HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-148-89 Addendum
..
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
File # (.it .3.~.'I/3.
Res. #
By-Law #
ftffTItfJ :
DATE:
fUffiT #:
SUlll:CT:
Council
February 12, 1990
Addendum to
PD-148-89 FILE #: OPA 87-98, DEV 88-3, 18T-88001
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND SUBDIVISION
APPLICATIONS: FRANCIS SCANGA
PART LOT 29, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
OUR FILE: OPA 87-98, DEV 88-3, 18T-88001
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended to Council:
1. THAT Addendum to Report PD-148-89 be received;
2. THAT Report PD-148-89 be lifted from the table;
3. THAT the recommendations contained in Report PD-148-89 be
approved; and
4. THAT the Region of Durham, the interested parties listed in
this report and any delegation be advised of Council's
decision.
1. BACKGROUND
At the July 24th, 1989, meeting of Council, Council tabled
Report PD-148-89 at the request of the applicant's engineer.
The applicant's engineer requested that this report be tabled
in order that further negotiations could be arranged with the
Ministry of the Environment to resolve the issue of waste
material presently located on site.
. . .2
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO: PD-148-89
PAGE 2
2 . COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
No public submissions have been received to date.
3. COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES
No further comments have been received from the agencies
circulated to.
4. TECHNICAL REPORTS
4.1 A Draft Report was received from D.G. Biddle and Associates
on February 1, 1990, and was conducted by Gibson and
Associates Ltd. The consultant has attempted to address the
concerns of the Ministry of the Environment but notes that
they "have side stepped the test well requirement of the
Ministry of the Environment pending clarification of fill
issues." The consultant recommends that should these
applications be approved, "that an environmental consultant
be on-site during all excavations for the proposed building
foundations in order to test for methane gas and to inspect
for the presence of any non-mineral, biodegradable fill
material." Debris was found in 3 of the 4 additional test
pits addressed in this report and debris was indicated to be
found in 3 of the 4 previous test pits. It should be further
noted that the consultant has neither stamped nor signed the
report submitted for review by the Town.
4.2 The Ministry of the Environment have not provided comments
with respect to this report.
5. STAFF COMMENTS
5.1 Irrespective of whether the applicant is able to satisfy the
concerns of the Ministry of the Environment, the applicant
. . .3
.'
ADDEUDUM TO REPORT NO.: PD-14B-B9
PAGE 3
cannot address the negative impacts that cumulative estate
residential development pose for this area. These impacts
were analyzed in planning Report PD-61-B9, and were summarized
within attached Report PD-14B-B9.
5.2 Further estate residential development north of Court ice will
pose the following problems:
will distort municipal service priorities (ie. parkland
and schools);
will likely invoke premature requests for the extension
of municipal services;
will compound environmental impacts which are difficult
to mitigate;
will impede the orderly urban growth of Court ice
6. CONCLUSIONS
The applicant cannot address the much broader planning concern
of how further estate residential development will negatively
impact this area, and thus Staff stand by the recommendations
presented in Report PD-14B-B9.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
A}f counCil,
/ iy
. Kotseff
fistrative
~ 11 / ,/
( /,",:t~vL,-- /,-/ r.)~~, ~
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
JB*DC*df
*Attach
6 February 1990
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's
decision:
D.G. Biddle & Associates
Consulting Engineers,
56 King Street East,
Oshawa, Ontario L1H 1B6
Francis Scanga
717 Tarn Court,
Oshawa, Ontario L1J 6Y8
Gibson & Associates
P.O. Box 148,
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K9
DN: SCANGA
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
File #
Res _ #
By-Law #
r1ITI~:
DATE:
~T #:
Sl.JRECT :
General purpose and Administration Committee
Monday, June 19, 1989
PD-148-89
FILE #: OPA 87-98, DEV 88-3, 18T-88001
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
FRANCIS SCANGA
PART LOT 29, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
OUR FILE: OPA 87-98, DEV 88-3 & l8T-8800l
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-148-89 be received;
2. THAT the application submitted by Francis Scanga to amend the Durham Region
Official plan to permit the development of a six (6) lot Estate Residential
subdivision be DENIED;
3. THAT the accompanying rezoning and subdivision applications be DENIED;
4. THAT the applicant be so advised; and
5. THAT the Region of Durham be so advised and forwarded a copy of this
Report.
. . .2
REPORT NO.: PD-148-89
PAGE 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 On January 18, 1988, the Town received notice from the Region of Durham
of an application submitted by Frances scanga to amend the Regional
Official plan to permit the development of a six (6) lot residential
estate subdivision on 3.39 hectares (8.37 acres) in part Lot 29,
Concession 3, former Township of Darlington. (Attachment No.1)
1.2 The Town of Newcastle planning Department received an application to
rezone the subject parcel on December 3, 1987. Region of DUrham
forwarded an application for approval of a plan of Subdivision on January
8, 1988. The applications for rezoning and plan of Subdivision were
circulated concurrently with the Official plan Amendment application.
1.3 On March 9, 1988, the General purpose and Administration committee
resolved to receive Report PD-70-88 and refer rezoning application DEV
88-3 back to Staff for further processing and preparation of a
subsequent report upon receipt of all outstanding comments. outstanding
comments from the Central Lake Ontario COnservation Authority and
Regional Works Department have since been received.
2. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW CONFORMITY
2.1 The DUrham Region Official Plan designates the subject site as "Major
Open Space" with "Environmentally Sensitive" characteristics indicated.
The site is zoned "Agricultural (A)" in the Town of Newcastle
Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63. A gravel pit once operated on this
site and has since been abandoned.
3 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
3.1 No public submissions have been received to date.
...3
"
REPORT NO.: PD-148-89
PAGE 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 CIRCULATION
4.1 The subject application was circulated by the Town and the Region to
various agencies and departments to obtain comments. The following
departments/agencies offered no objection to the proposal
Central Lake Ontario COnservation Authority
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Northumberland & Newcastle Board of Education
Ministry of Natural Resources
Ontario Hydro
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
The following departments/agencies offered no objection to the principle
of this development, but have recommended conditions for draft approval:
Town of Newcastle COmmunity Services
- Region of Durham Works Department
4.2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Department indicated that development
should not proceed until such time as a storm drainage report has been
submitted to the Director of Public Works. Public Works further note
that there is a possible sight distance problem on Pebblestone Road at
the east limit 'of this development, and have outlined conditions for
draft approval.
4.3 The Town of Newcastle Building Department noted that the site, having
been an abandoned gravel pit which has been partially filled, could pose
additional costs to future purchasers.
4.4 The Region of Durham Health Department expressed concern regarding tile
bed location, fill material to be utilized, well types and well
locations.
. . .4
.'
REPORT NO.: PD-l48-89
PAGE 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5 The peterborough-victoria-Northumberland-Newcastle Roman Catholic
Separate School Board noted that they would support the application as
long as the development does not adversely affect Monsignor Leo Cleary's
water supply and weeping tile system.
4.6 The Ministry of Environment stated that the presence of waste on this
site has been identified. The Ministry have further noted that, until
they are in receipt of a detailed study addressing the waste issue, they
recommend denial of the Official plan Amendment and associated
applications. A copy of the Ministry's co~ents are att~ched
(Attachment # 2).
5 COMMENTS
5.1 A "Soil and Hydrogeological Investigation" submitted by the applicant
concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed development,
however, the report further noted that the subject site had been
infilled with waste from other construction sites. For this reason, the
report outlines a number of recommendations regarding water supply,
waste disposal and building construction. The consultant bases his
opinion on associated soil studies and well water surveys. Additional
field work and test drilling would be required before any results could
be considered conclusive.
5.2 This application represents an increase of six (6) residential units to
the concentration of estate-residential development north of Courtice,
which presently totals ninety-seven (97) residential units. As
discussed within the Rural Residential Development Information Report,
received by the General Purpose and Administration Committee on March
6, 1989, the continuing development of this area north of Courtice is of
concern. Section 10.3.1.3 of the Durham Region Official Plan states:
. . .5
~
REPORT NO.: PD-148-89
PAGE 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A limited number of estate-residential subdivisions on large lots may
be permitted by amendment to this Plan. The limit to the numbers of
such estate-residential subdivisions shall be established by their scale
and location, their financial implications for the Region and their
effects on the Region's transportation facilities and utilities."
Further estate residential development north of Courtice can no longer
be viewed as limited. Concentrated estate residential development such
as these will: distort municipal service priorities (i.e. parkland and
schools); likely invoke premature request for extension of municipal
services (i.e. water and/or sanitary sewer); compound environmental
impacts which are difficult to mitigate; and impede the orderly urban
growth of Courtice.
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 In view of the concerns raised by the Ministry of Environment and Region
of Durham Health Department, and those issues reviewed within the Rural
Residential Development Information Report, Staff are unable to support
this application and respectfully recommend that the various applications
by Francis Scanga for a six (6) lot estate residential subdivision be
DENIED.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
JDB*FW*cc
*Attach.
May 24, 1989
INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE NOTIFIED OF COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL'S DECISION:
Francis Scanga
717 Tarn Court
OSHAWA, Ontario
LIJ 6Y8
599 17
.'
34 LOT 33 LOT 32 LOT 3' LOT 30 LOT 29
, I I , J I I I I II I I I
\L GIONAL RD 4
YLER ST.
---- -.
---
~
z
"0 0
II
,:
" (j)
\l
(j)
"
I ~
I, t<) W
I:
" a U
" ~ Z
I'
0::
I: 0
" a U
I' ~
.
I, 0
I' 0::
\
\ ro
. z
\ 0
-
, (j)
\ ! (j)
-: W
, U
, ,
. ;" Z
. J~ 0
\ ()
~l
Ir~jt~i;1 EXISTING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
~4 PROPOSED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
~'ll DRAFT APPROVED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL
_ SUBJECT SITE
DEV.88-3
~
.'
~
;J
Mini3try
of tt1e
Environment
Mtnlstere
de
I'E. 0nnement
i I
Region
-..) .~
Centre
,1 ;
1989 06 06
7 Ollad9Q BOv1r ~.vrl
4th Floor
Toronto, Onl~',:
M(H lA8
411l '424.300C
7 t..)6ulev6td 0I/e11&S1
4' (l11l96
Toronlo (Ont8110)
M4H 1A8
4164;'4-3000
Mrs. V. Cranmer
Rogional Municipality of Durham
105 Consumers Drive
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3
Dear Mrs. Cranmer:
Re: Propo8ed Plan of Subdivision
Town of Newcastle
File: 18T-88001 and Official plan Amendment 87-98/D
The above noted applications propose the cr-eation of6
residential lots on the oa6ie of subsurface eeptic tank
systems. The subject site is located west of Durham Road 34
and south of Pebblestone Road. Comments ,on the suitability of
the aite for the propoeed UBe oE sub$urface sewage diepo8&1
systems shoul~ be obtained from the Regional Health Unit.
We are also in receipt ot a, ~Soil and Hydrogeologic
InvestiCjJation Report", dated August 1987 and a, "HydrQ9coloqic
Assessment Report", dated December 1988, prepared by crib.on and
Associates Limited. Staff have reviewed the proposal in
conjunction with ~he6e reports and we offer the followin9
comments.
Based on the 1987 assessment, it appeare that the site ie ~ound
on 'a former gravel pit that has been infilled with various
waste materials. In light of thi~, _we advise that we will not
be in a position to comment on the acceptability of. the
application until we are in receipt of a detailed 80il study
which qualifies and quantifies the subeurface .condition of the
site. This study should address the followinq:
1. The type of waste located on-site.
2. The extent of the waste located on-site.
3. When were these wastes deposited on-site.
4. ~he condition of the soils, are they contaminated and if
they are, the extent of the contamination.
5. The potential for methane gas and/or leachate impacts.
6. A propoaed plan for clean up.
If it is determined that this. site was once used as an illegal
landfill and that these wastes were deposited here within the
last 25 years, a Section 45 approval under the Environmental
Protection Act will be required. Section 45 states that:
-'.... '
f
t,
- 2 -
"No use shall be made of land or land covered by water
which has been used for the disposal of waete within a
period of 2S years from the year in which such land ceased
to be 50 used unless the approval of the the Mini~ter for
the proposed U5e has been given.
Further, based on well record~ and hydrogeological data, the
Gibson report indicates that Conditions are favourable to
develop adequate water supplies from drilled wells, We concur
with this aaBe~~ment, however, prior to final approval of the
plan, test drilling will be required to: identify the
preferred aquifer; comment on existing quality based on data
from representative wells; and, provide detailed discu33ions on
the potential for cross contamination and well interference.
With respec~ to water quality, the report ind1cate8 that while
there should be sufficient recharge from infiltrating
precipitation to bring the nitrate concentrations to lese than
10 mg/L, the availability of flow through the shallow aquifer
would further dilute the nitrate concentrations to lesa than 5
mg/L, We advise that our preliminary assessment has calculated
nitrate levels to be excess of the Ontario Drinking Water
Objective of 10 mq/L where the aquifer is solely recharged by
direct infiltration. Where available, underflow may be used to
increase the ~ to 1 dilution requirement. However, this would
be dependent on the lateral flux, the prevailing water quality
and the impact on existing residences. Pleaee note, the water
quality impact must be based on existing and propo.ed
upgradient and downgradient developments within th~
hydrogeologic basin.
In summary, until we are in ~eceipt of a detailed study
addressing our concern5 regarding wastee, we recommend that the
plan of subdiviai.on and official plan amendment not be
approved. Once the iG~ue of waste has been resolved, we advise
that a further hydrogeological study will be required to
address our concerns regarding.water quantity and quality and
the impact of the eeptic systeme on the groundwater resources.
Please note, the impact of the septic systems will have to be
addres~ed prior to draft approval.
Yours truly,
DRIGlNAl ~f"~.'" ''I'
._l'.;"~;. t..
P.R. Balaban, Planner
Approvale & Plannin9
Technical Support Section
It:PRB/CRA/J6F
cc: Mr. F. Wu
W. GibBon
Mr. D. Beach
Mr. J. D'Cruz
CR #11435
A &. P File