive solar heating
• Simulate a number of mechanical systems
• Estimate total heating, cooling, hot water, ventilation, lighting, and appliance annual energy consumption and costs Page 93 of 155 Envelope Specifications Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Bayview Wellington S42-5 - law Amendment Component 2017 SB12-A1 Builder's Reference Baseline (Effective) (Nominal) R-Value R-59.22 Ceiling with Attic Space R-50 [ft2°Fh/Btu] (R-60) R-Value R-17.83 Walls Above Grade R-22 [ft2°Fh/Btu] (R-22) R-Value R-30.09 Exposed Floor R-31 [ft2°F-h/Btu] (R-31) R-Value Below Grade Slab - - [ft2°F-h/Btu] R-Value Below Grade Wall R-20 c.i. R-12 [ft2°F-h/Btu]
Page 94 of 155 USI-Value U-1.6 / SHGC 1.8 / SHGC Windows and Sliding Glass Doors [W/m2k] 0.4 0.4
R-Values represent nominal thermal insulation values (insulation only) U-Value is the overall coefficient of heat transfer for the window including framing Mechanical Specifications Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By
Bayview Wellington S42-5 - law Amendment Component 2017 SB12-A1 Builder's Reference Baseline
Minimum Space Heating Equipment 96% 94% AFUE
Minimum HRV 75% 60% Efficiency
Domestic Hot Water Equipment Minimum EF 0.80 0.67
Air Conditioner SEER 14 14
Page 95 of 155 Spark ignition, Spark ignition, Fireplace Type sealed sealed Electrical Credits Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By
Bayview Wellington S42-5 - law Amendment Component 2017 SB12-A1 Builder’s Reference Baseline
75% Efficient Lighting GJ - -
Energy Star Appliances GJ - -
DWHR 42” (code requirement for 2017) GJ 5.6 -
In Home Energy Display GJ - - (SBD Credit)
All Off Switch with Green Plug
Page 96 of 155 GJ - - (SBD Credit) Reference and Builder's Baseline Model Inputs Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Building Loads* - law Amendment 21 oC set point , 19 oC set point in basement 2 Adults, 1 child, occupying 50% of the time Domestic hot water: 190 L/day Lighting and appliances: 19.5 kWh/day Infiltration . 3.0 ACH @ 50 Pa - Detached home - Builder's Baseline . 3.0 ACH @ 50 Pa - Detached home – Reference Ventilation rates based on OBC Table 9.32.3.4.A for Principal Central Exhaust Fan Capacity Page 97 of 155 Preliminary Simulation Results Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Energy performance vs. Orientation - law Amendment
W
E
S Front Orientation Front N
97.5 98.0 98.5 99.0 99.5 100.0 Fraction of Normalized Max. Consumption (%) • Front facing West worst orientation Page 98 of 155 • Greater than 1.3% difference in energy consumption Preliminary Simulation Results Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Reference SB12 2017 Baseline Total Consumption 140.69 GJ Total Consumption 152.45 GJ
- 2 2 Consumptionlaw Amendment per m2 0.34 GJ/m2 Consumption per m 0.37 GJ/m Electricity Consumption 10,394 kWh Electricity Consumption 10,646 kWh 3 Natural Gas Consumption 2,772 m3 Natural Gas Consumption 3,063 m
27% 25%
Electricity Electricity Gas Gas
73% 75%
Baseline is -12.8% With electrical credits
Page 99 of 155 Baseline is -8.4% Without electrical credits Consumption based on simulations run in HOT2000 10.51 ‘General’ Mode Preliminary Simulation Results
Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Components of Annual Energy Consumption Exterior, 1% Appliances, 6% -
law Amendment Other, 9%
Lights, 3%
• Reference Hot Water, 12%
Heating, 65% Cooling, 4%
Savings, -8% Exterior, 1% Appliances, 9% Other, 10%
Lights, 2% • Baseline Heating, 69% Hot Water, 15% Page 100 of 155 Cooling, 4% ‘Other’ and ‘Exterior’ are default electrical base loads specified by HOT2000 Preliminary Simulation Results HOT2000 v10.51c SB-12 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Components of Annual Heat Loss Ceiling, 5% Ventilation, 24%
- Walls, 26% law Amendment
• Reference Floors, 2% Basement, 19%
Doors, 2% Windows, 22% Savings, -8% Ceiling, 5%
Ventilation, Walls, 26% 26% • Baseline Floors, 2% Page 101 of 155 Basement, Windows, 25% 23% Doors, 2% Building Energy Model Introduction Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By - law Amendment
Questions…? Page 102 of 155 Total Incremental Cumulative Natural Total Cumulative Electricity Upgrade Description Consumption Change to Change to Gas Annual Change to kWh GJ Baseline Reference % $ m3 $ Cost Reference SB12 A-1 Reference Building 135.14 - - 10,394 $1,455 2,772 $721 $2,176 Baseline Building 152.45 - -12.8% 10,646 $1,490 3,063 $796 $2,287 - Envelope Upgrades Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By All Floors/Ground Floor UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 16" oc - R22 + R5 (1" XPS) 147.57 3.2% -9.2% 10,651 $1,491 2,932 $762 $2,253 -3.6% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 24" oc - R22 batt 152.17 0.2% 10,645 $1,490 3,056 $794 $2,285 -5.0% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 24" oc - R22 + R5 (1" XPS) 145.46 4.6% 10,647 $1,491 2,875 $748 $2,238 -2.9% - UG: Walls:law Amendment 2x6 @ 16" oc - R22 + R10 (2" XPS) 142.74 6.4% 10,646 $1,490 2,802 $729 $2,219 -2.0% Roof / Roof #1 UG: Roof R60 151.62 0.5% 14.9% 10,640 $1,490 3,041 $791 $2,280 -4.8% Slab UG: Basement: Full R10 under slab 150.09 1.5% 10,681 $1,495 2,996 $779 $2,274 -4.5% UG: Basement: R10 under slab for 2' perimeter 151.67 0.5% 10,657 $1,492 3,041 $791 $2,283 -4.9% UG: Basement: R10 for 2' perimeter with thermal break 150.24 1.5% 16.7% 10,648 $1,491 3,003 $781 $2,272 -4.4% UG: Basement: Full R10 under slab & thermal breaks 147.82 3.0% 10,682 $1,495 2,935 $763 $2,259 -3.8% Below Grade Wall UG: Basement: 2x4 (R-12) stud wall with interior R10 c.i.148.62 2.5% 10,627 $1,488 2,962 $770 $2,258 -3.8% UG: R20 Blanket for Foundation 148.78 2.4% -10.1% 10,628 $1,488 2,966 $771 $2,259 -3.8% UG: Combination R10 ext c.i. (xps) and interior 2x4 (R12)143.16 wall*TB 6.1% 10,612 $1,486 2,817 $732 $2,218 -1.9% UG: R-20 (4" xps) exterior c.i. 152.46 0.0% 10,659 $1,492 3,062 $796 $2,288 -5.2% Windows UG: Fenestration USI-1.6 w/ SHGC-0.35 151.41 0.7% -12.0% 10,268 $1,438 3,072 $799 $2,236 -2.8% UG: Fenestration USI-1.4 / SHGC 0.38 147.49 3.3% 10,360 $1,450 2,957 $769 $2,219 -2.0% UG: Fenestration USI-1.1 / SHGC 0.30 (triples) 144.19 5.4% 10,120 $1,417 2,892 $752 $2,169 0.3% Air Tightness UG: Air Tightness @ 2.5 ACH 147.38 3.3% 10,621 $1,487 2,929 $762 $2,249 -3.3% UG: Air Tightness @ 2.0 ACH 142.36 6.6% 10,607 $1,485 2,796 $727 $2,212 -1.7% Mechanical Upgrades HRV UG: HRV 75% Efficiency 150.24 1.5% -11.2% 10,639 $1,489 3,004 $781 $2,271 -4.4%
UG: HRVPage 103 of 155 84% Efficiency 148.89 2.3% 10,635 $1,489 2,969 $772 $2,261 -3.9% Air Conditioner/Heat Pump UG: Heat Pump with 7.13 HSPF and 14 SEER (Restricted124.44 to 0) 18.4% 11,555 $1,618 2,223 $578 $2,196 -0.9% UG: Heat Pump with 7.13 HSPF and 14 SEER (Restricted105.18 to -20) 31.0% 14,777 $2,069 1,395 $363 $2,431 -11.8% Furnace UG: Furnace at 96% AFUE 151.11 0.9% 10,646 $1,490 3,027 $787 $2,277 -4.7% UG: Furnace at 98% AFUE 149.80 1.7% 10,646 $1,490 2,992 $778 $2,268 -4.3% Domestic Hot Water UG: Condensing DHW 0.80 Energy Factor 150.75 1.1% 10,652 $1,491 3,017 $784 $2,276 -4.6% UG: Condensing DHW 0.86 Energy Factor 150.16 1.5% 10,653 $1,491 3,001 $780 $2,272 -4.4% Program Credits Lighting UG: LED Lighting (75% Efficient Lighting) 151.39 0.7% UG: LED Lighting + Controls (100% Efficient Lighting) 150.94 1.0% 19.1% DWHR DWHR (42" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 152.45 0.0% -12.8% DWHR (48" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 149.35 2.0% DWHR (60" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 148.92 2.3% ENERGY STAR Electrical Credits Energy Star Exhaust Fans (Three, each 50 cfm) 152.34 0.1% Energy Star Range Hood 152.34 0.1% Energy Star Appliances 151.95 0.3% 24.0% Advanced Credits SBD: In Home Energy Display 151.37 0.7% -12.0% SBD: All Off Switch with Green Plug 151.07 0.9% SBD: Outdoor Motion Sensor 151.88 0.4%
Savings by Design Building - Cumulative Change to Reference Building 114.96 24.6% 14.93% $0 $0 $0 100.0% Total Incremental Cumulative Natural Total Cumulative Electricity Upgrade Description Consumption Change to Change to Gas Annual Change to kWh GJ Baseline Reference % $ m3 $ Cost Reference SB12 A-1 Reference Building 135.14 - - 10,394 $1,455 2,772 $721 $2,176 Baseline Building 152.45 - -12.8% 10,646 $1,490 3,063 $796 $2,287 - Envelope Upgrades All Floors/Ground Floor UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 16" oc - R22 + R5 (1" XPS) 147.57 3.2% -9.2% 10,651 $1,491 2,932 $762 $2,253 -3.6% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 24" oc - R22 batt 152.17 0.2% 10,645 $1,490 3,056 $794 $2,285 -5.0% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 24" oc - R22 + R5 (1" XPS) 145.46 4.6% 10,647 $1,491 2,875 $748 $2,238 -2.9% UG: Walls: 2x6 @ 16" oc - R22 + R10 (2" XPS) 142.74 6.4% 10,646 $1,490 2,802 $729 $2,219 -2.0% Roof / Roof #1 UG: Roof R60 151.62 0.5% 14.9% 10,640 $1,490 3,041 $791 $2,280 -4.8% Slab UG: Basement: Full R10 under slab 150.09 1.5% 10,681 $1,495 2,996 $779 $2,274 -4.5% UG: Basement: R10 under slab for 2' perimeter 151.67 0.5% 10,657 $1,492 3,041 $791 $2,283 -4.9% UG: Basement: R10 for 2' perimeter with thermal break 150.24 1.5% 16.7% 10,648 $1,491 3,003 $781 $2,272 -4.4% UG: Basement: Full R10 under slab & thermal breaks 147.82 3.0% 10,682 $1,495 2,935 $763 $2,259 -3.8% Below Grade Wall UG: Basement: 2x4 (R-12) stud wall with interior R10 c.i.148.62 2.5% 10,627 $1,488 2,962 $770 $2,258 -3.8% UG: R20 Blanket for Foundation 148.78 2.4% -10.1% 10,628 $1,488 2,966 $771 $2,259 -3.8% UG: Combination R10 ext c.i. (xps) and interior 2x4 (R12)143.16 wall*TB 6.1% 10,612 $1,486 2,817 $732 $2,218 -1.9% UG: R-20 (4" xps) exterior c.i. 152.46 0.0% 10,659 $1,492 3,062 $796 $2,288 -5.2% Windows UG: Fenestration USI-1.6 w/ SHGC-0.35 151.41 0.7% -12.0% 10,268 $1,438 3,072 $799 $2,236 -2.8% UG: Fenestration USI-1.4 / SHGC 0.38 147.49 3.3% 10,360 $1,450 2,957 $769 $2,219 -2.0% UG: Fenestration USI-1.1 / SHGC 0.30 (triples) 144.19 5.4% 10,120 $1,417 2,892 $752 $2,169 0.3% Air Tightness UG: Air Tightness @ 2.5 ACH 147.38 3.3% 10,621 $1,487 2,929 $762 $2,249 -3.3% UG: Air Tightness @ 2.0 ACH 142.36 6.6% 10,607 $1,485 2,796 $727 $2,212 -1.7% Mechanical Upgrades HRV UG: HRV 75% Efficiency 150.24 1.5% -11.2% 10,639 $1,489 3,004 $781 $2,271 -4.4% UG: HRV 84% Efficiency 148.89 2.3% 10,635 $1,489 2,969 $772 $2,261 -3.9% Air Conditioner/Heat Pump UG: Heat Pump with 7.13 HSPF and 14 SEER (Restricted124.44 to 0) 18.4% 11,555 $1,618 2,223 $578 $2,196 -0.9%
Application and Draft Plan of UG:Zoning By Heat Pump with 7.13 HSPF and 14 SEER (Restricted105.18 to -20) 31.0% 14,777 $2,069 1,395 $363 $2,431 -11.8% Furnace UG: Furnace at 96% AFUE 151.11 0.9% 10,646 $1,490 3,027 $787 $2,277 -4.7% UG: Furnace at 98% AFUE 149.80 1.7% 10,646 $1,490 2,992 $778 $2,268 -4.3%
Domestic- Hot Water law Amendment UG: Condensing DHW 0.80 Energy Factor 150.75 1.1% 10,652 $1,491 3,017 $784 $2,276 -4.6% UG: Condensing DHW 0.86 Energy Factor 150.16 1.5% 10,653 $1,491 3,001 $780 $2,272 -4.4% Program Credits Lighting UG: LED Lighting (75% Efficient Lighting) 151.39 0.7% UG: LED Lighting + Controls (100% Efficient Lighting) 150.94 1.0% 19.1% DWHR DWHR (42" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 152.45 0.0% -12.8% DWHR (48" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 149.35 2.0% DWHR (60" 1-Shower on 3" drain) 148.92 2.3% ENERGY STAR Electrical Credits Energy Star Exhaust Fans (Three, each 50 cfm) 152.34 0.1% Energy Star Range Hood 152.34 0.1% Energy Star Appliances 151.95 0.3% 24.0% Advanced Credits SBD: In Home Energy Display 151.37 0.7% -12.0% SBD: All Off Switch with Green Plug 151.07 0.9% SBD: Outdoor Motion Sensor 151.88 0.4%
Savings by Design Building - Cumulative Change to Reference Building 114.96 24.6% 14.93% $0 $0 $0 100.0% Page 104 of 155 Final Result – SBD Package Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By - law Amendment Upgrade Description Total Consumption GJ Incremental change Cumulative change SB-12 A-1 135.1 - - Baseline 152.5 -12.8% -12.81% Savings By Design 115.0 24.6% 14.93%
Component SB12 A-1 Baseline Savings By Design Natural gas 2,772 m3 3,063 m3 2,329 m3 consumption Natural gas - -$76 $115 savings Electricity 10,394 kWh 10,646 kWh 7,888 kWh consumption Electricity - -$35 $351 savings Total annual - -$111 $466 savings Total GHG
Emissions - -575 kg CO2eq 1,107 kg CO2eq reductions Page 105 of 155
Prepared for: Lloyd Town Mills 2395959 Ontario/iPro Realty Sycamore Construction Limited Schomberg, ON November 3, 2016
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 106 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
Table of Contents1
1. Executive Summary ...... 4 2. Introduction And Background...... 6 3. Opening Session ...... 6 4. Roundtable Discussion To Highlight KeyElements ...... 7 5. Submission Priorities ...... 9 4. Storm Water Management Break-out ...... 10 Community Planning Break-Out ...... 13 Concluding Remarks ...... 15 APPENDICES ...... 16
1 Workshop presentations are provided as appendices under separate cover
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 107 Planning of 155 Workshop 2 Application and Draft Plan of
This report was prepared by Sustainable Buildings Canada (SBC) pursuant to the full-day Integrated Design Process (IDP) workshop, a key element of the Enbridge Savings By Design Process. It is for the sole use of the program participants Phil Hutchinson and Rick Russo in collaboration with Neil Palmer of Sycamore Construction. This report is confidential and not to be distributed or reproduced without the consent of program participants. SBC assumes full responsibility for all information presented herein. Any errors or omissions are purely the responsibility of SBC.
Copyright © 2017
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 108 Planning of 155 Workshop 3 Application and Draft Plan of
1. Executive Summary
This session is the second of three sessions planned to address the more complex nature of this project. Typically, projects are developed over the course of a single day session however Enbridge has generously agreed to host multiple sessions to ensure that there is sufficient time to conduct a thorough assessment of the various elements in play. This project includes the re-purposing of an existing commercial building and a residential development on a parcel of land that has unique characteristics, challenges and objectives. This workshop focuses on three aspects of the land development: • Low Impact development - Sustainable design features including storm water management features; • Optimizing the plan: o Lay-out and orientation of buildings; o Optimizing the location of the access road; o Maximizing value of community spaces; o Seeking design alternatives that enhance livability. There are a number of externalities affecting this project including macroeconomics, and provincial and municipal regulations. The land and the plan for it is characterized by a floodplain stream, an unconnected amenity pond, and the provision for a road that is currently cul-de-sac at the termination of the phase I adjacent residential development. We were fortunate to have the participation of two key stakeholders in this development, the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority (LSRCA) and King Township, to provide input into how best to achieve regulatory compliance with municipal and conservation authority requirements and to explore alternatives for moving this project forward with higher environmental performance. The discussion was also enhanced with perspectives from technical subject mater experts in the areas of storm water management, urban design, landscape architecture and engineering. The team explored low impact development criteria and opportunities, which uncovered certain challenges related to soil conditions and the realities of traversing the flood plain with the proposed extension of the road. Another key, if not limiting factor relates to soil conditions and the feasibility of enhancing infiltration with LID features. One of the most important deliverables from the day included a series of drawings and new sketches that “uncorked” new possibilities for enhancements to the original draft plan brought to the session. These images have been previously forwarded to support the on-going application process and are provided in a separate link with the balance of the presentation and other supporting materials from the workshop.
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 109 Planning of 155 Workshop 4 Application and Draft Plan of
Workshop participants included the SBD workshop team, Enbridge, and select industry practitioners (See attendee list). The session’s objective was to identify and assess opportunities to enhance the plan for livability, walkability, and to discuss ways in which environmental performance can be enhanced. Unlike the sessions dedicated to energy modeling, these land planning workshops are more exploratory in nature and provide an expanded view of the alternatives and in some cases constraints, however they provide context that better enables the participants to plot a path forward recognizing both the challenges to be addressed and the opportunities that might be available.
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 110 Planning of 155 Workshop 5 Application and Draft Plan of
2. Introduction And Background
The Participants seek to gain approval of a site plan to: • Commence development of a residential townhouse subdivision (Phase II); • Commence redevelopment of an adjacent commercial building; • & to address compliance issues related to the requirements of the township and conservation authority. A short planning session (The Visioning Session) was convened in advance of the workshop to identify the objectives and key challenges for the project and to brief the SBD team in preparation for this workshop.2
3. Opening Session
Constantine (Taki) Eliadis, the lead facilitator, presented the agenda for the day and welcomed the group, providing an overview of the SBD program.3 Michelle Vestergaard, Channel Consultant for the SBD program for Enbridge, welcomed the group and explained how the SBD initiative fits with their program portfolio and the Ontario Energy Board’s direction. Michelle described the available incentives and the marketing support available to program participants. To provide context for the impact of climate change on our local environment, Constantine provided highlights of a synopsis of a 2011 study (Toronto’s Future Weather and Climate Driver Study) which predicts an alarming trend towards an increase in extreme in weather conditions including higher summer temperatures, more rainfall and an increase in the frequency of extreme events. This information provided an impactful backdrop to the discussion of resilience at both the building and site level. This highlights the need for not only enhanced energy efficiency to mitigate climate change but also a re-assessment of practices for enhancing durability to “future-proof” new buildings against extreme weather. Developers are further challenged to not simply reduce their environmental impact of development, but to build in regenerative strategies that preserve and strengthen the delicate environmental balance of the natural habitats. Dan Stone, consultant to the Participants provided a brief overview of the project located at Roselene and Church Street in Schomberg, the application objectives which include an assessment of alternatives for the extension of the road, an exploration of feasible storm water management strategies and alternatives for the lay-out of Phase I, and optimization of the community plan. Aspects of particular interest of this site include: • The residential project follows the first phase, completed in the mid 2000’s and includes 90 single family dwellings constructed by the Bay-Wellington Group;
2 See Appendix A for the Visioning Session Report 3 See Appendix B for the attendee list
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 111 Planning of 155 Workshop 6 Application and Draft Plan of
• This Phase II contemplates 60 residential units (townhouses or single-family – TBD);
• An existing constructed water-feature pond (not for storm water, and not connected);
• A plan for a small storm water management pond in the NE corner of the area;
• An existing institutionally-zoned building on the west side of the pond which is proposed to be re-purposed as a senior’s residence – 15-17 units, 2 levels, and 14,000 sq. ft. discussed in the third session; o Please note: this commercial building is not currently serviced with sewer or water.
• The current urban boundary bisects the land property. Representatives of the LSRCA are in the process of finalizing new technical guidelines for Low Impact Development and advised he group that it would shortly be able to provide a summary to the proponents. (Proponents will follow up directly with LSRCA).
4. Roundtable Discussion To Highlight Key Elements
▪ LID Features (bio-retention) – consider putting infiltration in the road right of way – opportunity for municipality to consider alternate road profile and also infiltration controls on private property; ▪ Water quality and water balance – could be offered as a landscaping package; ▪ Investigate rainwater harvesting technologies; ▪ John Taylor – development boundaries for the site – urban boundary limits fixed; ▪ Identify constrains on site from environmental and provincial policy perspectives; ▪ Soils are a challenge – infiltration will be an issue – it will need to be engineered because of the silty soil; ▪ Chris – maybe reconfigure that pond – some support for wildlife but could provide an even better wildlife habitat – also issues about the road crossing the creek and the wildlife passage – so that habitat can continue to make use of the pond – reconfigure means pond could be made smaller – this would provide roads or lots but also need to look at the pond – want more shallow area to adjacent to the shore and deepen in some areas and more vegetation around the perimeter; ▪ Steve – likes Alison’s idea to highlight some other rain-scaping themes – downspout disconnection and work with the community to understand the controls; ▪ The retirement home is downstream so if the SWM for natural heritage and water quantity control perhaps the retirement home can provide the difference,.i.e. parking lot with permeable pavement etc…;
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 112 Planning of 155 Workshop 7 Application and Draft Plan of
▪ Note pond is standalone feature, not connected and not for SWM. So even more critical to have controls (quantity control created as part of infrastructure) ▪ Carlos – road alignment – we need to decide which crossing we are going to use and the erecting of the bridge crossing and how much land we can have – what type of bridge crossing (cost/feasibility); ▪ Silty clay everywhere and natural infiltration limited – need to look at the homes to help with water management – also double purpose dry pond park; ▪ Rick – rainwater, greywater, windows, HVAC – how to use greywater – just run blackwater down and reuse the grey water – this apparently will need the sewers to be redesigned for only blackwater; ▪ Taki – What about low flow requirement in the Sustainability Checklist (no one knows of this) Dan S. says yes it does – Taki says over and above provincial; ▪ Jasper – just arrived – from Township of King Planning – so Dan S asks him about the checklists – Jasper they are draft but we treat them as requirements and review applications in light of these; ▪ Alison refers to checklist– fairly standard LID references; ▪ Rick - Will have to pump effluent given elevation differences; a macerator might be required; ▪ Phil –reiterated the concerns above – wants to do this while keeping it beautiful and energy efficient – need the pond as a feature and how do we maximize its value on the site; ▪ John (Township) – LID technologies require ongoing maintenance and requires access – cost and control key to municipalities; ▪ Dan L – wants application to reflect balanced approach – shape and development of land o key points what are the lot sizes, passive solar, geo-exchange opportunities, hard surface area – need to look at how roads should be planned – cost of building roads and cost of maintaining – access – but want to be mindful of hard surface, natural vs. build environment 80% will remain a natural feature – who will maintain? – Are these common elements residing on retirement home property or features of Parklands?; o Walkability – high walkability for all demographics essential design feature; routing connections, coverage of the land; ▪ Neil – regarding storm water management – pursuing municipal approvals and agreeing on capital contribution for infrastructure in advance; ▪ Urban expansion – streams to south, cemetery – so urban expansion is limited ▪ Jasper – Can boundaries be challenged?; ▪ Road crossing - spill into the floodplain – will require full cut & fill; ▪ Hydraulics – understanding the flood plain – can fill within the flood plain but it needs to correct ;
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 113 Planning of 155 Workshop 8 Application and Draft Plan of
▪ LIDs right-of- way vs privately located -there is a credit for quantity control however it needs to be discussed with the MOE and the Twp – all approving parties; ▪ Soil might restrictive but need to deal with water balance – infiltration for water quality – all agencies must agree on what type of credit but he says there are checklists that can help; ▪ Tight soils and high water table – LIDs need to be maintained just like the SWM ponds; ▪ Dan S – how to make LIDs work – it is a planning fact – road needs to connect to Church and the creek needs to be crossed – lands to the east will be developed – retirement home – these are all planning “givens”; ▪ Gaspare – the urban boundary is the urban boundary – no need seen to change the urban boundary – so we will see if this request is on the table – it might make sense in this room but what about the incremental requests because of a precedent being set – from a Township perspective we are looking to a growth plan and we need to distribute growth –King Twp already feeling this;
5. Submission Priorities
This project seeks to leverage the success of a previous project, “Mosaic” and how a focus on reducing the size of the storm water pond had a positive environmental impact and “earned” the developer an allocation of an additional 8 building lots. The proponents hope that as a result of this exercise, their application will be better informed of the requirements and more effectively comply with the approval process. While not a direct focus of this session, the conversion of the commercial building to a retirement residence includes an application for municipal services (currently not connected), which would facilitate a central sprinkler system. Considerable investigation (engineering and environmental) has been undertaken to assess the requirements for traversing the creek.
About The Savings By Design Process
Integrated design is a simple but powerful approach to design that embraces the inherent inter- dependencies among the all stakeholders. By convening all stakeholders early in the design process, options from all perspectives are brought to light and assessed in a collaborative manner, resulting in better-informed decisions with early buy-in and fewer unforeseen issues that require costly site changes. Everyone at these workshops is encouraged to actively participate. In essence, this program encourages the market, through information and incentives, to consider and adopt new techniques, technologies and processes to set higher performance standards, in this case as it relates to environmental performance of, in this case, developed land.
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 114 Planning of 155 Workshop 9 Application and Draft Plan of
4. Storm Water Management Break-out
• Soil report back in 1997 – silty clay – Schomberg clay – infiltration is poor; • Tends to a gallery type in a public space and there will need to be a pumping station – If dedicated land for a pumping station > use this public space down at one end of the site; • Neil – Sanitary is at low point and comes back up – so it is going uphill; o on map there is SWM site – so it will need to be pumped; • Steve so maybe a dry pond with a bio-retention feature – tie in with sustainability concept – but will it provide quantity control?; • Will drainage need to split?; • On private property – is a covenant needed ? Twp. would want an easement or owned and operated directly; • Question of what balance is for this site –need to mimic the existing conditions – so regardless even though it may be minimal it needs to be addressed but doesn’t think it is onerous – having it at an end of pipe close to the water source doesn’t make sense – should be throughout the site; • Volume is 5 ml – but it is tiered – it’s meant to be retention but also needs to be water balance requirement; • John – King City was able to meet 5 ml through underground system; • Cisterns – not really a consideration - needs to be used in 48 hours of it being full; • In-situ testing needs to be done – so no infiltration/percolation rates available; • Existing infiltration minimal–need quality control for phosphorus – no storm scepter – no credit given for phosphorous reduction – requirement; • Phil - would prefer into the infrastructure – eg depressed boulevard & curb cut; • Steve – Green Street in New Market –ECA for Forest Glen Road; • Curb cuts into a depression – but tight real estate; Rick – length is there but width isn’t there – what are the standards for the street vs how can these standards be challenged ?– modify the right of way (eg. Super elevated roads)?; • If we are ruling out the boulevard then what can we do underground and be accessible?; • Distributed LIDs – Lot level features– Is this an option?; • Rain gardens on private properties – in single lots you can put in between lots or underground in the back – pit filled with sandy soil – they didn’t need a perforated pipe but possible;
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 115 Planning of 155 Workshop 10 Application and Draft Plan of
• Maintenance – rain gardens registered on title and homeowner obligated to maintain? It is a low maintenance solution; • How to recover the costs through the tax base? – challenges here; • Constantine raised local improvement charges but probably wouldn’t apply to these; • Neil - Can we look to the retirement home ?– they own the home, 8 acres; • Problem is that land is isolated – they are separate sub-catchments; • Phil says that it would be possible but that is quantity control through the active storage; • Alison - distributed solutions are better from a water quality control – tree pits leave room for trees and even going back to ditches; • Steve – lots of options – John good old fashioned sod is easier to maintain – discussion on who does what and the challenges of maintaining?; • SWM utility mechanism – charges to home owners – Municipal policy issue first; • Rick - thinks ditches are ideal – what of the river swell?; • Alison – trees in road rights of way – the trees are not growing in these areas very well ; • Need a designated area where water is directed to – quantity and quality control – tree health is an issue – it is often overlooked; • Rebecca – Can sidewalks be permeable? What are implications for approval?;
Constantine pressed for a summary of the discussions to distill the recommendations: 1. Need an infiltration report – peculation rate and actual infiltration (in-situ); 2. Builder wants ditches but Planning Dept. would probably not support it; 3. Paradigm shifts required by Townships; 4. Need to loop the water main around the loop – can this go through a condo designated area; 5. Solutions on rights of way; 6. Trenches in boulevard – wrapped pipe in gravel; 7. Ground water is an issue; 8. Neil worried about anything on private where owner tampers/disables?; 9. Lots designed to incorporate the LIDs – will this be onerous to maintain?; 10. Right away vs distributed on lots vs central dry pond; 11. LID to get incremental quality control with central facility to provide balance; • Steve puts up a drainage concept (See Appendix) on flip chart – essentially and LID with overflow capability – a hybrid design;
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 116 Planning of 155 Workshop 11 Application and Draft Plan of
• Dry ponds – Rebecca hasn’t seen the research to determine efficacy; • John -Treatment train subject to ECA – Phil yes goes trap with filtration then dry pond vs quasi wet/dry pond – yes these systems are all working together ECA/MOE requirements – region looks at pipe and pond and Don says that MOE only looks at pond not pipe….; • The Region and the CA – if these are approved then the MOE should be on board they will just look to see that LID plan is there, that the maintenance plan is there, and the monitoring plan is there – Steve said February submitted and approved by March; • John - York Region will stamp (Don says Region doesn’t review the pond); • MOE really only looks at the description of the pond or if any other party had an issue – they are deferring to the Township/municipality; • Now LIDs have to part of the ECA; • MOE is providing Q.A. that it has been reviewed;
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 117 Planning of 155 Workshop 12 Application and Draft Plan of
SWM/LID Discussion – John gives update:
1. Site soil presents continued challenge; 2. Looked at standard SWM ideal and then expanded into LID; 3. Where would they go – between houses, right of way (is there room), challenges with private property (maintenance); 4. Solutions – lot level (for quality control) – can you put responsibility on title – what about maintenance?; 5. Alternative funding options – surtax on unique, condo concept – third party funded through the develop; 6. Paradigm shift required between planning and O&M – linear thought process –changing our designs; 7. Hybrid system – See concept drawing from flip chart; 8. Regulatory challenges – transfer of review process – stamped ECA – if LIDs are part of this system where do they follow in the transfer review process?; 9. Who reviews and approves – how does the regulatory process work – will ECA need to describe each LID? Constantine asks about timing constraints in the context of complex approvals; • John - LID technologies are validated; • Municipalities – reluctant to be “first”– however if the exposure is shared there is an opportunity; • John will require shop drawings for approval so he thinks the same will apply – purpose and how it is to be done – governance needs to be part of the solution; • Phil – With experience of town of Aurora – the consultant were providing “modified right-of- ways” (for all infrastructure not just LID) and then the planning engineers can review the criteria (add on another meter right of way requirement for LID) – given the town concepts for consideration; • Industry took “end of pipe’ route because they were the easiest to design.
Community Planning Break-Out
1. Can we use the pond to create a community vs. a feature for some?; 2. Left the retirement home area alone; 3. Looked at a different approach – Plan B similar to Dan’s plan this morning – how to get a road in?– would need to fill in part of the pond – so would need to increase hard surface (road would need to be wider) and manipulating the water feature – this could create more problems than benefits; 4. Keep the crossing in the same place but update it;
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 118 Planning of 155 Workshop 13 Application and Draft Plan of
5. Presented a complete new Plan C that uses the water feature as a community amenity – everyone feels like they are part of the central pond area and think about views and access within the community – standard 30 m blocks – single/semi/towns; 6. This developed into Plan D – maintain the development block but can go into a cluster block – cross integration between woodlot and pond – common elements allow you to do smaller right of way forms; 7. Density we did not talk about but you can have various types of homes with common elements - could also be cluster towns and pick up more density and diversity and also be integrated with the retirement community. East/west block print can allow for some passive solar – but it really integrates the woodlot and retirement home/pond; • This would provide more opportunities for LID – nice loop for exercise (human) easier to put in the LID since you are taking it off the single road; • Public vs Private roads – they can look the same but if they are private then they are not subject to some of the municipal rights-of way; • Setbacks are still details to be worked out; • Dan - with the road hugging the west you get the road a community feature – there is a policy advantage for Plan C and D – from east to west if the road is hugging the feature there could be LID features on one side of he site – Dan L – don’t want a speed way so you need to make design the main road in such a way to use the streets; • You can have a common element feature - parkette within and have that as an LID feature – visitor parking, common parking (probably not) parking at rear –everything is draining toward the pond but you may still have more options; • The Condo corporation could have responsibility– tied to the agreement with unit owners; • Single loaded road would be municipal – public road to public road but the road just establishes the perimeter of the block; • Dan – with condo elements – and retirement as part of the package; • Taki – how does this affect the ecology? – Dan - if there are trees you will get the birds and squirrels; • Can municipality mandate access onto condo property?; • Approvals – is one plan better than the other – for the MOE – talk about regulatory; • Lots of options as a condo - will depend on cost allocation and capital budget; • Solar PV has many potential options; o Important to confer with local LDC regarding transmission constraints and connection timelines; • Geothemal – Does the pond represent an option for the retirement home?; • 25 year old official plan that should be reviewed in light the provincial growth plan;
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 119 Planning of 155 Workshop 14 Application and Draft Plan of
• How does increased density affect the Township; Do we have allocation for Schomberg? - mostly built out –currently can’t meet the demand in Schomberg;
Concluding Remarks
The day’s discussions raised many connected issues, many traced back to the interactions among approving parties. Dan indicated he would move forward asap to assemble a concept plan and organize a pre-consultation meeting with the Township. Soils and topography information (flood plain) is requested by the LSRCA as soon as possible as there are still many unanswered questions. The session was adjourned at 14:30.
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 120 Planning of 155 Workshop 15 Application and Draft Plan of
APPENDICES
Zoning By-law Amendment SchombergPage Land 121 Planning of 155 Workshop 16 Application and Draft Plan of
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 122 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By-law Amendment Page 123 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By-law Amendment Page 124 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By-law Amendment Page 125 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Scan of Key Issues - law Amendment Page 126 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Municipal Risk - law Amendment Page 127 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Constraints - law Amendment Page 128 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Stormwater Management - law Amendment Page 129 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By LID Strategies - law Amendment Page 130 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By Hybrid Stormwater Systems - law Amendment Page 131 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Zoning By LID Options - law Amendment Page 132 of 155 King Township Phone: 905.833.5321 2075 King Road Fax: 905.833.2300 King City, Ontario Website: www.king.ca Canada L7B 1A1
May 18, 2017
Mr. Dan Stone, MCIP, RPP Thorstone Consulting Services P.O. Box 116 Sutton, ON L0E 1R0
By E-Mail Only ([email protected])
Dear Mr. Stone:
Re: Pre-Consultation Meeting No. PCM-17-10; Meeting Date: April 28, 2017 Subject Lands: 6365 Highway 9; Part Lot 32, Concession 9 Applicant/Owner: Sycamore Construction Ltd. & 2395959 Ontario Ltd.
PRE-CONSULTATION MEETING ATTENDEES:
Gaspare Ritacca, Township of King Planning Department Scott Donald, Township of King Parks, Recreation, and Culture Department Mike Cole, Township of King Engineering and Public Works Department Nairn Robertson, Township of King Fire and Emergency Services Jeff Johnson, Township of King Building Department Bruce Alexander, R.J. Burnside & Associates Taylor Knapp, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) Charles Burgess, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) Dan Stone, Thorstone Consulting Services Chris Parent, Cole Engineering Group Ltd. Carlos Ilagan, Cole Engineering Group Ltd. Rebecca Archer, Cole Engineering Group Ltd. Nicole DiPlacito, ARG Rick Russo, Dolly & Phil Hutchinson, 2395959 Ontario Ltd.
SUMMARY:
On April 28, 2017, a pre-consultation meeting took place at the Township of King offices between Township staff and the above noted attendees. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the application, review process, and submission requirements regarding proposed applications for draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment to allow for a proposed residential development consisting of 55 single detached residential lots and an extension of Rosalena Drive from its existing terminus to Church Street. Please be advised that pre-consultation does not imply or suggest any decision on behalf of the Township or Township staff to either support or refuse an application.
REPORTS, STUDIES AND PLANS REQUIRED:
As discussed at the April 28, 2017 meeting and based upon the review that has taken place to date in relation to the development proposal, the following reports, studies, and plans are required, subject to further review by the Township.
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 133 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
King Township Phone: 905.833.5321 2075 King Road Fax: 905.833.2300 King City, Ontario Website: www.king.ca Canada L7B 1A1
Development Impact & Financial
Development Concept Plans/Drawings Draft plan of subdivision Planning Justification Report (including conformity with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, Greenbelt Plan, South Georgian Bay Source Protection Plan, and Provincial Policy Statement) Source Water Protection Plan Conformity Assessment Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessments Urban and Architectural Design Strategy Sustainable Development Standards Checklist Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan Noise Impact Study
Environmental/Natural Heritage
Environmental Impact Study/Natural Heritage/Hydrological Evaluation Water Balance Analysis Phosphorous Budget Wellhead Protection Area Requirements Study Species at Risk Inventory (Endangered Species Act) Flood Plain and Erosion Hazard Analysis/Flood Line Delineation/Hydraulics
Servicing/Infrastructure/Engineering
Functional Servicing Study Servicing & Infrastructure Plans Water & Wastewater Servicing Plans Stormwater Management Report/Plan Grading Plan(s) Erosion & Sediment Control Plans Environmental Site Assessment Contaminant Management Plan Geotechnical Study Hydrogeological Study Transportation/Traffic Study Low Impact Development Measures Assessment
The above noted information/submission requirements will comprise a complete application under the Planning Act, subject to further review by the Township. The requirements identified in this letter are based upon the proposal/concept as presented to Township staff at the pre-consultation meeting. It may be determined during the review process that additional studies, documents and/or information will be required as a result of issues arising during the processing of the applications.
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 134 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
King Township Phone: 905.833.5321 2075 King Road Fax: 905.833.2300 King City, Ontario Website: www.king.ca Canada L7B 1A1
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND ITEMS OF DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PRE-CONSULTATION MEETING:
A concept plan, titled “Sycamore II – Option 4”, prepared by Thorstone Consulting Services, dated April 2, 2017 was presented at the meeting.
Comments were provided by Planning staff with respect to the proposed draft plan and the proposed lot sizes in the area of transition between the existing lots on Rosalina Drive and the proposed development. A re-distribution of the lots within the draft plan may be appropriate.
Planning staff noted that as an element of past design charette meetings with regard to the subject lands there were other concepts being explored which included alternate forms of housing such as townhouses and semi-detached units. Planning staff sought clarification with respect to the status of those design concepts and requested that they continue to be explored and evaluated.
The boundary of the woodland feature located in the area of the existing terminus of Rosalena Drive was also discussed. It was noted that further evaluation of the woodland species and condition/health of the trees was required. A site meeting on May 10, 2017 subsequent to the pre-consultation meeting has taken place with the owners and agents, Township staff, and LSRCA staff to further assess the woodland. The design of the draft plan and the information/reports prepared in support of the applications should take into account the outcome of this meeting.
Concern was noted by Township Engineering staff with respect to the stormwater management being proposed and the total reliance on Low Impact Development measures (LIDs). In particular, staff noted a concern with some forms of LIDs which may be proposed and indicated that mechanical measures are not acceptable.
The status of the Township’s on-going Official Plan review was also discussed.
It must be confirmed that the subject lands have been accounted for within the capacity of the Schomberg sanitary treatment plant and servicing allocation is available for the proposed development.
LSRCA outlined its comments as per the May 2, 2017 e-mail (copy attached). Please contact LSRCA for any further clarification and/or confirmation with respect to their requirements.
Region of York has provided its pre-consultation comments as per the April 25, 2017 email (copy attached). Please contact Region of York for any further clarification and/or confirmation with respect to their requirements.
NOTES:
Applications submitted without the information/documents identified in this letter will not be considered complete. Pre-consultation is required as per By-law 2014-71. This pre-consultation
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 135 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
King Township Phone: 905.833.5321 2075 King Road Fax: 905.833.2300 King City, Ontario Website: www.king.ca Canada L7B 1A1
letter is valid for a period of six (6) months from the date of the issuance of the letter by the Township.
The above reflects a general preliminary review only. Upon a complete application being submitted for the proposal, a detailed review will occur as part of processing the application and, as such, there may be a further need for additional information and/or revisions. If the submission of the applications to the Township is significantly delayed, Planning staff may require further opportunity to review the information requirements outlined in this letter and determine if any additional studies, reports, plans, etc. are required.
We trust this is satisfactory. Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions.
TOWNSHIP OF KING STAFF SIGNATURE:
May 18, 2017 ______Gaspare Ritacca, MCIP, RPP Date Manager of Planning and Development
PROPONENT SIGNATURES (To be signed and returned upon submission of application): By signing this Letter, I acknowledge that, subject to any appeals, the drawings, reports and other reports identified herein must be submitted along with a completed application, any information or materials required by statute, the required planning application fees, and this Pre-consultation Letter to be considered complete. I have read, understood, and agree to the above.
______Proponent (Print Name) Proponent (Signature) Date (I have the authority to Bind the Owner)
GR/gr
Attachments (2)
cc: Taylor Knapp, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (By E-mail only) Assif Abbas, Region of York Community Planning and Development Services (By E-mail only)
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 136 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
Community Consultation Forestbrook Hills Phase II – Township of King – Community of Schomberg
Doug Leitch 2017 06 22 Event Facilitator and Managing Partner Tandem Thinkers Inc.
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 137 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Tandem Thinkers
Table of Contents
Preamble: ...... 3 The Proponent Team in Attendance: ...... 3 Annotations: ...... 3 Environmental Discussions ...... 4 Flood Plain ...... 4 Post Construction ...... 4 Woodlot ...... 4 Parks: ...... 4 Traffic: ...... 5 Church Street Exit: ...... 5 Construction Phase: ...... 5 Through Traffic Route: ...... 5 Traffic Study: ...... 5 Ideas: ...... 5 Official Plan ...... 6 What is allowed ...... 6 Timeline to Shovels ...... 6 New Homes ...... 6 Nearby Retirement Home ...... 6 Water/Sewer ...... 6
2
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 138 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Tandem Thinkers
Preamble: Project Proponents chose to conduct this community consultation following consultation with Township staff and retained Tandem Thinkers as an independent third-party to facilitate the meeting and discussion. It was not a required event, however it offered the opportunity to advise, and generate both concerns and ideas from the community, as well as demonstrate goodwill. An optional attendance list was generated, and separate from the count on that, the facilitator estimated 40 members of the community participated including the Mayor Steve Pellegrini and two councilors Linda Pabst and Bill Cober. Township of King Planning Manager Gaspare Ritacca was also in attendance.
The Project Proponents provided an approximately 20-minute overview presentation to outline the proposal in general terms and provide background and details on the work that has taken place to date. The meeting was successful in meeting all objectives of the proponents and in fact ended with applause from the community attendees. Mayor Pellegrini remarked at the close of the session that the consultation was one of the best and well-organized such events he has attended.
The Proponent Team in Attendance: Proponents Subject Matter Experts Facilitator Sycamore Construction Ltd, known Thorstone Consulting: Dan Stone Tandem Thinkers Inc.: Doug Leitch as Bayview Wellington Homes: Planning, urban design & (Neil Palmer) sustainable development
2395959 Ontario Ltd. – Lloyd’s Mill: Cole Engineering Group Ltd: Rick Russo & Phil Hutchinson Carlos Ilagan/Chris Parent Engineering, environmental, traffic, servicing, and storm water management
This document represents all documented discussion points throughout the two-hour consultation, that list of points being validated by the community participants at the end of the meeting. The sort is by topic, not priority.
Annotations: • PT: Comments provided by the Proponent Team • Mayor: Comments provided by the Mayor
3
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 139 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Tandem Thinkers
Environmental Discussions
Flood Plain There was a general concern that development will impact the flood plain • Top of Bank Clarification Required o Flood Plain Study will validate location o Flood Plain Study will clarify setbacks o PT: Setback is believed to be 15m but it will be validated o Mayor: Believes the Town-wide setback is 30m. o King township Planner noted it is variable • All waterways, including the river, have this setback requirement
Post Construction • Phase one still has temporary construction materials in wetlands, put in place to protect wetlands during construction. We need to be assure Phase two will properly clean up after completion.
Woodlot • Concern of over-use of woodlot which is felt by the suggestor to be marginally stable already. o Can we limit access? o Can we put buffers around it? • Existing residents are developing or putting trash beyond their fences demarking public space. o Can we design to prevent both for new homes? • Are any tree areas being removed? o PT: One area, which is Ash Borer issues will have trees removed. Both the Conservation Authority and the Township are involved and their guidelines will be followed. Conservation Authority will look at the entire ecosystem in making their recommendation, not just the one place where the trees will come down. Have proposed trees along east side of pond for example as a cooling mechanism for the stream. o PT: These decisions are part of the Environmental Study • Will the trail system link to the new homes? o PT: We would like to include that
Parks: • Existing park small and tired • Can we expand it in place to make it a come-together place to link both phases?
4
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 140 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Tandem Thinkers
Traffic:
Church Street Exit: • PT: The extension of Roselena Drive is a policy requirements of the approved Schomberg Community Plan. This is required by the Town from an emergency access by services and to provide emergency evacuation by residents and for general community connectivity • PT: Road alignment is not defined at this time • PT: Wetlands area near exit to Church Street will require the exit to shift to the west to some extent • Will we need intersection controls (all-way stop, traffic lights)?
Construction Phase: • How will trucks access the work site? • Will it damage newly resurfaced Church Street? • Will trucks use Roselena? Safety concerns.
Through Traffic Route: • Extreme concern for children who regularly use the existing street for activities
Traffic Study: • PT: Required by development protocols. o PT: Will include traffic calming measures, speed, and volumes analysis o PT: Will include on-site observation as a standard procedure o PT: Terms of reference controlled by the Town and Region o Request that on-site observation include school bus times • Major concern by residents relating to safety: o Volumes of additional vehicles that will start using Roselena o Speed of vehicles
Ideas: • Can we have the street plan in place but not connected for vehicles? • Can we put houses at the end of the existing cul-de-sac in a circle and shorten the new road in phase two • Mayor: There is precedent for abutting cul-de-sacs in King. It might be an option
5
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 141 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of Tandem Thinkers
Official Plan
What is allowed • PT: Current plan only allows for single detached and Semi-detached homes • PT: Townhouses not permitted in the Official Plan • PT: Project has no plans for Townhouses • PT: Max density for the number of units is approximately 60 units based on the Official Plan density policy but this will need to be confirmed following more technical work • Can we run a second Community Consultation BEFORE applications are submitted?
Timeline to Shovels • PT: 12 months is a viable estimate • Mayor: 23 months if changes to Official Plan
New Homes • PT: Look and feel to be similar • Several comments that the Phase I development is very well done with exceptional design and architecture • Concern over mono-planting of existing street trees – many of which were ash o PT: Tree diversity will be employed as a design point • Concern over poor standards of existing homes in terms of efficiency, environmental standards o PT: Codes have improved and these homes will be a higher standard suggestion that the sustainability features and design considerations from the Savings By Design charrettes be incorporated into the Phase II development
Nearby Retirement Home • PT: It is not part of the planning applications for Phase II subdivision. Already has existing land use approvals and can be developed separately • PT: Our understanding of the existing plan is to convert the existing building • PT: Design point is 2 storeys, up to 32 residents
Water/Sewer • Are we at compacity? o PT: Answering that is part of the Functional Servicing Study. o PT: It has not been flagged as a problem and we believe there are no issues. o Mayor: Capacity for this development is in the plan
6
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 142 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING
BY-LAW NUMBER 2018-___
BEING A BY-LAW TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW 74-53, AS AMENDED, and BY-LAW .
WHEREAS the Township of King has adopted the Schomberg Community Plan as Amendment No 47 to the Township of King Official Plan;
AND WHEREAS the Township has adopted Amendment No. 32 to the Township of King Official Plan;
AND WHEREAS THE Township has enacted Zoning by-law 2017-66 for the Schomberg and King City Urban Areas in June of 2017;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THAT the land subject to this by-law consist of Part of Lot 32, Concession 9, Township of King, as more particularly shown in heavy outline on Schedule A attached hereto, and that Schedule A forms part of this By-law:
2. THAT Schedule “A” of Zoning By-law 74-53, as amended, be further amended by changing the zone symbol on the lands shown in heavy outline as depicted on Schedule A attached to this By-law and the provisions of By-law 2017-66 shall apply to the areas within the Residential (R1B) and Residential (R1-2) zone categories;
P.O. Box 116 | Sutton, Ontario, L0E 1R0 | 289-338-5101 Zoning By-law Amendment Page 143 of 155 Applicationdan@thorstoneconsulting and Draft Plan of | www.thorstoneconsulting.ca 2 | P a g e
3. THAT the provisions of Zoning By-law 88-86 shall continue to apply to those lands zoned Institutional (I-4) on Schedule A with the exception of the following: a. The Lot Area Minimum shall be 2.6 ha; b. The Lot Frontage Minimum shall be 20 m.
4. THAT this By-law shall come in to force and effect in accordance with the provisions and regulations pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act.
READ a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time and PASSED this ____ day of ______2018
______
Steve Pellegrini, Mayor
______
Kathryn Moyle, Clerk
P.O. Box 116 | Sutton, Ontario, L0E 1R0 | 289-338-5101 Zoning By-law Amendment Page 144 of 155 Applicationdan@thorstoneconsulting and Draft Plan of | www.thorstoneconsulting.ca Zoning By-law Amendment Page 145 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
Sustainable King Development Standards Checklist
King Township’s Sustainability Plan (adopted in 2012) recognizes Land-Use Planning as a major theme and identifies green building design, development and construction as a major component in achieving a more sustainable future for the Township. The Sustainable King Development Standards Checklist contains a list of sustainable design elements and features that can be integrated into the planning process. While all development must comply with the Ontario Building Code, the Township encourages the use of higher performance standards that exceed minimum standard requirements. The Sustainable King Development Standards Checklist is comprised of potential features that we encourage you to consider incorporating into your proposed development. Staff will use the Checklist to report the sustainable features of your development to the Township’s Council and Sustainability Committee. The completion of the Sustainable King Development Standards Checklist is required as a component of a complete application submission.
(Note: The Township recognizes that specific features may not be applicable to all development applications).
FEATURE CHECK
A. Applicable to All Development
1. A minimum of 50% of wood-based materials and products to be used are To be certified in accordance with the Forest Stewardship Council’s principles and discussed criteria with Builder
2. Materials with low emitting Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs) will be selected Yes for interior finishings (i.e. paints, sealants, flooring, furniture, etc.)
3. Dark sky compliant practices are proposed for all exterior lighting Yes
4. 100% of lighting fixtures are proposed to be Energy Star® compliant Yes
5. At least 75% of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris is proposed to Builder to be recycled implement waste diversion during construction period
Page 1 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 146 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
6. A waste management program will be implemented that focuses on waste See 5. diversions strategies that reduce the amount of waste during occupancy Above (operations & maintenance)
7. A system that recovers and uses non-sewage or grey water is proposed for Grey Water flushing and irrigation purposes Reuse System (purple-pipe) to be discussed with Builder 8. A Stormwater Management Plan based on Integrated Stormwater Management Refer to Planning (ISMP) will be submitted and implemented. The ISMP is to be based FSWM prepared by Cole
on the following objectives: LID will be used to protect o Protecting ecosystems, property and habitat ecosystems, o Preventing problems floodplain, preserve o Mimic natural processes wetlands, o Consensus-based thinking watercourses o Volume-based thinking & woodlots
9. Stormwater Best Management Practices are developed and will use the LID Integrated Treatment Train approach: techniques provide source o Providing lot level (source) controls control and o Providing control as part of the conveyance system o encourage infiltration at o Providing end of pipe controls the source,
Page 2 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 147 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
10. Source Control measures propose to use Low Impact Development techniques: Source o Green/vegetated roofs Control: o Flatter grading Infiltration o Vegetated filter strips swales, o Rainwater harvesting flatter o Biorentention cells grading, o Infiltration swales vegetated o Reduced imperviousness filter strips
Conveyance Control measures are proposed to be utilized, such as: Conveyance o Swales (vegetated, grass, dry, wet and Control: bioswales) Swales o Pervious catch basins o Pervious pipe systems End of Pipe: o Third-pipe systems Wetlands, wet ponds, End-of-pipe Control measures are proposed to be utilized, such as: watercourses o Wet ponds (deep zone storage) o Dry ponds Refer to o Wetland (shallow zone storage) FSWMP for o Hybrid ponds (wet pond and wetlands in series) reference to proposed LID’s 11. LED or other energy efficient fixtures and/or alternative energy sources (i.e. Energy solar powered) are proposed in all private and public spaces (i.e. parking areas, Efficient street lights, etc.) streetlights
12. Parking areas will be designed with shading in mind n/a
13. Water-permeable materials are proposed for at least 50% of parking areas n/a
14. Streetscaping amenities are proposed, such as benches, street trees, waste Yes – receptacles, shelter at public areas and curb cuts for accessibility, in urban accordance with Township standards design
guidelines to be prepared to identify street furniture and accessibility
Page 3 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 148 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
15. Project proposed to comply with the Township approved Design Guidelines Design Guidleines to be prepared as a condition of Draft Approval (as with Phase 1) 16. Accessibility measures and design features are proposed in accordance with yes the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and the Township’s Accessibility Standards
17. A Sustainability Assessment is provided demonstrating how the development Yes supports the goals and objectives of the Township’s Community Sustainability Plan including construction operations and practices
18. Plan proposes adaptive reuse of an existing heritage structure, and other Yes heritage features
19. Plan proposes the relocation of and restoration of a heritage structure to or N/A from another property
20. Plan proposes adaptive reuse or recycling of existing building stock N/A
21. Plan proposes to conserve existing heritage resources in situ N/A
22. The project proposes to incorporate building and plumbing techniques to reduce Yes infill and infiltration on the private property side of the building lot(s), such as:
o PVC DR 28 pipe with locking ring gasket o Installation of temporary capped vertical risers o Colour coded service pipes on private side (storm and sanitary) to avoid cross connections
23. The project will be located within ½ mile walking distance of an existing transit Yes – ¼ mile station OR ¼ mile walking distance of one or more stops for one or more public walking bus lines distance to bus stop B. Residential Development 1. Existing, healthy trees will be maintained on site and an arborist Yes – woodlot report will be provided on the health of the existing trees conservation and arborist report submitted with applications
Page 4 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 149 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
2. Plan proposes to maintain balance of cut and fill to use existing Yes – refer to FSR topography and FSWMR by Cole Engineering 3. Roadway design proposes to incorporate habitat corridors Yes – bird & bat houses, snake hibernaculum, turtle nesting – details provided in EIS 4. Native species are proposed for 100% of the landscaping To be discussed at Subdivision approval stage with landscape Architect 5. Drought-tolerant, low-maintenance landscaping is proposed for To be discussed at 100% of the landscaped area Subdivision approval stage with landscape Architect 6. A water efficient irrigation system is proposed to be utilized for To be discussed irrigation purposes (i.e. use of non-potable water, drip and bubbler irrigation systems, etc.)
7. Public/community spaces will be located adjacent to natural features, Yes, trails through where possible woodlot
8. Building servicing will be designed to accommodate rainwater To be reviewed with harvesting systems, including internal or external cisterns and builders at design rainwater collection systems stage
9. The following green options will be available to home buyers (please Drain water heat check all that apply): recovery to be discussed with Builder o Rain barrels o LED lighting used for 100% of the lighting fixtures o Occupancy sensors in interior lights o Active solar hot water and space heating o Other energy saving measures related to heating or cooling (i.e. thermal window blinds) o Geothermal ground source heating o Tankless water heater o Drain water heat recovery o Skylights that provide natural lighting (i.e. sun tunnel skylights)
10. Low-rise residential dwellings will be constructed according to Yes. Enbridge ® Energy Star for New Homes Technical Specifications or the Ontario program identifies Building Code energy efficient requirements related to insulation improvements over levels, whichever is the higher standard the OBC
Page 5 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 150 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
11. For low and medium density residential development, each Yes – solar ready residential unit will be constructed to be solar ready (i.e. conduit installed from the roof to the mechanical room and increased structural capacity in the roof system to enable retrofit to solar energy)
12. A minimum of 35-year roofing material is proposed for residential Yes development (recycled content roofing material or steel roofing products are also suggested)
13. For high density residential buildings, covered bicycle racks are N/A proposed for 30% or more of the buildings units
14. High density residential development is constructed to achieve N/A LEEDTM certification or higher (i.e. silver, gold or platinum), or equivalent
15. Builder will participate in Enbridge Gas Distribution’s Savings by Yes – 3 Design Charrettes Design Program (for high density residential development). were utilized 16. Waste diversion initiatives will be implemented for high density N/A residential buildings – handling and storage facilities for recyclable and organic materials (i.e. a 3 stream chute system)
17. Developer will distribute a Township-approved sustainability Yes. Draft Plan handout/information guide to all new building owners outlining Condition sustainability features such as: green building materials, waste management programs, transit stop locations, green cleaning materials, green gardening and lawn care, how to purchase green power, and how to respect adjacent space (i.e. no dumping, no encroaching), etc. 18. Home fire sprinkler systems are proposed no
19. Monitored fire alarm systems which allow for early fire detection and To be discussed with notification (timely Fire Department response) are proposed builder 20. Illuminated house numbers (allowing for timely Fire Department Yes – Proposed response) are proposed
21. Each home will be equipped with at least two fire extinguishers (one Yes – Proposed in the garage and one in the mud room)
22. Plan includes a proposed connected pedestrian and cycling network Yes – trails, crosswalks, composed of multi-use trails, walkways, sidewalks and/or bike lanes, connections with Roselena connecting the area with surrounding neighbourhoods and with Drive & Quaker House existing or planned public transit routes Lane
Page 6 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 151 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
23. Walkways and trails will be directed to village core and commercial Yes areas
C. Non-Residential Development (Commercial, Institutional, Industrial)
1. For flat-roofed buildings, heat island reduction measures, such as cool N/A roofing, high-albedo (light-coloured) or green roofs, are proposed for at least 50% of the roof area
2. The development will purchase grid-source green energy (i.e. Bullfrog Power) N/A
3. Renewable energy will be generated onsite (i.e. wind energy, solar thermal, N/A etc.) 4. Development greater than 500m2 gross floor area is built to achieve LEEDTM N/A certification or higher (i.e. silver, gold or platinum), or equivalent
5. Waste diversion initiatives are proposed (i.e. handling and storage facilities for N/A recyclable material)
6. A Transportation Demand Management plan will be submitted and N/A implemented 7. Arrangements will be made for participation in a Transportation Management N/A Association (e.g. Smart Commute Central York)
8. For buildings with 20+ parking spaces, 3% of the total number of parking N/A spaces will be dedicated to carpool parking
9. Development of Community Energy Plans for larger, mixed use development N/A with cogeneration and heat capture opportunities is proposed
Page 7 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 152 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
Please list other sustainable design elements and features that will be incorporated:
Please see attached Planning Justification Report
Page 8 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 153 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
Please contact Sara Puppi, [email protected] or 905-833-4080, for any questions pertaining to King’s Community Sustainability Plan
Glossary
Bullfrog Power: Canada's 100% green energy provider offers homes and businesses clean, renewable energy solutions.
Dark Sky lighting: use of fixtures that cast little or no light upward, intended to help reduce light pollution and cut down on energy usage.
Energy Star®: a rating system generally most applicable to single family dwellings and town home projects by enhancing specific aspects of residential buildings during construction in an effort to ensure the home is more energy efficient and reduces operating costs. Homes built to the Energy Star® standard are approximately 30% to 40% more energy efficient than those built to minimum Ontario Building Code Standards and produced two to three fewer tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year.
Forest Stewardship Council: an international certification and labeling system that guarantees that the forest products you purchase come from responsibly managed forests and verified recycled sources.
LEEDTM (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design): a voluntary, consensusbased system for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings.
LEEDTM certification: different levels of green building certification are attainable in the LEEDTM Green Building Rating System: certified, silver, gold, and platinum. They are awarded based on the total number of credits earned in the categories of: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality. This certification is granted after a thorough review of the project characteristics by the Canadian Green Building Council (CaGBC).
Non-potable Water: Non-potable water sources include rainwater, reclaimed/recycled water and gray water. Non-potable water is not of drinking water quality, but can be used for other purposes such as laundry and toilet and urinal flushing.
Savings by Design: The Savings by Design program was developed to help builders improve energy and environmental performance in new construction projects. There is no cost to participate and the program is available to Ontario builders in the Enbridge Gas Distribution franchise area. For houses that achieve a 25% energy reduction target versus OBC 2012, Savings by Design provides the incentive of $2,000 for each qualified home (up to maximum of 50 homes or $100,000).
Page 9 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 154 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of
Smart Commute Central York: a membership-based, non-profit program that works with organizations in northern York Region to promote more sustainable modes of commuting. Smart Commute Central York’s mission is to contribute to the economic, environmental, social and cultural sustainability of our community by helping local employers and commuters explore alternative sustainable modes of travel such as carpooling, public transit, active commuting (walking and cycling) and alternate work arrangements like telework, flex hours and compressed work weeks.
Township Design Guidelines: documents to instruct infill and new development within the village cores and the Township's employment areas. The Guidelines take into consideration compatibility to scale, massing and architectural character of existing buildings. Development applications for lands within King City, Nobleton, Schomberg and the Township's employment areas are reviewed in the context of these design guideline documents.
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs): compounds that evaporate easily at room temperature and often have a sharp smell; they can come from many products, such as office equipment, adhesives, carpeting, upholstery, paints, solvents, and cleaning products.
Water Permeable Materials: materials that allow water to penetrate through its structure.
Page 10 of 10
Zoning By-law Amendment Page 155 of 155 Application and Draft Plan of