Municipality of Port Hope - eSolutionsGroupiblog.esolutionsgroup.ca/Uploads/2e7521f8-cefb-437b... · Final Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law (COW, June 22, 2010) Page 2 of 21 The

Municipality of Port Hope 56 Queen Street

Port Hope ON L1A 3Z9

REPORT TO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: Ron Warne, Director of Planning and Development Services SUBJECT: Comprehensive Zoning By-law (Final Draft) DATE: June 16, 2010

RECOMMENDATION: That staff be directed to review any correspondence and comments received at the June 22, 2010 Public Meeting, make any necessary final revisions to the draft By-law 20/2010, and forward By-law 20/2010 as a new Municipal-wide Zoning By-law for Council’s consideration. BACKGROUND

In order to implement the Municipality’s first comprehensive Official Plan, the Municipality has initiated the first comprehensive Zoning By-law review for the Municipality of Port Hope. The final draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL) comes as a result of a detailed review of the three existing Zoning By-laws (i.e. 2857/73, 3035 and 3350), Official Plan policies, best practices from across the Province and new Provincial policies. The end product CZBL is an important technical document that reflects the most current and up-to-date zoning standards and environmentally sustainable practices in the land use planning field that are acceptable to the Municipality of Port Hope.

The Municipality selected Meridian Planning Consultants (Meridian) to conduct the comprehensive review, commencing in September 2008. Since the initial stages, Meridian has regularly met with staff to provide updates and discuss zoning and mapping options for the CZBL. In addition, Meridian and municipal staff hosted two public open houses (June 24, 2009 at the Municipal Offices in Canton and also in the Town Hall Council Chambers) in order to solicit comments regarding the CZBL, a subsequent Public Meeting was held on January 19, 2010. At the Public Meeting, Committee directed Planning and Development Staff to review any final correspondence and comments received at the Public Meeting and proceed with the final step of the CZBL review program and prepare a final Zoning By-law for the Municipality for Council’s consideration.

Final Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law (COW, June 22, 2010) Page 1 of 21


The final draft By-law represents the fifth version of By-law and includes revisions made as a result of the comments received from the Public, external agencies, staff and Council (an itemized list of all comments, as well as corresponding staff response, has been included as an Attachment to this report for reference). DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING BY-LAW Some of the key elements of this first Municipal-wide Zoning By-law include:

• Updated and expanded permitted uses in Employment and Commercial zones to assist in stimulating economic development opportunities;

• Streamlined zoning provisions and standards where possible to simplify the regulatory framework;

• Improved layout, function, clarity of By-laws to create a user-friendly, easy to administer document;

• New provisions on alternative energy (solar panels, geo-thermal and wind turbines) have been included in the By-law to guide Green Energy Act-related developments;

• Provisions for decks and porches have been introduced; • Number of site-specific exceptions reduced to one-third of current total; • Parking requirements updated and reduced to more common standards (will assist regarding development opportunities in Municipality); • Introduction of standards for drive-thrus, bicycle parking, etc.; and, • Significantly improved mapping (more user friendly, improved accuracy and

advanced mapping of significant environmental features). COMMENTS As noted above, the comments and corresponding staff responses to the earlier drafts of the CZBL, as well as the two open houses held in June 2009 were detailed in previous staff reports (notably staff reports dated November 10, 2009 and January 13, 2010) and have been included as an Attachment to this report. In addition, staff provides an elaboration on comments in response to three particular issues: the Centre Pier, the Dale Road Ratepayers and the S/V/G Lands. Firstly, the Centre Pier and the staff response to comments from “The Pier Group” as they pertain to the proposed zoning of the Centre Pier to the “OS” Open Space Zone. Staff are satisfied that the proposed final draft Zoning By-law is consistent with the direction from Council as provided through the Municipality of Port Hope Official Plan and the Consolidated Waterfront Master Plan (CWMP), noting the following:

• None of the Centre Pier buildings have been designated under Part IV of the

Heritage Act ;


• In conjunction with the Port Hope Waterfront Update (a Public process involving several workshops) it was recommended that the Centre Pier is envisioned as a multi-purpose open space following the LLRW remediation activities. The final report from the Planning Partnership was endorsed by Council (Resolution 72/2002); and,

• By Council Resolution 85/2009 the CWMP was adopted by Council as the

“overall long-term vision for the future of the waterfront area within the Municipality of Port Hope”.

Secondly, regarding the Dale Road Ratepayers and the opportunity for future development of the lands bounded by Highway 401, Highway 28, Dale Road and Toronto Road. Staff reiterate that the “next step” to achieving future development of these lands on full Municipal servicing lies in convincing the Province (in particular MMAH and MEI) that the lands should be no longer considered as “Prime Agricultural” and should be re-designated for future development and Municipal servicing. The Provincial Growth Plan has allocated somewhat limited growth to Northumberland County and the Municipality of Port Hope, and has policy noting urban serviced expansion may only happen when the Municipality (resulting from a Municipal-lead study) can prove than such an expansion is warranted to meet the population and employment growth projections stipulated in the Growth Plan beyond vacant lands already available within the existing urban area (regardless of whether or not they are for sale or being actively marketed). At this point, there is no further role for Municipal staff on the matter until land owners are ready to meet with the Province and have a land use case to discuss; however, when and if this is the case, staff would be pleased to facilitate a meeting with the appropriate Provincial staff members. And thirdly, the S/V/G Group of land owners located to the west of the current urban boundary and municipally-serviced area. Staff note that, at the request of legal Counsel for these landowners, these collective lands (as identified on Schedule “B” – Sheet 15 of the draft CZBL) have been removed (or deferred) from the final draft pending the completion of the OMB Hearing pertaining to this matter. Of note, these subject lands then revert back to Zoning By-law 3350 which, as amended, zones the majority of these lands as “RU” – Rural. CIRCULATION Subsequent to all previous notification regarding prior drafts of the CZBL discussed at the Open Houses and Public Meeting earlier in the CZBL review process, this latest version of the CZBL was circulated to Council and the Public in the following manner (see chart on following page):


April 14 Council were notified of upcoming Public Meeting (originally scheduled for June 1st) to consider final draft of the CZBL

June 2 Notification of Public Meeting placed on Municipal website; mailed (or e-mailed) to all persons requesting notification from previous Public Meeting in January; and, provided to local newspapers (June 4th, 11th and 18th editions)

June 11 Final draft version of CZBL packages provided to each member of Council, and available to Public on Municipal website (paper copies available at both Town Hall and Canton offices)

CONCLUSION Throughout the review process in conjunction with the CZBL there has been abundant opportunity and time for Council, external agencies and the Public to review this important document to help guide the future development of the Municipality. This final draft document provides Council the opportunity to finally replace the current antiquated and counter-productive Zoning By-laws which are currently holding back the Municipal initiative of being truly Open for Business. Staff will consider any final comments (verbal and/or written) provided during the second Public Meeting (and will make any adjustments deemed appropriate, and provide any further clarification required by Council), prior to recommending the final version of Zoning By-law 20/2010 for consideration on the June 29, 2010 Council agenda. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by, _____________________________ Ron Warne, M.A., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Development Services Municipality of Port Hope Attachment: Comprehensive Zoning By-law: Collective Council, Public &

Agency Comments

Attachment: Comprehensive Zoning By-law: Collective Council, Public & Agency Comments (Staff Response to Comments from Circulation, Open Houses and Public Meeting)

Name Address Comments Staff Response and

Recommended By-law Revision Arnie Smith 312 Ridout The Pier: What an opportunity for Port Hope! Can we not come together and be

creative in our use of the pier lands? The building & surrounding land could be such a money-speirmen for Port Hope. Consider the uses being made around the world of “brown lands!” Liverpool Docks were saved and now are a huge attraction for the riverside. Possible Issues: Outdoor flea market, La Marche au Puce de Port Hope. Miniature Museum; Artist-in-residence studios (glass, jewellery etc); outdoor skating rink – I can smell the hot cider and cookies ☺; skate-board area; marine supply etc. etc, fishing/bird museum, history of Port Hope museum. The green space surrounding the buildings could be a showcase for landscape design (how about a competition), natural green space (Ontario wild flowers & plants); paddling pool for little kidlets, giant checker board, small checker boards, & chess boards on tables, - oh and a fantastic kids entertainment area ala Ontario Place. Just a few ideas. Maybe not all are possible – but one thing is certain – pull down the buildings & certainly nothing will be possible! Don’t let lack of funding stop you – think creatively.

• Council direction for the Centre Pier has been provided through the Consolidated Waterfront Master Plan (CWMP)

Patricia Doney 10 Armour St I am appalled that By-laws can be changed so easily when needed. When I questioned the by-laws regarding the building next to my property there was absolutely no way changes could be made. (according to Building Dept). The Pier Building should stay & be utilized to enhance the waterfront. A large percentage of town feel this way.

• Revisions to Municipal Zoning By-laws are a Public process as prescribed under Section 34 of the Planning Act

Eileen Ford 36 Bloomsgrove Ave 905-885-1007

I feel that counsel is running this town without any input from the people in this town. Regardless of the large group of people in this town who want to save the pier you are determined to take it down. There should be a vote on the issue and if the majority want the pier to stay it should be retained.




Name Address Comments St ff Response and a

Recommended By-law Revision Dan Thomey 6351 Dale Rd

Port Hope, L1A 3V5 905-885-9844

I need to evaluate what growth is available in town and comment on what I find. I need a 2006 Growth Management Study on disk for my file so I can examine in depth. – Thanks

• Requested info has been provided

Lynda Gowling 2914 Cornish Hollow Rd Cobourg, K9A 4J9 [email protected]

I found this open house extremely helpful – it answered many questions concerning the new zones and official plan.

• Staff are pleased to provide service

None given Why have the buildings disappeared from the centre pier? It is a huge area and plenty of room for parkland as well as exciting uses for the existing buildings.


Lynda Deveau & Evelyn Vander Mey

3069 County Rd 10, Welcome 905-753-1062

Well informed representatives especially “Joe”. Many thanks for your patience. • Municipal staff and consultants are pleased to provide any assistance

Rowant Hunnison 55 King St 905-885-6617

Why not Pier Building facing turn basin East side as parkland. Why do we not have a planning board or planning advisory board or committee? Is this open house lip service?


The Pier Group From Chris Wallace, Co-Chair, The Pier Group

4476 County Rd 10, Port Hope, ON L1A 3V5 950-753-1122

• Wishes to register its strong opposition to certain aspects of the new draft zoning bylaw.

• Rezoning of the Centre Pier: feels it’s a step towards demolishing the Pier Buildings, and directly contradicts those provisions of the OP that require Council to protect the “Cultural heritage assets of the community”

• Rezoning of residential streets adjacent to downtown: 2 residential streets have been inappropriately rezoned as commercial-the south end of John St(beyond the post office) and the south end of King St., (beyond the railway viaducts)

• Urban design potential: the new OP and ZBL form a basis for “planning by

• None of the CP buildings have been designated under Part IV of the Heritage Act

• While staff are not aware of a report which actually recommends that the CP buildings must be demolished, as a result of the Port Hope Waterfront Update (a Public process involving several workshops) it was recommended to Council that the CP is envisioned as a mutli-

mailto:[email protected]




Recommended By-law Revision developer”, with no pro-active planning for the benefit of this community and no recognition or protection of the character of downtown Port Hope.

• Recommends forming a committee to provide an overview of all planning issues in the central waterfront with real accountability

• Recommends that a comprehensive urban design study be taken of the areas between the downtown core and the water’s edge

• Recommends changes to the draft ZBL: a holding designation placed on the lands in question until issues can be resolved.

purpose open space following the LLRW remediation activities. The final report from the Planning Partnership was accepted in principle by Council (Resolution 72/2002).

• In conjunction with the PHAI, and at the direction of Council, Cameco has agreed to remove the CP buildings at the completion of their lease of the buildings

• By Council Resolution, no land use proposals will be considered by Council until 1 year after the LLRW clean up exercise is complete

Heritage Port Hope Advisory Committee

• Concerned that if the referenced draft By-law is adopted in its present form, it will not support the Municipality’s heritage

• Does not contain any provision for protecting the heritage features of the Municipality

• May allow inappropriate infill in designated areas. • Inconclusive discussion of where the matter could be suitably addressed in the

document, although it was agreed by all parties that suitable protection should be included

• Respectfully requests that the By-law draft be revised to include appropriate measures to better protect existing heritage buildings and neighbourhoods, as well as the 2 Heritage Conservation Districts

• Research has revealed some appropriate phrases and statements that could be considered for insertion into the new By-law – pleased to share this information with you.

• Staff feel that the policies and direction provided not only in the Official Plan, but also the Heritage Conservation District Plans for the Municipality, offer appropriate protection to heritage buildings and areas within the Municipality

• The requirement of “Heritage Permits” and

Heritage Impact Studies (in accordance with the PPS) allow for appropriate review by Heritage Advisory Committee on applicable development applications and Building Permits

• The draft by-law offers several exceptions in

the new “COM3” zone (downtown area) which help to define & maintain the heritage districts



Recommended By-law Revision (i.e. minimum building heights, no drive-thrus permitted)

Mr. Phil Goldsmith, OAA, RAIC, CAHP

46 Dorset St E • Time to go beyond the use of zoning as an urban design tool • Urban design study should be undertaken to develop a more specific vision of

growth of the Ward 1 community, building upon and influencing (changing perhaps) the official plan and zoning bylaw to be consistent

• Needed in main approach routes of Toronto Rd and Peter St • Planning is car dependent • High density residential areas are scattered aroung Ward 1 without apparent

relationship to employment zones • No employment zones to the west • No references to mixed use zones • Do not see any minimum height standards, just maximum • Will further encourage one storey “big box” strip commercial or light industrial

style buildings • Inconsistent with the historic 2-4 storey nature of the town’s commercial areas • Feels the area north and south of hwy 2/Peter St should be reserved for mid-high

density residential with mixed use along hwy 2/Peter st. • Moving east-end industry north, adding west-end employment zones and

encouraging north spur lines off the railway would move it away from sensitive environmental areas near the lake – making them more desirable areas available in the long term to be higher density residential with environmentally sensitive areas as open space and waterfront parks along the lake.

• Concerned that there is so little difference between A-agricultural and RU-rural zones

• Concerned so much land has been zoned RU which implies non agricultural uses • Not a sustainable “green” way of looking at these types of areas • Should encourage more compact and dense “village” attitude in the existing

hamlets and a scattering of uses along the country roads in Ward 2 discouraged • Increasing residential, mixed use, commercial and employment zones to create

• Staff understand the critical importance of Design Guidelines and have begun requiring a higher level of urban design through the development application process in accordance with Bill 51 to amend the Planning Act

• Draft zoning By-law does require a minimum

7.5 m building height in the COM3 (downtown) zone, consistent with the historical commercial core

• Zones provided in the draft By-law MUST be in

conformity with Official Plan designations • Council direction for the Centre Pier has been

provided through the Consolidated Waterfront Master Plan (CWMP)



Recommended By-law Revision functional “villages” out of long established hamlets, would go a long way to preserving valuable agricultural land, make for more compact attractive urban form, be more sustainable and “green”

• Urban design studies and guidelines should shape and direct growth to achieve a better outcome in the villages

• Feel it is crucial that the new commercial in the area to the south of the municipal office building be of a 2-4 storey building form

• The pier would be a wonderful site for the intersection of urban core and recreational activity in a very open and green waterfront

• Zoning this area OSR or a special site specific zone would encourage recreational and other uses appropriate to a site like this

• These uses should be a mix of recreational based uses, such as indoor sports, or boating related activities; cafes, market place shops or market , arts and crafts, antiques “recreational shopping” type uses; marine workshops, storage, chandlery type uses; institutional, interpretive centre, gallery, musicological or other cultural uses and so no.

• The municipal waterfront plan includes a marina which is not permitted in an OS Zone and the yacht club on the pier would become non conforming

• An H-holding zone could be applied until such times as a site specific zoning is applied

• Zoning this area OS works against the preservation of the harbour-pier heritage and opportunities for exciting reuse and repurposing of the existing historic buildings

• King St. – south of Peter St. is designated commercial – should be designated residential with mixed-use residential/commercial on the low side of this same block along Mill Street

• John St S – designation changed to commercial – feels it should not be. • Believes Port Hope will face pressure to grow in the coming years from an

expanding GTA William Lambert 15 Bloomsgrove • Instead of evicting the firefighters museum, why not let them take over one of • Council direction for the Centre Pier has been



Recommended By-law Revision Ave 905-885-5122

the buildings permanently and create a museum we could all be proud of? • Can see no valid reason to tear down all these assets and turn the area into a

simple park which would be of limited value and would not attract visitors to Port Hope

• Many other possibilities exist that should be considered and publicly debated before any zoning change or demolition proceeds

provided through the Consolidated Waterfront Master Plan (CWMP)

Anne Shields [email protected]

• I object to the new zoning by-law on several grounds • Is an obvious device to facilitate the demolition of the Pier Buildings without

proper evaluation of their re-use potential • Rezoning in direct conflict with the land use provisions of the official plan, which

designates the Pier as “central commercial” the same as Walton Street • Official plan obligates council to protect and reserve all “cultural heritage

resources”


Bruce Mackay 151 Gardenia Ct Oshawa, ON L1G 3G6 905-576-1502

• Thanks the municipal staff and Joe Nethery for their helpful, courteous and informative answers

• He owns property in Port Hope - part 15, plan 9R-2104-purchased from the municipality of port hope.

• Feels it should be designated medium density residential to correspond to the property, north-westerly

• Staff have made he applicable revision

Agency Comments GRCA Greg Wells

• Section 4.14.2 – Reconstruction of a damaged building or structure: We would suggest wording be added to this section requiring that the structure be flood proofed, but only if technically practical and economically feasible.

• Section 4.36.3 – Lake Ontario Shoreline: We would suggest the addition of “a minimum of” 30 metres from the 72.9 metre G.S.C. elevation

• For the most part, staff agree with the GRCA’s comments and have made revisions accordingly

• Staff continue to work with consultants



• Part 10 – Permitted Uses and Zone Standards: To protect buffer zones adjacent to streams, we would recommend the addition of “site alteration and vegetation removal” to (2) in the special provisions of Table 10.1

• Part 13 – Holding Provisions. Holding provisions related to the GRCA: H3 deals with lands adjacent to wetlands, however no definition for adjacent is provided (ie. 30m, 120m) In addition, no lands on the schedules provided appear to have the H3 designation.

• Section 11.1 Environmental Protection Floodplain – EP-F What uses, buildings or structures would GRCA be willing to permit without a permit?: Conservation Authority regulations do not regulate uses, only physical works which qualify as development, interference or alteration. Any construction within the flood plain requires a permit under Ontario Regulation 168/06, in addition to any site alteration (i.e. fill placement, grading, excavation)

• Does the GRCA have a minimum elevation for openings used along the floodplain?: The minimum elevation for building openings changes as you move downstream along a watercourse. While the difference in elevation between the normal water level and the flood elevations may be similar, rivers flow down hill so the actual flood elevations drop accordingly as you move from headwater areas to the outlet of the river. CRCA does have flood elevations for all flood plains within the Municipality of Port Hope.

• Updated flood plain mapping was undertaken in 2006 for the area in Ward 1 south of Robertson Street to the mouth of the Ganaraska River. Drawing A (Ward 1) should be updated to reflect this change. A copy of the flood plain map has been enclosed. In the legend of the “proposed zones” schedules, beneath the EP-F designation is references Section 12.1 of the by-law. It is not clear why this section is referenced.

• The EP-W (Environmental Protection Wetlands) zone appears to only apply to Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW). In contrast, the Official Plan captures Provincially Significant, Locally Significant and those wetlands identified through the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) process in its designation. It is not clear why this zone would not also include all wetlands as identified in the Official Plan.

• The EP (Environmental Protection) will be a useful one to prohibit development on lands or portions of lands which the Conservation Authority considers sensitive or hazardous. Table 10.1 on page 115 outlines the permitted uses for the EP zone, and in clause (2) of the special provisions building and structures are omitted. In addition

and GRCA staff to fine- tune and ensure most up-to-date Environmental Protection & Wetland boundaries (Provincial & locally significant)

• Have added “site alteration” as not

permitted within the “EP” zone unless for flood or erosion control


we would request “site alteration” and “vegetation removal” be added to this clause, to keep these areas in their natural state.

• It does not appear as though any lands on either the Ward 1 or Ward 2 schedules circulated contain the EP zoning. Would the Municipality consider applying this zone to the lands around identified watercourses, or alternatively an overlay (environmental constraint) zone to identify them as a constraint? The GRCA now regulates all lands adjacent to watercourses, so at a minimum this would flag the need to obtain GRCA approval. While there is a minimum 30m setback from Lake Ontario shoreline, no corresponding setback from watercourses or the top of bank was included in the by-law. The municipality should consider minimum setbacks for both of these features.

• Two definitions in Part 3 may be strengthen or augment through consideration or inclusion of the following:

• Watercourse – this definition might be modified to read “an identifiable depression in the ground in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs.

• Stable top of bank: the definition provided for stable top of bank is really describing a “top of bank” as opposed to a “stable “ top of bank. Just because there is a transition between table land and sloping ground does not necessarily mean that it is stable. A stable slope is generally regarded to be 3:1 (horizontal units of measurement for each equal vertical unit). Perhaps a separate definition should be provided for stable top of bank, if this is needed at all. The following may be adequate for describing “Top of Bank”: the point at which the slope of a valley or shoreline meets the horizontal plain of the adjacent table-land.

• Section 4.36.4 should be amended to read “Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, all buildings and structures shall be set back a minimum of 30.0 metres from the 72.9 metre G.S.C. elevation. Further setbacks may be required by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority.

• Part 5 – Parking: this should include mention of safe access or safe parking, for lands within or being accessed through a flood plain. It could read “in accordance with Provincial standards to the satisfaction of the Municipality in consultation with the GRCA”

� Section 1.3 clause re: the Building Code

allows for CA regulation to be considered in the issuance of a Building Permit.


Public Meeting Comments – January 19th, 2010

Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Ltd. – Robert A. Dragicevic, MCIP, RPP Senior Principal

90 Eglinton Ave E, Suite 701, Toronto, M4P 2Y3 416-968-3511, [email protected]

• The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approvals of the Official Plan amendments have been carried forward in their entirety in the recently approved Official Plan. Our review of the proposed draft zoning by-law is intended to ensure that the same OMB approvals of the zoning by-law amendments would similarly be carried forward.

• Assembled comparative charts which contrast the OMB approvals with the proposed draft zoning by-law. There are a number of minor changes resulting from the format and style of the new by-law.

• Redner Subdivision: OSR(46) – a club house should be reinstated as a permitted use, as approved by the OMB

• RES3(47) – max number of dwelling units for the Med. Density Residential Zone should include all 41 units of Block 1, as per the OMB approved zoning by-law.

• Ferguson South Subdivision: COM1(54) – ‘convenience store’ is a permitted use of a ‘retail store’

• RES3(49) should include all 15 units of Block 7 • RES4(52) should include all 72 units of Block 9 • Ferguson Farm North East Subdivision: Public Use • Ferguson Farm North West Subdivision: Public Use • Penryn Park Subdivision: RES4(28) – the language of the draft zoning by-law is

confusing. • Permitted use of a ‘convenience store’ was not brought forward as a use for a

General Commercial Zone COM2(30) – WND assumes that a ‘convenience store’ is considered a permitted use of a ‘retail store’ and is permitted in the General Commercial Zone COM2(30)

• COM2(30) – under the site-specific exceptions table 12.1 – the existing OMB approved Zoning By-law regulations for Penryn Park, as approved by OMB Decision/Order 2292, should be applied, and these new restrictions should be removed

• OS-7 and OS-4 – the maximum height of a building was reduced from 14.0m to 3.7m; uncovered parking permissions approved under existing ZBL were modified under the draft – the OMB approved ZBL regulations should be applied.

• RES4(28) – likely a mistake by missing the “no” before the subject part.

• COM2(30 - OMB Decision/Order 2292 – no concern with removing the restrictions.

• While it has always been the intention of staff to carry forward the permissions approved by the OMB as they pertain to the AON Lands (no more and no less), staff have noted a few, generally minor, deviations from the OMB-approved Zoning By-laws that were not captured in the earlier draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law. These unintentional errors have been identified and have been corrected in the final version of the Zoning By-law.

• Staff have reviewed the draft Zoning By-law as it pertains to the AON Lands, in concert with a written submission from Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited (planning consultants acting on behalf of AON Inc.) and Meridian Planning (who have prepared a memo in response to the WND submission), and provide the following summary:

• Public Uses: • (Includes Ferguson Farm North East and North

West) • Specific “Public use” permissions were removed

and are now covered by a General Provision in Section 4.28. This provision requires that the use conform to the applicable zone standards,




• Request, on behalf of Aon Inc., that their firm be provided with written notification of any further public meeting of Council or any Committee with respect to the proposed draft Zoning By-law.

which was the effect of the previous structure. Will reply on General Provision instead.

• Final ZBL will restore park and school permissions where the permission was expressly stated;

• Redner: • Clubhouse prohibition has been applied in

error…revision to include as a permitted use in the final By-law. It remains the intent of staff and consultant to have all use permissions and zone standards shown on the C series of Schedules.

• The electronic version of the Redner special schedule showed a unit count of 35 for Block 1, while the paper copy shows 41 (to be corrected in the final By-law);

• Ferguson South: • While the “convenience store” use was not

carried forward, it is captured under the “retail store” definition (this is a By-law wide change).

• The electronic version of the Ferguson South special schedule showed unit counts of 15 for Block 17 and 62 for Block 9, while the paper copy shows 15 and 72, respectively (to be corrected in the final By-law).

• Penryn Park: • The word “No” should be restored to RES4 (28)

as it pertains to uncovered parking areas. • A single letter “n” is also showing in Exception

29. Appears to have been a typing error and


will be corrected. Similar comment on “retail store” definition including a “convenience store” (By-law wide revision).

• The 25% coverage cap should only be applying to Exception 28 (the residential lands, currently R5-7) and not Exception 29 (the commercial block…provision will be deleted from Exception 29).

• Exception 27 applies only to the current OS-4 exception. Exception 46 applies to the current OS-7-H exception. The maximum height in the OS-4 Zone is one storey and 3.7 m, as shown in the Exceptions Table. (The Exception 46 height reflects the 3 storey/14m standard).

• The “public school” permission and 10% lot reduction provision should be deleted from COM2(30).

• “Open storage” not permitted through its exclusion from Only Uses Permitted column.

• “Existing uses” to become legal non-conforming.

• Section 1.7 of By-law provides for 10% lot reduction on Plate A1 lands. Clause has been deliberately inserted into each exception, and will be added to Exception 27.

• Minimum lot area to be added to Exception 27 (from OS-4).

• Parking encroachment to be added to appropriate new row of Schedule C-4

• Additional Items: • The “multiple-unit dwelling” permissions are

added. The current definition of “townhouse


dwelling” in By-law 2587/73 would include condominium block townhouses. This additional use has been added in case the developer proposes such a project. The maximum unit counts provide a check against other development forms.

Meridian Planning Consultants Inc., Nick McDonald, MCIP, RPP

113 Collier St, Barrie, L4M 1H2 705-737-4512

• Memo to MPH staff dated Feb 2nd, 2010 – RE: new exception in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law that would have the effect of permitting an energy from waste plant.

• We have reviewed the Green Energy and Economy Act and have determined that since the facility may be accepting municipal waste that it is not exempt from the Planning Act. – the final by-law recommended for Council adoption will not include the special permission and exception requested by the Town

• Staff agree and the Final Draft Zoning By-law has been updated accordingly

Ontario Realty Corporation Anil Wijesooriya GM, Planning Survey Appraisal Professional Services / Senior Planner, Magdalena Sabat

1 Dundas St W, Suite 2000, Toronto, M5G 2L5 416-212-6183 [email protected] Senior Planner: 416-326-0912 or [email protected]

• Conducted preliminary review as it pertains to provincial property along Hope Street, and to hydro corridors.

• There is some ambiguity in terminology used in various sections of the By-law, specifically pertaining to multiple zones on one lot. – conflicts could be mitigated by using defined terminology such as “lot lines”

• Section 2.4 Determining Zone Boundaries – may be beneficial to include the statement below the list of provisions with respect to the intention of how the zone boundaries are meant to function, as a specific provision within this section. Also suggest revising the wording to provide a definite interpretation on multiple zones on one lot.

• The intent and functionality of the Environmental Protection (EP) zone is unclear. • An inconsistency item was identified where Parcel C,(as shown on attached map

to their submission – where Hope St and Ontario St meet approximately) is proposed to be zoned residential, while it is designated Open Space in the Official Plan.

• Boundaries follow streets, in our opinion, not lot lines.

• Multiple zones interpretation provided in Section 2.4(f).

• Hope/Ontario zoning carries forward current residential zoning, reflects current residential uses of the lot.

FoTenn Urban Planners & Designers Mike Keene, MCIP, RPP Senior

M. Keene: 613-542-5454 [email protected] J. Erasmus:

• We feel the provision in section 4.28.2 a), may impose undue constraints on the future development of electrical transmission infrastructure as potential development sites may not provide sufficient dimensions to meet the zone standards. In order to address this issue we suggest the following wording be added to Section 4.28.2: “Electricity transmission infrastructure need not comply

• Electricity transmission facilities included in definition of “infrastructure”.

• Removal of “notwithstanding” phrasing in 4.28.1(b) shall clarify intent of provision. “Nothing in ZBL shall prevent the use of any










Planner and Jordan Erasmus

416-327-8018 or [email protected]

with the minimum standards specified for the zone in which it is located.” • Section 4.28.2 also limits the height of electrical transmission infrastructure to

the minimum height standard prescribed within the zone provisions. To ensure the development of future electrical transmission infrastructure is able to occur to meet demand as needed we suggest adding Electrical Transmission Infrastructure to the list contained within Section 4.11 Height Exceptions.

land for infrastructure”. • Exception added to Section 4.11.

Aird & Berlis LLP Leo F. Longo Certified Specialist – Municipal Law, Local Government & Land Use Planning and Development

Direct: 416-865-7778, [email protected] Brookfield Place, 181 Bay St, Suite 1800, Box 754, Toronto, M5J 2T9, 416-863-1500

• Representing the landowners who compose the Stamm/Veltri/Gougoulias Group (S/V/G) whose lands are currently before the OMB with respect to an appeal of Port Hope’s Official Plan

• Respectfully requested that the proposed zoning for the S/V/G lands be deferred at this time to await the outcome of the OMB hearing respecting the appropriate OP designation which ought to be applied to those lands. – clients do not support the zoning proposed for their lands per the latest draft.

• Also has concerns respecting the proposed zoning of the AON/Penryn Park Estate lands. – opposed to the proposed RES1 and RES2 zones as shown on said lands. – this zoning is inconsistent with the historical development permissions which have applied to the development of those lands.

• No concerns with deferring the Zoning until the completion of the OMB Hearing pertaining to this matter (Although the draft By-law Zones the lands as they are actually designated today…the original designation in accordance with the Hope Twp. Official Plan)

• Concerns regarding AON lands have been addresses via other staff responses to Walker Nott & Meridian response to same. Detailed permissions specified in exceptions.

The Dale Road Ratepayers

6351 Dale Rd, L1A 3V5 905-885-9844 [email protected]

• There are no plans drawn up showing how the clean up of the 270,000 tonnes of nuclear contamination laced with arsenic will be done. The perception of our nuclear contamination within Ward 1 has made much of our vacant land un-saleable. – has negatively impacted the well being, employment and growth of Port Hope and continues to do so.

• Municipal Affairs needs to allow us to have new growth outside the existing Ward 1 boundaries. – we need the jobs and the tax base.

• Zoned industrial and commercial land in Ward 1 is now very limited and/or cost prohibitive

• Virgin land above the 401 cost less – needs to be developed for industrial lands • Build boundaries are not an issue – practical to put services north of the 401 hwy

using cut and cover underneath the Toronto Rd /401 bridge to put water service north to Welcome. The same technique can be used on Choate Rd. at the Ganaraska River/401 hwy bridge to run sewer pipes south connecting to existing lines on Cavan St.

• Services above the 401 will provide needed jobs.

• The “next step” to achieving future development of these lands on full Municipal servicing lies in convincing the Province (in particular MMAH and MEI) that the lands should be no longer considered as “Prime Agricultural” and should be re-designated for future development and Municipal servicing

• The Provincial Growth Plan has allocated

minimal growth to Northumberland County and the Municipality of Port Hope, and has policy noting urban serviced expansion may only happen when the Municipality (resulting from a Municipal-lead study) can prove than such an expansion is warranted to meet the population and employment growth projections stipulated









• Dale is already zoned an employment area but because of lack of services has attracted little industry. Council has reportedly indicated they would entertain a 50 acre commercial area above the Easton Service Center. Water and sewer are already above the 401 to Eastons. All that is needed is the zoning commitment by council to continue services to Dale for even more jobs.

• Recommendations: 1. Council take steps to re-zone the area north of the 401 – Council must

move towards re-zoning the area between the Hamilton Township line to the east, Dale Rd. to the north, and County Rd. #2 to the west to encourage industrial and commercial development.

2. Province must be convince north is our only choice – Council must forcefully recommend to the Ontario Govn’t and its representatives that the proposed re-zoning is essential to the healthy, affordable progressive evolution of the community of Port Hope.

in the Growth Plan beyond vacant lands already available within the existing urban area (regarding of whether or not they are for sale or being marketed)

• At this point, there is no further role for Municipal staff on the matter until land owners are ready to meet with the Province and have a land use case to discuss; however, when and if this is the case, staff would be pleased to facilitate a meeting with the appropriate individuals within the MMAH and MEI

Councillor Fudge • Notice of Motion That staff report the following to Council, with respect to the AON lands, at its next open meeting:

1. What authorization or direction, if any, did staff receive to direct the Minister to modify the Town’s Official Plan, as set out in the Minister’s letter of May 35, 2007? A copy of any authorization or direction issued prior to May 25, 2008 should be included in any response.

2. Was the giving of this direction to the Minister reported to Council, and if so, When? This report should include a copy of any such report.

3. Was any written planning rationale for the direction prepared prior to the direction being sent to the Minister?

4. Was a copy of the official plan policies submitted to the OMB prior to June, 2004, as required by the Board? If not, why not?

5. Does the zoning by-law for the AON lands conform with the policies submitted prior to June 2004 and the reasons for any changes to the zoning by-law?

6. What authorization was provided for the current language in the new consolidated Official Plan for the AON lands and who drafted the current language and inserted it into the new consolidated Council

• These questions and issues were addressed in detail in conjunction with the staff response to the “Notice of Motion” on the same topic (staff reports dated March 16, 2010 and April 27, 2010)

• In summation, there was no need for specific direction to be provided to staff on this matter, particularly considering that the final MMAH mod wording would be examined by the MMAH (as with all MMAH mods), that Council would subsequently have the opportunity to review, question and consider all MMAH mods as a policy revision to their OP and that the revision was to implement an OMB Decision beyond the jurisdiction of Council.


Approved Official Plan? Chris Wallace • Pier Goup -> consistency with OP as special policy area (minutes from meeting

in 2001); connection between downtown and waterfront is established in OWMP (Lakeland Place and CT); Planning advisory committee wanted?

• Staff reiterate that CWMP provides a clear and comprehensive vision for the future re-development of the waterfront area including the Centre Pier

Sanford Haskill • When will it be coming back…Feb?...appeal possible for REM site • Staff have revised the zoning for the REM site in accordance with the above-noted recommendation from Meridian

Phil Goldstein • Received notice as an interested party – King Street should have different zoning to ensure west side remains mix-use

• Zoning proposed is consistent with the OP designation for low density residential

Davidson Tate • Could there have bee a tracked changes version. • What are the zoning changes? • Site specific at request of owners of land (opportunity through this exercise) • “A” and “RU” – brown or white zones – zones are based on what?

• “A” and “RU” zones are based on application OP designation as Prime or General Agricultural lands

• Given the magnitude of revisions and the varying formats of the existing zoning by-law it was not practical or feasible to simply provide a “tracked changes” version

• Staff have revised the zoning for the REM site in accordance with the above-noted recommendation from Meridian

Mayor Linda Thompson

Pg 8– airport: refers to commercial airports - are their any comments/restrictions guidelines for private airports? - Permit a landing/airstrip in AG Zone?

Page 22 - Forest Management: why not refer to an approved Forest Mgmt Plan? Page 27 - Lot: is this defined then as a lot of record and it defines a conveyable

parcel of land? How does a lot not created through a severance, ie. A lot created by the Farm Financing Corporation, work? - update definition to include - is it defined correctly?

General Provisions: 4.1.3 - Shipping Containers – legal non conforming?

- not permitted in Ward 1 urban area.

• “Airport” definition to be deleted. Any interested developers shall be referred to the Federal Ministry of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

• Forest Management Plans are a separate process from zoning, coordinated by the County.

• If the lot created can be legally conveyed and registered, a Building Permit can be issued. Process is independent from zoning.

• Intent of provision is to prevent storage containers from being abandoned on urban properties. Any existing containers could be


4.4 - Communication Dishes: shall be attached to main building on the lot – if the post or tower is attached to the main building? - in rural area there are many towers at higher points or barns silos

etc. that would not be considered the main building. - Rural area – they sit on posts - Urban can exclude accessory structure.

Prohibited uses: 4.27.1 - a trailer for use other than a campground – minimum stay?

- licensed use for construction? - Ward 2 permitted, permitted if licensed vehicles

4.32.3 - no intensification without servicing so even if lots are big enough in Campbellcroft ie 1 acre lots, can not build a duplex for servicing? Or two septic systems? - accessory units in Ward 2? - Provincial legislation?

4.36.3 - How does this relate to 100 year line? - GRCA, what about 100 year erosion?

4.38.1 - Ward 2 permitted? Commercial Zones: 7.3 Permitted Uses (table 7.1 page 106)

- employment not in either COMR nor COMV - no assembly hall in rural? - Why not printing or publishing establishment in COMR or COMV? - Motel not permitted in COMV? – only in COM2?

Employment Zones: Permitted Uses in the Employment Zones

- zone EMPR – Agricultural Use – Lions Centre? Rebecca Hall? - Assembly halls not allowed in rural area – why not? - EMPG not allowing Industrial Use nor Outdoor Storage, Accessory

(5) – why?

considered legal non-complying if they were legally placed on the property.

• Section 4.4 updated permitting more locations for dishes in rural areas.

• Not recommended to implement any time requirements in campgrounds.

• Trailers for construction permitted as a temporary use by Section 14.1.1.

• Duplexes currently not permitted in HR1 Zone; are permitted in HR2. Framework as written is maintaining current permissions.

• 72.9 metre G.S.C. represents this lane. • For 4.38.1 Countryside Zones to be added. • Intent is to limit permissions in Rural

Commercial/Employment Zones to prevent spread of urban-type uses outside of Word 1 on the Hamlets.

• Draft use permissions carry forward current permissions. Some additions to be made as appropriate to final draft, and in Hamlets in particular.

• Equestrian Centre is permitted on Prime Agriculture designated lands.

• Kennels are not expressly permitted in any designation. It is recommended that this use not be permitted on Prime Agricultural lands.



- Taxi service Depot/dispatch establishment not permitted in EMPR zone – ie Welcome; why only in a commercial?

Countryside Zones: 9.3 Permitted Uses

- Conservation Use not permitted in A and RU zones – why? - Agricultural Use not permitted in ORM-RS – why? - Equestrian Centre not permitted in zone A – why? - Farm employee accommodation, accessory not permitted in ORM-

RS – why not? - Farm related tourism establishment not permitted in ORM-RS

zone? Nor a farm produce outlet, accessory? Why not? - ORM-RS not permitting a Home Industry? - Kennel not permitted in A zones – why?

Municipality 44-46 Jocelyn Rd.

• Should be rezoned to the “RES1-1” zone, rather than the “RU” Zone • The revision is supported by the policies in the OP (C4) pertaining to existing non-conforming land uses

Maor Cohen 4950 Yonge St. Suite 1010 Toronto M2N 6K1

• Parking standard for restaurants is an increase over current standard. • Shopping centre standard, as written, would require more spaces for our

building. • Definition of “net floor area” does not exclude inaccessible spaces or storage

areas on a ground floor.

• Site-specific parking permissions restored into final ZBL.

• Shopping Centre definition and parking standard to be deleted in final By-law.

• Storage areas are not excluded on a ground floor since they may be converted in the future. It is much less likely that they will be converted if in a basement.

• Definition of “gross leasable floor area” can be selectively applied in future developments.

Darren Vella 89 Collier St. Suite 101 Barrie L4M 1H2

• Amend RESV2 lot area to match OP lot size policy (“determined in consultation with the Health Unit”).

• Delete preamble reference to new hamlet development intended to be zoned RESV2.

• Preamble modified. • Noted that custom lot size standards could be

implemented as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment implementing the subdivision approval

Documents

Municipality of Port Hope - eSolutionsGroupiblog.esolutionsgroup.ca/Uploads/2e7521f8-cefb-437b... · Final Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law (COW, June 22, 2010) Page 2 of 21 The