Planning and Development Committee Revised Agenda

Date: October 5, 2020 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) | Members of the Public (MS Teams)

Inquiries & Accommodations: For inquiries about this agenda, or to make arrangements for accessibility accommodations for persons attending, please contact: Lindsey Patenaude, Committee Coordinator, at 905-623-3379, ext. 2106 or by email at lpatenaude@clarington.net.

Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.

Audio/Video Record: The Municipality of Clarington makes an audio and/or video record of General Government Committee meetings. If you make a delegation or presentation at a General Government Committee meeting, the Municipality will be recording you and will make the recording public by on the Municipality’s website, www.clarington.net/calendar

Cell Phones: Please ensure all cell phones, mobile and other electronic devices are turned off or placed on non-audible mode during the meeting.

Copies of Reports are available at www.clarington.net/archive *Late Item added after the Agenda was published.

Pages

1. Call to Order

2. Land Acknowledgment Statement

3. New Business – Introduction Members of Committee are encouraged to provide the Clerk’s Department, in advance of the meeting, a copy of any motion the Member is intending to introduce, (preferably electronic) such that staff could have sufficient time to share the motion with all Members prior to the meeting.

4. Adopt the Agenda

5. Declaration of Interest

6. Announcements

7. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting

7.1 Minutes of a Special Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 7 September 28, 2020

8. Public Meetings

8.1 Public Meeting for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 13 Applicant: Countrywide Homes Inc. Location: 2101 Green Road, Bowmanville

Report: PSD-034-20 Link to PowerPoint Presentation

8.2 Public Meeting for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, for a Redlined 15 Revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision Applicant: Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited Location: North-east corner of Ruddell Road and Grady Drive and south of the Canadian Pacific Railway Report: PSD-035-20 Link to PowerPoint Presentation

Page 2 *8.3 Public Meeting for a Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 17 Applicant: DG Group Location: 2400 Green Road, west side of Green Road, north of Ross Wright Ave., Bowmanville Report: PSD-036-20 Link to PowerPoint Presentation

9. Delegations

*9.1 Steve Usher, Principal Hydrogeologist, SLR Consulting Canada, Regarding Report PSD-037-20 Clarington Transformer Station

*9.2 Steven A. Zakem, Aird & Berlis LLP, Regarding Unfinished Business Item 15.1 Report PSD-031-20 An Application by Goldmanco Inc. to Amend Sign By-law 2009-123 to Permit a Monolith Sign Along Highway 2 at the Courtice Urban Centre Development

*9.3 Hugh Allin, Regarding Report PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding North Village Secondary Plan

*9.4 Corinne Turansky and Brad Miller, Regarding Report PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding North Village Secondary Plan

*9.5 Dan Moulton, Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre, Regarding 2423 Rundle Road Rezoning

*9.6 Jon Wilcox, Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre, Regarding 2423 Rundle Road Rezoning

*9.7 Nathan Veley, Regarding 2423 Rundle Road Rezoning

*9.8 Tim Whittaker, Regarding 2423 Rundle Road Rezoning

*9.9 Benjamin Finney, Regarding 2423 Rundle Road Rezoning

10. Communications – Receive for Information There are no Communications - Receive for Information Items for Consideration.

Page 3 11. Communications – Direction

*11.1 Correspondence Received from Residents in Objection to the 19 Recommendations in Report PSD-036-20 A Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning, West of Green Road and North of Durham Highway 2, in Bowmanville The following residents submitted Correspondence: Bill and Inge Vanek, Bill and Cathy Renaud, Alanna Snow, Anna Boimstruck, Brad Irving, Caitlin Zwicker, Colin Emo, Emma Cachia, Jaymi Fillier, Jeff Dowdling, Laurie Allum, Michael Zwicker, Sarah Roberts, Elizabeth Zoller, *Keisha Gomes, *Richard Gomes, *Majid Pazokian, *Sanaz zare-ebrahim, *Hudson Family Note: A petition containing 209 signatures from Brookhill residents was received, "in opposition to the addition of stacked townhouses and mid- rise apartment buildings". (Motion to refer to the consideration of Report PSD-036-20 A Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning, West of Green Road and North of Durham Highway 2, Bowmanville)

*11.2 Paula J. Tenuta, Senior Vice President, Policy & Advocacy, BILD, 39 Regarding Municipal Benchmark Study (Motion to refer to Staff to report back after the October 29, 2020 Information Session)

*11.3 Memo from Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and 108 Development Services, Regarding PSD-031-20, Sign By-law Amendment, Recommendation to Permit a Monolith Sign Along Highway 2 at the Courtice Urban Centre (Motion to refer to the consideration of Unfinished Business Item 15.1, Report PSD-031-20 An Application by Goldmanco Inc. to Amend Sign By-law 2009-123 to Permit a Monolith Sign Along Highway 2 at the Courtice Urban Centre Development)

*11.4 Dan Moulton, Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre, Regarding 113 2423 Rundle Road Rezoning Note: A petition containing over 3000 signatures was received "to call on Clarington Municipal Council to support this project and for the Ontario government to issue a Minister's Zoning order for it to proceed". A second online petition containing 478 signatures was received "to support job creation and growing local businesses in Bowmanville" (Motion for Direction)

Page 4 *11.5 Scott Waterhouse, Planning Manager, Land Development, Candevcon 121 East Limited, Regarding Rekker Gardens Ltd. Submission to Regional Municipal Comprehensive Review (Motion for Direction)

12. Presentations No Presentations.

13. Planning Services Department Reports

13.1 PSD-034-20 An Application by Countrywide Homes Inc. for a Zoning 131 By-law Amendment to Extend the Maximum Three (3) Year Period for a Temporary New Home Sales Centre

13.2 PSD-035-20 Applications for Proposed Red Line Revision to a Draft 139 Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning for Lands at the North-East Corner of Grady Drive and Rudell Road, Newcastle

13.3 PSD-036-20 A Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning, West 148 of Green Road and North of Durham Highway 2, in Bowmanville

13.4 PSD-037-20 Clarington Transformer Station 158

13.5 PSD-038-20 Part Lot Control Application to Deem Two Blocks in a 167 Registered Plan of Subdivision to no Longer be Blocks for the Purpose of Melding them into one Block

13.6 PSD-039-20 Responding to the Delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin Regarding 174 the North Village Secondary Plan

14. New Business – Consideration

15. Unfinished Business

15.1 PSD-031-20 An Application by Goldmanco Inc. to Amend Sign By-law 2009-123 to Permit a Monolith Sign Along Highway 2 at the Courtice Urban Centre Development (Referred from the September 21, 2020 Council Meeting) Link to Report PSD-031-20 Link to Correspondnce from Mr. Zakem regarding PSD-031-20 Link to Memo from F. Langmaid, Acting Director, Planning and Development Services regarding PSD-031-20

Page 5 16. Confidential Reports No Reports for this section of the Agenda.

17. Adjournment

Page 6

If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Co-ordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes Date: September 28, 2020 Time: 7:00 p.m. Location: Council Members (in Chambers or MS Teams) | Members of the Public (MS Teams)

Present Were: Councillor G. Anderson, Councillor R. Hooper, Councillor J. Jones, Councillor M. Zwart

Present Via Electronic Mayor A. Foster, Councillor J. Neal, Councillor C. Traill, Means:

Staff Present: Anne Greentree, M. Chambers

Present Via Electronic A. Allison, F. Langmaid, T. Pinn, K. Richardson Means ______1. Call to Order 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement Councillor Zwart led the meeting in the Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. Declaration of Interest There were no disclosures of interest stated at this meeting. 4. Public Meeting(s) 4.1 Public Meeting for an Update to the Brookhill Secondary Plan Greg Bunker, Planner for the Municipality of Clarington and Stacey McCulloch, Associate, The Planning Partnership, made a verbal and electronic presentation to the Committee regarding the Update to Brookhill Secondary Plan. They provided and overview of the project background, draft Secondary Plan documents and the next steps for the project. Mr. Bunker answered questions from the Members of Committee.

Page 7 September 28, 2020 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes

5.1 Libby Racansky, regarding Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Update Libby Racansky, local resident, was present via electronic means regarding Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. She made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. Ms. Racansky is concerned with the increased connectivity to natural areas and creating a walkable neighbourhood. She is concerned with increased traffic, the addition of major roads, speeding, crime and endangerment to the wildlife in the area. Ms. Racansky believes the extension of Nash Road should be considered in the Environmental Assessment and asked why it is needed in this area as it is not near any amenities nor does it lead to any major roads. She added that all of the current amenities are on Highway 2 east and west. Ms. Racansky added that there are many other existing roads that can be used to go to the both Highway 401 and 407. She stated that Nash Road is already separating provincially significant wetlands, and it is very dangerous to the wildlife. Ms. Racansky feels that the developers should be required to contribute the creation of wildlife passages to cross Nash Road. Ms. Racansky concluded that by stating that it is important to create fewer major roads and a more walkable and safer community. 5.2 Steve Hennessey, Regarding Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Update Steve Hennessey, local resident, was present via electronic means regarding Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. Mr. Hennessey made a verbal presentation to accompany an electronic presentation. He explained that he owns two properties within the Secondary Plan area which are proposed to be deferred. Mr. Hennessey noted that he is on approximately 2.5 acres and would like to see higher density in this area. He added that this update to the Secondary Plan has taken approximately 14 years and he is encouraging the Municipality to finalize and finally approve it. Mr. Hennessey noted that 75% of the landowners on Linden Lane are in support of higher density. He added that the lots on Linden Lane are much larger than Luverme Court and Munday Court and therefore is more suited for high density development. Mr. Hennessey stated that the best routing for sanitary services will go through Linden Lane to service the Delpark and Goldman properties. He added that they are currently on a well and is concerned that the wells in the area will go dry if subdivisions are developed. Mr. Hennessey asked who would be responsible if this happened. He believes that Linden Lane will be negatively impacted if Longworth Avenue is shifted to the south. Mr. Hennessey stated Linden Lane property owners should be given the right to make safety a priority for traveling to and from their homes. He asked if they stayed in the deferred area, will a signaled light be installed at Linden Lane. Mr. Hennessey noted that Linden Lane provides the first opportunity on the east side of Bowmanville Avenue which will be north of the proposed Go Train Station for medium or high density housing. He added that this would be a short walk to the Go Train Station. Mr. Hennessey believes that not allowing for additional medium and high density housing sends the wrong message to the Province if they are

2 Page 8 September 28, 2020 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes

going ahead with the proposed Go Train Station. He concluded by asking if future consideration could be given to religious holidays when selecting the dates for the public meetings. The following consultants were in attendance and available to answer questions from Members of Committee. No questions were raised. David Angelakis, R.J. Burnside & Associates, regarding Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Update Daniel Leeming, The Planning Partnership, regarding Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Stacey McCulloch, The Planning Partnership, regarding Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Ron Palmer, The Planning Partnership, regarding Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Update 4.2 Public Meeting for a Proposed COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan Sarah Allin, Planner for the Municipality of Clarington, made a verbal and electronic presentation to the Committee regarding the Proposed COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan. 5.3 Terry Arsenault, Regarding COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan Prior to the meeting Mr. Arsenault advised the Clerk's Department that he would not be able to join the meeting for his delegation. 5.4 Sheila Hall, Executive Director, Clarington Board of Trade & Office of Economic Development, Regarding Proposed COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan Sheila Hall, Executive Director, Clarington Board of Trade, was present via electronic means regarding Report PSD-033-20, Proposed COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan. Ms. Hall thanked the Members of Committee, for taking the steps to develop this program and acknowledge the importance of this for the local business community. She explained that the Clarington Board of Trade is on the Steering Committee and that this will greatly assist small businesses and offer assistance. Ms. Hall noted that today the start of the second wave was recognized and that hopefully this program will assist these business owners to continue to operate safely and avoid shutting down a second time. She concluded by explaining that this financial support could provide assistance to make or break a small business. Ms. Hall answered questions from the Members of Council.

3 Page 9 September 28, 2020 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes

6. Communications – Direction 6.1 Mark Rutherford, General Manager, Brimbacombe, Regarding Report PSD-033-20, Proposed COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan 6.2 Jim McEwen, Regarding Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan 6.3 Paul Tobia, Planner, Weston Consulting, Regarding Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan 6.4 Doug Allingham, Regarding Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan 6.5 Aleisha Macdonald, Owner- Crock A Doodle Bowmanville Studio, regarding Report PSD-033-20, COVID-19 Proposed Community Improvement Plan 6.6 Mark Jacobs, The Biglieri Group Ltd., regarding Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Resolution # PD-117-20 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Hooper That Correspondence Items 6.1 to 6.6, be approved, on consent as follows: That Correspondence Item 6.1 from Mark Rutherford, General Manager, Brimacombe, be referred to the consideration of Report PSD-033-20, Proposed COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan. That Correspondence Item 6.2 from Jim McEwen, be referred to the consideration of Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. That Correspondence Item 6.3 from Paul Tobia, Planning, Weston Consulting, be referred to the consideration of Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. That Correspondence Item 6.3 from Paul Tobia, Planning, Weston Consulting, be referred to the consideration of Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. That Correspondence Item 6.5 from Aleisha MacDonald, Owner, Crock A Doodle Bowmanville Studio, be referred to the consideration of Report PSD- 033-20, Proposed COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan. That Correspondence Item 6.6 from Mark Jacobs, The Biglieri Group Ltd., be referred to the consideration of Report PSD-032-20, Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan. Carried

4 Page 10 September 28, 2020 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes

7. Planning Services Department Reports 7.1 Report PSD-032-20 - Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Resolution # PD-118-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Jones That Report PSD-032-20 be received; That the proposed Draft Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Amendment (COPA 2020-0004) and Sustainable Urban Design Guidelines be received, continued to be reviewed and processed, and staff report back to Committee with a Recommendation Report; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-032-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Carried Later in the Meeting, see following motion Resolution # PD-119-20 Moved by Councillor Hooper Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the foregoing Resolution PD-118-20 for a second time. Carried That the foregoing Resolution #PD-118-20 was then put to a vote and carried. 7.2 PSD-033-20 Proposed COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan Resolution # PD-120-20 Moved by Councillor Jones Seconded by Councillor Zwart That Report PSD-033-20 be received; That Planning and Development Services staff be directed to refine the Draft COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan taking into consideration the comments received to date and at this meeting; That the Draft COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan be received, and referred to staff for a recommendation report, including the final COVID-19 Community Improvement Plan and necessary by-law; and That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-033-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Carried as Amended, Later in the Meeting, See following motions

5 Page 11 September 28, 2020 Special Planning and Development Committee Minutes

Resolution # PD-121-20 Moved by Mayor Foster Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the foregoing resolution be amended to add the following after the third paragraph: That the recommendation report and by-law be considered at the October 13, 2020 Council meeting. Carried Later in the meeting, See following motions Resolution # PD-122-20 Moved by Councillor Neal Seconded by Councillor Jones That the Rules of Procedure be suspended to allow Members of Committee to speak to the foregoing Resolution PD-121-20 for a second time. Carried Mayor Foster rose on a point of personal privilege and requested that Councillor Neal provide him with a transcript with respect to when he roundly criticized Councillor Neal. The foregoing Resolution #PD-121-20 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. The foregoing Resolution #PD-120-20 was then put to a vote and carried as amended. 8. Adjournment Resolution # PD-123-20 Moved by Councillor Zwart Seconded by Councillor Hooper That the meeting adjourn at 9:38 p.m. Carried

Chair Deputy Clerk

6 Page 12 Notice of Public Meeting A land use change has been proposed, have your say! The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application for a

proposed Plan of Subdivision and an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment.

Proposal Countrywide Homes Inc. proposes to extend the use of an existing temporary home sales centre for an additional three years. No changes would occur on site if the application is approved. The application is deemed complete. Property 2101 Green Road, Bowmanville The temporary home sales centre is located at the southeast corner of Green Road and Brookhill Boulevard.

How to be Informed Questions? Please contact Toni Rubino 905-623-3379, extension 2431, or by email at [email protected] How to Provide Comments Our procedures have changed as we continue to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. As mandated by Public Health, to maintain physical distancing these meetings will take place electronically. This meeting is live-streamed for public viewing at www.clarington.net/calendar Date: Monday, October 5, 2020 Time: 7:00 pm Place: Electronic Teams meeting by way of on-line device or telephone If you wish to speak at the public meeting, please pre-register and you will be provided with further instructions. You can pre-register by completing the online form at www.clarington.net/delegations or contact the Clerk’s Department at 905-623-3379 ext. 2109 or [email protected] by Friday, October 2nd, 2020 at 3:30 p.m. If you are unable to participate electronically, please contact the Clerk’s Department and we will do our utmost to accommodate you. We encourage you to submit your written comments for Committee’s consideration to Toni Rubino at [email protected] or by mail or drop box to 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 prior to the date of the public meeting File Number: ZBA 2020- 0014 Page 13 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the Clerk’s Department at 905- 623-3379, extension 2102. Accessibility If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Appeal Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed: a) you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal; and b) you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, RPP Acting Director of Planning Services \\netapp5\group\Planning\^Department\Application Files\ZBA-Zoning\2020\ZBA2020-0014 2101 Green Road, Bowmanville\Public Notice\Public Meeting Notice - COVID.docx

Page 14 Notice of Public Meeting A land use change has been proposed, have your say! The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application to amend

Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate Red-Line Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision.

Proposal Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited is proposing to make red-line revisions to Phase 4 of a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision (18T-89059). The red-line revisions include increasing the lot frontage of several lots north of Whitehand Drive and reducing the lot frontage of several lots south of Whitehand Drive. The road network north of Whitehand Drive has also been altered to eliminate cul-de-sacs. The proposal will result in 6 additional lots within Phase 4. The Zoning By-law Amendment is to permit the proposed changes to the lots and increase lot coverage from 40% to 45% for 2 storey dwellings and from 45% to 50% for one storey and bungaloft dwellings.

The application has been deemed complete. Property North-east corner of Rudell Road and Grady Drive and south of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

How to be Informed The proposed amendment, red-line revision and additional information and background studies are available for review at the Planning Services Department. Questions? Please contact Brandon Weiler 905-623-3379, extension 2424, or by email at [email protected]

Page 15

How to Provide Comments Our procedures have changed as we continue to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. As mandated by Public Health, to maintain physical distancing these meetings will take place electronically using an online device or telephone. The meeting is livestreamed for public viewing at www.clarington.net/calendar.

Date: Monday, October 5, 2020 Time: 7:00 pm Place: Electronic Teams meeting by way of on-line device or telephone

If you wish to speak at the public meeting, please pre-register and you will be provided with further instructions. You can pre-register by completing the online form at www.clarington.net/delegations or contact the Clerk’s Department at 905-623-3379 ext. 2109 or [email protected] by Friday, September 25, 2020 at 3:30 p.m. If you are unable to participate electronically, please contact the Clerk’s Department and we will do our utmost to accommodate you. If you wish to provide comments on this application, please submit them to Brandon Weiler. Written comments can be mailed or dropped off at 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6. A drop box is located at the Church Street entrance. File Number: ZBA2020-0013 (Cross Reference 18T-89059) Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the Clerk’s Department at 905- 623-3379, extension 2102. Accessibility If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Appeal Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed: a) you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal; and b) you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, RPP Acting Director of Planning and Development Services I:\^Department\Application Files\ZBA-Zoning\2020\ZBA2020-0013 22 Grady Drive, Newcastle\Public Notice\ZBA2020-0013 Public Meeting Notice.docx

Page 16 Notice of Public Meeting A land use change has been proposed, have your say! The Municipality is seeking public comments before making a decision on an application for a

proposed Plan of Subdivision and an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment.

Proposal DG Group has submitted an application for Draft Plan of Subdivision and rezoning to permit a plan of subdivision with a total of 194 residential units consisting of 53 single detached units, 36 townhouse units and two blocks with a total of 105 units, including stacked townhouses and mid- rise apartment buildings as well as blocks for Environmentally Protected lands. The applications are deemed complete. Property 2400 Green Road, west side of Green Road, north of Ross Wright Avenue in Bowmanville.

How to be Informed For additional information on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and zoning by-law amendment, and the background studies are available for review on our website at clarington.net/developmentproposals Questions? Please contact Cynthia Strike 905-623-3379, extension 2410, or by email at [email protected] How to Provide Comments Our procedures have changed as we continue to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. As mandated by Public Health, to maintain physical distancing these meetings will take place electronically. This meeting is live-streamed for public viewing at www.clarington.net/calendar Date: Monday, October 5, 2020 Time: 7:00 pm Place: Electronic Teams meeting by way of on-line device or telephone

If you wish to speak at the public meeting, please pre-register and you will be provided with further instructions.

Page 17 You can pre-register by completing the online form at www.clarington.net/delegations or contact the Clerk’s Department at 905-623-3379 ext. 2109 or [email protected] by Friday, October 2nd, 2020 at 3:30 p.m.

If you are unable to participate electronically, please contact the Clerk’s Department and we will do our utmost to accommodate you.

We encourage you to submit your written comments for Committee’s consideration to Cynthia Strike at [email protected] or by mail or drop box to 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 prior to the date of the public meeting File Number: S-C 2020-0001, ZBA 2020- 0006 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act The personal information you submit will become part of the public record and may be released to the public. Questions about the information we collect can be directed to the Clerk’s Department at 905- 623-3379, extension 2102. Accessibility If you have accessibility needs and require alternate formats of this document or other accommodations please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Appeal Requirements If you do not speak at the public meeting or send your comments or concerns to the Municipality of Clarington before the by-law is passed: a) you will not be entitled to appeal the decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal; and b) you will not be able to participate at a hearing of an appeal before the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, in the opinion of the Tribunal, there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Faye Langmaid, FCSLA, RPP Acting Director of Planning and Development Services I:\^Department\Application Files\SC-Subdivision\S-C-2020\S-C-2020-0001 Brookhill Phase 5\Public Notice\SC2020-0001 - Public Meeting Notice.docx

Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Alanna Snow Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:06 AM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001

EXTERNAL

Please contact me to further discuss why I vote NO, and I thank the Municipality of Clarington Council, our Counciller Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice.

Sincerely,

Alanna Snow

1 Page 22 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: A B Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:00 AM To: Mayor Shared Mailbox Subject: Proposed subdivisions

EXTERNAL

As a citizen of the Durham Region residing and paying taxes in the Municipality of Clarington, living in Ward 2; I vote NO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020‐0006 & Subdivision 2020‐0001 put forward by the DG Group. Please contact me to further discuss why I vote NO, and I thank the Municipality of Clarington Council, our Counciller Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice.

My biggest concerns are:

‐ 194 “units” but there is NO new green space... 194 more families or singles or retirees moving into the neighbourhood with no extra green recreation space. If you have driven past Harvey Jones park you already know it’s busy (4 swings, 5 slides, 1 set of monkey bars and HALF of a basketball court... and the splash pad for 3 months of the year & 6 park benches)

2nd concern‐ increased cars/ little space for parking & increased traffic through our subdivision All of the new “housing units” will be smaller sized homes... which means smaller driveways... and most families require 2 working incomes to support the finances which means 2 cars... and we know from living in our neighbourhood already there isn’t enough driveway for parking needs‐ more cars coming through our subdivision to get to Hwy 2/401 and shopping (there is nothing north on Green rd right now. ‐ the entire “new build plan” blocks any possible exit to green road (so new units will exit via Ross Wright, Murray Tab or Carl Raby! Murray Tab owners did you buy a house that backs onto green space so 105 apartments dwellings could drive past your front door to get to the 401 every morning and night? There are acres of land on Linden Lane (just off of Hwy 57/Bowmanville Ave) that the local home owners have ACTUALLY ASKED Clarington to approve apartments for.. that area is more condusive to better bus transit and will be more walker friendly when they widen the road and add the shared walking path and it’s already close to the portion of Longworth that already exists!.. I say build there. And carry forward with the single dwelling homes that were in the original Brookhill Neighbourhood Plan. Remember this proposal is just that.. the landowner AKA developer/building company just wants to cram as many homes in the area to increase their sales profit.. not to create better quality of life! The Durham Region is proposing apartments and town homes to Maximize houses and tax dollars (not to show concern for quality of living in the area) they want to pack more people in and “provide affordable living” I completely understand housing is EXPENSIVE but our neighbourhood has so far been built of homes that are more expensive.. why are they trying to change that now? Clarington has lots of space... how about we stick to the original plan and they build their apartment buildings somewhere else!

Sincerely Concerned Citizen,

Anna Boimistruck

1 Page 23 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Bradley Irving Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:11 AM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001 put forward by the DG Group.

EXTERNAL

As a citizen of the Durham Region residing and paying taxes in the Municipality of Clarington, living in Ward 2; I vote NO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020‐0006 & Subdivision 2020‐0001 put forward by the DG Group. Please contact me to further discuss why I vote NO, and I thank the Municipality of Clarington Council, our Councillor Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice.

Sincerely,

Brad Irving 72 Ross Wright Ave 905‐999‐6542

1 Page 24 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Caitlin Zwicker Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:28 AM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron Subject: Voting NO - Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001 - Caitlin Zwicker

EXTERNAL

Good Morning, As a citizen of the Durham Region residing and paying taxes in the Municipality of Clarington, living in Ward 2; I vote NO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001 put forward by the DG Group. Please contact me to further discuss why I vote NO, and I thank the Municipality of Clarington Council, our Counciller Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice. Sincerely, Caitlin Zwicker

7 Forsey Lane, Bowmanville, L1C 0P8 289-385-4829

1 Page 25 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Colin Emo Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:16 AM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron Subject: Zoning proposal

EXTERNAL

Good morning,

As a citizen of the Region of Durham residing and paying taxes in the Municipality of Clarington, living in Ward 2; I vote NO to zoning bylaw amendment 2020‐0006 & subdivision 2020‐0001 put forward by the DG group. Please contact me to further discuss why I vote NO, and I thank the Municipality of Clarington Council, our councillor Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice.

Sincerely

Colin Emo

1 Page 26 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Communications Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:54 AM To: Mayor Shared Mailbox Subject: re: Development Proposal site 2400 Green Road

EXTERNAL

Good morning,

My name is Emma Cachia, I am a resident of Bowmanville living in the Brookhill Community subdivision. I understand there is a meeting next week to discuss the proposed amendment to the zoning of the area just north (spitting distance, really) of my house.

Having lived in this area for a few years now, I’ve come to know it well. I love the small neighbourhood feeling and am happy to raise my daughter here, now 1.5 yrs, and another one on the way.

When I heard about the proposal to rezone the land to allow apartment buildings instead of single‐family dwellings, my first thought was we must move. I look at this piece of land daily and cannot comprehend how almost two hundred housing units will fit, along with adequate parking and the supposed green space that has been planned. This area cannot accommodate that many families, most with likely more than one vehicle, without drastically changing the feeling of our neighbourhood. My husband and I were actually considering purchasing a larger detached home within this neighbourhood, but should the rezoning application go through to allow apartment buildings, we will likely be moving out of the area entirely, potentially away from Bowmanville altogether.

As a citizen of Durham Region, who resides and pays taxes here, living in Ward 2, I vote NO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020‐0006 & Subdivision 2020‐0001 put forward by the DG Group.

Please do not hesitate to contact me to further discuss my reasoning behind my decision to reach out to you today and vote NO. I kindly thank the Municipality of Clarington council, our Councillor Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice.

Kind regards,

Emma Cachia Greater Oshawa Chamber of Commerce Communications & Marketing Coordinator 905‐728‐1683

1 Page 27 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Jaymi Fillier Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:21 AM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001

EXTERNAL

As a citizen of the Durham Region residing and paying taxes in the Municipality of Clarington, living in Ward 2; I vote NO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001 put forward by the DG Group. Please contact me to further discuss why I vote NO, and I thank the Municipality of Clarington Council, our Counciller Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice. Sincerely, Jaymi Fillier

1 Page 28 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: jeff dowding Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:08 PM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron; Neal, Joe Subject: New development

EXTERNAL

My concern is that the area is already too dense with housing, too busy with traffic, and there is not enough green space. I have no opposition to houses going up at this location however I strongly oppose high rise or low rise residential buildings, and there needs to be green space open to the public.

Sincerely,

Jeff DOWDING 43 Ross Wright Ave Bowmanville

Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada's largest network.

1 Page 29 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Laurie Allum Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:29 AM To: Mayor Shared Mailbox Subject: Fwd: Proposed development north of the Brookhill subdivision

EXTERNAL

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Laurie Allum Date: September 30, 2020 at 10:28:36 AM EDT To: [email protected] Subject: Proposed development north of the Brookhill subdivision

Hello ‐ My name is Laurie Allum. My address is 1 Forsey Lane in Bowmanville. My front porch overlooks the Harvey Jones Park. I vigorously object to the recent changes to the original plan regarding the property in question, which showed a park, two parkettes, even a school, and a reasonable number of low‐rise dwelling units. As well, there were planned roads to enter and exit this new area. There is not a single bit of green space in the changed plan. There is no additional ingress or egress from the new streets. There are two apartment buildings, which a simple drive up Green Road will show do not belong there at all. Our three small subdivision streets will be completely overwhelmed. Our little park will be so crowded that it will be rendered virtually useless. It is unfathomable that our Municipal Planners have allowed this new proposal to get even this far. Common sense alone would not permit it. Obviously the developer is trying to create and then slip through some loopholes, to the detriment of the quality of life in our existing neighbourhood. Huge ongoing profits are clearly the only motivation here. I insist that clearer heads prevail and that the entire matter be sent back to the drawing board. Preferably someone else’s drawing board.

Laurie Allum 905‐419‐1206 home 905‐447‐6490 cell

Sent from my iPhone

1 Page 30 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Michael Zwicker Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:43 AM To: Strike, Cindy Cc: Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001

EXTERNAL

Hello,

As a citizen, and REALTOR, living and working in Durham Region residing and paying taxes in the Municipality of Clarington, living in Ward 2; I vote NO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020‐0006 & Subdivision 2020‐0001 put forward by the DG Group.

I front on the Harvey Jones park and it is already far too busy with garbage constantly littered all over the basketball court, park, and surrounding area. Condensed housing, especially with no park, will only add to this problem.

I'd also like to mention that the majority of the proposed building site is protected by CLOCA and designated watershed area. In fact the same protected watershed area that I was denied building a garage on because less than 1/16 of my proposed garage touched the same protected watershed.

Sincerely,

Michael Zwicker, B.Sc.

Royal Heritage Realty LTD., Brokerage o: 905.723.4800 d: 905.926.2995 e: [email protected]

www.mikezwicker.com

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e‐mail, and delete the message. Thank you very much. 1 Page 31 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Sarah Rose Glenny Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:20 AM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron Subject: Zoning bylaws amendment 2020 - 0006, subdivision 2020 - 0001.

EXTERNAL

Sincerely,

Sarah Roberts Wellness Educator, Young Living Distributer

1 Page 32 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Liz Zoller Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:58 PM Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001

EXTERNAL

Good Afternoon,

My husband and I specifically moved to Bowmanville to set down roots and start our family in this neighbourhood. We both grew up in Scarborough and were happy to find a very family friendly neighbourhood with a great park for our future children. Since moving here we’ve had 2 children. Our oldest (almost 3), loves going to the park every day. The perks to living in a family friendly neighbourhood is that there are a lot of children close to her age. The downside is that the park is frequently overcrowded. Even with COVID restrictions, our park is extremely busy during peak times during the week (early morning, before/after lunch and before dinner). I either have to go after dinner (when it’s starting to get dark) or drive to parks in other neighbourhoods so that she can play. Adding apartment buildings without additional park/green space will significantly increase the amount of children in the park making it impossible to enjoy it.

Another concern is the significantly increased traffic and parking on my street (Ross Wright Avenue). Most households have more than 1 person working outside of the home. Due to the lack of public transit (even pre‐COVID), a lot of families have more than 1 car. According to the plans laid out, the only way to access that area of the subdivision will be from Ross Wright Avenue. I am concerned for my children’s safety.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss my additional concerns. I thank the Municipality of Clarington Council, our Counciller Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Zoller

1 Page 33 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Keisha S. Gomes Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 2:17 PM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron; Neal, Joe Subject: Proposal: Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001

EXTERNAL

Good afternoon,

Sincerely,

Keisha Gomes

1 Page 34 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: GOMES Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 5:24 PM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron; Neal, Joe Subject: Proposal: Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & Subdivision 2020-0001

EXTERNAL

Good afternoon,

Sincerely,

Richard Gomes

1 Page 35 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Majid pazokian Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:39 PM To: Neal, Joe; Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron Subject: NOOO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & subdivision 2020-0001

EXTERNAL

Majid Pazokian 7 Gough lane L1C0P5 647 470 4092

Sincerely

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Deena Pazokian Date: Wed., Sep. 30, 2020, 9:34 p.m. Subject: Fwd: NOOO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020‐0006 & subdivision 2020‐0001 To: Majid pazokian

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Deena Pazokian Date: Wed., Sep. 30, 2020, 9:32 p.m. Subject: NOOO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020‐0006 & subdivision 2020‐0001 To: , , ,

Sanaz zare‐ebrahimi 7 Gough lane L1C0P5 905 508 7842 Sincerely,

1 Page 36 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Deena Pazokian Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 9:33 PM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron; Neal, Joe Subject: NOOO to Zoning Bylaw Amendment 2020-0006 & subdivision 2020-0001

EXTERNAL

Sanaz zare‐ebrahimi 7 Gough lane L1C0P5 905 508 7842 Sincerely,

1 Page 37 Patenaude, Lindsey

From: Kris Hudson Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:24 AM To: Strike, Cindy; Mayor Shared Mailbox; Hooper, Ron; Neal, Joe Subject: Urgent - Monday Meeting

EXTERNAL

Hi Cynthia,

Please contact me to further discuss why I vote NO, and I thank the Municipality of Clarington Council, our Councillor Ron Hooper and our Mayor Adrian Foster for hearing my voice and respecting my choice. Sincerely,

Hudson Family 905-809-7014

1 Page 38 BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study

September 2020

Page 39

BILD Municipal Benchmarking Study

Prepared for: Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD)

Prepared by: Altus Group Economic Consulting 33 Yonge Street Toronto Ontario M5E 1G4 Phone: (416) 641-9500 Fax: (416) 641-9501 [email protected] altusgroup.com

September 2020

Page 40 September 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Altus Group Economic Consulting was retained by BILD to undertake a study of several factors that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in major housing markets across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), such as municipal approval processes, resulting timelines for approvals, and government charges levied by municipalities.

The study compares approaches that municipalities have in place to deal with the approval and ultimate development of new housing and highlights key features (and associated benefits of those features) in bringing new housing to approval and ultimate construction, as well as the cost implications of the municipal processes and policies. The analysis presented in the study was based on research done on 18 municipalities across the GTA.

Statistical and Demographic Overview

A review of statistical and demographic data in the municipalities under study reveals several trends that are causes of, or effects of, housing affordability issues throughout the GTA:

 Population is increasing in each municipality studied, and in most cases, this trend is accompanied by falling average household sizes. This phenomenon increases housing demand in two ways. The first effect is through the straightforward addition of net new persons moving into a municipality as part of an expanding population and the second effect of household sizes falling results in needing more residential units at a minimum just to house the existing population;  There has been a significant increase in net international immigration and net non-permanent residents (e.g. temporary workers, students, etc.) in recent years, adding to demand for new housing;  In some areas of the GTA (Toronto, Peel, York), there has been a large amount of net out-migration of residents from these areas to other parts of the province (i.e. intraprovincial migration), particularly by adults between ages 25 to 44 (as well as children aged 0 to 14), suggesting that persons forming households, particularly young families, are searching for locations with more affordable and/or suitable housing. The problem is most evident in higher-priced markets that have fewer ground-related family housing options being built;  There has been a shift in the types of housing being built, with an increased emphasis on apartment housing units in most municipalities studied across the GTA. However, these housing units provide less capacity for persons on a per-unit basis due to generally smaller unit sizes, fewer bedrooms, etc. than most ground-related housing units;

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page i Page 41 September 2020

 While there has been a shift in household tenure towards renting in all municipalities studied, the construction of purpose-built rental units continue to be less than 10% of the housing starts in most municipalities in the GTA (except in Toronto and Oshawa);  Housing prices in the GTA municipalities studied have increased significantly. Over the 2006-2018 period, average prices of absorbed single detached homes have increased by an average of 158%, which equates to average annual increase of 7.6%, compounded annually.

Analysis of Municipal Processes

To understand whether municipal processes could be improved to expedite the review of new housing applications, or improve the quality of submissions from applicants, we have reviewed the presence and nature of several planning tools made available, or other features that may assist in making the development application and approval more efficient:

 The method of implementation, level of transparency, and processes regarding decision making can differ significantly from one municipality to the next. There are large variations, such as the degree of authority delegated to municipal staff, composition of planning approval committees, structure of planning department, etc.  Some features, which could potentially help reduce development approval timelines, are not used extensively by all municipalities. Examples include development tracking portals that provide both an applicant and other relevant parties insight into the status of applications under review, easy to find resources that are frequently used or requested like terms of reference for required studies, zoning maps and other parcel level data, online submission portals to facilitate easy submissions, etc.  The number of studies that may be required by municipalities was found to be onerous, with the requirements for an application in many municipalities ranging from 17 to 28 different studies for a single project, depending on the municipality, application type, and location of development. The required quantity and variety of technical studies, even if valid to ensure that developments are in the public interest, results in significant costs to the applicant both directly in terms of time and expense in retaining necessary experts to complete the required reports and studies, but also the time to allow municipal staff to review and comment on the findings of the various studies.

Analysis of Municipal Approval Timelines

After building a robust database of recently approved development applications for the municipalities under study, it has been found that

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page ii Page 42 September 2020

timelines for approvals from municipalities can, in some cases, take an average of up to 2 years to obtain.

Applications requiring multiple application types took on average just 20% to 30% longer than applications that required one type of application, suggesting that generally it is more efficient to bundle applications together for concurrent review rather than to require them be submitted and approved sequentially.

Applications requiring a ruling by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”), either initiated by the applicant or another party, extended timelines by nearly double compared to a municipal council approval. Seeking an approval from the LPAT is very costly, time-consuming, and risky for the applicant.

Additional time associated with getting overarching land use designations approved, the pre-submission stage, and the construction approvals stages were not part of the study, however, based on feedback from development industry members, it is clear that the “pre-application” period represents significant additional time over and above the timelines estimated for development application approval.

Quantifying Municipal Charges on New Housing Development

The modelling of municipal charges on new housing development was based on two hypothetical development scenarios – one low-rise, and the other high-rise. The analysis found that in many municipalities there are significant charges imposed by municipalities on new development, and that these charges can vary significantly from one municipality to the next.

Figure ES- 1 Development Scenario Average Government Average Government Charge per Unit Charges as % of Housing Prices

Low-Rise Development $93,700 9.7%

High-Rise Development $57,800 10.7%

For example, municipal charges on new housing developments are generally the highest in municipalities located in York Region, Peel Region and the City of Toronto.

The most significant charge in all of the studied municipalities is the development charge (DCs), which are levied by each lower-tier, upper-tier and single-tier municipality studied. Typically, DCs amount from 75% to 85% of the total municipal charges payable for a new low-rise development, and from 68% to 90% for high-rise.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page iii Page 43 September 2020

The second most substantial charge was usually parkland dedication requirement or cash-in-lieu payment, averaging to 17% of the total municipal charges payable for low-rise development and 26% for high-rise.

Indirect Costs of Time Spent Gaining Approval

This report also quantifies the financial benefits of moving towards a more efficient, responsive and/or streamlined municipal approvals, by quantifying some of the “indirect” costs of time spent gaining municipal approvals. The results of the modelling are expressed on the basis of ‘costs per month’, which puts all of the various elements of this analysis onto one equal basis and allows for the calculation of impacts of time saved in the approvals process to be quantified. The costs modelled include:

 Additional taxes payable on vacant land;  Increases to municipal charges and fees;  Carrying costs of loans;  Construction cost and wage inflation The costs stemming from each additional month a project spends in the approvals process can add significantly to total project costs, and ultimately those costs will be passed onto home buyers.

Figure ES- 2 Development Scenario Average Additional Costs

Low-Rise Development $1.46 per square foot / month

High-Rise Development $2.21 per square foot / month

Best Practices

The recently adopted Bill 108 has shortened timelines for municipal decisions on development applications. Municipalities will have to render decisions significantly more quickly in some cases. The benefit of these shortened timelines should result in not only better timelines for developers, but it could also create significant incentive for municipalities to re-examine their processes, workflow, technology, and organizational structures to find efficiencies and more effective ways of reviewing applications within the allotted time.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page iv Page 44 September 2020

Figure ES- 3 Planning Application Type Timelines Prior to Bill Timelines after Bill 108 108

Official Plan Amendment 210 Days 120 Days

Zoning By-law Amendment 150 Days 90 Days

Plan of Subdivision 180 Days 120 Days

Site Plan 30 Days 30 Days

Based on a scan of programs initiated by municipalities to improve their development review processes, there are several key areas routinely identified as being areas for improvement, including:

 Reducing miscommunication which can creates conflicts that lead to delays;  Pay close attention to workflows and team composition;  Empower staff with more delegated powers;  Reduce required statutory processes where possible; and  Improvements are limited without technology.

Many of the best practices of the municipalities reviewed are highly transferable, however, ultimately each municipality will have its own set of unique circumstances that must be taken into account.

Conclusion

The overall findings in the report incorporate the rankings from the three major elements studied that feed into housing affordability – providing tools and features to improve quality of submissions, ensuring approvals are done in an expedient manner, and housing costs stemming from government charges that get borne by buyers/renters.

Overall, the municipalities of Barrie, Burlington and Oakville rank atop the list, all three with top-half ranks in each of the categories. The largest municipalities by population among those studied (Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, Vaughan) all rank on an overall basis no higher than 10th.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page v Page 45 September 2020

Overall Scorecard - Planning Features, Government Charges, Approvals Timelines Figure ES- 4

Score Planning Government Approvals (Average Features Charges Timelines Rank) Rank rank (1=best) rank (1=lowest) rank (1=best) lower=better Barrie 2 3 5 3.3 1 Burlington 2 6 3 3.7 2 Oakville 2 9 4 5.0 3 Clarington 7 1 9 5.7 4 Oshaw a 16 5 1 7.3 5 Pickering 11 2 10 7.7 6 Innisfil 15 7 2 8.0 7 Milton 7 10 n.a 8.5 8 Whitby 16 4 7 9.0 9 Toronto 1 14 15 10.0 10 Vaughan 6 17 8 10.3 11 Mississauga 9 11 13 11.0 12 Brampton 5 15 14 11.3 13 Richmond Hill 11 13 11 11.7 14 Caledon 9 12 16 12.3 15 Aurora 11 16 12 13.0 16 BWG 14 8 17 13.0 16 Markham 18 18 6 14.0 18

Note: Government Charges based on average of low -rise and high-rise scenarios, as measured by government charges as % of housing prices Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page vi Page 46 September 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background & Scope of Study ...... 1 1.2 Approach ...... 1 1.3 Caveats ...... 3

2 MUNICIPAL DATA ...... 5 2.1 Census Data ...... 5 2.2 Housing Tenure ...... 10 2.3 Housing Starts & Completions ...... 11 2.4 Other Municipal Data ...... 13 2.5 Municipal Staff per Capita ...... 14 2.6 Summary of Findings ...... 15

3 MUNICIPAL UTILIZATION OF TOOLS AND PROCESSES ...... 17 3.1 Listing of Municipal Tools and Processes ...... 17 3.2 Scorecard on Planning System Features ...... 17 3.3 Study Requirements ...... 19 3.4 Conclusions ...... 19

4 ESTIMATES OF MUNICIPAL APPROVAL AND PERMIT TIMELINES ...... 21 4.1 Approach ...... 21 4.2 Findings – Development Approval timelines ...... 22 4.3 Additional insights ...... 25 4.4 Conclusions ...... 28

5 MUNICIPAL CHARGES ON NEW HOUSING ...... 30 5.1 Development Charges ...... 30 5.2 Education Development Charges...... 32 5.3 Planning & Approval Fees ...... 33 5.4 Parkland Dedication / Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland ...... 34 5.5 Section 37 ...... 35 5.6 Land Transfer Taxes ...... 37 5.7 Other Government Charges Not Included in this Report ...... 37 5.8 Emerging Trends ...... 37 5.9 Quantification of Municipal Charges and Fees ...... 38

6 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE MUNICIPAL PROCESSES ...... 44 6.1 Taxes Payable on Vacant Land ...... 44 6.2 Increases to Municipal Charges and Fees ...... 44

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page vii Page 47 September 2020

6.3 Carrying Costs of Loans ...... 45 6.4 Cost Inflation ...... 46 6.5 Conclusions ...... 47

7 BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL PROCESSES 49 7.1 Overview of Current Initiatives ...... 49 7.2 Themes Emerging from Process Reviews ...... 54

8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 57 8.1 Summary of Findings ...... 57 8.2 Recommendations ...... 58

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page viii Page 48 September 2020

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND & SCOPE OF STUDY

Altus Group Economic Consulting was retained by BILD to undertake a study of several factors that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).

The study looks at several factors such as municipal approval processes, timelines for approvals, and government charges, and compares approaches that studied municipalities have in place to deal with the approval and ultimate development of new housing and makes an effort to highlight key features and associated benefits in bringing new housing to approval and ultimate construction.

In addition to reviewing the direct costs municipalities place on new housing developments, the study also looks at the potential implications of approval processes and the typical approval timelines by estimating the indirect costs associated with time that applications may spend in the review and approval process.

1.2 APPROACH

1.2.1 Topics Covered

This report looks at several areas that have direct links to issues related to housing supply and/or housing affordability, including factors that impact the timeliness in which developers and landowners are able to bring new housing supply onto the market, and the costs of developing new housing.

Figure 1 Subject Area Approach

Demographic and Statistical Provide overview of trends in housing construction Overview (tenure, form, prices), and shifts in population.

Analysis of Municipal Planning Review of the features and tools utilized by Approval Processes municipalities to facilitate more efficient and transparent development processes.

Review of Municipal Charges Using two hypothetical development scenarios, Imposed on New Development estimate the direct costs that municipalities levy on new housing developments, costs which are ultimately passed on to new home buyers (or renters) through higher prices (or rents).

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 1 Page 49 September 2020

Sampling of Municipal Approvals Estimating the amount of time that typical Timelines development applications spend in the municipal approvals process.

Quantification of Indirect Costs of Estimating the indirect costs associated with each Time Associated with Approval additional month a development application is in the Processes approvals process.

Analysis and Review of Best A high-level review of recent and ongoing initiatives Practices that municipalities or Provincial governments are taking to streamline approvals processes, reduce costs of development, etc.

The various sections of the report flow so as to create a picture of the potential causes, effects, and impacts of housing affordability.

Figure 2 How Components of Report Relate to Each Other and Affect Housing Affordability

Indirect Municipal Approvals Costs of Processes Timelines Approvals Timelines Housing Affordability

Government Charges

The section on municipal processes attempts to show how features present in the provincial and municipal planning systems can and do impact approvals timelines. The analysis of municipal timelines analyses a robust sample of recent development approvals in municipalities across the GTA to

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 2 Page 50 September 2020

understand what typical timelines are. The analysis of indirect costs associated with approval timelines expresses the costs that each month spent gaining approval can add to the development of residential projects.

Both the indirect costs associated with approvals timelines and the government charges quantified in a separate section, which are directly charged to developers and landowners, impact housing affordability as developers and home builders seek to recover development costs through home prices.

1.2.2 Geographic Scope

The study looks at the planning processes in a total of 18 municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area:

Figure 3 Region Area Municipality

Toronto City of Toronto

York Region Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill, and Aurora

Peel Region Brampton, Mississauga, and Caledon

Halton Region Oakville, Burlington, and Milton

Durham Region Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa, and Clarington

Simcoe County Barrie, Innisfil, and Bradford West Gwillimbury (or “BWG”)

1.3 CAVEATS

The report looks at factors that may be contributing to housing affordability issues in the Greater Toronto Area, such as planning processes, demographic factors, government charges, timelines for gaining approvals for new housing, etc. However, these factors are not meant to represent an exhaustive list of factors that contribute towards housing affordability issues.

The information presented in this report is based on interpretation of various municipal policies, by-laws, rate schedules, etc. While every effort has been made to interpret these materials accurately, there can be no certainty that municipal stakeholders will apply their policies and rates in the same manner as interpreted here.

The models at the core of this report frequently rely upon inputs and assumptions, such as assumed land values, estimated housing prices, and development yields from hypothetical development sites. These inputs and

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 3 Page 51 September 2020

assumptions are intended for the purposes contained herein, and should not be used for any other purposes, or relied upon in any manner other than how they are used within this report.

The data presented in this report is based on the latest data available as of the writing of the report, but given the types of data used, the most recent iteration of data may vary from one chart, table, or figure to the next. For example, as of the time of writing of this report, CMHC data on housing starts is available to the end of 2019, while Statistics Canada Census data is only current as of mid-2016.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 4 Page 52 September 2020

2 MUNICIPAL DATA

This section provides a high-level overview of key demographic characteristics in the studied municipalities, and presents some key statistics related to housing development and affordability in these markets.

2.1 CENSUS DATA

2.1.1 Population Change

Figure 4 shows the population in each of the municipalities being studied in this report, and the average annual change over the past two five-year Census periods. The average annual change in these municipalities has been 1.68% per year for the 2006-2011 period, and 1.16% for the 2011-2016 period.

Figure 4 Population and Average Annual Population Change, Selected Municipalities, 2006- 2016 Average Annual Population Population Change 2006 2011 2016 2006-2011 2011-2016 Municipality Persons Percent Change Burlington 164,415 175,779 183,314 1.35% 0.84% Oakville 165,613 182,520 193,832 1.96% 1.21% Milton 53,939 84,362 110,128 9.36% 5.48% Mississauga 668,549 713,443 721,599 1.31% 0.23% Brampton 433,806 523,906 593,638 3.85% 2.53% Caledon 57,050 59,460 66,502 0.83% 2.26% Toronto 2,503,281 2,615,060 2,731,571 0.88% 0.88% Vaughan 238,866 288,301 306,233 3.83% 1.21% Richmond Hill 162,704 185,541 195,022 2.66% 1.00% Markham 261,573 301,709 328,966 2.90% 1.74% Aurora 47,629 53,203 55,445 2.24% 0.83% Pickering 87,838 88,721 91,771 0.20% 0.68% Whitby 111,184 122,022 128,377 1.88% 1.02% Oshawa 141,590 149,607 159,458 1.11% 1.28% Clarington 77,820 84,548 92,013 1.67% 1.71% Bradford West Gwillimbury 24,039 28,077 35,325 3.15% 4.70% Innisfil 31,175 32,727 36,566 0.98% 2.24% Barrie 128,430 136,063 141,434 1.16% 0.78% Total 5,359,501 5,825,049 6,171,194 1.68% 1.16%

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006, 2011 and 2016 Census Data

2.1.2 Average Household Size

Figure 5 shows the number of private occupied dwellings in each municipality, and the average household size, as well as how the average household sizes have changed between 2006 and 2016.

In most studied municipalities, the average household size has declined over the 10-year 2006-2016 period, significantly so in some cases. A decline in average household size in a municipality can be driven by many

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 5 Page 53 September 2020

demographic factors, including declining fertility rates, an increase in the number of persons living alone, etc. However, declining average household sizes means that there is a demand for new housing even if the overall population was unchanged.

Figure 5 Private Occupied Dwellings, Average Household Size, and Change in Average Household Size, Selected Municipalities, 2006-2016

Private Occupied Dw ellings Average Household Size 2006 2016 2006 2016 Change Municipality Households Persons per Unit Burlington 63,255 71,373 2.60 2.57 (0.03) Oakville 56,575 66,269 2.93 2.92 (0.00) Milton 18,465 34,257 2.92 3.21 0.29 Mississauga 214,925 240,913 3.11 3.00 (0.12) Brampton 125,930 168,011 3.44 3.53 0.09 Caledon 18,210 21,256 3.13 3.13 (0.00) Toronto 979,440 1,112,929 2.56 2.45 (0.10) Vaughan 69,535 94,253 3.44 3.25 (0.19) Richmond Hill 51,000 64,116 3.19 3.04 (0.15) Markham 77,195 102,676 3.39 3.20 (0.18) Aurora 15,655 18,851 3.04 2.94 (0.10) Pickering 28,220 30,919 3.11 2.97 (0.14) Whitby 37,240 43,529 2.99 2.95 (0.04) Oshaw a 54,925 62,595 2.58 2.55 (0.03) Clarington 26,850 32,838 2.90 2.80 (0.10) Bradford West Gw illimbury 7,950 11,591 3.02 3.05 0.02 Innisfil 11,400 13,364 2.73 2.74 0.00 Barrie 46,515 52,476 2.76 2 .70 (0 .07) Total 1,903,285 2,242,216 2.82 2.75 (0.06)

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006 and 2016 Census Data

Of the 18 municipalities, the average household size increased in four municipalities, including Milton (+0.29 persons per unit), Brampton (+0.09), BWG (+0.02) and Innisfil where there was a slight increase. In the other 14 municipalities, there were slight-to-significant declines, with decreases upwards of 0.14 to 0.19 persons per unit in municipalities such as Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, and Pickering.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 6 Page 54 September 2020

Figure 6 Change in Average Household Size, 2006-2016 Persons per Unit

Burlington (0.03) Oakville (0.00) Milton 0.29 Mississauga (0.12) Brampton 0.09 Caledon (0.00) Toronto (0.10) Vaughan(0.19) Richmond Hill (0.15) Markham(0.19) Aurora (0.10) Pickering (0.15) Whitby (0.04) Oshawa (0.03) Clarington (0.10) BWG 0.02 Innisfil 0.00 Barrie (0.07)

(0.20) (0.15) (0.10) (0.05) - 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Source: Altus Group based on 2006 and 2016 Census data

2.1.3 Migration Data

Using Statistics Canada data on migration can provide information on the sources of population change within the upper-tier (or single-tier) municipalities with the GTA. Beyond natural life factors that affect population (such as births and deaths), there are four key flows of people into and out of municipalities and regions:

 Intraprovincial migration - persons moving in/out of the municipality or metropolitan area, but staying within the same province;  Net immigration - persons arriving from outside of Canada (as permanent residents) minus persons that were living in Canada leaving the country;  Net Interprovincial migration – net inflow or outflow of persons moving into of a municipality or region from another province (or vice versa);  Net non-permanent residents – net inflow or outflow of persons such as temporary workers, students, etc.

For example, over the 10-year period ending mid-year 2019, the City of Toronto has seen several distinct movements of population in and out of the City:

 A net outflow of 277,200 persons that have left the City for other parts of the province of Ontario (intraprovincial migration);  An additional 411,400 persons residing in the City from net immigration (persons coming to reside in the City from outside of Canada);

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 7 Page 55 September 2020

 A net inflow of approximately 22,700 persons moving to reside in the City from interprovincial migration – persons moving to the City from other places in Canada outside of Ontario; and  An additional 124,600 net new non-permanent residents (comprised on international students, temporary workers, etc.).

Figure 7 Migration by Census Division, 2009-2010 to 2018-2019, Ranked by Net Intraprovincial Migration

Net Intraprovincial Net Interprovincial Net Non-Permanent Migration Net Immigration Migration Residents Amount Rank Amount Rank Amount Rank Amount Rank Total Census Division Persons Persons Persons Persons Simcoe County 71,112 1 2,714 6 (6,864) 4 6,120 4 73,082 Durham Region 53,487 2 14,061 5 (8,029) 5 4,731 6 64,250 Halton Region 43,342 3 18,936 4 455 2 5,687 5 68,420 York Region (2,373) 4 73,122 3 (510) 3 12,977 3 83,216 Peel Region (110,545) 5 189,668 2 (8,420) 6 53,720 2 124,423 Toronto (277,222) 6 411,423 1 22,715 1 124,639 1 281,555

Source: Statistics Canada, 2018-2019 Annual Demographic Estimates

A significant outflow of persons from a municipality to other parts of a province (intraprovincial migration) can be due to households leaving an area due to a lack of desired housing options in a municipality, or the unaffordability of the housing options that are available. Of the six regions within the GTA, three (Toronto, Peel and York) are experiencing net outflows of residents to other parts of Ontario, significantly so for Toronto and Peel. In these three regions, the net number of persons leaving the regions for other pars of Ontario has been increasing in Peel and York, and more recently so in Toronto.

Figure 8 Annual Net Intraprovincial Migration – Toronto, Peel and York 2006-2018 20,000

Toronto Peel York 10,000

-10,000

-20,000

-30,000

-40,000

-50,000 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates data

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 8 Page 56 September 2020

For the three other regions within the GTA that have been seeing net inflows of people from elsewhere in the province:

 The net inflows in Halton have been decreasing steadily from the highs of 2006-2010, but remain positive on an annual basis;  The net inflows into Durham have generally remained steady at between 4,000 and 6,000 persons per year; and  The net inflows into Simcoe have been increasing, with the last four years the highest in the 13-year period, all at or above 8,000 persons of net inflow.

Figure 9 shows the annual Intraprovincial trends for Halton, Durham and Simcoe.

Figure 9 Annual Net Intraprovincial Migration – Halton, Durham and Simcoe 2006-2018 12,000

Durham Halton Simcoe 10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates data

To understand the nature of the Intraprovincial flows to/from the six GTA regions to/from other parts of Ontario, Figure 10 below shows Intraprovincial migration by age for the year 2018-2019.

Areas with outflows are seeing the net outflows driven by persons aged 25- 44. Meanwhile, Halton, Durham and Simcoe are gaining persons in this age group from other parts of the province, with a significant proportion likely coming from nearby places such as Peel, York and Toronto.

The data appears to indicate that a lack of housing both affordable and suitable for families is resulting in younger families (and their children) leaving the inner parts of the metropolitan areas (Toronto, Peel, York) that

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 9 Page 57 September 2020

generally have higher prices for areas with more affordably priced and suitable housing options for families.

Figure 10 Intraprovincial Migration for Age Group 25-44, 2018-2019, Greater Toronto Area

4,000 Number of Persons 3,003 3,118 2,211 2,000

-2,000 -1,321

-4,000

-6,000

-8,000 -7,133

-10,000

-12,000 -12,131 -14,000 Halton Peel Toronto York Durham Simcoe Source: Altus Group based on Statistics Canada, Annual Demographic Estimates, 2018-2019

2.2 HOUSING TENURE

An analysis of the tenure of occupied dwellings shows that there has been an increase in the share of renter households in every one of the studied municipalities. As of 2016, only five (5) of the 18 municipalities have shares of renter households greater than 20%.

An increased share of renter households does not necessarily mean that there has been an increase in the amount or share of housing built as ‘purpose-built’ rental housing. Instead, this could also mean that there has been an increase in the size of the secondary rental market (rented single- detached, semi-detached, townhouse units, and condominium apartments put on the secondary rental market).

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 10 Page 58 September 2020

Figure 11 Household Tenure in Studied Municipalities, Ranked by Highest Share of Renter Households in 2016 % Increase in Share of Renter Households Households by Tenure Change in 2006 2016 Pct. Points Ow ner Renter Municipality Percent Share Percent Change Toronto 45.6% 47.2% 1.6 10% 18% Oshaw a 30.1% 31.5% 1.4 12% 19% Barrie 23.6% 28.8% 5.2 5% 38% Mississauga 25.0% 27.7% 2.7 8% 24% Burlington 20.4% 23.6% 3.2 8% 30% Brampton 18.5% 20.0% 1.5 31% 44% Oakville 15.9% 18.3% 2.4 14% 35% Richmond Hill 13.7% 17.6% 3.8 20% 61% Bradford West Gw illimbury 17.2% 17.3% 0.1 46% 47% Whitby 16.0% 16.7% 0.7 16% 22% Aurora 14.2% 16.1% 1.9 18% 36% Milton 11.9% 14.1% 2.2 81% 120% Markham 11.3% 13.9% 2.7 29% 64% Pickering 10.9% 12.6% 1.7 7% 26% Clarington 11.2% 11.9% 0.7 21% 30% Innisfil 6.7% 11.6% 4.9 11% 103% Vaughan 7.3% 10.4% 3.1 31% 94% Caledon 8.6% 9.2% 0.6 16% 25%

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on 2006 and 2016 Census of Canada

2.3 HOUSING STARTS & COMPLETIONS

Figure 12 shows how housing starts by housing type have changed in the studied municipalities over the past ten years, as broken out into separate five-year periods.

Figure 12 Change in Housing Starts by Structure Type Selected Municipalities, 2010-2019, by 5-Year Period

Percent 70% 2010-2014 2015-2019 63.80%

60% 55.70%

50%

40%

30% 27.00%

20.70% 20% 12.40% 13.30% 10% 4.90% 2.20% 0% Single-Detached Semi-Detached Row House Apartment Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Starts data

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 11 Page 59 September 2020

There has been an increasing proportion of housing starts in higher density forms such as row houses and apartment, while lower density housing forms (single-detached and semi-detached) have declined in share.

Of the 18 municipalities studied, 14 municipalities have seen declines in the share of ground-related housing starts over the past two five-year periods (see Figure 13). The only municipalities with increases in share of ground- related housing have been Richmond Hill, Oakville, and Aurora, however, these increases were relatively modest, ranging from increases in share of 1.1 to 5.9 percentage points. The share of ground-related housing in Bradford West Gwillimbury has remained unchanged, at 100% in both periods.

Figure 13 Change in Share of Ground-Related Housing Starts by Municipality 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019 100% 2010-2014 2015-2019 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% 53.9% 22.2% 63.8% 66.7% 86.2% 76.5% 43.5% 15.2% 93.8% 92.1% 100.0% 91.0% 10.7% 9.8% 70.6% 49.2% 59.6% 60.7% 57.1% 42.3% 73.3% 79.2% 84.7% 52.1% 90.2% 89.8% 86.2% 63.8% 96.9% 75.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 73.2% 58.2% 43.0% 0%

Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data

An analysis of the tenure of occupied dwellings shows that despite the number of renter households increasing, there has been a lack of purpose- built rental housing construction in the Greater Toronto Area, with only two municipalities seeing more than 10% of new housing starts be purpose-built rental in the last five years (Oshawa at 24.5% of housing starts, and Toronto at 13.0%).

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 12 Page 60 September 2020

Figure 14 Share of Rental Tenure Housing Starts, by Municipality 2010-2014 vs. 2015-2019 25.0% 2010-2014 2015-2019

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0% 13.0% 14.4% 24.5% 8.9% 5.2% 0.0% 5.4% 0.0% 0.4% 3.6% 8.7% 3.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 7.2% 0.9% 1.5% 5.4% 0.0% 0.3% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 1.6% 1.3% 6.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 9.8% 9.4% 0.0%

Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data

The number of rental housing starts increased by 87% from the 2010-2014 period to the 2015-2019 period. On average, among studied municipalities, rental housing starts comprised just 8.4% of all housing starts over the past five years, although that share was higher than the 4.9% share of rental housing in the prior five-year period.

2.4 OTHER MUNICIPAL DATA

2.4.1 Housing Prices

Housing prices in the studied municipalities have increased significantly. Over the 2006-2018 period, based on CMHC data, average prices of absorbed single-detached homes have increased by an average of 158%.1 Figure 15 shows the changes in absorbed single-detached housing prices over the 2006-2018 period.

1 The percentage change in absorbed single-detached housing prices should be used with some caution as the data does not control for size of single-detached dwellings in the sample, meaning that the data set could be skewed towards luxury estate lots in one period, but smaller single- detached dwellings in a residential subdivision in another period.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 13 Page 61 September 2020

Figure 15 Change in Absorbed Single-Detached Housing Prices 2006-2018 450% 416% 400%

350%

300% 288%

257% 250% 241%

198% 200% 188% 175% 153% 150% 126% 124% 119% 113% 96% 92% 100% 87% 83% 65% 50% 17% 0%

Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data

2.5 MUNICIPAL STAFF PER CAPITA

Using available municipal data, an analysis was undertaken to estimate the number of staff (expressed as Full-Time Equivalent or FTE) that municipalities have made available to review development and building permit applications as a significant part of their day-to-day work.

Figure 16 Municipal Planning Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts

Employees per 1,000 Housing Starts 160 143 140

120 104 97 100 93 88 86 82 80 80 74 74 Avg: 75.1 71 71

57 57 60 53 49 41 40 30

Note: Housing Starts in denominator are based on annual average over 2015-2019 period Note: Staff counts include planning and development staff, and staff responsible for building permits

Source: Altus Group based on CMHC Housing Now data, municipal data

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 14 Page 62 September 2020

To compare municipal staffing across municipalities of varying sizes, we have put all employee counts on a per 1,000 housing starts basis, based on an average of housing starts from the past five years.

Across the studied municipalities there is an average of approximately 75 municipal planning staff per 1,000 housing starts.

For those municipalities with below average staffing levels, the relative outliers are Aurora, Toronto and Innisfil, which each have less than 50 municipal planning staff per 1,000 annual housing starts. This suggests that these municipalities may not have sufficient staffing resources to process applications going forward, particularly in busy years, although it could also suggest that staff at municipalities at the low-end of the scale have to-date been relatively efficient in getting housing applications processed with the resources available. However, in several cases (Aurora, Innisfil, Toronto, Brampton), low staffing levels coincides with longer municipal approval timelines.

Those municipalities with above-average staffing levels are Burlington, Richmond Hill, and Mississauga, each of which have more than 95 planning staff per 1,000 annual housing starts. This suggests these municipalities would have the capacity available to take on a surge in housing development, should one arrive in the coming years.

2.6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on our review of demographic and statistical information for the studied municipalities, we have found the following:

 Population is increasing in each municipality studied, but in many cases, this trend is accompanied by falling average household sizes. Both of these add to housing demand – one from net new persons moving into a municipality, and a second from more housing units being needed just to house the existing population;  In several parts of the GTA (York, Peel and Toronto), there has been a net out-migration of residents from these areas to other parts of Ontario, particularly by adults between aged 25-44 (as well as children aged 0- 14), suggesting that persons forming households (particularly families) are leaving to other areas where they’re able to better afford and/or more readily find their desired housing product. Halton, Durham and Simcoe have seen net inflow of persons aged 25-44, suggesting that these areas are currently able to meet the demands of younger families for affordable and suitable housing;  Each of the studied municipalities have seen an increase in the number of renter households, however, purpose-built rental housing construction remains a relatively minor component of overall housing construction;

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 15 Page 63 September 2020

 There has been a shift in the types of housing being built, with much more emphasis on apartment housing units in most municipalities studied;  The staffing levels at municipalities are generally consistent when expressed on a ‘per 1,000 housing starts’ basis, though there are a few outliers (high and low), which may indicate municipalities that are able to respond (or not) to surges in housing development activity going forward. In some cases, low staffing levels coincides with longer municipal approval timelines (Aurora, Innisfil, Brampton, Toronto).

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 16 Page 64 September 2020

3 MUNICIPAL UTILIZATION OF TOOLS AND PROCESSES

This section of the report reviews the tools that are available to municipalities to assist staff in reviewing development applications, or help applicants navigate the requirements for their development submissions.

3.1 LISTING OF MUNICIPAL TOOLS AND PROCESSES

We have identified numerous features or approaches taken by Ontario municipalities that may positively or negatively influence the ability to get new housing approved and ultimately built in a more expedient fashion than otherwise possible.

Each municipality is scored on whether they have tools or utilize processes that can be deemed beneficial to an efficient planning approvals system or to increase transparency for developers and other stakeholders.

The features reviewed are as follows:

 Online development application submission or building permit application portal;  The availability of a “development guide”, which shows required studies and components of various planning applications, to ensure applicants understand the requirements of applications and achieve ‘complete application’ status;  Clear terms of reference for required studies;  Online status list or tracking system for active development applications, as well as whether mapping of applications is provided, and supporting studies and plans are provided;  Online zoning, including whether a GIS file and/or a GIS portal available.

The following section of the report presents our measures of how each studied municipality utilizes these tools and features, and what proportion of the 18 municipalities studied are each tool or feature.

3.2 SCORECARD ON PLANNING SYSTEM FEATURES

Based on our review, many tools and processes are already present in most of the 18 municipalities, though no single feature is fully present in more than three-quarters of municipalities.

The most frequently utilized tool is a tracking system for active development applications, while very few municipalities provide clear terms of reference for studies required to be submitted with development applications. A lack of clarity regarding study requirements can result in unnecessary resubmissions and delay the ability to submit a fully complete application.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 17 Page 65 September 2020

Figure 17 Feature % of Municipalities with Feature

Development Guide 67%

Terms of Reference 47%

Development Application Tracking 75% System – Active Applications

Development Application Tracking 42% Database – Historic Applications

Application Tracking – Map 64%

Application Tracking – Supporting 56% Files and Studies

Zoning – GIS file available 22%

Zoning – GIS Portal / Mapping 72%

Another feature explored, but complicated due to COVID-19 adaptation by municipalities is the availability of online submission portals for development applications and/or building permit applications.

Of the studied municipalities only one municipality utilized all eight tools (Toronto) and processes, and some only utilized a few of the tools and processes.

Figure 18 Number of Features (out of 8) Municipalities with Number of Features

7 or more Barrie, Brampton, Oakville, Burlington, Toronto

Between 5 and 7 Clarington, Milton, Vaughan

Between 3 and 5 BWG, Pickering, Caledon, Mississauga, Richmond Hill, Aurora

Below 3 Innisfil, Whitby, Oshawa, Markham

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 18 Page 66 September 2020

3.3 STUDY REQUIREMENTS

Many planning applications require numerous studies, plans and technical reports to be submitted to satisfy municipal staff regarding the nature of the proposal and detailing any potential impacts on the community.

A review of development guides for seven municipalities, including some lower-tier, upper-tier and single-tier municipalities shows the range of potential studies that may be required for a development application – the full list of potential studies is presented in Figure 19.

We have found almost 60 different types of studies, with most applications usually requiring some combination of 20-30 of these studies, depending on the municipality, location of the development and the type of building(s) and uses being proposed.

3.4 CONCLUSIONS

The review of utilization of planning tools and processes has found that some tools that could assist with potentially streamlining municipal processes and commenting periods, or would improve the quality of submissions from applicants, such as online submission portals and detailed terms of reference for technical studies required for review of development applications are often not used in many of the municipalities studied.

A review of the list of studies that may be required by municipalities shows that some development applications may be burdened with a vast array of study requirements - in some cases potentially in the range of 20-30 studies for a single project, depending on the municipality, application type, and location of development.

The required quantity and variety of technical studies, even if necessary to ensure that developments are in the public interest, results in significant costs to retain experts necessary to complete the studies and adds significant time for the studies to be completed, and then reviewed by municipal staff. The greater the number of studies also likely increases the likelihood of revisions and resubmissions, adding more time to the approvals process.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 19 Page 67 September 2020

Studies and Technical Reports / Plans That May Be Required in Select Municipalities Figure 19 Municipality Toronto Durham Clarington Halton Oakville Simcoe Barrie Affordable Housing Report XX Agricultural Impact/ Assessment X X X X Air Quality Study X Arborist Tree Preservation Report X X X X Archeological Assessment X X X X X X Block Master Plan X Community Services and Facilities Study X Contaminated Site Assessment X X Contamination Management Plan X Earth Science Heritage Evaluatio X Electromagnetic Field Management Plan / Study X Energy Strategy X X Enviromental Site Assessment X X X X Environmental evaluation study X Environmental Impact Study X X X X X X X Erosion or Natural Hazard Assessment X X X Financial Impact Study X X X X X Fire Access Plan Fisheries Impact/Marina Impact Study XX Floodplain Report X X Geotechnical Study / Soils Report X X X X X X Healthy Communities X Heritage Impact Report X X X X X X Housing Issues Report X Hydrogeology / Groundw ater Assessment X X X X X X Landfill Impact Study X Landform Conservation Plan X Landscaping Plan X Lighting Plan X X X Linkage Assessment X Loading Study X Marine archaeological assessment X Market Impact Study X X X Natural Heritage Impact Study X X X Noise Impact Study X X X X X X Odour/Dust/Nuisance Imapct Report X X X X X Parking Study X Parkland Impact Study / Recreation Needs X Planning Rationale / Justification X X X X X X X Public Consultation Strategy Report X Rental Housing Conversion Report X Servicing Report X X X X X X X Slope Stability Report X X X Stormw ater Management / Drainage Report X X X X X Streetscape Plan X Sun/Shadow Study X X Sustainability Report X Topographical Survey X Traffic Operations Assessment X X Transportation Impact Study X X X X X X X Urban Design Report X X X X Vegetation Inventory Vibration Study X X X X X X X Water conservation plan X Water Quality Study X Watershed Study X Wellhead Risk Assessment Report XX Wind Study X X X

Note: Some studies show n as not being required may actually be required w ithin other larger studies show n, depending on the specific terms of reference for each study. In most instances, the studies listed may only be required for some application types, or only in some circumstances. Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Municipal Offical Plans

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 20 Page 68 September 2020

4 ESTIMATES OF MUNICIPAL APPROVAL AND PERMIT TIMELINES

Lengthy timelines for development application approvals from municipalities are a common complaint of development industry stakeholders. This section reviews findings from exhaustive research into timelines for recently approved applications for most municipalities studied in this report.

4.1 APPROACH

Altus Group endeavoured to measure typical approval timelines for development applications in various municipalities across the Greater Toronto Area.

The approval timelines were measured from the date a municipality provided acknowledgment that an application was deemed ‘complete’2 to when a planning approval was provided by the municipality. The nature of a ‘planning approval’ can take many forms, including approvals provided by a municipality for official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium, site plan approval, or a combination thereof.

Although contingent on the availability of data provided by municipalities, it was possible to undertake a few types of analyses of approval timelines for different applications types for municipalities in the study. However, not every municipality made available all necessary information to do the analysis for all application types, and there are some municipalities where certain types of applications are relatively rare (i.e., subdivision applications in the City of Toronto). Only in instances where it was possible to obtain robust samples for particular application types are findings shared. An overview of the sources for data informing our analysis are summarized in the following table.

It should be noted that while the analysis focuses on the time between complete application and municipal approval, it does not account for the significant period of time that an application may take to achieve a ‘complete application’ status (i.e. “pre-submission”), nor the period of time from development approval to building permit approval. There are also significant timelines associated with the process of getting vacant land designated for urban uses (e.g. greenfield development) – often this process can take several years, and in some cases can take upwards of 10 or more years.

2 Such as, direct affirmations of an application’s complete status date or the date a notice of a public meeting was provided.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 21 Page 69 September 2020

Figure 20 Data Source Description

Municipal Some municipalities provide comprehensive lists of recently approved applications. Application Often, data can be extracted from the published records about date of complete Status Lists application, date of approval(s), etc.

Council / Each municipality studied makes some amount of information regarding development Committee approvals through agendas, minutes, and associated documents and reports Agendas, available through Council / Committee meeting portals. Council / committee agendas Minutes, Staff were carefully reviewed to tabulate development approvals, with searches then Reports undertaken for sources with a recorded date of complete application – often this information is contained within the staff report recommending approval.

Open Data Some municipalities make datasets available with recently approved development Portals applications, which often include data regarding the date of complete application, and approval (and for which planning instruments planning approvals were obtained).

The diagram below depicts the major elements of the land development and building approval process and highlights the element that this analysis of municipal timelines focuses on.

Figure 21

4.2 FINDINGS – DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TIMELINES

4.2.1 Overview of Methodology

The analysis summarized below is based on a significant amount of work to collect a robust sample as possible. Nearly 1,000 development applications that were approved by a municipality were reviewed and recorded in the process of data collection. However, it should be noted that this analysis does not include timelines associated with the following:

 Developments that were refused by the municipality and may have been subject to an appeals process (in this instance, likely appealed by the

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 22 Page 70 September 2020

applicant). Where those applications are ultimately approved by the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT), this adds considerable time to the approvals process, but the timelines associated with these developments are not included in our analysis. The approval periods for applications that were subject to LPAT appeal processes are left out as the additional time required to obtain approval from an LPAT process is not necessarily reflective of issues with municipal processes, and timelines for applications subject to the LPAT process can be lengthy due to productive reasons such as time spent in settlement discussions, or other reasons that are not in the control of the municipality, such as LPAT case backlogs that delays the scheduling of hearings;  Appeal periods related to developments that were approved by the municipality, but appealed by other stakeholders to LPAT, which would add considerable time onto the approval period – this additional time is not accounted for in this study;  Applications that are obvious outliers - records where the timelines significantly exceeded the average of most other data points in the sample. Some application approvals may, for example, involve lands that have been sold to a new owner who has decided to make modifications to a pre-existing submission, however as these instances are not necessarily the fault of the municipality, they have not been included.

The data sample includes the most current application approvals for each municipality. However, given the scale of development in some municipalities, it was necessary to collect information for applications that received an approval as far back as 2015 in order to reach a robust sample size. Therefore, the ‘average’ timelines presented may not necessarily be reflective of a typical timeline in 2019/2020 or capture impacts of more recent improvements that municipalities may have made in the last 12-24 months.

The data averages presented in Figure 22 looks at how long, on average, a development application took for the municipality to approve but does not distinguish between applications that had multiple concurrent submissions and applications that were submitted as consecutive submissions (one after another), or submissions that required only one application. The timelines for developments requiring only ‘single’ approval versus ‘multiple’ approvals is analyzed separately and presented in a later section of this report.

4.2.2 Findings

The analysis shows significant variations in the approval timelines of municipalities. Generally, the more populous and urban municipalities (i.e. Mississauga, Brampton, and Toronto) had longer timelines, while more suburban or exurban municipalities had shorter timelines.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 23 Page 71 September 2020

Only four municipalities, Oshawa, Innisfil, Burlington and Oakville had average approval timelines below 12 months, while another nine municipalities had averages that fell within a range from 12 to 18 months. In four municipalities, the average timeline for municipal approvals ranges from 18 to 24 months. For one municipality (Milton), there was not enough available data found on municipal approvals to include in the report.

Figure 22

Average Approval Timelines by Application Type, by Municipality

Official Plan Zoning By-law Plan of Plan of Municipality Site Plan Average Amendment Amendment Subdivision Condominium

Oshawa (n=29) ** 9 months 9 months 8 months ** 9 months

Innisfil (n=24) 9 months 9 months 10 months ** ** 9 months

Burlington (n=26) 13 months 11 months 7 months ** ** 11 months

Oakville (n=96) 12 months 12 months 11 months 8 months 15 months 11 months

Barrie (n=30) 10 months 11 months 12 months ** 18 months 12 months

Markham (n=33) 11 months 14 months 9 months ** ** 13 months

Whitby (n=29) 10 months 13 months 15 months 11 months ** 13 months

Vaughan (n=78) 14 months 15 months 11 months 8 months 12 months 13 months

Clarington (n=31) ** 12 months 13 months ** ** 13 months

Pickering (n=37) 16 months 13 months 13 months 13 months ** 14 months

Richmond Hill (n=26) ** 18 months 18 months 14 months 16 months 16 months

Aurora (n=23) ** 19 months 25 months 8 months 18 months 17 months

Mississauga (n=18) 18 months 17 months ** ** ** 18 months

Brampton (n=85) 26 months 19 months 19 months ** ** 20 months

Toronto (n=76) 32 months 25 months ** 8 months 30 months 21 months

Caledon (n=18) ** 23 months 23 months ** ** 23 months

BWG (n=23) ** 21 months 25 months ** ** 24 months

Overall Range 8-37 months 9-25 months 7-25 months 8-14 months 12-30 months 9-24 months

Overall Average 16 months 15 months 15 months 9 months 18 months 15 months ** denotes where either data was not available, or the sample size was too small to be statistically robust

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 24 Page 72 September 2020

The analysis by application types shows that applications with official plan amendments (OPAs) take the longest to be approved with municipal averages ranging from 8 to 37 months, while the quickest type of application to gain approval on average is plan of condominium, with municipal averages ranging from 8 to 14 months.

The findings relating to approvals timelines may not necessarily be consistent with the findings on the availability of tools or features of planning systems in the studied municipalities or staffing levels in the municipalities. Even with full usage of the identified tools and features, or large amounts of staff on-hand, an approvals process can still be slow without the right deployment of tools or features, or the efficient allocation of staff resources.

The results regarding average timelines for approved applications in each municipality should be used with some caution as the complexity of development applications was not controlled for, given the subjectivity of any evaluation, measurement or adjustment for complicating factors adding to an application’s complexity. However, it is understood that complexity can be elevated by variables such as the scale of development proposals (land area, number of units, height, etc.), environmental issues, concerns about community impact, political issues, etc. These complicating factors will vary from one application to the next, and may be especially prevalent in certain municipalities studied.

4.3 ADDITIONAL INSIGHTS

4.3.1 High-Density vs. Low-Density

For analytical purposes, the development applications within the collected data set were broadly categorized as either ‘low-density’ projects, or ‘high- density’ projects. Low-density projects were generally defined as being applications that were predominantly oriented towards ground-related housing (singles, semis, townhouses), while high-density projects were defined to be development applications that predominantly include multi- family homes such as apartments and condominium high-rises.

It was found that there was no significant difference in the average timelines for the two types of development applications, with low-density applications taking an average of 14.4 months to be approved, and high-density applications taking an average of 14.3 months. However, when averages were compared for specific municipalities, some disparities in averages between the two types are evident (see Figure 23)

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 25 Page 73 September 2020

Figure 23 Averages for Low-Density Averages for High-Density significantly less than High- significantly less than Low- Density Density

Toronto (low-density 11 months Richmond Hill (9 months faster for faster than high-density) high-density than low-density)

Burlington (low-density 8 months Vaughan (3 months faster for high- faster than high-density) density than low-density)

Brampton (low-density 4 months Whitby (3 months faster for high- faster than high-density) density than low-density)

4.3.2 Multiple Applications vs. Lone Applications

Municipalities often promote the submission of multiple applications at the same time (e.g. an official plan amendment with a zoning by-law amendment) with the notion that it can save both time and fees for the developer. The benefit to municipalities is that it in theory, concurrent review of applications more efficiently uses staff resources because it allows staff to save time reviewing aspects of a development proposal that may overlap between different application types.

While potential for time savings for developers can provide significant benefits, there are also risks to developers. First, because staff are dealing with more expansive aspects of a development proposal all at once, their recommendation report to council may take longer to submit, delaying final approval. Second, a major issue delaying review or approval of one application may cause other applications to be delayed.

The chart below (Figure 24) shows the difference in average approval timelines for single applications versus multiple applications reviewed concurrently. While lone applications take generally less time individually by application type, should a developer sequentially go through the application process gaining one approval only after others have been received, it would take significantly longer than a bundle of application submitted all at once. The data obtained and reviewed in this exercise shows that when there are multiple applications submitted, it generally takes just 2 to 3 months longer for the bundle of applications to be approved than just an individual application.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 26 Page 74 September 2020

Figure 24 Application Type Single Application Multiple / Concurrent Application

Official Plan ** 16 months Amendment

Zoning By-law 13 months 16 months Amendment

Plan of Subdivision 12 months 15 months

Plan of Condominium 8 months 10 months

Site Plan 16 months 23 months

Average 13 months 16 months

Overall, applications submitted alone made up about one-third of the total sample, while applications that were concurrently submitted with others made up the remaining two-thirds. This information suggestions that a large majority of applications are already being bundled together with others, however, there is still a significant minority that are not, and potentially could be bundled together.

If there is any possibility for the avoidance of certain planning applications, and consolidation of planning applications into one type of submission, it appears that there would be a benefit to the applicant of reduced timelines.

4.3.3 Approval by Municipal Council vs. Local Planning Appeals Tribunal

While applications that were approved by the LPAT were not included in the main dataset, some information was collected that provided a sub-sample that could be used to analyze and contrast with average timelines for municipal approvals. While the sub-sample was sufficiently large for aggregate comparison purposes (with 100 records), it was not large enough to allow for analysis by any single municipality.

On average, applications approved by the LPAT took on average roughly twice as long to gain approval as those approved by a municipality, with the overall approval period for applications approved by LPAT inclusive of the time the applications spent in the municipal review process, and the time spent getting through the LPAT process.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 27 Page 75 September 2020

Figure 25 Approval Timelines by Source of Approval

Months 30 28 Municipal Council Approvals LPAT Approvals 27 25 25 24 24

20 18 16 15 15 15

10 9

0 OPA ZBL Subdivision Condominium Site Plan Source: Altus Group based on various municipal and LPAT records

Having to gain approval through the LPAT and that taking roughly double the amount of time to gain municipal approval, if approval is obtained at all, illustrates a risk associated with the current appeals system – getting an approval via an appeal adds significant cost in terms of the additional time required to gain approval, over and above the expense of the hearing itself with additional costs for the legal counsel and experts required to navigate the LPAT process.

4.4 CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of average development approval timelines finds that the average period of time to get a development approval from a municipal council in the Greater Toronto Area ranges from 9 to 24 months, however, there is significant variation between the municipalities studied:

 The more urbanized municipalities have application approval timeline averages around 20 months, while suburban and exurban municipalities generally take significantly less time to provide approvals. Some of this variation can likely explained by the generally higher level of project complexity for projects submitted to more urban municipalities, as well as, and the volume of submissions in those municipalities;  Bundled applications only take 20% to 30% longer to approve than submissions requiring only one type of application, suggesting that there are significant economies of scale and efficiencies for bundled applications, providing benefits to both municipality and applicant;

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 28 Page 76 September 2020

 While the success rate at the LPAT was not examined as part of this study, gaining a development approval through an LPAT appeal can take, on average roughly twice as long as an approval from a municipality. Gaining approval through the LPAT can be incredibly costly and time consuming.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 29 Page 77 September 2020

5 MUNICIPAL CHARGES ON NEW HOUSING

This section gives further detail on the various municipal charges levied on newly built homes, and charged to developers, home builders and/or purchasers of newly built homes. The charges reviewed include those levied by lower‐tier or upper‐tier municipalities and school boards.

5.1 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

5.1.1 Municipal Development Charges

The Ontario Development Charges Act grants authority to municipalities to enact a development charges by‐law to impose a charge against land to be developed where the development will increase the need for municipal services, thus offsetting capital costs.

Municipal development charges collect funds for services deemed as being eligible in the Development Charges Act, such as Parks & Recreation, Libraries, Fire Services, Police Services, Water, Sewer, Roads, Transit, etc. Where there is both an upper-tier and lower-tier municipality, the services included in each respective municipality’s DC by-law are based on which tier is the provider of each service.

Each of the lower‐tier/single‐tier municipalities reviewed in this report imposes development charges for a variety of services. As required under the Development Charges Act, development charge by-laws are to be reviewed at least every five years, and in the interim periods between DC by-law reviews see DC rates indexed either annually or semi‐annually, depending on the approach adopted by each municipality.

Figure 26 shows the significant increases to development charge rates since the 2009 in the studied municipalities, on a per single‐detached unit basis. Since 2009, DC rates have increased by an average of 137% in the municipalities surveyed. Toronto, Innisfil, Vaughan, and Mississauga have had DC rate increases at or greater than 200% since 2009.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 30 Page 78 September 2020

Figure 26 Municipal Development Charges from 2009-2020, Selected Ontario Municipalities Dollars per Single-Detached Unit 120,000 2009 Lower/Single-Tier York Region Halton Region Peel Region 2009 Upper-Tier 2020 Lower/Single-Tier 100,000 62,200 2020 Upper-Tier 53,500 53,500 Simcoe 62,200 62,200 80,000 County 53,500 53,500 Durham Region 62,200 62,200 53,500 53,500 62,200 62,200 9,800 9,800 60,000 9,800 9,800 29,000 29,000 32,700 32,700 40,000 32,700 29,900 32,700 32,700 29,000 29,000 32,700 32,700 4,100 23,700 29,000 29,000 29,900 17,600 23,700 18,500 29,900 18,500 17,600 17,600 23,700 23,700 18,500 4,100

20,000 18,500 76,800 76,800 53,600 19,400 37,500 24,700 36,600 12,400 20,900 55,600 38,400 30,900 16,500 23,900 24,600 18,100 45,600 51,700 66,000 7,400 6,900 0 12,400 12,300 11,700 18,700 14,800 21,700 10,700 19,000 21,300 18,700 12,400 10,200 14,500 28,600 12,800 27,400 BWG Milton Barrie Innisfil Hill Aurora Whitby Toronto Oakville Oshawa Caledon Vaughan Pickering Markham Burlingon Brampton Richmond Clarington Total Missisauga Percent 521% 221% 130% 135% 125% 27% 11% 23% 198% 137% 133% 59% 97% 126% 54% 69% 264% 141% Change Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Municipal DC By-laws

5.1.2 GO Transit Development Charges

Development charges are also levied to collect funds for growth‐related projects associated with the GO Transit system. Most regions in the Greater Toronto Area have been allocated a share of the projected growth‐related capital costs associated with the GO Transit system, with the municipal, provincial and federal governments each in total funding one-third shares of the capital costs.

The GO Transit development charge was originally approved for a two‐year period, with the by‐laws expiring December 31, 2003. Since then, the GO Transit development charges have been updated regularly to fund a rolling ten‐year budget.

5.1.3 Area-Specific Development Charges

Six of the municipalities reviewed in this report impose area‐specific development charges (“ASDC”). We have therefore made assumptions regarding the area that the hypothetical developments would fall within:

 Halton Region – Halton Region imposes a higher DC for homes built in the greenfield area than those built within the Region’s built boundary. For this analysis we have assumed that the low-rise scenario is within the greenfield area, and that the high-rise development scenario is located within the built boundary area;  City of Barrie – The City of Barrie imposes different DC rates for the parts of the City within the former City boundaries, and for the Hewitt and

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 31 Page 79 September 2020

Salem Secondary Plan areas on the lands annexed from the Town of Innisfil. For this analysis, we have assumed that both the low-rise and high-rise development are within the former City boundaries;  Town of Innisfil - The Town of Innisfil imposes numerous ASDCs applicable to different parts of the Town. For this analysis we have assumed that the low-rise development is in Innisfil North and the high- rise project is in Innisfil Central;  City of Markham – The City of Markham imposes additional area- specific DC rates for homes built in certain areas within the City and levies them on a per hectare basis. For this analysis we have assumed that the development is located outside the areas subject to ASDCs; and  Town of Richmond Hill – The Town of Richmond Hill imposes additional ASDCs on a per net hectare basis in selected greenfield areas in the Town, over and above the Town-wide charges. For the low-rise scenario included in our analysis of government charges, we have taken the average of these greenfield ASDCs and added that onto the Town-wide development charges.

5.2 EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

In Ontario, education development charges (EDC’s) are collected by local municipalities on behalf of local school boards that qualify to impose such charges under the Education Act and associated regulations. EDC’s are used by school boards to fund the acquisition of school sites and related costs (site preparation, legal costs, etc.) to accommodate net new growth-related pupils. EDC’s are usually charged by both English-language public and separate school boards and are usually levied on both residential and non‐residential growth. Funding for school building construction is provided by the Province on an as-needed basis stemming from requests for funding submitted by local school boards.

EDC’s on residential development are imposed solely on a per unit basis, meaning that single-detached units are charged the same rate as townhouse and apartment units. The Education Act and associated regulations enable school boards to impose these charges on a differentiated basis (i.e., higher rates for single-detached units, lower for apartment units), but to-date, this approach has not been utilized.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 32 Page 80 September 2020

Figure 27 Education Development Charges by Jurisdiction Dollars per Unit

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000 7,761 7,007 3,000

4,572 2,000 3,335 2,959 1,000 1,793 1,738

0 Toronto York Halton Peel Durham (excl. Clarington Simcoe Clarington) Note: Part of “Peel” EDC applies to part of Dufferin County, part of “Simcoe” EDC applies to part of Muskoka, and the “Durham” rates are not applicable in Clarington, which is under jurisdiction of Kawartha Pine Ridge DSB and Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic DSB Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on various EDC By-laws

5.3 PLANNING & APPROVAL FEES

There are various fees and charges associated with the municipal approval for a development, several fees for the permits required for the construction of the building(s), and engineering fees and permits for the infrastructure works associated with a development.

The modelling undertaken groups these fees into three main categories outlined in the subsections below, but in many municipalities, there is no clear delineation between the departments that review plans, approve plans, and/or issue permits, meaning that in some cases, engineering review fees may be covered within the costs recovered through planning review fees.

5.3.1 Planning Review Fees

For this analysis, it is assumed that the low‐rise scenario would require both lower‐ and upper‐tier official plan amendments, a zoning by‐law amendment, and plan of subdivision approval. It is assumed that the high‐rise development scenario would require an official plan amendment, a zoning by‐ law amendment, as well as plan of condominium and site plan approval.

Often there is considerable overlap between the studies and reports required for different planning applications. To acknowledge this, some municipalities provide reduced or discounted costs for joint applications where more than one planning instrument is being amended.

In imposing ‘per unit’ fees for planning review fees, some municipalities acknowledge that certain ‘economies of scale’ exist for larger applications,

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 33 Page 81 September 2020

and so levy discounted per unit rates beyond certain unit thresholds, a feature sometimes referred to as a ‘declining’ fee rate. This approach to structuring the planning review fees is based on the notion that there are certain fixed costs to reviewing planning applications whether the application has 10 units or 100 units.

Some municipalities treat the diminishing marginal costs for larger applications through both a declining fee rate, but also a ‘cap’ on planning fees. For example, the City of Brampton (as of December 2019) caps fees for development applications requiring some combination of zoning by-law amendment, official plan amendment or subdivision approval at $359,220 and caps fees for site plan approvals at $85,219.

5.3.2 Building Permit Fees

Each of the lower‐tier and single‐tier municipalities being reviewed charge building permit fees for the construction of residential buildings, charged on a per square metre basis.

5.3.3 Engineering and Servicing Fees

Each lower‐tier and single‐tier municipality reviewed charges a variety of engineering and service fees for the development, review, inspection, connection and/or assumption of a development’s water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer services. The various engineering and servicing related fees may include servicing fees, subdivision agreement and assumption fees, and engineering inspection fees, which are typically charged as a percentage of costs of the engineering works to be done.

5.4 PARKLAND DEDICATION / CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND

Although Bill 108 (passed June 2019) was intended to alter how municipalities collected funds for parkland acquisition, the recently passed Bill 197 (assented July 2020) essentially restores most of the current parkland dedication / cash-in-lieu of parkland system.

Currently municipalities acquire parkland and other forms of open space through parkland dedication requirements imposed on new developments. Alternatively, a developer is able to provide “cash‐in‐lieu” (“CIL”) of parkland dedication to a municipality.

The Ontario Planning Act says that as a condition of development or redevelopment of land, that land in an amount not exceeding 5% of the land to be conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes. Alternatively, for residential developments, the land conveyed to the municipality may also be provided at a rate of 1 hectare per 300 dwelling units.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 34 Page 82 September 2020

The Ontario Planning Act also says that in lieu of providing the land for parkland to the municipality, the developer may instead provide a payment to the municipality in the amount of the value of the land to be conveyed, at a rate not to exceed 1 hectare per 500 dwelling units. The value of the land is to be determined as of the day before approval of the draft plan of subdivision.

The statutory parkland rates are used in each Ontario municipality reviewed in this report, except as follows:

 City of Toronto: The City has an alternative parkland dedication rate of 2% of land area, or 0.4 hectares per 300 units. In Toronto, cash‐in‐lieu of dedication payments are also capped based on the size of the development site and the value of the site: o For smaller sites (less than 1 hectare), this cap is 10% of the value of the site; o For 1-to-5-hectare sites, the value of the payment cannot exceed 15% of the value of the site; o For larger sites (greater than 5 hectares) this cap is 20% of the value of the site.  City of Mississauga: The City of Mississauga follows the statutory parkland rates, except for medium- and high-density development which has a fixed rate of $8,970 per unit;  City of Vaughan: The City of Vaughan’s cash-in-lieu of parkland contributions are calculated at a rate of 1 hectare per 500 units, except for high density development which has a rate of $8,500 per unit;  Town of Richmond Hill: The Town of Richmond Hill requires landowners to convey land at the greater of 5% of the land within the development application, or the lesser of: o 1 hectare of land of land per 300 dwelling units; or o 1 hectare of land for each 730 persons to be housed.

5.5 SECTION 37

The former Section 37 of the Ontario Planning Act (as it was prior to the passage of Bill 108) allowed for increases in permitted height and/or density through the zoning by‐law in return for community benefits, provided that Official Plan policies are in place. These contributions are typically directed to community infrastructure needs arising from the expected surplus in housing units/people being accommodated in a development relative to the original plans.

While Section 37 is used in some 905 municipalities, it is most frequently utilized in the City of Toronto. The City of Toronto Official Plan sets out

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 35 Page 83 September 2020

several community benefits that may be provided in return for increased height and/or density, including parkland/park improvements, streetscape improvements, public art, childcare facilities, etc.

While Section 37 contributions are often provided by private developers when developing in Toronto, there is no publicly available formula or method for how these are calculated and/or arrived at. These section 37 contributions can also be provided in the form of cash contributions, or in-kind contributions.

Based on our review of various zoning by-laws in the City, the cash contributions agreed to by developers and the City can vary significantly from one development to the next – in some cases less than $1,000 per unit, and in others in excess of $15,000 per unit, and up to over $22,000 per unit in some select instances. The average section 37 cash contribution has been steadily increasing since the year 2000, and over the 2015-2017 period, the average section 37 cash contribution amounted to approximately $3,800 per unit, on average. The City also regularly secures non-cash contributions, such as rental housing replacement units, public art, playgrounds, daycare spaces, recreation facilities, etc., which are not accounted for in the average cash contributions depicted in Figure 28.

Figure 28

The former Section 37 density bonusing system, under Bill 108 and Bill 197 will be effectively replaced with a Community Benefits Charge (“CBC”), which would see a percentage of land value payable for developments with both 10 or more residential units that are also 5 or more storeys in height. As of the time of writing this report, the prescribed CBC percentage has not been set.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 36 Page 84 September 2020

5.6 LAND TRANSFER TAXES

Land transfer taxes (“LTT”) are levied by the Province of Ontario, and so those charges are not included in our modelling of charges imposed by municipalities. However, the City of Toronto, under authority granted to it by the City of Toronto Act, does levy its own municipal land transfer tax. The Toronto Municipal Land Transfer Tax is imposed on the value of property being transferred from a seller to a buyer, at rates of:

 Value up to $55,000 – 0.5%;  Value from $55,000 to $250,000 – 1.0%;  Value from $250,000 to $400,000 – 1.5%;  Value from $400,000 to $2,000,000 – 2.0%; and  Value over $2,000,000 – 2.5%.

No other municipality among those studied in this report levies a municipal land transfer tax.

5.7 OTHER GOVERNMENT CHARGES NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT

Government charges levied on new homes by Provincial or the Federal government are not included in this report, as the focus of the analysis is on charges and fees levied by municipal governments. Therefore, charges such as the provincial land transfer tax, sales taxes (provincial and federal), and CMHC mortgage insurance are not included in this study.

However, unlike municipal charges, which are typically incurred by the developer (and ultimately passed onto new homebuyers through prices), the charges levied or required by upper-levels of government are typically incurred directly by homebuyers, and so also have a significant impact on the affordability of housing in Canada.

5.8 EMERGING TRENDS

5.8.1 Bill 108 and Bill 197

Bill 108, passed in June 2019, eliminated the former Section 37 density bonusing provisions of the Planning Act and combined with Bill 197 (introduced in July 2020) alter how development charges are collected in municipalities across Ontario. The other two substantial changes to government charges are first, the removal of the 10% statutory deduction to certain ‘soft’ services such as indoor recreation, libraries, etc., which will cause DC rates to increase modestly. The legislated changes to the calculation of DCs have not been accounted for in DC by-laws as of the time of writing this report.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 37 Page 85 September 2020

Second, the two bills would see the introduction of a Community Benefits Charge (CBCs) which would allow municipality to fund capital costs on development with 5-or-more storeys and 10-or-more dwelling units, as a percentage of land value the day before building permit issuance. However, as the province has not yet produced a finalized set of CBC regulations, which will include the prescribed ‘cap’ on what municipalities can impose as CBCs, the costs associated with CBCs are not incorporated into the modelling summarized by this report.

Bill 108 also included several changes to the Development Charges Act as it pertains to the timing of calculation of DCs payable and the period in which DCs are paid.

 For the development of rental housing, institutional, industrial, commercial and non-profit housing, DCs are set either at the time of site plan application or zoning by-law amendment application, rather than at the time of building permit issuance.  For these same land uses, DCs are now payable in six equal annual installments, with the first payment due at the issuance of an occupancy permit, or the date the building is first occupied.  The calculation and timing of payment of DCs for condominium and freehold residential homes remains unchanged in Bill 108.

5.9 QUANTIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL CHARGES AND FEES

This subsection of the report aims to provide a high-level overview of the charges levied by municipal governments on new development and attempts to quantify the costs these charges and fees payable by developers, home builders, and ultimately, home buyers.

5.9.1 Scenarios

To model and estimate the charges and fees imposed by the municipalities studied in this report, we have devised two development scenarios – one ‘low-rise’ consisting of a mix of single-detached and townhouses, and one ‘high-rise’ consisting of a condominium apartment building.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 38 Page 86 September 2020

Figure 29 Feature Low-Rise Scenario High-Rise Scenario

Unit Types 75 single-detached, 50 125 condominium apartment units (75 townhouses 2+bedrooms, 50 bachelor and 1- bedroom)

Land Area 6.91 hectares (17.06 acres) 0.52 hectares (1.29 acres)

Unit Sizes Single-detached: 2,500 sf Large apartments: 900 sf

Townhouses: 1,800 sf Small apartments: 650 sf

5.9.2 Findings

5.9.2.1 Low-Rise Scenario

Our modelling of charges imposed on low-rise development was done on all 18 municipalities included in the study. On average, for the municipalities studied, the charges imposed by municipalities amount to $93,700 per unit, or 9.7% of the housing price.

Figure 30 Municipal Charges per Unit, Ranked, Low-Rise Scenario

Charges per Rank Municipality Upper-Tier Unit ($)

1 Vaughan York 148,083 2 Markham York 138,154 3 Toronto n.a. 134,653 4 Richmond Hill York 124,723 5 Aurora York 116,232 6 Mississauga Peel 108,976 7 Brampton Peel 103,019 8 Caledon Peel 96,647 9 Oakville Halton 88,224 10 Whitby Durham 75,607 11 Pickering Durham 74,923 12 Barrie Simcoe 73,997 13 Oshaw a Durham 72,827 14 Innisfil Simcoe 72,149 15 Milton Halton 71,644 16 Burlington Halton 66,826 17 BWG Simcoe 65,984 18 Clarington Durham 54,258

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 39 Page 87 September 2020

The results vary significantly by municipality – from $148,100 per unit in Vaughan to $54,300 in Clarington. Seven of the eight municipalities with the highest municipal charges on low-rise development are in York or Peel Regions, owing to the significant amount of development charges imposed on new housing developments by those regional municipalities.

In particular, the municipal charges in York Region municipalities may be driven by infrastructure costs for water and wastewater owing to the Region being landlocked, which increases costs associated with finding solutions to water and sanitary infrastructure needs.

When the municipal charges are expressed as a % of housing prices3, the charges range from 5.6% in Burlington to 14.5% in Vaughan.

Figure 31 Municipal Charges as % of Housing Price Ranked, Low-Rise Scenario

Charges as % of Rank Municipality Upper-Tier Housing Price

1 Vaughan York 14.5% 2 Brampton Peel 11.8% 3 Markham York 11.6% 4 Toronto n.a. 10.7% 5 Innisfil Simcoe 10.6% 6 Aurora York 10.3% 7 Caledon Peel 10.2% 8 Richmond Hill York 10.0% 9 Barrie Simcoe 9.8% 10 Oshaw a Durham 9.7% 11 Mississauga Peel 9.5% 12 Whitby Durham 9.4% 13 BWG Simcoe 9.0% 14 Oakville Halton 8.5% 15 Pickering Durham 8.4% 16 Milton Halton 8.3% 17 Clarington Durham 7.1% 18 Burlington Halton 5.6%

The most significant charge in almost all the surveyed municipalities is the development charge, typically amounting to 75% of the municipal charges

3 The ‘housing price’ used to contextualize municipal charges is a weighted average of assumed housing prices for single-detached units and townhouse units, based on the distribution of each unit type in our low-rise scenario. Assumed prices are based on $/sf asking prices for housing developments in each municipality, with this per square foot average then applied to the assumed unit sizes of single-detached and townhouse units within the low-rise scenario. Therefore, given the unit size and unit mix employed in our low-rise scenario, the ‘average price’ assumed in our model is not indicative of typical average or median prices of absorbed units in a municipality

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 40 Page 88 September 2020

payable for a new low-rise development, and over 85% in some cases (Aurora, Clarington, Caledon and Barrie).

The second most substantial charge is typically the parkland dedication requirement or cash-in-lieu payment (though most low-rise developments will dedicate parkland rather than pay cash-in-lieu of dedication), averaging 17% of municipal charges payable. The remainder of charges imposed on low-rise development are comprised of planning fees, building permit fees, and other minor charges.

5.9.2.2 High-Rise Scenario

Our modelling of charges imposed on high-rise development was done on all 18 municipalities included in the study. The charges imposed on high-rise developments vary widely by municipality – from $96,200 per unit in Markham and $30,500 in Clarington.

On average, the high-rise charges imposed by municipalities are $57,800 per unit, or 10.7% of the price of the residential units. Out of top three municipalities with the highest charges, two were in York Region (Markham and Vaughan).

Figure 32 Municipal Charges per Unit, Ranked, High-Rise Scenario

Charges per Rank Municipality Upper-Tier Unit ($)

1 Markham York 96,233 2 Vaughan York 81,216 3 Burlington Halton 77,680 4 Toronto n.a. 76,762 5 Aurora York 72,466 6 Richmond Hill York 68,823 7 Mississauga Peel 67,994 8 Brampton Peel 60,206 9 Oakville Halton 57,498 10 Caledon Peel 55,488 11 Milton Halton 51,373 12 Barrie n.a. 46,946 13 Innisfil Simcoe 43,840 14 Oshaw a Durham 41,671 15 Whitby Durham 38,828 16 Pickering Durham 38,213 17 BWG Simcoe 34,037 18 Clarington Durham 30,497

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 41 Page 89 September 2020

When the municipal charges imposed are expressed as a percentage of housing prices, the charges levied on new housing development are upwards of 16% in the Town of Aurora and the City of Markham.

Figure 33 Municipal Charges as % of Housing Price Ranked, High-Rise Scenario

Charges as % of Rank Municipality Upper-Tier Hous ing Pr ice

1 Aurora York 16.3% 2 Markham York 15.8% 3 Brampton Peel 13.8% 4 Vaughan York 12.8% 5 Burlington Halton 12.4% 6 Richmond Hill York 11.7% 7 Milton Halton 11.2% 8 Caledon Peel 11.1% 9 Toronto n.a. 11.0% 10 Mississauga Peel 10.8% 11 Oakville Halton 10.5% 12 BWG Simcoe 9.9% 13 Whitby Durham 8.0% 14 Oshaw a Durham 8.0% 15 Innisfil Simcoe 7.5% 16 Pickering Durham 7.1% 17 Clarington Durham 6.9% 18 Barrie n.a. 6.9%

Similar to the results of our low-rise analysis, the most significant charge in almost all of the surveyed municipalities are the development charge, typically amounting to 68% of the municipal charges payable for a new high- rise development, and over 90% in some municipalities (Aurora and Innisfil).

The second-largest charge imposed on high-rise is also usually the land dedication requirement or cash-in-lieu payment, which makes up an average of 26% of municipal charges payable.

5.9.3 Conclusions

Based on the modelling done on the two hypothetical development scenarios, there significant municipal-imposed charges on new development, but that these charges can vary significantly from one municipality to the next. However, generally, charges imposed by municipalities on new housing development are generally the highest in Toronto and municipalities within York Region and Peel Region.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 42 Page 90 September 2020

 The average municipal-imposed government charges for low-rise development in the studied municipalities is $93,700 per unit or 9.7% of housing prices. Six of the eight highest charges per unit were in York and Peel municipalities;  For high-rise, the average works out to $57,800 per unit, or 10.7% of housing prices. Three of the four highest charges per unit on high-rise development are in municipalities located in York Region.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 43 Page 91 September 2020

6 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE MUNICIPAL PROCESSES

This section of the report quantifies the costs (or potential cost savings) for developers and landowners involved in the time spent gaining approval for development projects.

In each case, we have attempted to put the estimates of costs associated with waiting for approvals on the basis of ‘costs per month’ – this puts all of the various elements of this analysis into a comparable metric, and allows for the calculation of impacts of time saved in the approvals process to be quantified, by multiplying the ‘per month’ costs by the number of months deemed possible to be cut off of the approvals process.

The cost estimates are modelled using the same hypothetical low-rise and high-rise development scenarios used for the analysis of charges and imposed by municipalities.

6.1 TAXES PAYABLE ON VACANT LAND

For each month in the development process, assuming a vacant site, the developer/landowner must continue to pay property taxes to the municipality. The sooner the site can receive approvals, be developed, and turned over to the ultimate buyers, who will become the taxpayers for the property, the less expense to the developer/landowner.

Based on estimated land values in each of the municipalities studied in this report, and tax rates in the studied municipalities, each month in the approvals process for a high-rise development costs an average of $1,830 per month. For a low-rise development, the average cost of each month in the approvals process is less than that of the high-rise development, averaging $406 per month.

6.2 INCREASES TO MUNICIPAL CHARGES AND FEES

As evident from the modelling done on charges imposed by municipalities on development, there are significant costs that must be paid by developers to municipalities to pay for things such as growth-related infrastructure, planning and approvals fees, etc.

Many of the charges imposed by municipalities regularly increase – some increase at the same rate as inflation (many planning fees increase 1-3% per year to stay in line with general inflation), while others are much more volatile and subject to periodic, but significant increases (such as development charges).

As the most significant charge levied by most municipalities is development charges, we have looked at what DCs were in the studied municipalities, both

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 44 Page 92 September 2020

at the time of writing this report and in addition to prior years, in order to estimate what a typical ‘per month’ change in DCs has been, to see what the potential effect of each additional month spent gaining approvals can mean.

One potential issue with this approach worth acknowledging is that it does not account for the typical way in which DCs change over time - DCs are relatively static for several years, except for some modest inflationary indexing usually in the range of 1-2% per year, but then a significant increase can come into effect at the time of a DC by-law review, which usually range anywhere from 10% to 50%, but can sometimes be much more.

On average, it is found that DCs increase by an average of approximately $379 per month for single-detached units, and approximately $143 to $211 per month for apartment units (depending on the size of unit).

Figure 34 Average Per Month Change in Development Charges in Select Municipalities

% Increase 2009-2019 10-Year Change 2009-2019 10-Year Change 2009-2019

Single- Large Small Single- Large Small Single- Large Small Detached Apartment Apartment Detac hed Apartment Apartment Detached Apartment Apartment Municipality Percent Dollars per Unit Dollars per Unit per Month Oakville 96% 54% 70% 41,145 14,605 12,537 342.87 121.71 104.48 Burlington 55% 13% 34% 21,218 3,128 5,605 176.82 26.07 46.71 Milton 69% 34% 52% 27,812 8,453 8,981 231.77 70.44 74.84 Brampton 134% 98% 135% 56,110 30,366 23,038 467.58 253.05 191.98 Mississauga 216% 183% 220% 68,347 42,533 28,765 569.56 354.44 239.71 Caledon 132% 104% 133% 51,526 28,698 21,337 429.38 239.15 177.81 Toronto 507% 446% 465% 65,413 38,162 25,722 545.11 318.02 214.35 Markham 162% 149% 128% 66,043 39,350 28,092 550.36 327.92 234.10 Vaughan 227% 221% 145% 85,201 52,389 33,856 710.01 436.58 282.13 Richmond Hill 147% 154% 89% 52,683 33,985 19,303 439.03 283.21 160.86 Pickering 80% 89% 38% 23,437 15,438 6,321 195.31 128.65 52.68 Whitby 104% 93% 46% 30,563 17,569 7,882 254.69 146.41 65.68 Oshaw a 123% 129% 49% 33,424 21,323 8,325 278.53 177.69 69.38 Clarington 62% 45% 26% 20,228 9,112 4,718 168.57 75.93 39.32 Aurora 155% 152% 108% 57,082 35,142 22,769 475.68 292.85 189.74 Bradford West Gw illimbury 127% 98% 123% 39,784 19,919 18,476 331.53 165.99 153.97 Barrie 157% 150% 113% 42,115 23,922 15,318 350.96 199.35 127.65 Innisfil 298% 260% 248% 35,603 20,970 17,218 296.69 174.75 143.48

Average 378.58 210.68 142.71

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting

6.3 CARRYING COSTS OF LOANS

During the approvals process, applicants will have typically obtained financing for their project and will pay interest on the construction loan until all proceeds from sales have been received.

The estimate of additional carrying costs per month is based on a high-level model that estimates the cost of construction financing, with one version assuming a 30-month construction financing period, and a second version assuming a 31-month construction financing period, with the difference in the

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 45 Page 93 September 2020

total cost of construction debt in the two versions the estimated ‘per month’ difference.

It is estimated that the cost of construction debt is approximately $91,600 for each additional month that construction financing is required for high-rise. For low-rise, each additional month would add $139,600 per month in financing costs associated with construction loans.

6.4 COST INFLATION

When a development is in the approvals process the costs associated with the construction of the building can increase. This includes the costs of both materials and labour.

6.4.1 Construction Cost Inflation

The construction costs of building typically increase over time. Over the Q1 2017 to Q3 2019 period, construction costs have increased by 11.8% for high-rise apartment buildings, 15.1% for single-detached homes, and 14.8% for townhouse units. This equates to an average monthly increase of between 0.34% and 0.42% per month, depending on the unit type. Each additional month that an application is in the municipal approvals process adds to project construction costs, for all unit types.

Based on the hard construction costs of a hypothetical high-density residential building, we were able to model the average monthly increase in construction costs as a result of municipal processing time - each additional month would add approximately $181,800 monthly in construction costs for a low-rise development and approximately $93,900 per month for a high-rise development.

6.4.2 Wage Inflation

Based on Statistics Canada data on wage rates by worker types, the hourly wage of various contractors involved in the construction of a building increase by an average of $1.21 per hour, per year. On a per month basis, this would be a $0.10 per hour increase for each contractor involved in the project.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 46 Page 94 September 2020

Figure 35 Average Hourly Wage, Select Construction Trades, 2013-2018

Crane Cement Total / Carpenter Operator Finisher Electrician Labourer Plumber Bricklayer Roofer Average Year Dollars per Hour Toronto CMA Sep-13 52.75 52.66 49.68 58.58 48.66 59.71 52.95 51.66 53.33 Sep-18 59.43 58.88 54.72 65.64 53.75 66.70 58.25 57.51 59.36

5-Year Increase 6.68 6.22 5.04 7.06 5.09 6.99 5.30 5.85 6.03

Average Monthly $ Increase 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.10 0.10 Average Monthly % Increase 0.20% 0.19% 0.16% 0.19% 0.17% 0.18% 0.16% 0.18% 0.18%

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on CANSIM, Table 327-0003

Based on Altus Group’s model that estimates construction-related employment associated with residential developments, a 125-unit apartment building would generate 319 person-years of employment, which is equivalent to 319 persons working for an average of one year each (or 638 persons working for an average of 6 months each, etc.). For a low-rise development (of 75 single-detached and 50 townhouses), approximately 432 person-years of employment would be required.

Figure 36 Estimate of Additional Wage Costs per Month (Average), Toronto CMA Low -Rise High-Rise Person-Years Person-Years 432 319 Person-Months Person-Months 5,186 3,832 Dollars per Hour Average Monthly Increase in Hourly Wages 0.10 0.10 Dollars per Month Average Monthly Increase in Labour Costs 87,539 64,687

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Statistics Canada

Assuming each of these workers would be subject to a similar increase in wages evident from the Statistics Canada data, each additional month an application is subject to the municipal approvals process would add, on average, roughly $64,700 per month in additional labour costs to the high- rise project due to wage inflation. For the low-rise project, the additional wage inflation expected each month amounts to approximately $87,500.

6.5 CONCLUSIONS

Figure 37 combines the various elements modelled and estimates the total monthly cost to a developer / landowner for each month an application is within the development approvals process.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 47 Page 95 September 2020

Figure 37 Summary of Per Month Costs of Application and Approvals Process, Toronto CMA Estimates based on low -rise scenario and high-rise scenario (125 units each)

Carrying Increased Taxes on Cos ts of Municipal Construction Labour Cost Vacant Land Loans Charges Cost Inflation Inflation Total Development Scenario Dollars Low -Rise 735 139,571 46,027 181,798 87,539 455,669 High-Rise 2,290 90,564 24,371 93,854 64,687 275,766

Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting

Overall, the estimated costs associated with each additional month a project is in the approvals process adds approximately $455,700 in costs per month for the hypothetical low-rise project, and $275,800 in costs per month for the hypothetical high-rise project. These costs equate to an additional $1.46 per buildable square foot per month for the low-rise project, and $2.21 per buildable square foot per month for the high-rise project.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 48 Page 96 September 2020

7 BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING MUNICIPAL PROCESSES

While our study is generally limited to the 18 municipalities, in this section of the report, which scans for best practices for improving municipal processes, we have allowed for the scan to include any community within Ontario that may be undertaking positive steps towards improvement to the municipal approval process.

It is important to note that development application timelines on decisions have recently been shortened under Bill 108. Municipalities will have to render decisions significantly more quickly in some cases. The benefit of these shortened timelines should result in not only better timelines for developers, but it will also create significant incentives for municipalities to re- examine their processes, workflow, technology, and organizational structures to find efficiencies and more effective ways of reviewing applications.

Figure 38 Planning Application Type Timelines Prior to Bill Timelines After Bill 108 108

Official Plan Amendment 210 Days 120 Days

Zoning By-law Amendment 150 Days 90 Days

Plan of Subdivision 180 Days 120 Days

Site Plan 30 Days 30 Days

7.1 OVERVIEW OF CURRENT INITIATIVES

7.1.1 City of Hamilton - Open for Business Initiative

The City of Hamilton started an Open for Business initiative, with one of the goals being to improve the City’s development application process. One of the identified solutions was for the City to review its draft plan of subdivision approval process, with the new process being enacted in early 2017.

One key change was making sequential processes into parallel processes, so the City allows applicants the option to have processes for minor variances, water service assessments, site plan approvals, engineering reviews and building permit applications run concurrently, with the caveat that some processes are still conditional on others, and a change in one may result in a re-submission being required. However, in the case of

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 49 Page 97 September 2020

resubmission, applications requiring only modest revisions receive priority processing.4

The City has also started issuing fewer circulation letters, instead opting for one standard consultation letter for all reviewing parties. The City has estimated that this change alone typically saves five business days for applicants.

The City found that prior to making the improvements to the subdivision approvals process, the average processing time from complete application to draft plan approval was 1,350 days (or approximately 44 months), with approximately half of that time related to City review, but the other half due to awaiting comments, permits or consents from ministries or regional agencies, as well as time taken by applicants responding to comments, or revising plans to address comments made. Within this period, the City found that it took an average of 187 days from receiving an application to provide an initial set of comments, and resolving comments required an average of 2 to 4 revisions to the submitted plans.

7.1.2 City of Brampton – Streamlining Development Application System

The City of Brampton is in the process of adopting a community planning permit system (“CPPS”) for the Queen Street East Precinct, which covers lands along the Queen Street East corridor from Highway 410 in the east to Etobicoke Creek in the west. The CPPS would merge the currently separate processes of rezoning, minor variance and site plan control into one process.

The objectives of the CPPS is to ‘front-end’ many of the required technical studies, meaning that once the CPPS is done, a developer only has to deal with site-specific issues, rather than larger-scale issues. This system is expected to significantly reduce the typical planning process timelines.5

7.1.3 City of Toronto End-to-End Review

The City of Toronto has commenced with an “End to End Review” of its development review process. As part of this review process, the City retained consultants that submitted a report to Council in the fall of 2019 which identified 31 systematic challenges that negatively impact development application outcomes in terms of efficiency, consistency, transparency, timeliness.6

In total, the KPMG report provides 20 recommendations on how the City Planning can improve its operational model and service delivery. An integral part of the proposed transformation is to replace the current “hub and spoke”

4 Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Reducing Business Burdens ……. 5 City of Brampton, Staff Report re: Queen Street Corridor Land Use Study, (Sept 27, 2019) 6 KPMG, End-to-End Review of the Development Review Process, (August 16,2019)

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 50 Page 98 September 2020

system, where a community planner solicits comments from other colleagues and departments, as this creates divisional conflict and disperses accountability. The proposed new system is based on a multi-disciplinary team model where there are team members representing various departments that collaboratively work on development applications together.

Within the KPMG report, there are various proposals geared towards operationalizing the new transformational model. These include but are not limited to:

 Establish a formal mechanism to identify and accelerate applications with City-wide significance;  Shift specialized work to specialized teams to enhance system capacity;  Adopt a standard, City-wide approach to the use of guidelines and draft policies, and make that approach publicly available;  Establish circulation limits and automatic escalation to reduce application timelines and incentivize collaboration;  Establish a new, senior-level, Business Transformation Lead reporting to the Chief Planner with interdivisional accountability for the development review process;  Modernize the existing application workflow and management system;  Improve online application tracking to enhance transparency and improve customer service;  Improve the availability of development review-related information and data to enhance application quality;  Enhance transparency and consistency by defining stakeholder roles and developing standard operating procedures;  Improve project management-related tools and techniques to empower multidisciplinary teams; and  Modernize performance measures and adopt a review mechanism to monitor their on-going effectiveness.

Many of the recommendations can be categorized within the ‘buckets’ of technology improvement, project management enabled team collaboration, operational standardization, and stakeholder communication improvements.

The KPMG report placed a lot of emphasis on improving communications and information transfer between applicant and planning staff and between staff. Improved communication was also deemed important to create consistent operational standards to enhance predictability, transparency, and accountability.

As of July 2020, this initiative has led to the establishment of the “Concept to Keys” team that is focusing on improving the development review process, by

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 51 Page 99 September 2020

consulting with customers on the nature and quality of the interactions they’ve had with the City. The insights yielded are being used to help drive improvements to process and operationalizing technology.

7.1.4 City of Burlington – Cutting Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force

In early 2019, the Mayor of Burlington assembled a “Red Tape Red Carpet Task Force” that spent 5 months collecting insights and ideas from the City’s business community, partner organizations, and staff. This resulted in a report submitted to council in the fall of 2019 with 22 recommendations to improve department operations and customer service.

The recommendations include the establishment of a Chief Business Development position at City Hall to deal with outreach and expediting applications, as well as, the creation of key performance indicators (“KPI”). In addition, the City hired consultants to take a deep dive into service delivery and functional improvements of various departments, including the development application process. The review looked at the site plan approval and building permit issuance stages of the process for infill development, both multi-residential and non-residential types.

The report highlighted that as part of a building permit issuance process, applicants require both a zoning clearance and grading/drainage certificate before they apply for a permit. 7 This process came about due to streamlining efforts that were in reaction to Bill 124 (2005) that required a decision on a building permit to be issued within 10 business days. As of part of the certificate process, there is an aspirational target of having these completed in 5 to 7 days, before the 10-day building permit process begins.

Despite there being many interwoven technical issues that are addressed in both certificate processes, each can be applied for separately. As well, often an applicant will require a tree clearance permit, but this is almost never applied for at the same time as the other certificates, notwithstanding there being an interplay between the zoning, tree preservation, and the building permit bylaws. The report noted that many applicants are unaware of the relationship between these processes and the City’s website does not sufficiently highlight them.

Other issues noted in the report include an organizational design that is not optimally designed for an efficient certificate review process with staff currently working on a “best effort” timeframe.

7 Performance Concepts Consulting & Dillion Consulting, City of Burlington Service Delivery Reviews Technical Report, (December 19th, 2019).

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 52 Page 100 September 2020

The report notes that there is consensus of four “best practices” emerging within the Greater Golden Horseshoe with regards to the site plan approval process. They are:

1. Mandatory pre-consultation meetings between applicants and city staff – this ensures that when applications are submitted, they are of a high-quality “complete” nature. 2. Zero-tolerance rule regarding the acceptance of incomplete application submissions – incomplete applications waste finite municipal staff resources that could be used on complete applications. 3. E-portal and workflow software implementation – helps staff organize and track applications, as well as communications internally and externally with the applicant. 4. Delegated site plan approval to senior City staff – allows for timelines to be compressed while continuing to be democratically accountable with more controversial applications being elevated to the attention of Council.

Unlike other jurisdictions, Burlington already allows for staff delegation of site plan approval, as it is estimated to save an estimated 50 to 60 days from the usual approval process. However, further improvements in this regard would be to continue the default processing rule with as few escalations to council as possible.

Currently, the vast majority of Burlington’s progress on the recommendations established by the task force and consultants report have an “in-progress” status. The municipality is currently only in the early stages of this project, it is expected that it will take some time before implementation is complete.

7.1.5 City of Kawartha Lakes – Planning Approvals Task Force

The City of Kawartha Lakes has been experiencing a steady and significant increase the demand for development planning staff usage, such as a 35% increase pre-consultation meetings between 2016 and 2017. In early 2017, City Council adopted a series of recommendations by the Planning Approvals Task Force, which was setup to help improve application processing and business engagement.

A common complaint from stakeholders was a perceived lack of customer service by planning staff with the perception of negative or adversarial attitudes towards applicants, especially those with lesser knowledge of the building process. To rectify this issue, staff were required to take customer service training, and standards were created in operational processes, such as returning phone and emails within 2 business days or general inquires within business 5 days. Even if staff were not able to deal with an inquiry due

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 53 Page 101 September 2020

to resource limitations, they were encouraged to engage with the stakeholder so that they know the message has been received.

In addition to interpersonal operational improvements, the task force identified other types of resources to help improve operations. This included the creation of report requirement checklists and processing cost outlines to be provided to applicants during pre-consultation meetings.

In the summer the 2017, the City implemented new software called “Cityworks”, which allows staff to digitally store all information on properties, including the ability to track applications. While this tracker is not made available to the public yet, the software allows any staff member to view the application and answer general inquiry questions rather than requiring the specific planner on the file’s attention, enabling a more efficient division of labour and a better use of staff time.

In addition to providing staff with new internal technological capabilities, the City embarked on a rebuild of their municipal website to facilitate better communication. This new portal was completed in July 2017 and includes features such as development guides, checklists, and the ability to examine a properties official plan land-use designation or zoning within a dedicated page.

Finally, the municipality also examined the possibility of expanding the power of the Director of Development Services with the ability to approve subdivision agreements after a council has permitted a Draft Plan Approval. However, staff found an LPAT case related to this process and recommended back to council that they continue to have oversight on the execution of subdivision agreements. 8 At this time, the Director only has the ability to provide site plan approvals.

7.2 THEMES EMERGING FROM PROCESS REVIEWS

There are several key themes involved in the process reviews underway, or recently completed

Improving the Application Process Requires a Continuous Improvement Plan.

There is no single ‘fix-all’ that will improve development application processes other than through continuous examination and refinement. This requires a first step of identifying and standardizing as many processes as possible to foster an environment of consistency, accountability, and transparency. Standardization can involve creating simple rules such as the timeframes within which staff must respond to inquiries, or it can become as complex as creating templates for development application comments. Once processes

8 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, formerly known as the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”)

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 54 Page 102 September 2020

have a baseline standardization, they can then be tracked and examined under the lens of a key performance indicator (“KPI”) and from there be improved upon.

Miscommunication Creates Conflicts that Lead to Delays

The development application process requires the transfer of information not just between a single developer and the planner on the file. The process includes many different staff members in various departments for both the applicant and the municipality, as well as, outside consultants and other stakeholders like council members. It is important to examine information flows and how best to minimize potential areas of miscommunication, such as not knowing if an inquiry was received.

Strategies to deal with this include providing a one-window portal that can be accessed either internally or externally to track developments, the creation of checklists and other materials that can be retrieved before a pre-consultation and are provided during the meeting, having a website with up-to-date information with detailed explanations of processes and other features like property data, contact information, online submission forms or payment options, etc.

Pay Close Attention to Workflows and Team Composition

How municipal staff deal with development applications affects how long it takes to process. There is no one correct organizational structure that can be implemented, however, many larger municipalities are finding a multidisciplinary team-based approach is more effective in dealing with large volumes of very complex applications rather than a “hub and spoke” model. Regardless of the ultimate model used, careful attention should be paid to conflicts and redundancy in the workflow process.

Empower Staff with More Delegated Powers

Many municipalities are looking at ways to transfer approval authority to senior planning staff. This allows councils more to focus attention on difficult files, while allowing less complex applications to be fast-tracked. Providing an applicant with the ability to appeal a decision from staff to council ensures that applicants are still able to maintain accountability for their projects, even when approval authority is delegated outside of the municipal Council.

Reduce Required Statutory Processes Where Possible

Pre-zoning systems are a tool that some municipalities have implemented but many others have not. There is a potential to significantly improve the overall development process by using this tool, and minimizing the effort and technical studies required to bring an application forward.

Have a Staff Member That “Owns” Transformation and Outreach

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 55 Page 103 September 2020

While costly, many municipalities are creating senior-level positions that while not part of the direct development application process, have oversight and interactions with other staff members involved in the development review process. This provides another contact point between applicants and municipal staff that can help identify, escalate, and solve major problems in a timely manner and more importantly, prevent a similar problem from arising again in the future by transforming processes where needed.

Improvements are Limited Without Technology

There are many software packages that municipalities are using to help with internal project tracking and workflow management. These software packages can allow for more standardized project management-based team collaboration, so staff can focus more time on value-added tasks, such as examining the proposed grading of a building, instead of more administrative tasks, like dealing with minor inquiries or spending time trying to find a paper copy of a file that would be more readily accessible with an electronic file management system.

While the trend of adopting internally-oriented technology tools is apparent in many municipalities, most municipalities have yet to adopt external-facing tools. The benefit of this technology and things such as e-portals, is that they can provide a convenient access point for application submissions or fee payments, as well as, reduce delays associated with intake.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 56 Page 104 September 2020

8 CONCLUSIONS

Based on a review of municipal planning processes, planning features, government charges, and other elements of research undertaken into the studied municipalities, there are several overarching findings about how municipalities compare, and recommendations for municipalities.

8.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Figure 39 summarizes the findings from the three major elements studied that feed into housing affordability – getting housing approved, ensuring approvals are done in an expedient manner, and government charges that get borne by buyers/renters.

Overall, the municipalities of Barrie, Burlington and Oakville rank atop the list, with all three municipalities having top-6 ranks in each of the categories. The largest municipalities by population among those studied (Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, Markham, Vaughan) all rank on an overall basis no higher than 10th.

Figure 39 Overall Scorecard - Planning Features, Government Charges, Approvals Timelines

Note: Government Charges based on average of low -rise and high-rise scenarios, as measured by government charges as % of housing prices Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 57 Page 105 September 2020

8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

8.2.1 Need for Increased Transparency and Simplicity

Many municipalities do not have clear development guidelines or application checklists. An even greater number of municipalities not provide specific terms of reference for required technical studies and reports.

Increasing transparency and specificity surrounding application requirements is a proactive, and relatively easy way to cut down on incomplete application submissions and reduce the number of resubmissions required.

8.2.2 Delegate More Approval Authority to Staff and Officials

That development approvals can be delayed because of issues with timing of municipal committee or council meetings is a potentially avoidable issue for some applications. Staff should be given the authority to assess and approve applications that broadly meet official plan requirements but need additional zoning changes, where those zoning changes are within the bounds of permitted discretion for the delegated authority. This can be done through increased use of development permit systems, or other forms of delegated authority. This can reduce council workloads and can eliminate unnecessary political interference in applications that meet the intent and policies of municipal plans.

8.2.3 Use of Technology

Its important that municipalities invest in more advanced development tracking software, and potentially gradually phase-in online development submission systems. The changes to municipal development submission

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 58 Page 106 September 2020

systems in response to the COVID-19 pandemic will be an important first step in getting e-portal systems acceptance on a broad scale.

Technology can be a critical component in improving development approval timelines by supporting improved workflows, transparency, and creating a more collaborative environment within and across planning and related municipal departments involved in the development application review process.

BILD Altus Group Economic Consulting Municipal Benchmarking Study Page 59 Page 107 MEMO

If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.

To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services Department Date: October 5, 2020 File No: SBA 2020-0001 Re: PSD-031-20, Sign By-law Amendment, Recommendation to Permit a Monolith Sign along Highway 2 at the Courtice Urban Centre

On September 21, 2020, Council considered report PSD-031-20 to permit a proposed monolith sign along Highway 2 in the Courtice Urban Centre. In addition, staff provided a memo with additional details about the monolith sign and about the signs to be located at the corner of Highway 2 and Trulls Road. The applicant’s lawyer also submitted a letter further detailing their request.

In Council’s discussion of this report, concerns were raised about:

1. How the signs would fit in with the design of the landscape plaza at the corner of Highway 2 and Trulls Road; and

2. The appearance of existing promotional construction signs on the property.

These concerns were shared with the Applicant who has responded by removing all promotional construction signs for the property (see Figure 1) and providing architectural renderings to illustrate how the signs will appear on the property (see Figure 2 and 3).

The proposed monolith sign (see Figure 2) will be located in the middle of the site along the Highway 2 frontage. It will include the signage for The Beer Store, which is located away from the street in the centre of the site, along with the other businesses that do not have exposure along Highway 2.

The landscape plaza located at the northwest corner of the site will contain two ground signs (see Figure 3). The ground signs are intended be used by the small businesses located in the multi-tenant buildings along Highway 2 and Trulls Road. The ground signs have been designed to be incorporated into the landscaping at the corner.

Page | 1

The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | [email protected] | www.clarington.net Page 108 In addition to the extensive landscaping, the plaza will also include an entry feature into the site. The landscaping at the corner is designed to flank and complement the outdoor patio spaces for the two end units of Building C and D.

It is Staff’s recommendation that Council proceed in approving the monolith sign as requested.

Faye Langmaid Acting Director of Planning and Development Services Department

cc: Carlos Salazar, Manager, Community Planning & Design Paul Wirch, Senior Planner, Community Planning & Design

Encl: Figure 1 – Corner of Highway 2 and Trulls Road – viewed facing south Figure 2 – Proposed Monolith Sign – viewed facing southwest Figure 3 – Ground Signs – viewed facing southeast

Page | 2

From: Chambers, Michelle Sent: Friday, October 2, 2020 1:33 PM To: Patenaude, Lindsey Subject: FW: 2423 Rundle Road - Bowmanville HHBC - Monday Oct. 5 Mtg Attachments: Council Background Submission.pdf; Council Background Submission.pdf; ExteriorBranding- Proposal-6 Model (1).pdf; Alliston HHBC Aerial View.jpg; Bowmanville HH - Site plan - 1c.pdf; Bowmanville HHBC Petition Compressed.zip

From: Moulton, Dan Sent: October 2, 2020 12:54 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Moulton, Adam ; Wilcox, Jon Subject: 2423 Rundle Road ‐ Bowmanville HHBC ‐ Monday Oct. 5 Mtg

EXTERNAL

To whom it may concern:

We’ve submitted our delegations through the online delegation forms. Here is the background information for those delegations:

‐ Background submission reviewing the project ‐ Petition with 3000+ signatures (to be delivered in person) ‐ Exterior branding ‐ Alliston Aerial (similar project) ‐ Site plan for 2423 Rundle Road

There will be other petition documents to follow.

Thank you, Dan Moulton 226‐230‐3410

This email is being sent by an independently owned and operated business owner or their employee and not by Home Hardware Stores Limited. Ce courriel a été envoyé par un marchand‐propriétaire indépendant ou l’un de ses employés et non par Home Hardware Stores Limited.

1 Page 113

October 2, 2020

Re: Clarington Municipal Council Resolution Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre - 2423 Rundle Road

Site Location: 2423 Rundle Road, Bowmanville, ON Future home of Home Hardware’s Flagship Store Current Zoning: Commercial C4-6

Jobs Created: 150+ jobs

ASK: Move from C4-6 to C-4

FOR: 3000+ Bowmanville Residents (and growing) Clarington Board of Trade, Lindsay Park MPP, David Piccini MPP, Algoma Orchards, Wilmont Orchards, ELLROD, Adam Cranley

WE ARE 100% Locally Owned & Operated 100% Canadian

Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre est. 1969 Bowmanville Lumber Co. Ltd.

Page 114

Dear Clarington Municipal Council,

There is great need in the community of Bowmanville, and the region of Clarington for greater service, selection, and availability of product for the Rural, Urban, Agricultural, and Farm communities. Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre is eager to serve this community through a new building project at 2423 Rundle Road.

We are a locally owned, 100% Canadian, family run organization that employs 320+ people in 7 communities throughout Ontario – Alliston, Hanover, Leamington, Minden, Wheatley, Windsor, and Bowmanville. We are proud to have been recognized by Home Hardware Stores Limited for our achievements in the retail and building supply industry. In 2016, we were named the Walter J. Hachborn Store of the Year award winner for top store in Canada. The award recognizes the store, Dealer, and team that achieves the highest standards in retailing, merchandising, staff performance and service.

We offer the products and services our customers, contractors, and farmers need to complete their projects – from paint, farm supply, and building materials to complete custom home packages and subdivisions. We have been serving the community of Bowmanville for over 50 years, since 1969. Our current location, 241 King Street East, will not allow us to continue to grow to meet current demand. Our family and organization are counting on your support to move 2423 Rundle Road forward.

We are seeking a rezoning from the existing C4-6 Exception to the standard C4 Special Purpose Commercial Zone to move forward with a new building project at 2423 Rundle Road. We completed a similar project in Alliston, Ontario, from June 2018 – March 2019, working closely with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio to allow us to build Home Hardware’s newest concept 60 000 sq/ft store on land deemed commercial use for rural/agricultural. It is our objective to complete the same type of project in Bowmanville to better serve our community. Exhibits 1-3 show the following:

• Site Plan - 2423 Rundle Road • Exterior Branding Proposal • Completed project Alliston HHBC – 4840 Concession Rd. 7, Alliston Ontario

This specific parcel of land, at 2423 Rundle Road, has been designated commercial since the early 1980’s – nearly 30 years ago. We are not breaking with the spirit, purpose, or vision of the intended land use. Instead, a locally owned, 100% Canadian business is seeking to expand at home and create 150+ jobs during a historic economic downtown. We are simply seeking a minor move from a C4-6 to a C4.

Why are we fighting to hard for this? This is our community. Emily Moulton grew up in Clarington, attended elementary and high school in Bowmanville and Oshawa. Her father, Paul Hill, was the local State Farm agent in Courtice for many years. We attend church in the town of Bowmanville and are raising our family just outside of this community. We are hopeful to one day operate Home Hardware’s flagship store in the municipality of Clarington.

Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre est. 1969 Bowmanville Lumber Co. Ltd.

Page 115

Our project at 2423 Rundle Road will offer many benefits during these trying economic times:

• 65+ new jobs created through the opening of a new store • 90+ construction jobs during building phase • Support of local trades during building construction • Allowing a 100% Canadian owned and operated company to better serve the town of Bowmanville and municipality of Clarington

Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre has been a cornerstone in the business community of Bowmanville since 1969. The history of our store’s involvement in our community is strong, impacting multiple generations of families, community organizations, and building projects for over 50 years. It is our intention to continue to grow with our community. We seek to bring a greater selection of in stock products to local farmers, our urban and rural communities, retail customers and contractors alike.

Home Hardware is 100% Canadian owned and operated. Our largest local competitor (Home Depot) is 100% American owned. As the retail and building supply industry changes, our current size and format no longer makes business sense. We need to grow, otherwise, a 50 year business community contributor will need to look to other communities for expansion. This project at 2423 Rundle Road, once complete, would also allow us to rebuild on our existing site at 241 King Street East (ultimately leading to more jobs for our community). To be clear, we cannot continue operating in the town of Bowmanville or the community of Clarington without moving ahead with a project like this.

To date, we have been unsuccessful in our meetings with the Planning Department and Mayor Adrian Foster. Unfortunately, we were informed that the current planning process would take multiple years to navigate as it impacts both Municipal and Regional Official Plans. Furthermore, it was the view of one member of Clarington Planning Services that a project like this was not needed with a Home Depot already in town. This lack of support from our leaders has been disheartening.

We are rapidly approaching a deadline of November 1 to close on this real estate transaction. We cannot close this deal without a re-zoning from C4-6 to C4. We are asking for a resolution from the Clarington Municipal Council to see this project move forward. With this support, we would appeal to Minister Steve Clark for an MZO to create more than 150 jobs in Clarington.

This is our community. We want to be here. Your consideration in seeing this project move forward means a great deal to our staff, our customers, my family, and your constituents.

Sincerely,

Dan & Emily Moulton Dealer-Owner’s Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre [email protected] 226-230-3410 (Cell)

Bowmanville Home Hardware Building Centre est. 1969 Bowmanville Lumber Co. Ltd.

Page 116 SCHIEDEL

190108

SITE PLAN

1c Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120

October 1, 2020

Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Rd. East, 4th Floor Whitby, ON L1N 6A3

Attention: Ms. Colleen Goodchild, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy Planning and Special Studies

Dear Ms. Goodchild:

Re: Submission to Regional Municipal Comprehensive Review (Envision Durham) Rekker Gardens Ltd. 2258 Highway #2, Bowmanville Municipality of Clarington Our Project No. E20027

We write to you on behalf of our client, Rekker Gardens Ltd. regarding the Region of Durham Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) with respect to lands located immediately adjacent to the West Bowmanville Urban Boundary, Municipality of Clarington.

Rekker Gardens Ltd. owns lands located at 2258 Highway 2, Bowmanville, as indicated on the enclosed Context Plan at Figure 1. The subject lands have an area of approximately 12.5 hectares and are located on the north side of Highway 2, between Boswell Drive to the east and Maple Grove Road to the west. The lands are currently used as a wholesale greenhouse operation and retail garden centre.

Due to recent development pressures and significant residential and commercial growth within the Bowmanville urban boundary in proximity to the Rekker Gardens proeprty, the continued wholesale operation at the subject lands is no longer feasible or practical. Rekker Gardens is in the process of relocating to a property more suitable to their business operations. As a result, it is our client’s submission that once vacant, the subject lands would represent a strategic and logical location for urban land uses in West Bowmanville and therefore represent an appropriate location for an urban area boundary expansion.

The subject lands are designated ‘Major Open Space Areas’ in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The Durham Regional Official Plan also includes a ‘Hamlet’ designation generally at the intersection of Highway 2 and Maple Grove Road. The subject lands in the context of the Regional Official Plan are illustrated on Figure 2. For additional context, the subject lands are predominately designated ‘Rural’ in the Clarington Official

Page 121

Page 2 October 1, 2020 Regional Municipality of Durham Ms. Colleen Goodchild, MCIP, RPP

Plan, with a small portion designated ‘Hamlet’. Of note, the subject lands are entirely outside of the Provincial Greenbelt.

The area immediately to the east of the subject lands, east of Bowell Drive are part of the urban boundary and are designated ‘Living Area’ and ‘Regional Centre’ in the Durham Regional Official Plan. In the Clarington Official Plan, this Regional Centre is more specifically delineated and designated ‘Urban Centre’ for the area north and south of Highway 2 between Boswell Drive in the west to east of Regional Road 57. This West Bowmanville Urban Centre also includes a future Transportation Hub south of Highway 2, being the future Bowmanville GO Station. This West Bowmanville Urban Centre is a community focal point and hub, providing a significant amount of commercial floor space and other services and amenities for the Municipality of Clarington. The neighbouring land uses and Official Plan designations are indicated on the enclosed Figure 3.

The Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, May 2019 and as amended in August 2020, provides a land use planning time horizon to 2051. Schedule 3 – Distribution of Population and Employment for the Greater Golden Horseshoe of the Growth Plan provides a Durham Region population forecast to 2051 of 1,300,000 and a Durham Region employment forecast to 2051 of 460,000 jobs. The Growth Plan directs Municipalities to plan for and designate a sufficient supply of land to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected needs to the 2051 plan horizon. Schedule 3 of the Growth Plan, the intensification and designated greenfield area targets and Growth Plan policies are to be used by Municipalities as the basis for assessing land needs.

To implement a planning time horizon of 2051, the Growth Plan includes applicable policies for consideration of urban boundary / settlement area boundary expansion. Policy 2.2.8.2 of the Provincial Growth Plan states that “A settlement area boundary expansion may only occur through a municipal comprehensive review where it is demonstrated that:

a) based on the minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan and a land needs assessment undertaken in accordance with policy 2.2.1.5, sufficient opportunities to accommodate forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan are not available through intensification and in the designated greenfield area: i. within the upper- or single-tier municipality, and ii. within the applicable lower-tier municipality;

Page 122

Page 3 October 1, 2020 Regional Municipality of Durham Ms. Colleen Goodchild, MCIP, RPP

b) the proposed expansion will make available sufficient lands not exceeding the horizon of this Plan, based on the analysis provided for in policy 2.2.8.2 a), while minimizing land consumption; and c) the timing of the proposed expansion and the phasing of development within the designated greenfield area will not adversely affect the achievement of the minimum intensification and density targets in this Plan, as well as the other policies of this Plan.”

It is acknowledged that the need for urban area boundary expansions, assuming the growth forecasts to 2051 cannot be accommodated through intensification or designated greenfield areas, are subject to a land needs assessment to be prepared by Durham Region based on methodology prescribed in the Growth Plan. It is anticipated that through this exercise, Durham Region will allocate specific population and employment growth to lower tier municipalities including the Municipality of Clarington based on factors that may include the planned Regional urban structure and servicing capacity among other factors. It is our client’s submission that the inclusion of the subject lands within the urban area boundary to accommodate any required urban growth forecasts would be consistent with the Region’s existing and planned urban structure.

Policy 2.2.8.3 of the Growth Plan adds in part “Where the need for a settlement area boundary expansion has been justified in accordance with policy 2.2.8.2, the feasibility of the proposed expansion will be determined and the most appropriate location for the proposed expansion will be identified based on the comprehensive application of all of the policies in this Plan, including the following:

a) there is sufficient capacity in existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities; b) the infrastructure and public service facilities needed would be financially viable over the full life cycle of the assets; c) The proposed expansion would be informed by applicable water and wastewater masterplans or equivalent and stormwater master plans, or equivalent, as appropriate; d) the proposed expansion, including the associated water, wastewater and stormwater servicing, would be planned and demonstrated to avoid, or if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate any potential negative impacts on watershed conditions and the water resource system, including the quality and quantity of water;

Page 123

Page 4 October 1, 2020 Regional Municipality of Durham Ms. Colleen Goodchild, MCIP, RPP

e) key hydrologic areas and the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan should be avoided where possible; f) prime agricultural areas should be avoided where possible. To support the Agricultural System, alternative locations across the upper- or single tier municipality will be evaluated, prioritized and determined based on avoiding, minimizing and mitigating the impact on the Agricultural System and in accordance with the following: i. expansion into speciality crop areas is prohibited; ii. reasonable alternatives that avoid prime agricultural areas are evaluated; and, iii. where prime agricultural areas cannot be avoided, lower priority agricultural lands are used” g) the settlement area to be expanded is in compliance with the minimum distance separation formulae; h) any adverse impacts on the agri-food network, including agricultural operations, from expanding settlement areas would be avoided, or if avoidance is not possible, minimized and mitigated as determined through an agricultural impact assessment.”

The Durham Regional Official Plan also includes relevant policies for consideration of urban area boundary expansions. Policy 7.3.11 states “Expansions to the Urban Area boundaries beyond those shown on Schedule ‘A’ – Regional Structure shall only occur through a comprehensive review of this plan having regard for the following:

a) The Regional Structure established by this Plan; b) Impact on the natural environment in accordance with the policies of Section 2; c) Existing or committed infrastructure; d) Financial capability of the Region; e) The population and employment forecasts established by this Plan; f) The growth management objectives of Policy 7.3.9; g) The ability to provide for a minimum 10-year housing and employment land needs Region-wide, with logical and sequential development patterns; h) Where possible, avoid prime agricultural areas, and as an alternative, consider lower priority agricultural lands in prime agricultural areas; i) The aggregate resource capability of the area;

Page 124

Page 5 October 1, 2020 Regional Municipality of Durham Ms. Colleen Goodchild, MCIP, RPP

j) The ability to service the area with full municipal water and sewerage services.”

It is our client’s view that an urban area boundary expansion to include the subject lands plus other lands bounded by Boswell Drive to the east, Highway 2 to the south, Maple Grove Road to the west and the Greenbelt boundary to the north is consistent with and will implement the urban area boundary expansion criteria of the Growth Plan and Durham Region Official Plan. This is informed by the following:

• The location of the subject lands in proximity to existing Regional services. There are existing 300mm watermains fronting the subject lands along Highway 2 and Bosell Drive. There is also a 300mm diameter sanitary sewer located at the intersection of Brookhill Boulevard and Boswell Drive. Subject to further review with Regional staff, water and sanitary sewer services appear to be available to the subject lands. • Location of the subject lands immediately adjacent to the existing urban area boundary and the West Bowmanville Urban Centre. Both the Regional Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan include policies supporting Regional and Urban Centres as the focal points of urban development and the main concentrations of urban activities. The Clarington Official Plan indicates that the Bowmanville Urban Centre “will be planned and developed as a centre of Regional significance providing the highest level of retail and service uses and shall be the primary focal point of cultural, community, recreational and institutional uses in Clarington”. Additional urban land uses and population immediately adjacent to this Urban Centre would support and implement the Official Plan Urban Centre policies. It is logical land use planning to provide for urban uses and population in locations that will support the services and amenities within the Urban Centre. • Urban Centres are also identified as ‘Priority Intensification Areas’ in the Clarington Official Plan. The Clarington Official Plan includes policies to support Priority Intensification Areas and additional urban land uses immediately adjacent to the West Bowmanville Urban Centre will implement these policies. • Location of the subject lands along Highway 2, identified as a ‘Regional Corridor’ and ‘Transit Spine’ in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The Regional Official Plan includes policies supporting Regional Corridors as higher-density mixed use areas, supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian orientated development. An urban area boundary expansion would introduce additional population to support higher order transit in this area. • Location of the subject lands in proximity to the anticipated future extension of Longworth Avenue to Maple Grove Road or Holt Road.

Page 125

Page 6 October 1, 2020 Regional Municipality of Durham Ms. Colleen Goodchild, MCIP, RPP

• The proximity of the subject lands to the Future West Bowmanville Transit Hub and GO Station, located approximately 1 kilometre from the subject lands. • The ability to provide a new, logical, West Bowmanville urban boundary. The revised urban boundary limit would be Maple Grove Road, a logical boundary location utilizing an existing municipal road, thus avoiding any partial or incomplete neighbourhoods. Maple Grove Road also represents the boundary of the Provincial Greenbelt, north of Highway 2. • The subject lands are not part of the Provincial Greenbelt and are void of any significant natural heritage features. Urban boundary expansion in this area would avoid the natural heritage system and ensure the protection of natural environment. • The subject lands are not identified as Prime Agricultural Area, thus protecting essential agricultural lands in Durham Region. The Clarington Official Plan has specific Growth related policies to protect the agricultural land base. It is noted that areas adjacent to the North Bowmanville Urban Area are part of the Provincial Greenbelt and areas adjacent to the east Bowmanville Urban Area are designated Prime Agricultural Area.

With this information, it is our opinion that the subject lands represent an appropriate and logical location for an urban area boundary expansion in Durham Region and Clarington that satisfies the relevant policies and directions as established by the Provincial Growth Plan and the Durham Regional Official Plan. It is our submission that the subject lands have locational and context advantages compared to other potential Urban Area expansion locations in Clarington. Our client would welcome the opportunity to discuss additional information that the Region and Municipality of Clarington staff may require to support our client’s urban area boundary expansion request.

Page 126

Page 7 October 1, 2020 Regional Municipality of Durham Ms. Colleen Goodchild, MCIP, RPP

We trust that this submission has sufficiently outlined our client’s urban area boundary expansion request and will be given appropriate consideration through the MCR process. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if any further information is required.

Yours truly,

CANDEVCON EAST LIMITED

Scott Waterhouse, RPP Planning Manager, Land Development

SW/br

Encl. cc: Municipality of Clarington, Attn. Ms. Faye Langmaid, Mr. Carlos Salazar Members of Clarington Council Rekker Gardens Ltd., Attn: Mr. Richard Rekker, Mr. Gerard Prins

Page 127

Maple Grove Road Grove Maple Green Road Green

Highway 2 Boswell Drive Boswell

Bloor Street

SUBJECT LANDS

2258 HIGHWAY 2, BOWMANVILLE CANDEVCON EAST LIMITED REKKER GARDENS LTD. MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON

CONTEXT PLAN Page 128 FIG.1 LOCATION OF SUBJECT LANDS

2258 HIGHWAY 2, BOWMANVILLE CANDEVCON EAST LIMITED REKKER GARDENS LTD. MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON SCHEDULE 'A' - DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN Page 129 FIG.2

Maple Grove Road Grove Maple

Green Road Green Bowmanville Avenue Bowmanville

Highway 2

Boswell Drive Boswell Clarington Boulevard Clarington DURHAM REGION POLICE SERVICE EAST DIVISION

Bloor Street Green Road Green Highway 2

FUTURE GO STATION

SUBJECT LANDS Residential Hamlet Future Long Term Care Home Rural Transportation Hub Commercial/West Greenbelt Plan Open Space and Bowmanville Urban Centre Environmental

2258 HIGHWAY 2, BOWMANVILLE CANDEVCON EAST LIMITED REKKER GARDENS LTD. MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ADJACENT LAND USES/ OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATIONSPage 130 FIG.3

Staff Report

If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.

Report To: Planning and Development Committee

Date of Meeting: October 5, 2020 Report Number: PSD-034-20

Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development

Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:

File Number: ZBA2020-0014 By-law Number:

Report Subject: An Application by Countrywide Homes Inc. for a Zoning By-law Amendment to extend the maximum three (3) year period for a temporary new home sales centre Recommendations:

1. That Report PSD-034-20 be received; 2. That provided no significant objections are raised at the Public Meeting, the application to amend the Zoning By-law submitted by Countrywide Homes Inc. be approved and that the Zoning By-law contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD-034-20 be passed; 3. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-034-20 and Council’s decision; and

4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-034-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.

Page 131 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-034-20

Report Overview

Countrywide Homes Inc. proposes to extend the use of an existing temporary home sales centre for different phases of development in the same neighbourhood for an additional three years. No changes would occur on site if the application is approved.

1. Application Details

1.1 Owner: 1613881 Ontario Inc. (Countrywide Homes at Bowmanville Inc.)

1.2 Applicant: Countrywide Homes Inc.

1.3 Proposal: Amend the Zoning By-law to extend the maximum three (3) year period for a temporary home sales centre for another three (3) years.

1.4 Area: 4,775.5 square metres

1.5 Location: 2101 Green Road, Bowmanville (southeast corner of Green Road/Brookhill Boulevard)

1.6 Roll Number: 181701003001730

1.7 Within Built Boundary: No 2. Background

2.1 On October 4, 2010, Council approved a Temporary Use By-law to permit a new home sales centre on the subject property. In 2014 and in 2018, Council subsequently approved applications to extend the use of the existing temporary home sales centre.

2.2 On June 23, 2020, Countrywide Homes Inc. submitted an application to extend the use of an existing temporary new home sales centre related to different phases of development in the neighbourhood for an additional three (3) years. Should the application be approved there are no changes proposed to the site in terms of the driveway, parking area or building.

Page 132 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-034-20

Figure 1: Site Map 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses

3.1 The surrounding uses are as follows: North Stormwater Management Pond, single-detached dwellings South Public Secondary School East Vacant portion of property and Brookhill Boulevard, and lands for future residential development West Single-detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings

Page 133 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-034-20 4. Provincial Policy

Provincial Policy Statement and Provincial Growth Plan

4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe address the need to maintain and direct land use to achieve efficient development and land use patterns. Land use must be carefully managed to accommodate appropriate development to meet the full range of current and future needs, while achieving efficient development patterns. The proposed temporary use of a portion of the property will provide an interim use that supports the future surrounding urban residential neighbourhood. 5. Official Plans

Durham Regional Official Plan

5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the property as “Regional Centre”. Regional Centres shall be planned and developed as the main concentrations of urban activities within area municipalities, providing a fully integrated array of community, office, service and shopping, recreational and residential uses. The proposed temporary use supports the future urban residential neighbourhood and conforms to the Durham Region Official Plan.

Clarington Official Plan and Secondary Plan

5.2 The Clarington Official Plan designates the site as “Urban Centre”. The property is also within the Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan area which designates the subject site as “Community Facility”.

5.3 Urban Centres shall be developed as the main concentrations of activity in each community. They shall provide an array of retail and personal service, office, residential, cultural, community, recreational and institutional uses. The proposed temporary sales office supports the future urban residential neighbourhood and conforms to the Clarington Official Plan.

5.4 Community Facilities, within the Bowmanville West Town Centre Secondary Plan, shall include uses such as public recreation facilities, religious institutions, public and private schools, housing for persons with special needs and municipal facilities.

5.5 Although the proposed use does not conform to the uses outlined for the Community Facility land use designation, the Clarington Official Plan allows Council to pass temporary use by-laws to permit the use of lands, buildings or structures, on a temporary basis, for any purpose provided that:

a) the proposed use is temporary in nature;

Page 134 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-034-20 b) the proposed use is compatible with adjacent existing land uses, there is minimal impact on the Natural Heritage System, or satisfactory measures to mitigate any adverse impacts will be applied; c) there will be no adverse impacts on traffic or transportation facilities or services in the area; d) adequate access and parking are provided; e) the use can be removed, and the site can be restored to its original condition; f) adequate sewage disposal and water services are available in compliance with provincial and regional standards; and g) it does not jeopardize the long-term implementation of the Plan.

5.6 The use is consistent with the temporary use policies; it will have no impact on natural features; generally, has no adverse impact on traffic or transportation facilities; and will not have an impact on the long term implementation of the Plan. 6. Zoning By-law

6.1 The subject lands are zoned “Agricultural Exception (A-41)” in Zoning By-law 84-63 which permits a temporary sales centre. The Temporary Use By-law will expire on January 15, 2021. The proposed rezoning would permit the continued use of a temporary sales centre for an additional three years. 7. Public Notice and Submissions

7.1 Public Notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject property and public notice signage was installed on both the Green Road and the Brookhill Boulevard frontages by September 16, 2020. No inquiries regarding the subject application were received at the time this report was written. 8. Agency Comments

Regional Municipality of Durham

8.1 The application was circulated to Durham Region Planning and they have no objection to this application. Their comments indicate that if regrading occurs on site at a depth more than 1.5 metres, a Stage 1-2 Archaeological Assessment is required and that an updated RSC compliant Phase One ESA is required. The site continues to be used for different phases of development in the same neighbourhood. As no change is occurring on site, the conditions are not applicable to this application.

Page 135 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-034-20 9. Departmental Comments

9.1 Infrastructure Division of Public Works has no objection to the proposal.

9.2 The Building Division has no comments on the application.

9.3 Emergency and Fire Services has no objection to the proposal. 10. Discussion

10.1 The proposal conforms to the Clarington Official Plan with respect to temporary uses.

10.2 The home sales centre has been used for new home sales for different phases, and different builders within the Brookhill neighbourhood. The extension of the temporary home sales centre is required for the continued use of the site for a sales centre beyond January 2021. The home sales centre exists on site and as such the site will not be altered.

10.3 The site has operated since October 2010 with no concerns. The property is subject to a site plan agreement for the existing development.

10.4 There are no objections to the approval of this application from the circulated departments and agencies. 11. Concurrence

Not Applicable. 12. Conclusion

12.1 Provided there are no objections during the Public Meeting, and in consideration of all agency, staff and public comments, it is respectfully recommended that the Temporary Use By-law included in Attachment 1 be approved.

Staff Contact: Toni Rubino, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2431 or [email protected]

Attachments: Attachment 1 - Zoning By-law Amendment The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision: Countrywide Homes Inc.

Page 136 Attachment 1 to Report PSD-034-20

Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington

By-law Number 20___-______

being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law for the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington

Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington for ZBA2020-0014;

Now Therefore Be It Resolved That, the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:

1. Section 6.4.41 “SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS – AGRICULTURAL EXCEPTION (A- 41) ZONE” is hereby amended by deleting the following words: “January 15, 2021” And replacing them with the following words: “October 13, 2023”

2. Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto shall form part of this By-law.

3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of the passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 and 39 of the Planning Act.

By-Law passed in open session this _____ day of ______, 2020

______Adrian Foster, Mayor

______C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk

C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\1133189297\1133189297,,,Attachment 1 to Report PSD-034-20.docx Page 137

Page 138

Staff Report

If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.

Report To: Planning and Development Committee

Date of Meeting: October 5, 2020 Report Number: PSD-035-20

Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development

Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:

File Number: ZBA2020-0013 By-law Number:

Report Subject: Applications for proposed Red Line revision to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning for lands at the north-east corner of Grady Drive and Rudell Road, Newcastle Recommendations:

1. That Report PSD-035-20 be received;

2. That the proposed Red Line revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited continue to be processed including the preparation of a subsequent report; and

3. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-035-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.

Page 139 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-035-20

Report Overview

The Municipality is seeking the public’s input on applications for Red Line revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment submitted by Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited. The applications would alter the existing lot frontages and the existing lot pattern, resulting in 6 additional units, alter the road pattern in the north portion of the site, and increase lot coverage from 40% to 45% for 2 storey dwellings and from 45% to 50% for one storey and bungaloft dwellings.

1. Application Details

1.1 Owner/Applicant: Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited

1.2 Agent: Michael Fry, D.G. Biddle & Associates

1.3 Proposal: Red Line Revision to Draft Approved Subdivision

The Red-Line revisions include increasing the lot frontage of several lots north of Whitehand Drive and reducing the lot frontage of several lots south of Whitehand Drive. All lots will have a minimum of 11.3 metres of frontage. The road pattern north of Whitehand Drive has also been altered to improve circulation. The proposal will result in 6 additional lots within Phase 4, the final phase.

Zoning By-law Amendment

The Zoning By-law Amendment is to permit the proposed changes to the lot frontages and increase lot coverage from 40% to 45% for 2 storey dwellings and from 45% to 50% for one storey and bungaloft dwellings.

1.4 Area: 8.1 Ha. (20 acres)

1.5 Location: North-east corner of Grady Drive and Rudell Road, Newcastle

1.6 Roll Number: 181703013015331

1.7 Within Built Boundary: No

Page 140 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-035-20 2. Background

2.1 In March 2004, approval was granted for the Foster Creek North Neighbourhood Design Plan and two draft plans of Subdivision for a total of 540 residential units (18T-89059 and S-C-2000-001). An amendment was approved in October 2006 to increase the number of units to 665.

2.2 Three phases of the subdivisions have been registered and are fully occupied. The former school block was draft approved in 2018 and is now registered. The lands subject to the current applications are in Phase 4, the last phase. See Figure 1.

Figure 1: Draft Approved Phase 4 of Plan 18T-89059

Page 141 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-035-20 2.3 In March 2019, the applicant was granted an extension to Draft Approval for Phase 4 to 2025. The extension was sought due to the Region’s timetable for the design and construction of the necessary infrastructure to service the dwellings for the final phase of the subdivision. The earliest opportunity to commence house construction is 2023.

2.4 In June 2020, the applicant submitted applications for Red-Line revisions to Phase 4 and a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate the alteration to the lot and street pattern and to increase lot coverage from 40% to 45% for 2 storey dwellings and from 45% to 50% for one storey and bungaloft dwellings.

Figure 2: Proposed Red Line Revision to Phase 4

Page 142 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-035-20 2.3 The proposed Red Line revisions will alter the existing approved road pattern north of Whitehand Drive to future Hoad Street and remove 15m single detached lots south of Whitehand Drive. See Figure 2.

2.4 The applicants have submitted a storm drainage analysis report and updated noise fencing plan with the rezoning application. 3. Land Characteristics and Surrounding Uses

3.1 The subject lands are currently vacant and have been used for construction trailers and parking for the previous phases of the subdivision and to stockpile excess soils on a temporary basis. The lands were previously used for agricultural purposes.

Figure 3: Subject lands looking north from the end of Rudell Road.

3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:

North - Canadian Pacific Rail Corridor and Agricultural lands South - Single detached dwellings East - Rickard Neighbourhood Park and single detached dwellings West - Vacant lands, Foster Northwest Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision

Page 143 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-035-20 4. Provincial Policy

Provincial Policy Statement

4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy, livable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of housing types and development patterns, while making efficient use of land and infrastructure.

4.2 Healthy and active communities should be promoted by planning public streets to be safe, meet the needs of pedestrians, foster social interaction and facilitate active transportation and community connectivity. Compact and diverse developments promote active modes of transportation such as walking and cycling.

Provincial Growth Plan

4.3 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas, such as the Newcastle Urban Area. Municipalities are encouraged to create complete communities by promoting a diverse mix of land uses, a mix of employment and housing types, high quality public open space and easy access to local stores and services. 5. Official Plans

Durham Regional Official Plan

5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the lands as Living Areas. Lands designated Living Area permit the development of communities incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socio-economic factors. The proposed development conforms with the Durham Region Official Plan.

Clarington Official Plan

5.2 The Clarington Official Plan designates the lands as Urban Residential. The subject lands are within the Foster Neighbourhood. The Urban Residential designation shall predominantly be used for housing purposes, providing for a variety of densities, tenure and types. Neighbourhoods are to be walkable, compact, connected and create a high- quality public realm. The proposed development will integrate into the surrounding community and be consistent with the neighbourhood identity that surrounds it.

5.3 The proposal conforms to the Clarington Official Plan.

Page 144 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PSD-035-20 6. Zoning By-law

6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-44), Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R2-45), and Holding - Urban Residential Exception ((H)R1-67). The current zoning was approved when the subdivision was initially draft approved in 2004.

6.2 A zoning by-law amendment is required to remove the 15 metre frontage single detached dwellings, south of Whitehand Drive, and to increase the lot coverage for all dwelling types. 7. Public Notice and Submissions

7.1 Public notice was mailed to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject lands on September 4, 2020 and Public Meeting signs were installed fronting on Grady Drive and Whitehand Drive on September 4, 2020.

7.2 Staff has received two inquiries from residents for additional information on the applications. 8. Agency Comments

Regional Municipality of Durham

8.1 Comments from Durham Region Planning, Works and Transit Departments were not received at the time of writing this report. The comments will be included in a subsequent report.

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority

8.2 Comments from the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority were not received at the time of writing this report. They will be included in a subsequent report.

Canadian Pacific Rail

8.3 Canadian Pacific Rail had no comments or concerns with the proposal to alter lot the existing lot pattern and frontages or with the proposed increase in lot coverage.

Ministry of Transportation

8.4 The Ministry of Transportation had no concerns with the proposal to alter the existing lot pattern and frontages or with the proposed increase in lot coverage. Only soft landscaping is permitted within the Ministry’s 14 metre setback from Highway 35/115.

8.5 The required acoustical noise fencing will remain outside of the 14 metre setback as required.

Page 145 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PSD-035-20 9. Departmental Comments

Infrastructure Division of the Public Works Department

9.1 The Infrastructure Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed revisions and requires additional analysis on the existing storm system downstream of this phase of the development. Additional comments will be provided once the additional information has been received and reviewed by the Infrastructure Division.

Emergency and Fire Services

9.2 The Emergency and Fire Services Department had no objections to the proposed application. 10. Discussion

10.1 The applicant has proposed Red Line revisions to the final phase of a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, originally approved in 2004. The proposed changes will alter the road pattern by extending the future Hoad Street across the north part of the phase which improves circulation and connectivity (Figure 2). The Red Line revisions will also eliminate the 15-metre single detached dwelling lots south of Whitehand Drive, replacing them with mainly 11.3 metre frontages for single detached dwellings. The 11.3 metre frontage allows for a dwelling with a two car garage while responding to current market conditions that have made 15 metre singles less desirable.

10.2 The unopened portion of the right-of-way for Rudell Road currently extends to the south limits of Highway 35/115. The applicant has shown a block at the north end of Rudell Road that would be added to future lands directly to the west to create a residential building lot. Closure of the right-of-way will be required and declaration as surplus to the Municipality’s needs in order to facilitate future lot creation in this location.

10.3 The original Conditions of Draft Approval included requirements for noise fencing along the Canadian Pacific Rail corridor. Noise fencing will continue along the rear yards of the proposed dwellings and connect to the existing noise fencing to the east. Additional noise fencing is required where lots abut Highway 35/115 to address noise concerns. The noise fencing will be outside of the Ministry of Transportation’s 14 metre setback requirements.

Page 146 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PSD-035-20 10.4 The applicant has been advised that additional information regarding storm sewer capacity is required. The additional lot coverage may increase the impervious surface area of each lot thereby increasing storm water runoff to the storm sewer network. The information must be satisfactory to the Infrastructure Division of Public Works. 11. Concurrence

Not Applicable. 12. Conclusion

12.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the proposed Red Line revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment applications submitted by Lindvest Properties (Clarington) Limited for a Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue processing the application including the preparation of a subsequent report.

Brandon Weiler, Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2424 or [email protected]

Interested Parties:

List of Interested Parties available from Planning & Development Services Department.

Page 147

Staff Report

If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.

Report To: Planning and Development Committee

Date of Meeting: October 5, 2019 Report Number: PSD-036-20

Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development Services

Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:

File Number: S-C 2020-0001, ZBA 2020-0006 Resolution#:

Report Subject: A Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning, west of Green Road north of Durham Highway 2, in Bowmanville Recommendations:

1. That Report PSD-036-20 be received;

2. That the application by DG Group for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning, on the west side of Green Road, north of Durham Highway 2, Bowmanville continue to be processed including the preparation of a subsequent report; and

3. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-036-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.

Page 148 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-036-20

Report Overview The Municipality is seeking the public’s input on applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by DG Group to permit a total of 194 residential units consisting of 53 single detached dwellings, 36 townhouse units, and two condominium blocks with a total of 105 units, in the form of stacked townhouses and mid-rise apartment buildings and Environmentally Protected lands.

1. Application Details

1.1 Owner: Players Business Park Ltd.

1.2 Applicant: DG Group

1.4 Proposal: Draft Plan of Subdivision for 194 residential units consisting of;

 53 Single detached units

 36 street townhouses

 Two blocks with a total of 105 condominium units, in the form of stacked townhouses and mid-rise apartments

Zoning By-law Amendment

 To rezone the lands from Agricultural (A) to permit the proposed draft plan of subdivision

1.5 Area: 6.2 hectares

1.6 Location: 2400 Green Road, west side of Green Road,1 kilometre north of Durham Highway 2, Bowmanville (see Figure 1)

1.7 Roll Number: 18-17-010-020-18435

1.8 Within Built Boundary: No

Page 149 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-036-20

Figure 1 – Area subject to applications 2. Background

2.1 DG Group (formerly Metrus) submitted applications for a draft plan of subdivision and rezoning in March 2020. In June 2020, through discussions with staff and the conservation authority, the environmentally protected lands and buffer, as shown in green on Figure 1, were added. This changed the alignment of Murray Tabb Street and reconfigured the condominium block.

Page 150 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-036-20 2.2 DG Group developed the lands to the south of the subject lands, as well as the lands to the east of Green Road. The street pattern in the proposed draft plan has been set as they are an extension of earlier phases south of Ross Wright Avenue.

2.3 The following reports were submitted in support of the applications and are currently under review:

 Environmental Impact Study  Traffic Brief  Servicing Plan  Parking Plan  Noise Assessment  Functional Servicing Report  Archaeological Report 3. Land Use Characteristics and Surrounding Uses

3.1 The subject lands are currently vacant. A portion is being cultivated and another portion is used to stockpile topsoil from previous phases.

3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:

North - Lands for the future extension of Longworth Avenue and beyond woodlands and wetlands

South - existing residential development

East - existing residential development

West - woodlands and wetlands 4. Provincial Policy

Provincial Policy Statement

4.1 The Provincial Policy Statement encourages planning authorities to create healthy, livable and safe communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential, employment, recreational and open space uses to meet long term needs. New development shall occur adjacent to built-up areas, shall have compact form and a mix of uses and densities that allow for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services.

Page 151 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-036-20 Provincial Growth Plan

4.2 The Provincial Growth Plan encourages municipalities to manage growth by directing population growth to settlement areas, such as the Bowmanville. Municipalities are encouraged to create complete communities that offer a mix of land uses, employment and housing options, high quality open space, and access to stores and services.

4.3 The development allows for the efficient use of land, infrastructure and public services and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan. The proposed development is part of a neighbourhood where various housing types will be accommodated as development proceeds. Municipal water and sanitary sewer are available to the site. Transit will be made available to the site in the future. 5. Official Plans

Durham Regional Official Plan

5.1 The Durham Region Official Plan designates the lands as Living Areas. Lands designated as Living Area permit the development of communities incorporating the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socio-economic factors. The proposed development conforms with the Living Area designation.

Clarington Official Plan

5.2 The lands are designated Urban Residential. The Urban Residential designation is predominately intended for housing purposes. Other uses may be permitted which by the nature of their activity, scale, design and location are supportive of and compatible with residential uses.

5.3 The policies require new residential development and emerging neighbourhoods to be designed to provide for a variety of housing types and supportive land uses, including commercial and community facilities and encourage accessible, walkable neighbourhoods that prioritize pedestrians over cars and provide for a variety of uses.

Brookhill Secondary Plan

5.4 The lands are designated Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential in the Brookhill Secondary Plan.

5.5 The predominant form of housing within the low density designation shall be for single detached and semi-detached units.

Page 152 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-036-20 5.6 Medium Density designation is identified in the south west of the future extension of Longworth Avenue and Green Road. The minimum net density is 19 units per net hectare. The predominant built form shall be 1-3 storeys in the form of limited apartments, townhouses (including stacked townhouses) semi-detached dwellings, and detached dwellings.

5.7 The draft plan is consistent with the policies of the Secondary Plan, the current update to the Brookhill Secondary Plan does not affect lands south of Longworth. 6. Zoning By-law

6.1 Zoning By-law 84-63 zones the subject lands Agricultural (A) Zone.

6.2 A Zoning By-law Amendment is required to permit the residential development. 7. Public Notice and Submissions

7.1 Public Meeting notice was mailed to area residents, five Public Notice signs were displayed on the subject property at each frontage. The application and supporting documents were posted on the municipality’s website. The details of the application were included in the Planning and Development Services E-update.

7.2 Staff have received numerous inquiries:

 One individual supports the application.  One individual inquired about the timing of construction of Longworth Avenue.  One individual, who resides on Ross Wright Avenue inquired about the height of the units in the condominium blocks, who the builder is, the timing for the extension of Longworth Avenue and how will construction vehicles and dust be managed.  Another resident, residing on Murray Tabb is concerned about water diversion into his back yard, the extension of Murray Tabb Street, traffic impacts and construction traffic.  A petition was received with approximately 200 names from individuals residing in previous phases of Brookhill. They are opposed to stacked townhouses and mid- rise apartments that will cause traffic, impact schools, destroy local wildlife, over crowd the park and potentially lower property values. The residents only want single detached dwellings.

Page 153 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PSD-036-20 8. Agency Comments

Region of Durham

8.1 Region of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department advises that the draft plan has been reviewed and provided comments regarding Provincial Plan Polices, Regional Plan Policies, municipal services and transportation.

8.2 The Region states that the lands are designated as Living Area and shall be used predominantly for housing purposes with the widest variety of housing types, sizes and tenure.

8.3 Green Road is a Type “B” Arterial Road and Green Road is a Type “C” Arterial Road in the Regional Official Plan.

8.4 Living Areas shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads, and shall be developed with consideration for supporting and providing access to public transit.

8.5 The majority of the draft plan is designated Low Density Residential with portions adjacent to Green Road and the future extension of Longworth Avenue designated Medium Density in the Brookhill Neighbourhood. The proposed development will add a mix of housing types and contributed to the Municipality’s intensification targets as outlined in the Durham Regional Official Plan.

8.6 A scoped Environmental Impact Study concluded that the proposed development will not have a negative impact on the natural heritage features with the buffers proposed and if all the mitigation measure and recommendation made by the EIS are implemented.

8.7 The Phase One Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared by EXP. Services Inc. reported that no further site investigation is required. The proponent will be required to provide a regional Reliance Letter and Certificate of Insurance to the Region as a requirement of final approval.

8.8 Archeological Site Assessment was prepared in in 2008 for lands west and east of Green Road. The Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport has issued a clearance letter for the

8.9 Municipal water supply and sanitary sewers is available to service the proposed development from Murray Tabb Street, Procknow Street, Carl Raby Street and Marsden Way. Water shall also be extended lonely the north property limit on green Road and proposed Longworth Avenue west of Green Road.

Page 154 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PSD-036-20 8.10 The Region has no objection to the approval of the proposed draft plan of subdivision and provided conditions to be fulfilled prior to clearance by the Region for the registration of the plan.

Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority

8.11 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation does not have any objection to the approval of the draft plan of subdivision. CLOC approved the recommendations of the EIS and is satisfied with the Functional Servicing Report. As conditions of draft plan approval, the authority recommends the Environmentally Protected lands and the buffer be dedicated to the Municipality.

Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board

8.12 The Public School Board offered no objection to the draft plan subject to the inclusion of warning clauses in Agreements of Purchase and Sale for homeowners regarding school bus pick up points and despite a school site being reserved in adjoining draft plan a (at the future extension of Longworth Avenue and Clarington Boulevard), school may not be built for some time, if at all, in which case students from this area may have to attend existing schools.

8.13 The Board requests a pedestrian walkway or dedicated pedestrian use only areas by widening the street surface with the 18 metre road allowance by 1.5metres along Street A and B. 9. Departmental Comments

Public Works

9.1 The Infrastructure Division of the Public Works Department has reviewed the plan and have no objection to this proposal subject to the following comments:

Temporary Turning Circles

9.1.1. The applicant will be responsible for removing the temporary turning circle on Marsden Way and Murray Tabb Street, and reconstructing to a full urban standard as required.

Block 59

9.1.2. There is concern with how this block will be serviced with respect to snow removal maintenance and waste pick up. No turn around for either service vehicle is provided. The Municipality will not enter onto private property to remove snow. It is recommended that this block become part of Block 60.

Page 155 Municipality of Clarington Page 9 Report PSD-036-20 General Requirements and Conditions

9.2 All works and services must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Municipality of Clarington Design Criteria and Standard Drawings, provisions of the Municipality Development By-Law and all applicable legislation, and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

Emergency and Fire Services

9.3 The Emergency and Fire Services Department offer no objections. 10. Discussion

10.1 The lands are situated in the Brookhill Neighbourhood of Bowmanville. The existing development south of the subject lands are only the first two phases. Other approvals to the east have been granted but not yet developed. They include open space lands for trails, a 2 hectare park and a site for a future elementary school, should the either school board wish the site.

10.2 The site is designated for low and medium residential development in the Regional Official Plan, Clarington Official Plan and the Brookhill Secondary Plan. The draft plan is an extension of the existing residential development to the south. The road pattern is essentially set as Procknow Street and Carl Raby Street will extend north to Longworth Avenue. Marsden Way will also extend north, then west to intersect with Carl Raby Street for a short distance.

10.3 The lands at the very west of the site provide a buffer to the environmentally sensitive lands to the west. This means that the existing lotting pattern on the west side of Murray Tabb, will not continue north to intersect with Longworth Avenue, but turns east to intersect with Procknow. Although not ideal, the developer did not wish to construct a road with services, if residential units could only be built on one side of the road, due to the cost and it is not efficient from a maintenance perspective.

10.4 The lands for the extension of Longworth Avenue are in ownership of the Municipality of Clarington. The actual construction of Longworth will coincide with the construction of the draft plan. A roundabout is proposed at the intersection of Longworth Avenue and Green Road.

10.5 The existing stormwater management pond situated at Green Road and Brookhill Boulevard is sized to accommodate the proposed development.

Page 156 Municipality of Clarington Page 10 Report PSD-036-20 10.6 Site plan approval is required for the two condominium blocks. The form of development, whether mid-rise apartments, or stacked townhouses or a combination thereof, the associated parking, landscaping and private amenity space such as a tot lot will be included in each site. 11. Conclusion

11.1 The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision and rezoning submitted by DG Group for the Public Meeting under the Planning Act. Staff will continue processing the application including the preparation of a subsequent report.

Staff Contact: Cynthia Strike, Manager of Development Review, 905-623-3379 extension 2410 or [email protected].

Interested Parties:

List of Interested Parties available from Department.

Page 157

Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Municipal Clerk at 905-623-3379 ext. 2102.

Report To: Planning and Development Committee

Date of Meeting: October 5, 2020 Report Number: PSD-037-20

Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services

Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution:

File Number: PLN 26.14.1 By-law Number:

Report Subject: Clarington Transformer Station Recommendations:

1. That Report PSD-037-20 be received; and 2. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-037-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.

Page 158 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-037-20 Page 2

Report Overview

Council accepted funding from Hydro One to retain a hydrogeologist to peer review the Surface and Groundwater monitoring program imposed as part of the approval of the Environmental Assessment by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change now Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP). The Municipality’s hydrogeologist is providing his peer review for the 2019 annual report, results of bore hole drilling for research purposes and habitat replacement. 1. Background

1.1 Clarington Council and staff have been involved with the Clarington Hydro Transformer since March of 2012. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change (at the time) approved the project in January of 2014 despite the objections/comments of Clarington Council and residents.

1.2 In June 2014, to address ongoing concerns from community members and residents, Hydro One proposed to Clarington to fund a peer review of their Surface and Groundwater monitoring program. The peer review consultant, SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. were retained and have been working with the residents, staff, Hydro One consultants’ and G360 group of scientists since late October, 2014. The contract was to be completed in October 2019, however Council extended it by a year to allow for the peer review of the final monitoring report (Attachment 1).

1.3 In September 2014, Council approved a road use agreement contingent on the drilling of a deep monitoring well. The hydrogeologists agreed that the MW 5-14 site on Hydro One property was the most relevant location for this borehole and monitoring well. The MW5-14 site already has monitors at 4 metres, 7 metres and 40 metres; the monitor at 52 metres, and a deep borehole monitor at 112 metres are the result of drilling the deep borehole. This provides multi-level monitoring (or a nested cluster of boreholes and monitors).

1.4 In April 2015, Council approved funding as a contribution to the rotosonic drilling of up to $25,000, by resolution #C-136-15 to enable the construction of a multi-level monitoring device. These funds have been disbursed to CLOCA for the borehole drilling that happened in July 2019.

1.5 In February 2016, Council approved funding for tritium testing of up to $10,000 by resolution #C-030-16, as amended in May 2017. To date an interim payment of $5,000 was provided to G360 for sampling and tritium analysis on private wells and the interim report received in July 2016. A final report remains outstanding while awaiting the drill fluid clearing to allow for the chemistry sampling.

Page 159 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-037-20 Page 3

1.6 In November, 2016 CLOCA entered into agreements with Hydro One which allows access to the site and deep well for ongoing monitoring under the conditions set out in the agreement. CLOCA’s Memorandum of Understanding with G360 allowed for the drilling in July 2019 and any scientific work by G360. CLOCA is host to the Oak Ridges Moraine Groundwater Program, they are the legal entity for the agreements. The Municipality is not party to the agreements.

1.7 The Clarington Transformer Station became fully connected to the Hydro One Bulk Electrical network on April 30, 2018. Hydro One reports that the Enfield TS came into service in May, 2019. Works to complete the on-site constructions, for example the road works and habitat plantings were completed in 2020. 2. Summary of the Peer Review Findings

2.1 The SLR report reviews the present state of the existing information and purposely does not address the process by which it was achieved. Their review includes information from all parties, being Hydro One, Stantec, G360 scientists, Enniskillen Environmental Association, the Conservation Authority, Clarington, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and the Oak Ridges Moraine Groundwater Program. SLR staff conducted a habitat ecological site reconnaissance on August 19, 2020, but no hydrogeological inspections were necessary in 2020. No new well owner complaints were received in the reporting period.

2.2 The Ministry required a ground and surface water monitoring program. No significant adverse on-site conditions were reported in the 2019 annual monitoring report. No requests to SLR from residents for interpretation or clarification were received. The MECP required monitoring period was complete at the end of 2019. Whereas the site groundwater monitoring wells are expected to ultimately be decommissioned now that the required monitoring program is complete, Hydro One has agreed to retain the wells up to at least the end of the private well monitoring program. SLR has suggested they keep the dataloggers in place even though there will be no sampling, or specific field visits to manually measure water levels. 3. Research Bore Hole

3.1 The G360 research group were able to install the additional borehole for long-term monitoring at the MW5-14 site in July of 2019. The researchers are waiting until the sediment within the well settles and the drilling fluid clears to allow for the tritium sampling.

Page 160 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-037-20 Page 4

3.2 In 2018 the G360 research group conducted tritium sampling and analysis on local wells. They have found the presence of tritium (an indicator of age and not a contaminant) in the shallow wells as anticipated, and also in some but not all of the deeper wells. Some surficial contaminants like salt and short lived bacteria are also present at depth. This information points to a likelihood of insecure well casings. CLOCA, through Dr. Gerber sampled the aquitard wells in the deep well cluster on site for tritium and found very little. These deep wells are scientifically constructed to preclude casing leakage.

3.3 The cluster of wells (multi-level) at MW5-14 will allow long-term research to be carried out by G360 in concert with Dr. Gerber from the Oak Ridges Moraine Ground Water Monitoring Group.

3.4 The SLR review of the draft G360 report on the deep borehole shows that the very preliminary results correspond to the existing understanding of the site. It appears that results of this research will be ongoing for many years and SLR recommends that Clarington seek updates through CLOCA on a periodic basis. 4. Private Well Monitoring

4.1 Part of the Enniskillen Environmental Association request in June 2019 was that the monitoring program for private wells continue beyond 2021. Hydro One had already committed to monitoring the private wells for 2 additional years beyond the requirements imposed by the Ministry’s approval.

4.2 Hydro One’s response was that while they voluntarily committed to extend the private well monitoring to participating well owners until 2022, they do not believe further monitoring is warranted.

4.3 For the private wells monitoring by Hydro One, SLR has been available to answer questions and review the findings. SLR has not had any calls from residents during the past 2 years.

4.4 In summary, SLR continues to maintain that the private wells are not at risk from the Transformer Site. 5. Ecologic

5.1 SLR reports that the vegetation restoration appears to be successful, in that the objectives as originally stated (and modified) are in the process of being met. This work will take many more years for the plantings to grow in. SLR respectfully suggests that Clarington ask to be circulated with the periodic reports that will ensue. Progress towards mature woodlands and/or swamps take many years.

Page 161 Municipality of Clarington Report PSD-037-20 Page 5 6. Concurrence Not applicable. 7. Conclusion

7.1 The purpose of retaining a peer review consultant was to assist with understanding the technical information and to have an independent advisor monitor the practices and methodologies being employed during the construction of the Clarington Transformer Station. To date, the observations, recommendations and conclusions by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd have required additional work by Hydro One and their consultants to demonstrate that the conclusions of the Environmental Assessment and Permit to Take Water were reasonable and conservative.

7.2 Council and residents were concerned for the safety of private residential wells in the vicinity of the transformer construction and Farewell Creek. The Clarington and Enfield Transformers are now complete. Hydro One consultants, Ministry and peer review consultant have concluded that the transformer construction is not putting residential wells at risk.

7.3 Hydro One has offered to continue to monitor local private wells that have been part of the ongoing program until 2022.

7.4 Much has been learned about the hydrogeology of the site over the past few years providing additional scientific knowledge for the G360 researchers, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Groundwater Program.

7.5 This is the last annual report by Hydro One. SLR have analyzed the report, cross- checked numbers and provided their final peer review as information. Staff Contact: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning Services, 905-623-3379 ext. 2407 or [email protected] Attachments: Attachment 1 – Clarington Transformer Station Peer Review

The following is a list of the interested parties to be notified of Council’s decision:

Denise Jamal, Hydro One Clint Cole, Enniskillen Environmental Association Drs. John Cherry and Beth Parker, G360, University of Guelph Dr. Rick Gerber, Oak Ridge Moraine Groundwater Program Chris Darling, CLOCA Steven Usher, SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd

https://clarington.escribemeetings.com/Reports/Clarington Transformer Final Report.docx

Page 162 Attachment 1 to Report PSD-037-20

SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. 300 Town Centre Boulevard, Suite 200, Markham, ON L3R 5Z6

September 24, 2020

Ms. Faye Langmaid Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6

SLR Project No.: 209.40261.00000 Dear Ms.Langmaid:

RE: CLARINGTON TRANSFORMER STATION - PEER REVIEW SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

The purpose of this letter is to report on our activities on your behalf and at your direction in the above noted matter. This report covers the period of October 2019 to August 2020.

In this period things have wrapped up as the transformer station has been in operational mode for several years. No new issues have arisen, and we provide closure on those that were outstanding. We speak to each of these in the following paragraphs, and include:

1. Annual Report Review (2019) 2. Deep Well Update 3. Vegetation Restoration Evaluation

Over this reporting period, SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. (SLR) have attended Planning and Development Committee on October 22, 2019. There have been no further Community Liaison Committee meetings mandated since 2017. The Clarington Transformer station has been on line for several years. The Enfield Transformer Station was put in service in May of 2019. As the site has been commissioned and is in operation, no further hydrogeological related site visits have been requested of, nor conducted by SLR in the reporting period. Ms. Leadbeater, our senior ecologist visited the site on August 19, 2020 to review the progress of the ongoing Hydro One vegetation restoration.

1.0 ANNUAL REPORT REVIEW In the spring of 2020, SLR reviewed the 2019 Annual Monitoring Report prepared by Stantec Consulting on behalf of Hydro One. The report covers the period up to the end of September, 2019. Consistent with recent years we have found that the monitoring programs were being followed as outlined. The monitoring results continue to reflect our understanding of the site, in that water levels were not affected by the presence of the transformer construction or its subsequent operation, and water quality was consistent with before. Similar to last year, this again includes the presence of bacteria and nitrate in many shallow wells, and also in some deep private wells. These are minor natural or anthropogenic exceedances of some parameters, which is not uncommon in Southern Ontario. With respect to groundwater levels, the autumn of 2019 experienced lower water levels, similar in some monitoring wells to 2016, when some of the local residential wells went dry due to a lack of recharge. Based on the hydrographs, those same local wells experienced low water levels in 2019. The monitoring report does not address specific results and simply says water levels are within previously established ranges, which technically is correct. However, SLR staff contacted Mr. Dalmazzi of Hydro One to enquire if the wells recovered (as they did in 2017 from

www.slrconsulting.com Page 163 Municipality of Clarington SLR Project No.: 209.40261.00000 CLARINGTON TRANSFORMER STATION - PEER REVIEW September 24, 2020 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT the 2016 event) and he provided a hydrograph that demonstrated that this was the case. This demonstrates how the site continues to behave as before. With respect to resident liaison, no outreach from residents to SLR were made in the reporting period. No further requests from residents to review the reported results on their wells were received by SLR from Clarington in this final reporting period. We wish to draw Clarington’s attention to the fact that the required water monitoring programs have all now ended, and that there will be no further annual reports. Hydro One is expecting to proceed with the decommissioning of the monitoring wells under Ontario regulation 903, as they identified they would after the programs were complete. In discussion with Mr. Dalmazzi, SLR pointed out that even though the monitoring program was done, the wells could be retained (but not monitored) for a period so that they are available at some point in the future should anything change. In correspondence with this author, Mr. Dalmazzi indicated that they understood the logic and would retain them at least until the end of the private well monitoring program in 2021. We wish here to encourage Hydro One to keep the dataloggers running for this period to record water level changes (and allow those affected by sampling to equilibrate) in that period. We also understand that the MW5 well nest surrounding deep research hole, currently operated by G360 under Dr. Gerber’s supervision, will be kept and used by that group. Please be aware that they had previously extended the monitoring program (water quality and water levels) for the private wells by two years as a voluntary measure, which will finish at the end of 2021. 2.0 DEEP WELL LOGISTICS In 2016, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) and Hydro One negotiated an agreement, which included the ability for the G360 group to drill an additional deep well for the purpose of installation of a multilevel well system. This system is to be used to study the aquitard, as a research opportunity. Clarington has previously committed funds to this project and therefore SLR have been called upon to assist staff by providing technical support.

As previously reported, G360 in collaboration with CLOCA, drilled an 88 m deep borehole at the MW5-14 location and installed a Multi-Level System (MLS) in July, 2019. An 8-port mutli-level groundwater monitoring installation was established between depths 50 and 85 m below ground level. The upper, more competent aquitard was not instrumented due to exhaustion of funding.

G360 issued a draft report in March 2020, but have not to our knowledge finalized it (R. Gerber, personal communication).

Based on our review of the draft report, the geological findings are consistent with the previous drilling. The anticipated testing program has not yet been completed. The devices reportedly took about five months to recover from installation due to the low permeability soils. However, the January and March 2020 readings showed that a static water pressure has been achieved. Bromide from the drilling fluid continues to persist and sampling of the ports had understandably not been undertaken as of March 2020. Hydraulic conductivity testing through the system has not been reported as of this date. The intent of the devices is to provide long term monitoring capability of the aquitard, and they will be managed for scientific purposes by CLOCA.

We anticipate that G360 will progressively report on their results and future monitoring results at various points in the future. As stated in last year’s report, it is recommended that the Municipality consider examining those results to see if they are consistent with the established understanding of the site.

SLR 2 CONFIDENTIAL Page 164 Municipality of Clarington SLR Project No.: 209.40261.00000 CLARINGTON TRANSFORMER STATION - PEER REVIEW September 24, 2020 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

3.0 VEGETATION RESTORATION EVALUATION SLR provided a memorandum on the results of our review of the vegetation restoration efforts. Its conclusions are summarized here. Ontario Hydro has taken an adaptive approach to ecological restoration guided by the CST Habitat Creation and Enhancement Plan. Adaptation to site conditions (i.e., deviation from the prescribed plan based on early outcomes) is highly recommended and Hydro One acted appropriately in responding to the recommendations of the contractor. Such recommendations occurred when site conditions and/or weather did not support the intended plans such as the unexpected flooding in one section. In another area it was recognized when native species were already colonizing a new area, and alternatively, the intended planting material was used elsewhere to achieve greater gains. The design of the plan takes advantage of natural regeneration due to proximity of seed sources in the hedgerows and lowland forest. The creation of pits and mounds was a good approach but may have limited restoration effect due to their small size. Overall, designation of these lands for protection and the implementation of the restoration plan has “kick-started” the process. The project is entering a phase where the lands require access control to avoid damage (such as that observed in Section 3.12 in the north west corner), monitoring for invasive species concentration and adaptive management if necessary. Succession will follow in time. The goal of the project has easily been met in terms of the areas that have been designated for habitat within the CTS Hydro One station across a range of habitat types. Screening plantings have also been installed in addition to the original plan. Monitoring was undertaken and the required progress memos submitted. There have been substitutions and alternative approaches implemented other than what was documented in the Plan, but these have been in keeping with good adaptive ecological restoration standards. 4.0 IN CONCLUSION We trust this report adequately covers the activities SLR has performed on Clarington’s behalf. It is our renewed opinion that there have been no adverse effects of the Transformer Station construction and operation on private wells for the reasons cited above. The existing groundwater monitoring program is now completed, but the originally anticipated decommissioning of the groundwater monitors has been delayed at our suggestion. We wish here to encourage Hydro One to keep the dataloggers running for this period to record water level changes (and allow those affected by sampling to equilibrate) in that period. Hydro One has voluntarily extended the private well monitoring program to the end of 2021 for interested residents. No further reports are required of Hydro One by the MECP.

Further to this, our review of the draft G360 report on the deep borehole shows that the very preliminary results correspond to the existing understanding of the site. It appears that results of this research will be ongoing for many years and we recommend that Clarington seek updates through CLOCA on a periodic basis.

The vegetation restoration appears to be successful, in that the objectives as stated (and modified) are in the process of being met. Progress toward mature woodlands and/or swamps will take many more years. We respectfully suggest that Clarington ask to be circulated with the periodic reports that will ensue.

The contract between Clarington and SLR originally set Oct 31, 2019 as it’s end date. In 2019, an extension was given to complete this review of items from Hydro One that were outstanding. This report meets that mandate. SLR would be most pleased to make ourselves available should any issues arise in future.

Thank you for allowing us to have been of service, please contact the undersigned should you or other reviewers have any questions.

SLR 3 CONFIDENTIAL Page 165 Municipality of Clarington SLR Project No.: 209.40261.00000 CLARINGTON TRANSFORMER STATION - PEER REVIEW September 24, 2020 SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

Yours sincerely, SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd.

Steven Usher, M.Sc., P.Eng., P.Geo., FGS Dale Leadbeater, B.Sc., B.Ed., P.Biol., R.P.Bio. Principal Hydrogeologist, Principal Ecologist Project Manager

SJU/DAL:su

SLR 4 CONFIDENTIAL Page 166

Staff Report

If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.

Report To: Planning and Development Committee

Date of Meeting: October 5, 2020 Report Number: PSD-038-20

Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development

Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#:

File Number: ZBA2020-0017 By-law Number:

Report Subject: Part Lot Control application to deem two blocks in a registered plan of subdivision to no longer be blocks for the purpose of melding them into one block. Recommendations:

1. That Report PSD-038-20 be received;

2. That the application by Baseline Properties Ltd. requesting Council pass a by-law to deem Blocks 4 and 5 on Plan 10M-831 to no longer be within a registered plan of subdivision be approved and that the by-law contained in Attachment 1 to Report PSD-038-20 be passed;

3. That the Durham Regional Planning and Economic Development Department and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation be forwarded a copy of Report PSD-038-20 and Council’s decision; and

4. That all interested parties listed in Report PSD-038-20 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision.

Page 167 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-038-20

Report Overview

Baseline Properties Ltd. submitted an application for Part Lot Control requesting that Blocks 4 and 5 on Plan 10M-831 no longer to be within a registered plan of subdivision. The purpose of this request is to merge the two blocks into a single parcel of land to enable the applicant’s development proposal.

1. Background

1.1 Owner/Applicant: Baseline Properties Ltd. (Hannu Halminen)

1.2 Proposal: To deem Blocks 4 and 5 on Plan 10M-831 to no longer

be within a registered plan of subdivision

1.3 Area: 3.58 hectares (8.86 acres)

1.4 Location: 270 and 290 Lake Road (See Figure 1)

1.5 Roll number: 18-17-020-130-02615

1.6 Within Built Boundary: Yes

2. Background

2.1 An application for Part Lot Control has been received from Baseline Properties Ltd. requesting that Council pass a by-law to deem Blocks 4 and 5 on Plan 10M-831 to no longer be within a registered plan of subdivision. The purpose of this request is to merge the two blocks into a single parcel of land to enable the applicant’s development proposal. The applicant has previously developed Block 5 (290 Lake Road) with 10 self-storage warehouse buildings and an accessory office building. They are now proposing to develop an additional seven self-storage warehouse buildings on Block 4 (270 Lake Road). One of the proposed buildings straddles the lot line between the two blocks, which would not longer meet setback requirements in the zoning by-law. The approval of the deeming by-law would permit the construction of this building and improve the overall circulation within the two blocks.

2.2 For ease of understanding Figure 1 below is the existing subdivision plan with Blocks 4 and 5 and Figure 2 would be the existing and proposed development should Council approve the deeming by-law.

Page 168 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-038-20

Figure 1- Subject lands

Page 169 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-038-20

Figure 2 - Existing and proposed development 3. Land Characteristics

3.1 The subject lands are two industrial blocks on the north side of Lake Road abutting Highway 401. The most easterly parcel, 290 Lake Road is developed with ten self- storage warehouse buildings and an accessory office building. The westerly parcel, 270 Lake Road, is vacant and ready for the development of an additional seven self-storage warehouse buildings. One building is proposed to straddle the lot line between the two parcels.

3.2 The surrounding uses are as follows:

Page 170 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-038-20 North – Highway 401 South – Industrial development and vacant land for industrial development East – Industrial development West – Vacant land for industrial development industrial development 4. Discussion

4.1 The zoning regulations require that buildings be set back a minimum distance from the lot lines. The Owner wishes to merge the two blocks as the two blocks are planned to ultimately function as one development. In order for the abutting blocks within a registered subdivision to merge, the Municipality may enact a by-law under subsection 50(4) of the Planning Act to deem the blocks or lots to no longer be within a registered subdivision. Once abutting lots are under the same ownership and are not within a registered subdivision, they are said to “merge” and can no longer be conveyed separately.

4.2 Baseline Properties Ltd. has requested the Council enact such a by-law with the result that Blocks 4 and 5 of 10M-831, municipally known as 270 and 290 Lake Road would merge. The subject properties and proposed development are shown in Figure 1.

4.3 The purpose of enacting the Deeming By-law is to deem the parcels to not be blocks (lots) within registered subdivision. This would allow the blocks to be treated as one single block for site planning purposes (Figure 2). Merging the two lots will facilitate the development of Phase 2 of Lakeside Storage. Specifically, it will allow the construction of a building on what is currently the property line between the two parcels. It will also allow municipal water service to be extended from Phase 1, the existing development, to the proposed Phase 2 for fire protection purposes. The Region of Durham, the authority for municipal water and sanitary services requires each lot or block to be individually serviced by municipal water or sanitary sewer from the road allowance and does not allow service connections across abutting private properties. Merging the property will avoid a second connection.

4.4 If further approvals are required under the Planning Act, appropriate applications will need to be submitted if required. The resulting merged block has a lot area of approximately 3.58 hectares (8.86 acre) and a lot frontage of 235.97 meters (774 ft). The lands are currently located within the Light Industrial (M1) Zone in the Zoning By- law which requires a minimum lot frontage of 30 m (98.4 ft) and minimum lot area of 2000 sq.m. (0.5 acres).

Page 171 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-038-20 4.5 Plan of Subdivision 10M-831 was registered November 7, 1989, and all obligations of the subdivision agreement have long since been fulfilled. Staff have also confirmed that the merger of the properties is not expected to have an adverse impact on the assessed value of the property. The Planning and Development Services Department has no concerns with the request and recommends Council pass a Deeming By-law for the parcels located at 270 and 290 Lake Road. The staff recommendation is based on the specific circumstances of these properties.

4.6 Staff may have a had a different view if, for example, the lots had been within a residential plan of subdivision. It should be noted that the only way the land may be divided in the future would be through the Consent application process. If Council agrees to the request to merge the two abutting lots, and approves a Deeming By-law, the By-law does not require Public Notice or a Public Meeting prior to the passing of the By-law, nor is there an appeal period. 5. Concurrence

5.1 This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Solicitor who concurs with the recommendation. 6. Conclusion

6.1 In consideration of staff review and comments regarding this application, it is recommended that the application be approved, and the by-law contained in Attachment 1 be adopted.

Staff Contact: Cynthia Strike, Manager, Development Review, 905-623-3379 x 2410 or [email protected].

Attachments:

Attachment 1 – Deeming By-law

Interested Parties:

The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:

Baseline Properties Ltd

Page 172 Attachment 1 to Report PSD-038-20

The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington

By-law Number 2020-______

Being a By-Law to deem Blocks 4 & 5 on Plan 10M-831, Bowmanville, Municipality of Clarington, no longer to be lots on a Registered Plan of Subdivision

WHEREAS Subsection 50(4) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, provides that the council of a municipality may designate a plan of subdivision or part thereof that has been registered for eight years or more, which shall be deemed not to be a registered plan of subdivision for the purpose of conveying land under Subsection 50 of the Act;

AND WHEREAS Plan 10M-831 in the Municipality of Clarington was registered in the Office of Land Titles Division of Newcastle, Ontario, more than eight years prior to the date of passing of this By-law;

AND WHEREAS Council is satisfied that this by-law is reasonably required for the orderly development of the property;

Now Therefore Be It Resolved That the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows:

1. Blocks 4 and Block 5 on Plan 10M-831, Municipality of Clarington, Region of Durham are deemed to no longer be lots on a registered plan of subdivision.

2. That this By-law shall come into effect on the date it is enacted by the Municipality of Clarington.

By-law passed in open session this ______day of ______, 2020

______Adrian Foster, Mayor

______C. Anne Greentree, Municipal Clerk

Page 173

Staff Report

If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.

Report To: Planning and Development Committee

Date of Meeting: October 5, 2020 Report Number: PSD-039-20

Submitted By: Faye Langmaid, Acting Director of Planning and Development

Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO By-law Number:

File Number: PLN 41.14 Resolution#:

Report Subject: Responding to the delegation by Mr. Hugh Allin regarding the North Village Secondary Plan Recommendation:

1. That Report PSD-039-20 be received for information.

Page 174 Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report PSD-039-20

Report Overview

This report outlines the process that led to the urban boundary expansion in north Newcastle in 1996. The potential implications for farm operations in the area will be investigated and addressed through an Agricultural Impact Assessment as part of the North Village Secondary Plan project which is current underway.

Land use policy must balance the preservation of existing farm operations with the needs of growth. This interface is most acutely realized at the urban / rural boundary of our communities.

1. Background

1.1 Mr. Hugh Allin appeared as a delegation to the Planning and Development Committee on May 19, 2020. He spoke about the perceived land use conflicts between his former livestock farm and the development proposed for the North Newcastle Secondary Plan. Although Mr. Allin’s livestock barns at 3574 Concession Road 3 are currently empty he is concerned about restarting his hog operation due to potential conflicts with future homeowners. Mr. Allin noted that previously moving the urban boundary of Newcastle to Concession Road 3 ignored the Provincial standards intended for the protection of agriculture.

1.2 The Planning and Development Committee referred Mr. Allin’s concerns for a report by staff in Resolution # PD-058-20:

That the delegation of Hugh Allin be referred to staff to report back on the delegation and, in particular, whether the MDS 1 requirement should have been applied when the settlement boundary was expanded. 2. History of the Urban Boundary Expansion

2.1 Until the creation of the Clarington Official Plan in 1996, long range planning for lands in Newcastle were outlined in the Durham Regional Official Plan.

2.2 As part of the Region’s Official Plan Review process in 1991 the urban boundary of Newcastle was proposed to be expanded north from the CPR tracks to Concession Road 3. At the time, the northern part of that expansion was deferred (Deferral D5 – See Figure 1) at the request of the Province. Two reasons were given for the deferral:

 To maintain the Minimum Distance Separation between the proposed residential lands (designated “Living Areas”) and an existing farm operation to the north (Mr. Allin’s hog farm, at the time); and

Page 175 Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report PSD-039-20



Figure 1: Deferral D5 in the Durham Regional Official Plan

 To await justification for expanding the Newcastle Urban Boundary.

2.3 The rest of the Region’s Official Plan was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) in 1993.

2.4 Following the approval of the Durham Regional Official Plan, Clarington began the process to create their first Official Plan. As part of the background studies done for the Clarington Official Plan, a land budget analysis was completed that forecasted future growth and identified how much land would be needed to accommodate growth. Based on the analysis, it was determined that the lands in north Newcastle (covered by Deferral D5) would be required as residential land to accommodate future growth.

2.5 The remaining concern was how to address the Minimum Distance Separation (the setback between residential lands and farm operations). It was determined by MMAH, the Region of Durham and Clarington that the Clarington Official Plan would contain a

Page 176 Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report PSD-039-20 policy to constrain development at the northeast end of the expanded Newcastle urban area. This policy constraint was intended to create an “area of influence” from the ongoing farm operations at the Allin hog farm on the future residential lands.

2.6 As a result of this consensus, the new Clarington Official Plan designated the lands south of Concession Road 3 as “Urban Residential” with the exception of an area of influence extending outward from the Allin hog farm, which was designated “Future Urban Residential” and identified as “Special Policy Area H” now G. The effect of this policy was to prevent the impacted lands from being developed until the hog farm ceased operation in the future (See Figure 2).

Figure 2: Special Policy Area H within the Clarington Official Plan

2.7 Having satisfied the concerns related to Deferral D5, MMAH lifted the deferral to the Durham Region Official Plan and approved the expansion of the Newcastle Urban Area boundary to Concession Road 3 with the inclusion of the Future Urban Residential designation and Special Policy Area H, as discussed above.

Page 177 Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report PSD-039-20 3. Agricultural Code of Practice and Minimum Distance Separation

3.1 The concept of controlling the separation of livestock barns from other potentially incompatible land uses originated in Ontario in 1970. At the time that the Newcastle urban boundary expansion was being considered, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) was transitioning from the Agricultural Code of Practice to revised documents titled Minimum Distance Separation (MDS I and MDS II). MDS I is the document that became applicable in the case of the Newcastle boundary expansion to Concession Road 3.

3.2 The Agricultural Code of Practice discouraged residential development near farms. MDS I did not require a separation distance from existing livestock barns to new dwellings located inside an approved urban area, however it was applicable to the expansion of urban areas. The Agricultural Code of Practice and MDS I Guidelines enabled Mr. Allin to operate a hog farm on his property using his existing facilities. To satisfy the requirements of MDS I the Future Urban Residential Designation and Special Policy Area H were put in place for the expanded Newcastle Urban Boundary to Concession Road 3. As a result, the tool for regulating the protection of existing agricultural operations shifted from MDS to Official Plan land use policy. The application of MDS remained applicable to properties outside of the urban boundary. 4. Clarington Official Plan Review Process

4.1 In 2007, Clarington began the Official Plan Review process to update the Clarington Official Plan originally approved in 1996. During the Clarington Official Plan Review, the Region of Durham approved Regional Official Plan Amendment 128 (ROPA 128). ROPA 128 was required for the Region of Durham to conform with the Provincial Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan. The changes made by ROPA 128 were intended to accommodate the population and employment forecasts mandated by the Growth Plan, meet density targets, and address urban land needs. This exercise and the population forecasts for the Newcastle urban area supported the need for the lands in north Newcastle for future growth.

4.2 During the Official Plan Review, Special Policy Area H (renamed Special Policy Area G due to the removal of another Special Policy Area) was re-evaluated to determine its relevance. Staff observed that Mr. Allin’s hog farm was not in operation. It remained a priority of the Official Plan Review to support the farming community by requiring mitigation between urban and rural interfaces on the urban side of the boundary. Residential development into new areas of the community would be preceded by detailed Secondary Plans. As a result, one of the background studies required for new Secondary Plans that border on rural areas is an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). Therefore, although the Special Policy Area was deleted from the Official Plan through

Page 178 Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report PSD-039-20 Amendment 107 the intended protection remains within the Secondary Plan review process.

23.3.9. Secondary Plans shall implement the policies of this Plan and the Durham Regional Official Plan policies for Secondary Plans, in particular:

h) The measures to mitigate the potential conflicts between the development and existing agricultural uses;

23.3.10 The following background studies and analyses are generally required in support of new Secondary Plans:

h) An assessment of potential impact on adjacent agricultural operations and recommendations for mitigation;

4.3 The AIA prepared for a Secondary Plan will identify any agricultural / urban activities that may result in future conflicts and provide potential solutions.

4.4 Through OPA 107 in 2017, Special Policy Area G and the “Future Urban Residential” designations were removed from the lands in north Newcastle. This had a two-fold effect:

a. It confirmed the need for the lands to be developed to meet 2031 population projections; and

b. Deferred responsibility for reviewing and mitigating impacts on surrounding agricultural operations to the Secondary Planning process. This decision was supported by Clarington Council through the adoption of OPA 107 and Durham Region with their approval of OPA 107. 5. North Village Secondary Plan Process

5.1 Planning for the North Village Secondary Plan (North Village) will be in conformity with Provincial policies. Part of the planning for North Village includes an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) that will review and recommend mitigation measures to reduce potential conflicts between urban and rural land uses. This includes all agricultural operations within the area.

5.2 The North Newcastle Village Secondary Plan was initiated by a Public Meeting on April 1, 2019. The first Public Information Centre was held on November 21, 2019, which was an open house to introduce the project to the public and begin generating feedback.

Page 179 Municipality of Clarington Page 7 Report PSD-039-20 5.3 Work is underway on Phase One of the background studies for the Secondary Plan including technical reports and an illustrated analysis of opportunities and constraints.

5.4 Included in the background technical reports is an Agricultural Impact Assessment (AIA). The intent of this report is to:

 Determine any potential adverse physical and operational impacts of the proposed uses described in the Secondary Plan;  An assessment of potential alternatives to land use configurations that avoid/mitigate impacts to OP designated agricultural areas; and  Recommendations for mitigation/avoidance measures that are to be incorporated within the Secondary Plan.

5.5 The initial AIA will contain a review of agricultural land uses surrounding the project area, and applicable planning policies and regulations. The AIA report will continue to be updated throughout the course of the Secondary Plan to respond to the specific land use plans as they are developed. The AIA will not be finalized until late in the Secondary Plan process. In addition to the broad scope the AIA will provide, it will also include a specific analysis of the concerns raised by Mr. Allin. These concerns include:

 What is needed for either the current or future owner to operate this farm as a hog operation again in the future?  What are the potential impacts from the approval of the North Village Secondary Plan on the future viability of a hog operation on the subject lands?

5.6 The North Village Secondary Plan process will include several events to actively seek public input. These events include:

 Initial Public Meeting – Authorize to commence project – Completed  Public Information Centre #1 – Introduce the project and goals – Completed  Public Information Centre #2 – Present technical background reports – Fall 2020  Public Information Centre #3 – Present alternative land use plans – TBD  Open House – Present preferred land use plan  Statutory Public Meeting – Present draft Secondary Plan

5.7 The North Village Secondary Plan review is expected to take two years to complete. During the process there will be multiple opportunities for the public to provide feedback and comments. At the conclusion of the review, a recommended plan will be presented to Clarington Council. The Secondary Plan when adopted by Council will then be forwarded to the Region of Durham for final approval.

Page 180 Municipality of Clarington Page 8 Report PSD-039-20 6. Summary

6.1 The expansion of the urban boundary of Newcastle to Concession Road 3 was approved based on a land needs assessment and the creation of policies in the Clarington Official Plan that would continue to protect existing farm operations. The land use policy changes introduced by the updated Clarington Official Plan, including the removal of the Special Policy Area G, did not have a direct impact on Mr. Allin’s ability to continue to operate a hog operation from his existing barns.

6.2 As part of the review of the North Village Secondary Plan an Agricultural Impact Assessment will be prepared to evaluate potential conflicts between urban and rural land uses. As the Secondary Plan progresses, additional information on potential mitigation measures will be identified.

6.3 Mr. Allin has acknowledged that he voluntarily depopulated his hog stock. As a result, the property at 3574 Concession Road 3 has not been used as a hog farm for quite some time. However, Mr. Allin or a subsequent owner, currently maintain the ability to restart a hog operation if they wish to do so. However, it must be noted that future expansion of livestock operations on the subject lands must comply with all applicable policies and regulations (e.g. MDS).

6.4 Mr. Allin may continue to use his property under the permissions provided by the Zoning By-law. His property is zoned, in part, “Agricultural (A)” which permits farm operations including the keeping of livestock. Any renovations or expansions to the existing livestock facilities will be subject to the relevant Provincial policies, Ontario Building Code, Zoning requirements and respective industry standards (i.e. Ontario Pork). 7. Concurrence

7.1 Not Applicable. 8. Conclusion

8.1 It is respectfully recommended that this report be received for information.

Staff Contact: Paul Wirch, Senior Planner, 905-623-3379 ext. 2418 or [email protected].

Interested Parties:

The following interested parties will be notified of Council's decision:

Hugh Allin Corrine Turansky

Page 181