HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-80-93
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
THE
OF THE
OF
DN: OPA41-10.GPA
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #
Date:
Monday, May 17, 1993
Res. #
9
#: PD-80-93
#:
OPA 90-87/D/Ni NPA 92-001/CW
#
Subject:
MODIFICATIONS TO AMENDMENT #41 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE - COURTICE WEST HIGHWAY 2 CORRIDOR
NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK FOR COURTICE WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD 1B
~
Recommen~MENT #10 TO THE COURTICE WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-80-93 be receivedi
2. THAT the Region of Durham be requested to adopt the proposed
modification to Amendment #41 as contained in Attachment #4 to this
report.
3. THAT the Region of Durham be requested to modify Amendment #259 to
the 1976 Durham Regional Official Plan and to modify the 1991
Durham Regional Official Plan appropriately.
4. THAT Amendment #10 to the Courtice West Neighbourhood Plan be
approved as contained in Attachment #5 to this report.
5. THAT the Region of Durham Planning Department, the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs, the City of Oshawa and the Ontario Municipal
Board be advised of Council's decision and forwarded a copy of this
report.
6. THAT the interested parties listed in this report and any
delegation be advised of Council's decision.
1. PURPOSE
1.1 This report is written to address four matters:
· to address the comments from the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs with respect to Regional Council-adopted
Amendment #41 to the Town of Newcastle Official Plan-
Courtice West Highway 2 Corridor.
I Ii " 1
J,J I
RECYCLED PAPIER
PAPER RECYCLE
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 2
2.
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
. To resolve the Neighbourhood Park issue east of
Darlington Blvd. in the Courtice West Neighbourhood.
. To deal with an Official Plan Amendment application by
Valiant Property Management for an 8100 sq.m. (87,000
sq.ft.) commercial centre on the east side of Townline
Road between Highway 2 and Nash Road.
. To deal with an Official Plan Amendment application by
656150 ontario Limited (Dinnerex Inc.) to redesignate
their lands from "Special Purpose Commercial" to an
appropriate designation to permit a broad range of
commercial uses.
The area under consideration is shown in Attachment #1.
BACKGROUND
Amendment #41
In April 1990, the Planning Department completed a study of
the Highway 2 Corridor Area in the Court ice West Neighbourhood
to address major land use and urban design issues affecting
this area. The issues at that time related primarily to
numerous applications to change the designation of lands from
'Special Purpose Commercial' to appropriate designations to
permit general retail and personal service uses.
After consideration of the comments at the Public Meeting,
staff brought forward recommended amendments to the Town of
Newcastle Official Plan and the Courtice West Neighbourhood
Plan, together with a number of other recommendations, to the
General Purpose and Administrative Committee on September 17,
1990. Committee and subsequently Council, adopted the
recommendations of staff.
Regional Council considered the Courtice West Corridor Study
on May 15, 1991 and adopted with modifications Amendment #41
to the Town's Official Plan (Attachment #2). The Amendment to
the TO~in'G Official Plan was accommodated through Amendment
· "2
:) :J
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
2.1.3
2.1.4
PAGE 3
#259 to the 1976 Regional Official Plan which designated a
Sub-Central Area.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has written to the Region
and the Town with regard to proposed Amendment #41 to the Town
of Newcastle Official Plan and the related Amendment #259 to
the Region of Durham Official Plan.
A number of concerns were identified which are discussed in
section 4 of this report.
In June 1991 Regional Council adopted a new Regional Official
Plan. The 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan identifies a sub-
Central Area in the vicinity of Townline Road and Highway 2.
The Plan permits 40,000 sq.m. (430,000 sq.ft.) of gross
leasable area (GLA) for the retailing of goods and services.
This allocation is split equally, between city of Oshawa and
the Town of Newcastle with 20,000 sq.m. (215,000 sq.ft.) of
gross leasable area allocated in Newcastle. The boundaries of
the Sub-Central Area are to be determined in the local
official plan.
The designation of a Sub-Central Area in this location alters
the general planning framework with which the Courtice West
Hiqhwav No. 2 Corridor Study was undertaken. The original
planning study reviewed the planning options for the area in
the context of a linear corridor. The mix of commercial
activity and other land uses was reviewed in the context of
creating a "gateway" to the Town along a linear corridor. The
major planning objective was to develop this gateway with
higher profile uses which would reinforce Courtice's identity
as a distinct community.
The designation of this area as a Sub-Central Area in the 1991
Durham Plan implies the development of a major "destination
centre" in the Regional framework of Central Areas. It is a
I l,~i -~
JJJ
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 4
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.'3.'3
"node" rather than a "corridor". Therefore, it now requires
some reconsideration of the concept e~tablished through
Amendment #41.
Neiqhbourhood Park
~t the same meeting in September 1990, Town Council considered
a separate but related amendment to the Town of Newcastle
Official Plan and the Court ice West Neighbourhood Plan. These
amendments also included recommendation to designate a
Neighbourhood Park for Neighbourhood lB. Council adopted the
amendments proposed by staff "save and except for the park
east of Darlington Boulevard". This matter was referred back
to staff for "review of further options and negotiations and
preparation of a subsequent report".
Valiant Property Manaqement Application
On January 1992, Valiant Property Management submitted an
application to permit an 8,100 sq. metre (87,000 sq.ft.)
shopping centre on the east side of Townline Road between Nash
Road and King Street (Highway #2). Some of these lands were
included in a commercial designation in the Gateway Corridor
Area whereas the majority of the site was designated for
medium density residential uses.
In addition, it is noted that Valiant Property Management has
requested referral and/or appeals of the following matters to
the ontario Municipal Board:
. Amendment #41 to the Town of Newcastle Official Plan
. Amendment #259 to the 1976 Durham Regional Official Plan
. The 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan as it applies to
the Townline Sub-Central Area
. Zoning appeal as related to Valiant's zoning application.
. Appeal of By-law 91-63 which rezoned certain C5 lands
including portions of the Valiant site.
A separate planning report PD-81-93 haa been prepared on the
Official Plan Amendment application by Valiant Property
'504
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 5
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
3.
Management but this application has been integral to the
reconsideration of
the planning framework for this area and therefore is
referenced in this Report.
Application by 656150 ontario Ltd. (Dinnerex Inc.)
In June 1992, 656150 ontario Ltd. submitted an application. to
amend the Town of Newcastle Official Plan and Zoning By-law
84-63 to permit a broader range of commercial uses than
permitted under current policies with respect to a 2309 sq.
metre (24,850 sq.ft.) existing commercial buildings on the
south side of King street (see Attachment #1)
A separate planning report PD-82-93 has been prepared on the
Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications but the
proposed changes to the Official Plan have been incorporated
into the modification to Amendment #41.
COMMERCIAL HIERARCHY STUDY
A component part of the Town of Newcastle Official Plan Review
has been a background study by Arthur Anderson and Company on
the existing and future commercial structure of the Town.
This study has been important to staff's reconsideration of
the Courtice West Highway 2 Corridor study Area and the
resultant suggested modifications to Amendment #41 to the Town
of Newcastle Official Plan.
Some of the background findings of the Commercial Hierarchy
study which are particularly relevant leading to the proposed
modifications to Amendment #41, are as follows:
. At a population threshold of 28,000 (approximately by
year 2011) , the Courtice Urban Area could support between
42,000 and 55,000 sq.m. (450,000 and 590,000 sq.ft.) of
~ross leasable floor8p~r.p for rpr.~il 118P8.
i r\--
~) U j
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 6
· To date, Court ice has developed several convenience
centres but needs a "destination" centre or centres to
recapture outflows of dollars for higher order goods. To
this end, the consultant recommends that retail
development be concentrated in the designated Main and
Sub-Central Areas.
· The opportunity to build upon the existing commercial
uses at Townline Road in Oshawa establishes the Townline
Sub-Central Area as the focus of commercial growth in the
immediate future.
· Due to competing centres in Oshawa and the proposed
expansion to the Bowmanville Main Central, the
opportuni ty to develop a viable main central area at
Trull's Road and Highway 2 will be significantly
postponed.
· In order to permit the two major Central Areas to develop
and prevent dilution of the retail potential, the Town
should avoid further strip commercial development
particularly along Highway No.2.
In light of these findings, the proposal by Valiant Property
Management offers certain positive benefits to the development
of a Sub-Central Area.
· It would establish a synergy (combined action or
operation) with the Kingsway Village Plaza across the
road to create a stronger "destination centre" for
shopping than previously envisioned in the
Court ice West Highway 2 Corridor Study. This would
help to establish more of a commercial node for the
Central Area.
· with the redevelopment of these lands, there is the
, ~) 06
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 7
opportunity to provide a stronger incentive for the
redevelopment of the corner parcels at Highway No. 2 and
Townline Road. Previously, staff had considered that the
existing service stations provided a major impediment to
establishing a focal point at Townline Road.
Consequently the planning initiative focussed at the
Varcoe Road/Darlington Blvd. intersection. The Valiant
proposal is sufficiently scaled to provide a strong
incentive to redevelop the corner lands. Furthermore,
the recommended modification specifically requires that
an off ice component be located in the general area,
possibly including portions of the Valiant lands.
staff's support of the Valiant proposal necessitated that a
number of revisions be undertaken to ensure that the urban
design principles are consistent with the requirements for
Central Areas. This includes the establishment of an office
component and a greater street front orientation to the
proposal.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
It also necessitates a review of the allocation of floorspace
previously incorporated into Amendment #41. This is detailed
further in Section 4.3.
4.
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS CONCERNS
In reviewing Amendment #41 to the Town of Newcastle Official
Plan, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has raised a number of
concerns which are summarized below:
4.1
Concern #1: Affordable Housing Requirements
The Ministry considered that Section 6.5.3.3 (iii) is
insufficient with respect to the Land Use Planninq for Housing
POlicy Statement. This policy section was written prior to
the completion of the Town of Newcastle Municipal Housing
Policy statement and the adoption of Alllelldlll~llL #51 to the Town
of Newcastle Official Plan. Consequently, the relevant policy
, "7
J U I
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 8
contained in Amendment #41 was very general stating only that
Council would seek to achieve Local, Regional and Provincial
bonusing objectives with regard to Policy Area C (Mixed Use
Area) in the Gateway Commercial Area. The Ministry requested
that the Amendment specifically include a policy commitment to
ensure that 25% of the units are affordable according to the
provincial affordability guidelines.
The Ministry's request is now redundant since a new "Housing"
section has been added to the Official Plan through Amendment
#51. This includes the provision requested by the Ministry.
In view of the general provisions on housing, it is
recommended that section 6.5.2.2 (iii) be deleted from
Amendment #41.
4.2
Concern #2: Parkland Requirements
The Ministry noted that parkland requirements are to be
provided in yet to be developed park facilities. The Ministry
requests clarification on the commitments for these facilities
and whether they are in adequate proximity to the residential
development proposed in the corridor.
At the time of the preparation of the Amendments 41 and 47,
the issue of parkland was comprehensively reviewed. The
Courtice West Neighbourhood, as amended, has a target
population of 7300 persons. SUb-neighbourhood 1A and 1B have
4500 and 2800 persons respectively. The Town of Newcastle
Official Plan states that Neighbourhood parks shall not
normally be less than 3.0 hectares in size and shall be
provided on the basis of 0.8 hectares per 1,000 residents.
On this basis Sub-neighbourhood 1B (south of Highway NO.2)
has a deficiency of 1.59 hectares (3.9 acres). Staff's
recommendation in 1990 was that this deficiency be met through
the designation of a new 2.1 ha (5.0 acre) park adjacent to
, ,'" 8
; ~', j \ /
"J J
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93 PAGE 9
the Farewell Creek, east of Darlington Blvd., immediately
south of the lands fronting onto Highway No.2. Staff
further recommended that the proposed expansion to the Foxhunt
Park not be considered since the lands were poorly configured
for active recreation uses, not well situated to suit the
majority of residents in neighbourhood 1B and would not have
any linkage with the Open Space System as provided by the
Farewell Creek valley. Consequently, staff recommended that
the Foxhunt Park site be changed to parkette status to reflect
its current size and use.
As a result of the concerns raised by residents with
properties on Darlington Blvd. and by Delbert Development
Corporation, Council requested staff to examine alternative
locations for the proposed new Neighbourhood Park. Council
did, however, concur with staff's recommendation to not pursue
any further expansion of Foxhunt Park.
Delbert Developments, the owner of the majority of the vacant
land east of Darlington Blvd., agreed to provide staff with
several al ternati ve locations subsequent to some land assembly
acti vi ties. Staff contacted both the Delbert Developments and
the subsequent owner Ghods Builders Inc., on several occasions
but to date they have not provided any alternative sites for
this park facility. Staff understand that neither party
currently has an interest in the property between the row of
houses on Darlington Blvd. and Farewell Creek.
Staff also examined an alternate location (Site B as shown on
Attachment #3) and conclude site A as originally recommended
has several advantages.
. It is well located relative to the bulk of the future
population, which will be located in higher density uses
along Highway No.2 to the northeast of the site..
, ~J:] 9
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 10
. The shape of the park can be appropriately configured for
active sports use with appropriate buffers.
. The park abuts to the Farewell Creek valley, and can be
linked to future trail system and open space network. It
is also noted that the Recreation/Leisure Services Master
Plan suggested the need for a park and the general
location adjacent to the Farewell Creek valley.
. The park provides a buffer between the higher density
residential uses along Highway No. 2 and the lower
density uses to the south.
with regard to the concerns of the existing residents, it is
noted that there are five properties directly affected. The
Town would need to acquire the rear portions of these lots.
The general practice is to establish the market value based on
appraisal prior to acquisition. Funds for acquisition of this
neighbourhood park is included in the 10 year capital work
forecast for the purpose of establishing development charges.
The date of acquisition and park development will be
determined by Council in conjunction with all the proposed
capital works prepared in each subsequent budget years. The
balance of the land to make up the entire park will be
acquired through parkland dedication when the property
adjacent to the residential lots on Darlington Blvd. is
developed in the future.
In summary, staff reiterate the need for a new park in
Neighbourhood 1B and recommend the location previously
considered. The identification of a Park site as proposed
would satisfy the concerns of the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and the requirements of the Town's policies for
parkland.
, ~) ] 0
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 11
4.3 Concern #3: Floorspace Allocation
The Ministry raised questions with respect to the allocation
of floorspace wi thin the Sub-Central Area. It noted that
while the entire area was allocated 20,000 sq. metres, Policy
Area C itself allocated 14,000 sq. metres. The Ministry
questioned whether the remalnlng 6,000 sq. metres was
sufficient for the balance of the lands in the Sub-Central
Area.
In reconsidering Amendment #41, to create a destination focus
and create a larger Sub-Central Area, Staff are proposing to
eliminate the Special Purpose Commercial designation and to
reassign the floorspace allocation under general commercial
use. A comparison of the floorspace allocation by type of use
is indicated on the following chart.
Current Proposed Modification
Official Plan Amendment #41 to Amendment #41
Area Floorspace Area Floorspace Area Floorspace
(ha) (sq.m.) (ha) (sq.m.) (ha) (sq.m.)
General 2.31 6,300 2.31 6,300 7.64 18,000
Commercial
Special 9.23 22,000 4.19 8,500 - -
Purpose
Commercial
Mixed-Use - - 5.35 14,000 5.35 8,000
Cffi ce - - - - 0.60 2,000
Commercial
TOTAL: 11.54 28,300 11.85 28,800 13.59 28,000
(28.5 ac) (304,600 sq.ft.) (29.3 ac) (310,000 sq.ft.) (33.6 ac) (301,400 sq. ft.)
Retail and Personal Service
Gross leasable Floorspace
In supporting the Valiant proposal, which represents the best
opportunity to establish a "destination centre" in the
Newcastle portion of the Sub-Central Area, the potential
Special Purpose Commercial lands is reduced from 4.19 ha (10.4
: Jl 1
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 12
acres) to 2.14 ha (5.3 acres). This is a limited land base
with fragmented ownership for generally land-extensive uses.
The rationale for the Special Purpose Commercial designation
in the central portions of urban areas is becoming
increasingly questionable. The land-extensive commercial uses
(car dealerships, lumber yards, etc.) usually cannot afford
these locations, nor are they desirable uses in a Central
Area. Many of the other uses, like restaurants, beer, and
liquor, furniture and appliance stores can just as easily be
accommodated in Central Areas. Unless more closely defined,
the dist'inctions between the general commercial and special
purpose commercial designations increasingly blurred,
especially to the public. Special Purpose Commercial Areas
should be utilized in very specific instances (ie. retail
warehouses along Highway 401).
Accordingly, the proposed modification to Amendment #41 would
eliminate the Special Purpose Commercial category and
designate these lands for General Commercial uses. It would
also generally maintain the same level of total floorspace
permitted. However, within the boundaries of the Sub-Central
Area, as revised to incorporate the Valiant Property
Management lands, there is a general shift of retail
allocation to Townline Road and a reduction of retail
potential within the Mixed-Use Area at Varcoe Road/Darlington
Blvd. However, this area would receive slightly greater
residential allocation (See section 4.7).
In summary, the proposed modification does not represent an
increase the total commercial floorspace. previously, special
Purpose Commercial Areas were excluded from the floorspace
allocations. The proposed modification eliminates the Special
Purpose Commercial category and allocates retail floorspace as
I . ,^
JIL
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 13
4.4 Concern #4: Retail Analysis policy
The Ministry raised concerns with Policy 6.5.2.2 (v) which requires
a retail analysis be prepared for proposals exceeding 1400 square
metres (15,000 sq.ft.) prior to rezoning. The basic thrust of the
Ministry's concern was that a retail analysis should be undertaken
prior to the designation of the Sub-Central Area and then
individual site specific analysis may not be necessary.
It is noted that this policy was inserted by Regional planning
staff and was not proposed by the Town. Nevertheless, section
6.5.3 (iii) of the Town of Newcastle Official Plan contains a
similar policy that enables Council to require a Market Analysis
prior to rezoning for any commercial proposal except a convenience
commercial facility (less than 500 square metres). This existing
policy provides the Town with the opportunity to ensure that retail
uses proceed without serious impacts on existing uses.
In light of the existing section 6.5.3 (iii), it is recommended
that the proposed policy 6.5.2.2 (v) be eliminated.
4.5 Concern #5: Service Lanes
The Courtice West Highway 2 Corridor Study discusses the need for
the establishment of a rear service land to interconnect all
properties within the Sub-Central Area. The purpose of this lane
is to provide opportunities for customers to move between stores
within the corridor area without creating additional vehicular
movements on Highway 2. This concept has been widely supported by
Public Works staff at the Town and the Region and by the Ministry
of Transportation. Although the Neighbourhood Development Plan
actually designates the lanes on the map schedule, the references
in the text of the Official Plan Amendment are general, referring
to "common internal traffic circulation". In addition, there is a
specific reference in Policy Area A where the laneway concept would
need to be retrof i tted with redevelopment. The Ministry's comments
s11ggest that the rationale, location t access pointa and status (ie.
., 7"
JIJ
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 14
public road versus private lane) should be clarified in the text of
the amendment.
In addition, in the review of development applications, staff have
noted that there is a misunderstanding that this laneway system is
only for service vehicles (ie. delivery trucks and garbage
collection vehicles). As a result, it is recommended that the word
"service" be deleted.
staff are recommending that the following modifications would
clarify the intent:
i) Section 6.5.2.2 (v) is revised to create separate points on
consolidation of entranceways and common internal traffic
circulation.
ii) References to "service lanes" is revised to "laneway
system".
iii) A new policy 6.5.2.2 (vi) is added as follows:
"6.5.2.2 (vi) An integrated private laneway system shall be
provided to permit east of movement between
adjoining commercial properties. Such a
laneway shall be dedicated to adjoining
landowners by means of easements registered on
title. It shall have with a minimum width of
8 metres."
4.6 Concern #6: Floorspace Indices
Policy 6.5.2.2 (xi) establishes that in Policy Area C, buildings
are permitted a maximum floorspace index of 0.85 and a maximum
height of 5 storeys. The Ministry notes that Policy Areas A and B
do not have similar height or floorspace restrictions. The
Ministry also questions whether a five storey height restriction is
realistic to achieve the high density residential designation.
As a rule, the Town of Newcastle Official Plan policies for the
Courtice Urban Area define "High Density" as residential buildings
with a density between 40 and 80 units per net hectare. The Plan,
howevel, is y~n~Ldlly silent. as t.o:
JI4
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 15
. the height of buildings (usually a matter contained in the
implementing zoning by-law);
. the calculation of density for mixed use developments.
with regard to the density and height restrictions for Policy Areas
A and B, the existing C1 zoning permits a 3 storey building (12
metre height restriction) and the existing C5 zoning permits a 2
storey building (10 metre height restriction). Generally, existing
buildings are built as single storey plazas. It is anticipated
that the existing zoning by-law provisions would be sufficient for
single purpose uses.
with regard to mixed-use proposals, it is felt that the floorspace
index is a better indication of density for this type of
development. (The floorspace index is a ratio of the gross floor
area to the site area).
The primary reason for including the height and floorspace index in
this amendment is to provide a more workable means of calculating
density for mixed use developments and high density residential
development alike. Both of these are permitted uses in Policy Area
C but are not in the other two areas. In addition, gi ven the
concern raised by residents regarding the original Rosebridge-
Newcastle proposal in Policy Area C (a 15 storey condominium
tower), a height restriction was considered appropriate to ensure
that they will not be adversely impacted by the built form of
higher density uses.
In summary, staff reiterate that the use of floorspace indices and
height limits in Policy Area C is appropriate given the intended
development as a Mixed-Use Area. These limits were established in
consultation with development interests and adjacent residents,
providing enough mass to create a focal point, and not overwhelming
the adjacent residential areas. The use of the same provisions in
'J15
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 16
Policy Areas A and B is not necessary given the types of permitted
uses.
4.7 Concern #7: Bonusing provisions
Under section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Council may
authorize increases in height or density of development in return
for the developer providing facilities, services or other matters
of public benefit. In order to pass such a zoning by-law,
appropriate provisions must be incorporated into the Official Plan.
Amendment #41 was the first time the Town utilized the bonusing
provisions of the Planning Act. The amendment contemplated
"bonusing" for the following matters:
. non-profit or co-operative housing component
. dedicated space for day-care centre, senior citizens centre or
other similar use
. contribution for the purpose of streetscape improvements or
valleyland trail development
The "bonus" involved the opportunity to increase the floorspace
index from 0.8 to 1.00 and the height from 5 to seven storeys.
The Ministry raised four concerns with respect to the use of the
bonusing provisions:
. the policy should indicate the value of the bonus to be
provided relative to the provision of the public benefit
. the policy should indicate whether the benefit had to be
located on-site and/or the general area
. the "intent, workings and product" of the last clause related
to possible streetscape improvements needed to be clarified
. the Town needed to consider the cumulative effect of bonusing
in Policy Area C.
In general terms, the Ministry's concerns stem from the experience
of the application of bonusing in other jurisdictions. Some of
these concerns were also noted by the Sewell Commission which noted
in its Draft Report that "ad-hoc, site by site bonusinq qenerally
has not worked well, and the public does not like it:
'J16
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 17
it smacks of 'let's make a deal' planning". The Sewell Commission
is recommending some changes to the Planning Act to clarify the use
of bonusing in general policies in defined areas for stated public
benefits with specific criteria.
with regard to the use of bonusing provlslons under Amendment #41,
Council expressed some concern at the time of the Public Meeting on
July 15, 1991 with regard to the Rosebridge-Newcastle Inc. rezoning
application DEV 91-022. Although Rosebridge-Newcastle did not
propose to utilize the bonusing provisions, residents were
concerned that the provision of some "public benefit" to the
municipality would result in a bonus to the developer which would
be detrimental to the resident's interests. Report PD-83-93 will
address the Rosebridge-Newcastle Inc. rezoning application in
detail.
Having reviewed the matter further, it is staff's recommendation
that the use of the 'bonusing' provisions be eliminated from
Amendment #41 and that reconsideration be given to the height and
density limits within Policy Area C. There are other provisions
provided in the proposed modifications which state that the
location and form of buildings should minimize adverse impacts,
including shadowing, on low-density residential areas.
4.8 Concern #8: Technical Matters
The Ministry noted a number of discrepancies in the cross-
referencing of policies. Virtually all of these were a result of
the insertion of the retail analysis policy at the Regional level.
The proposed modification addresses these concerns.
5. MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT CONCERNS
In January 1993, the Ministry of the Environment wrote to the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs to indicate a concern with lands in
Policy Area C as shown in Amendment #41. Specifically, fill has
been deposited on lands owned by Aloise Construction Ltd. (see
Attachment No.1). No information is available about the quality
JI7
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 18
of this fill or the degree of contamination. Prior to development,
there is a need for analysis of the nature and extent of any
contamination. The Ministry requires that appropriate policies be
incorporated into the Official Plan to "trigger" this type of
review. Specifically, they requested that all applications proceed
by "plan of subdivision" since this mechanism offers the best legal
assurance which binds any clean up operation through conditions of
draft approval. Staff, however, cannot support the use of a plan
of subdivision procedure when, in effect, there is no land to
subdivide.
Accordingly, we recommend a modification that would require the
soils contamination report be submitted to the Ministry of
Environment "prior to approval of any development".
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 The original Amendment #41 sought to achieve a higher quality urban
environment as a gateway to the municipality, reinforcing the
identity of Courtice and enhancing retail and office job
opportunities. At the same time, it also sought to ensure the
eventual full development of a Court ice Main Central Area at
Trull's Road and Highway #2.
Staff are of the opinion the general thrust of the proposed
modifications is consistent with these original objectives but also
with the Regional designation of this area as a Sub-Central Area,
the findings of Commercial Structure Study.
6.2
As a Sub-Central Area, the creation of a "destination centre" for
retail and service uses is important. The proposal by Valiant
Property Management enables the development of such a
node as envisaged under the Sub-Central Area designation. There is
a synergy created due to its relationship with the Kingsway Village
centre in Oshawa. This provides the focus of commercial growth in
Courtice in the immediate future. The development of a Main
" 8
~) i .'
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 19
Central Area at Trull's Road/Highway 2 is a longer term objective
for which the municipality should strive to lay the groundwork
through mixed uses including commercial, office, institutional and
residential uses.
6.3
The proposed modification maintains the same total amount of
commercial floorspace as permitted under the current Official Plan
(approximately 28,000 sq.m. or 300,000 sq.ft.). There are,
however, several structural adjustments to the commercial framework
for the area as follows:
. elimination of the designation of lands for Special Purpose
Commercial uses and incorporating these lands into the General
Commercial designation.
. a redistribution of commercial floorspace within the Sub-
Central Area which has the net effect of reducing the
commercial potential in Policy Area C and adding commercial
potential along the Townline Road frontage.
. identification of an office block on the northeast corner of
Townline Road and King Street East (Highway 2).
6.4 The proposed modifications addresses the concerns outlined by the
Ministries of Municipal Affairs and the Environment.
Concerns regarding retail impact analysis, service lanes and
floorspace indices have been clarified. The affordable housing
provisions are redundant in light of other amendments. Bonusing
provisions have been eliminated.
The matter of parkland requirements is proposed to be resolved
through the designation of a new park site east of Darlington Blvd.
,)19
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 20
6.5 Staff have made a number of minor modifications to the text to
clarify the intent of the wording. Due to the extent of the
changes, both major and minor, the entire text and maps related to
the Actual Amendment have been replaced. (Attachment #4). In
addition, an amendment to the Court ice West Neighbourhood Plan is
proposed to implement the modifications to Amendment 41 of the
Official Plan (Attachment #5).
6.6 The proposed modifications now layout the planning frameworks for
development applications to be considered. Report PD-81-93 and
PD-82-93 will address the specific official plan amendment
applications made by Valiant Property and by Dinnerex Inc.
respectively.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
o (~~~.~
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
,[n,'," ",_", '",''''' "~/""
/ ~l-
.,4 /
,,(r BV\;tW.Lt1..l\~M
Lawrence E. Ko~~eff
Chief Adminis~~~tive
Officer ( \J
DC*FW*df
11 May 1993
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Amendment #41
3. Alternate Park Locations
4. Proposed Modification to Amendment #41
5. Proposed Amendment #10 to the
Court ice West Neighbourhood Plan
~) 2 0
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 21
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Mr. Bob Hann
Valiant Property Management
177 Nonquon Road, 20th Floor,
Oshawa, ontario.
L1G 3S2
Margaret Noble
45 Darlington Blvd. South
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2J8
Wayne J. Bolahood
Quantum Homes Ltd.
10 Mary Street South
Oshawa, ontario.
L1H 8M3
Raymond J. Cooke
48 Whitecliff Drive
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 1T2
Landawn Shopping Centre Ltd.
11 Polson Street
Toronto, ontario.
M5A 1A4
John Wilson
1421 King Street East, (Hwy. #2)
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2J6
W. Kay Lycett
Barrister and solicitor
Box 87, 5367 Main Street
Orono, ontario.
LOB 1MO
Mr. Ray Abbott
Abbott Drafting and Design
172 King Street East, suite 303
Oshawa, ontario.
L1H 1B7
D.G. Biddle & Associates
96 King Street East
Oshawa, ontario.
L1H 1B6
Andrew Percewicz
13 Mulholland Drive
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 1T9
Glenn Genge
Planning Consultant
Greer Galloway Group Inc.
1415 King Street (Hwy. #2)
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2J6
Mr. and Mrs. Ken Dawson
7 Darlington Blvd. South
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2J8
Val Choloniuk
Valeo Draperies
1145 King Street East
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2J6
Ronald R.M. strike
Strike, Salmers and Furlong
38 King Street West
P.O. Box 7
Bowmanville, ontario.
L1C 3K8
John M. Clarke
Clarke Freeman Miller
Solicitor
789 Don Mills Road, #310
Don Mills, ontario.
M3C 1T5
Delbert Development corporation
5460 Yonge Street
suite 212
North York, ontario. M2N 6K7
Glen White
11 Bridle Court
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2B1
Harold Gascoigne
13 Darlington Blvd. South
courtice, ontario.
L1E 2J8
'~) ,(
,JL I
REPORT NO.: PD-80-93
PAGE 22
Theodore Filntissis
Peter Floros
Andreas Galanis
1269 Danforth Road
Scarborough, ontario.
M1J 1E6
T.M.J. Rytwinski
44 Whitecliffe Drive
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 1T2
David Fine
Rosebridge-Newcastle Inc.
4300 Steeles Avenue West
unit 17
Woodbridge, ontario.
L4L 4L2
Gordon J. Dinning
1514 Nash Road
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2K8
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Reynard
11 Kingsway Gate
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 1Y1
A. Appleby
41 Cherry Blossom Crescent
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 1G9
Glennys Simmons
41 Old Kingston Road
R.R.#6
Bowmanville, ontario.
L1C 3K7
Mr. E. Coke
14 Darlington Blvd.
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2J7
Joe Wood
Dinnerex Inc.
suite 420, Yonge Street
North York, ontario.
M2P 2A9
Greg Soyka
COURTICE, ontario
L1K 1A5
J22
Lynda Townsend
Pallett Valo
suite 2300
The Standard Life Centre
121 King Street West
Toronto, ontario.
M5H 3T9
Judy Posteraro
26 Bridle Court
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2B1
Ms. Irene catsibris
Ghods Builders Inc.
3292 Bayview Avenue, suite 300
Willowdale, ontario.
M2M 4J5
William and Judith Campbell
25 Bridle Court
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2B1
Dorothy and Charles Breward
25 Bridle Court
Courtice, ontario.
L1E 2B1
Maurice Lenihan
1417 Nash Road
courtice, ontario.
L1E 2J9
Michael Deeb
24 Bridle Court
courtice, ontario.
L1E 2B1
Christine Frechette
666 Antigua Crescent
Oshawa, ontario.
L1J 6B4
Heather Schneider
23 Bridle Court
courtice, ontario.
L1E 2B1
Neil Palmer
Caseworker, Planning
ontario Municipal Board
180 Dundas Street West
Toronto, ontario.
M5G 1E5
~I
(\ ,1
\
I-' >--
_ (f) I-- r---
-3
- w
-~-
-w - I I
-6--
- d - IN3::>S3tl::>
~= ~ I ~~
o
I
-
~
~II
~~
o
<l:
o
0::
I--
I--
::r;1--
I ~I-
Z I---
I
I I I I I I I Ll 1 ,
3^Il:JO 0131::ll:J31N3::>
:\.
~~\;i I
~(!)
'S3tl::> WOSS01: ^~~3H::> V
~r---
f-
1---1 -
.J - -,
WOSS01S Atltl3t ~
avotl
I I
>ll:J\1d3l\10 I
:-. 0:-'~:-'
:-. :-. ,,'\
l:'\ ~ .Y'
~:-.:-. ~~~
~~ ~ ~ ~
.' /'<; ~~
~~ &~ 0
~~~t'\'~ ~~
l\:' ~ ~ ",,,, 0-.'" ,,,
...
...
II i~
'"
w
>
..:
'"
: wI-
r: N-~
1 '"
\ I ~ ~ ~q
~!;--- hl I I ~ ~T\l
~ O::z I I '" ~
." .........lS.......~ vaSVBV"lV ~
, Ffll DJIpIO~+t J
JLJ
~'~i
\
..
'"
'"
'"
'"
-
'"
'"
'"
'"
II
II
r\
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
i='
Z
ww
o::~
I-w
Zc.!l
W<(
uz
w<(
c.!l~
<(>-
...II-
...10::
-w
>0-
~~
3=0-
en I-
c.!lz
Z<l:
:;;2::::i
~
~
/
I -
I
o
o
o
:I:
00::
w:::>
eno
OlD
O-:I:~
05:20::
o::w<( <
, O-ZCL --4- ..~
, .. c.~. (;~{il
~":T.'~..,...~,~ry~'r.c.":~~cE~, ,
, ~.{,' l~' .1....1l'. .t~
I!'~'" ,...;. (' ...{.;'='.c (..'.t:;,..
~. V'"l::l~.;j ''t"i' '4~'1. '
l:x:.,h';~~,\!<; ~\2~.,\~.~
..,.u,,(....~y.~ ....~.. .,\:~~ '~;-=.1
, U...l' ,;. ~,....' ..~~.~.'~ ~.'oI<'. ~
....':~..:,j..t..,' """,\;<1"" ",
./tz't..C;., i.{~~f~8::'\P.. ~'l:f
.. ~ ~VJ~. ~i::,,\P..,i~.'
'. .;H 1>'7 ~ i'f. ~~ r<.J~1~
. ~"".l'~' .) ,i'~' ,
';: )j.:....1;" , ." '~~. ,:ffl'
S S:,.(. ~'.L: .;;:..b
~
:::>en
I-W
z~
<(0
:::>:I:
o
(
~i-=
_ en .
ozo
...101-;
<(u.....
Ww
c.!l..J
01-
-en
0::<(
ffiu
en 3= .
Owu
o::Z~
3~O[ill ~
0::
::>
0-
u
w
...I
o
0::
CD
I
lLi
;' "vm~OI N01"NIl"VG
~ ~~~ In
J I ~ ~ 'g ~~ , "-
C\J E ~~ ~ ".:- Y 0
~l : I JJll:tBtaB ;::
$ I / --! I- IN3::>S3l:J::> 3l:JldW3..,L.
fE, ~18L U1 \\
/ ~ u..'L-,..- wt--
~~:=~:==
r / ::= ~~
1-.<' , ~t--
f-- (!)I---
f--Zt--
I~I
ovoL ~ ;:~ 1
n ~
II ~ Q
NMY1ISY3
I r- luB:
>
..:~
71
..,......."
~
>-w
:-. !z~~
::! ~ ~ ~'
:-. ...I 0 Z '\.'
octa::<(
,,\~ ~~
~
:\:
s::
j
:I:
~
n~>
OW
_0
~
.-J
"""I'~""""". 1.11.
I ~.I- ~f--
<{ I-' c........- c> r--
fij~ - ::-
en 0 '----: at r-
o Ut--1 J IS
lu 0:: A>- 31V^,H3"
-,-L
f-
I-
1/)/
IS
1
<:>r
::r
:,,:(
/
I
-
C-
m
:E
c
o
.-
.....
m
(.)
o
..J
IJJ
...J
I-
CJ)
<( <(
~ u
~
::c IJJ
(f) Z
0 I
I >-
>- a:::
a:: <(
<( Cl
0 Z
Z :J
::J 0
0 CD
OJ <(
<( IJJ
IJJ a:::
a:: <(
<( ...J
...J <(
<( a:::
a::: l-
I- Z
Z W
IJJ U
U
Cl
(.!) IJJ
Z CJ)
I- 0
(f) a..
0
X a:::
IJJ a..
'" I
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
. """-I-
'"
'"
--~
'"
'"
'"
ATTACHMENT #2
(
APPROVED BY REX;IOOAL COUNCIL MAY 15,1991
AMENDMENT NO. 41 TO THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Amendment is to redefine the
types of uses permitted in the corridor area along
Highway No. 2 (King Street) east of Regional Road
No. 55 (Townline Road) to the Farewell Creek.
BASIS:
This Amendment is based on a planning study
undertaken by the Town of Newcastle known as the
Court ice West Highway No. 2 Corridor Study.
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT:
The Town of Newcastle Official Plan is hereby
amended by:
i) adding a new subsection 6.1.2 vi) as follows:
"vi)
In the processing of medium and
high dens i ty res idential
developments, consideration
shall be given . to the
requirements of appropriate on-
site indoor and outdoor
recreational amenity areas."
ii) renumbering the subsections in 6.5.2 as
follows: 6.5.2 (i) to 6.5.2.1; 6.5.2 (i) (a) to
6.5.2.1(i)i and so on;
iii) adding a new Section 6.5.2.2 as follows and
renumbering the subsequent Sections:
"6.5.2.2
Gateway Commercial Area
i) The Gateway Commercial Area recognizes
the variety of existing commercial uses
and the unique location opportunity
along the Highway No.2 corridor at the
entranceway to the municipality. It is
the policy of Council to seek to ensure
the comprehensive development and
redevelopment of this area for an
appropriate range of commercial uses
and at appropriate locations higher
density residential uses that can be
satisf~ctorily integrated into the
predominant commercial character of the
area. The Gateway Commercial Area is
comprised of three separate policy
areas.
1 -- J24
c ~
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
~
Council will seek to achieve an
integrated urban design of development
that is oriented to Highway No. 2 and
that is appropriate having regard to
the planned function of the area as a
major gateway to the Courtice Urban
Area and the Town of Newcastle.
It is the policy of Council to seek
achievement of Local, Regional
provincial housing objectives with
development in Policy Area C of
Gateway Commercial Area.
the
and
new
the
It is the policy of Council to seek to
achieve the provision of appropriate
public amenities, services and.
facilities in conjunction with new
development on lands in the Gateway
Commercial Area.
Prior to the passing of an implementing
Zoning By-law, Council shall require,
for commercial development- exceeding
1400 sq. m., a retail analysis which
will demonstrate the need in order to
ensure, that the application does not
unduly effect the viability of any
existing development or designated
Central Area.
vi) Subject to the provisions of Sections
6.5.2.2(x)(e) and Section
6.5.2,'.2(x)(f), in order to assist in
the achievement of its major objectives
for the Gateway Commercial Area,and
pursuant to the Planning Act, 1983,
Council may pass by-laws to permit
increases in the height and density of
buildings or structures in excess of
the height or density otherwise
permitted, in return for the provision
of facilities, services and matters as
are set in such by-law and secured by
means of one or more agreements with
the owners, which are registered
against the title to the land to which
they apply.
vii) In exercising its powers of regulation,
review and approval under the Planning
Act, 1983, for the development of lands
in the Gateway commercial Area, Council
objectives:
2 - ' ~)25
. the integration of development to
create an image and character for (
the area appropriate to this major :,
entranceway to the Courtice Urban
Area and the Town of Newcastle;
. sidewalks within the public street,
pedestrian walkways and open spaces
within new development should be
designed with appropriate
landscaping; furniture, pedestrian
scale lighting and surface treatment
complementary to a common theme for
the area;
. entranceways should be consolidated
to approximately 80 metre intervals
with common internal traffic
circulation;
. appropriate provision should be made
for public transit shelters;
. use of common themes in signage; and
. the rationalization of lot
boundaries, where possible, to (.,.'
achieve a more efficient development
pattern.
viii) Council shall seek to ensure thpt
smaller parcels are incorporated into
compr~hensive development schemes. To
achieve this, Council may require that
proponents prepare comprehensive block
plans to demonstrate that development
proposals do not negatively impact the
development potential of adj acent
lands.
ix) Policy Area A: Commercial Node
a) Lands designated as Policy Area A
recognize the consolidation of a
pre-existing commercial strip which
was permitted under Section 8.3.2.2
of the Durham Region Official Plan.
Landi; 80 des'ignated shall be used
for retail and personal service uses
which serve the day-to-day needs of
residents.
('
3-- ''J26
(
(
\
r'
\.
b) Council will endeavour to encourage
the redevelopment of land to
improved urban design standards.
c) Where appropriate, as a condition of
any future redevelopment of land
within this designation, the
consolidation of access points in
accordance with Section 6.5.2.2(v),
the provision of a rear service lane
and improved landscaping shall be
required.
x)
Policy Area
Commercial
Special
Purpose
B:
a) Lands designated as Policy Area B
shall serve the needs of residents
on an occasional basis with services
and facilities which consume larger
parcels of land, are larger in floor
area, require exposure to traffic
and are similar in kind to
automotive sales and services,
drive-in restaurants, motels,
hotels, furniture and major
appliance stores. The zoning by-law
shall specify a minimum floor area
for individual retail and personal
service stores.
~
b) The uses shall be strictly defined
in the zoning by-law to ensure that
the - quality, continuity and
integration of the Gateway
Commercial Area is consistent with
the function as established in the
Plan.
c) Notwithstanding Section
6.S.2.2(ix)(a), retail and personal
service uses with lesser floor area
than the specific uses referred to
in the aforesaid Section and second-
storey office uses may be permitted
provided that lands have been
consolidated into parcels with
grea,ter than 80 metres of frontage
on ~Highway No.2. Retail and'
.personal service uses shall not
exceed 30 percent (30%) of the
ground floor area.
4 ' :J27
xi)
Policy Area ,C: Mixed Use Development
Area
(
a) The lands designated as Policy Area
C - Mixed-Use Development Area are
to be the focal point of activity
and architectural interest in the
Gateway Commercial Area. The
following uses will be permitted:
. mixed-use commercial/
residential buildings with
retail and personal service uses
on the ground floor;
.
office buildings in
with the policies
6.5.2.7;
accordance
of Section
. high density residential
buildings not exceeding 80 units
per net hectare.
b) The maximum gros s retail and personal
service floorspace which may be
constructed and usedln the whole of
Policy Area C shall be 14,000 square
metres.
(
"
c) Lands within Policy Area C shall be
permitted to develop up to a~maximum
floor space index of 0.85 and up to
a maximum height of 5 storeys.
d) Notwithstanding Section
6.5.2.2(iv) (a), retail, personal
service, office and community uses
may be permitted on the second floor
of mixed-use commercial/residential
buildings provided that the lot on
which the building is located has a
minimum frontage of 80 metres on
Highway No.2 and that buildings are
sited with a street-front
orientation.
e) Notwithstanding Section
6.S.2.2(x)(c), and in accordance
with Section 6.S.2.2(iv), Council
may pass by-laws to increase the
maximum density up to a floor space
index of 1.25 and a maximum height
5 '~J28
i
\
of seven storeys provided that the
owner enters into an agreement with
the Town of Newcastle which provides
for one or a combination of the
following facilities, services and
matters:
.
a non-profi t or
housing component;
. dedicated space \<lhich is to be
completed with interior finishes
required for community service
use as a day~care centre, a
senior citizen's centre or
similar uses deemed appropriate
by Council for a term of up to
99 years and not less than 25
years; and
cooperative
. that the developer enter into an
agreement wi th the Town of
Newcastle with respect to the
value of new construction of the
project, including landscaping,
parking and on-site amenities,
for the purpose of public
improvements, to the Courtice
streetscape or the development
of valley land trail systems.
f) In order for Council to eval~ate the
suitability of density increases
pursuant to Section 36 of the
Planning Act, 1983, the applicant
must demonstrate to the satisfaction
of Council that the proposed
development is appropriate having
regard to, amongst other things,
such issues as:
.
servicing
capacity;
and
infrastructure
. school facilities;
. Provincial, Regional and Town
housing policies;
. parks and open space;
. transportation and traffic; and
\
.
compatibility with adjacent land
'F)
, :J29
g) In exercising its available powers
of regulation, review and approval
under the Planning Act, 1983, for
the development of lands in Policy (~
Area C, Council shall have regard
for the following objectives:
. The location and form of
buildings should contribute,
where possible, to the creation
of an attractive environment for
pedestrians.
. Buildings should be sited in a
manner which clearly define the
edges of streets with
appropriate setbacks and
heights.
.
The location and
buildings should
adverse impacts,
shadowing, on
residential areas.
form of
minimize
including
low-density
.
Retail and service uses should
provide an attractive
streetfront fagade although
primary entrances may be
provided from rear and side
fagades of the buildings.
(
. pecl,estrian ameni ties and
appropriate landscape features
should be provided for the areas
between buildings and public
sidewalks.
. The residential component of
integrated commercial/
-residential buildings should
have separate and secure
entrances, a separate parking
area and appropriate indoor and
outdoor amenity areas."
iv) deleting subsection 6.5.2.4 (vi) as renumbered
(formerly 6.5.2(iv)(f);
v) in subsection 6.5.2.7(ii) as renumbered,
(formerly 6.5.2 (iv) (c) ), adding the words
"and the Gateway Commercial Area" after the
words "Central Areas" in the second line;
,.
\,
7
, ~j 3 0
(
vi) deleting the words "those areas restricted to
Special Purpose Commercial Uses" from
subsection 6.5.3(iv) and replacing them with
the words "the: area designated as Gateway
Commercial Area";
,vii) adding a new policy 6.7.3(iii) as follows:
"iii)
In areas of commercial development
and redevelopment in the Community
,Central Area and the Gateway
Commercial Area, entranceways to
commercial uses from arterial roads
shall be limited to 80 metre
intervals."
viii) amending Schedule 6-1 as shown on Exhibit
'At to this Amendment as follows:
i) identify "Gateway Commercial Area" and
various policy areas contained therein;
and
ii) adjust population in Neighbourhood lA
from 4,200 to 4,500 persons and
Neighbourhood lB from 2,400 to 2,800
persons.
IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Town of Newcastle
Official Plan, as amended, regarding the
implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard
to this Amendment.
~
INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Town of Newcastle
Official Plan,. as amended, regarding the
interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard
to this Amendment.
B
, ~) 3 1
EXHI8IT 'A' TO AMENDMENT NO. 41
TO THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN
(Courtice Urban Area)
ADJUST POPULATION
FROM "2400" TO "2800"
CHANGE FROM "SPECIAL
PURPOSE COMMERCIAL" TO
"GATEWAY COMMERCIAL
AREA" AND IDENTIFY
POLICY AREAS
CHANGE FROM
"RESIDENTIAL" TO
"GATEWAY COMMERCIAL
AREA" AND IDENTIFY
POLICY AREAS
, f
J.)
ATTACHMENT #3
ALTERNATE PARK SITES FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD 1B
(Courtice Urban Area)
Jill ~ ;!RIDlt CDURT ==
~---
~ ___!!'GHV;Ay---__ l I
-- ~r-__ No. 2 -----.r-, '---l
l ~r-- -----
=:. fL
__ NJlliIr-r-- i-- __
?)l10XHUNT -....]17- --- r---
---, l~ I- ~L- ~ ~ ;-~.(I ~,~~ '.',
I II t= ~ -- ~I:: . ~~fir~~~~ SITE
.. I 0:: - __ ;~~~?~ 'j~t'~"1J')e;~.,,~ V
KINGSWAY GATE (.) __ - :;"_~':'o';?};~,~);~,:~
I II -- " '.,v' -ti:)" ')'3.'':: ..' ..~
____ ~.. ..,~ rf'l~ .. t'.
_ w _ - '''.'i'0'P' ":')'lIoa:J. ~'~/" 'j-
a:: _ ." ",;'''F-I.) .,,~.~ .
-a. - ==---- ~:l~~~q:~~~~~'t"
- 15 _ :::w~.JJ, rM~1,i1>,'~~ -':;~('"
,~""i.."',~~" ~~.!'" iA.
t e-- - . ..~ /1,. ~
~':';'''''' . ...... ..J _ ~
s:::.:.;~{:X~Y:::~ ~o:: - A SI T'J::" "0"
FoxliiJN.!. - I- - ~ I r:;;, IJ
~~~lijlt.t~ I- == -.J /
"":';':';":;'. - 5 - ~ ','!/-,"''X ~ "~':]:'~
k / tv "':z: ::....~ ',:-' .if'., ,.~.~~\:
W Gsv/~ ~ ,~~;!;; ~ti'~
z <.;; W U. ' '-.'V,"'" "'I1'.);rr.
~-.Jz _~)JN CRt: ==_ 'w'~~H:i~;g.~~~:1~r,9x:.
~. .:.~J: "'~ . ..~.:.'t.., ....~;~l"':\
lJ. iL,a.~"""',::1.? ';..,...;:~:~ .~ ,;,t.-.f-..
r---...... ' r~ 9~7......''-,,;I~ "'.2';.~~
o -I ........, '........ ") '..._,~ ';"",t\ .~. ~~i;);.
I- _ ---i .............. ""'--- . ., L}~tl'i:z~ ~~~1~
----.,; _ ~ I:.i.:':;......:~..:;)..~ ,\-;:,':-\,
--
- ---..:. EDINBOROUGH L ME
WI
L~bl im~t
BLOSSOM m g 0
PARKETTE >- m
~ 6:8RIARH\LL r
=~WJJ~ GYE ~
~'\ c-~;
'~"
V
M
~/
~ty.~?;~~~i-
G~
,/
o
<(
o
0::
~
~~
,
'-- -
- -
-
- r--
- -
~ tJ--
!(!J
it;
~
-
~
)l
-=
-
--
-
-
f----'
I--
r---
I--
~
I -.- I =
KINGSWOOD DRIVE ~--
I I I
/
(
~-
-
tDX~T TRi'l _
V
~
--
r
,;;(~
/~ "Z/./i'>
r-
ATTACHMENT #4
MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT #41
TO THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN
1. Delete IIBasisll of Amendment and replace it with the following:
l'This Amendment is based on a planning study undertaken by the Town of
Newcastle known as the Courtice West Highway No. 2 Corridor Study, the
designation of a Sub-Central Area in the Durham Regional Official Plan at
Townline Road and Highway No.2 and an application submitted by Valiant
Property Management. II
2. Delete IIActual Amendment" and replace with the following:
The Town of Newcastle Official Plan is hereby amended by:
1. Adding a new subsection 6.1.2 vi) as follows:
IIvi) In the processing of medium and high density residential
developments, appropriate on-site indoor and outdoor recreational
amenity areas shall be provided. II
2. By adding a new subsection 6.4.2 (v) as follows:
IIV) Soil Contamination Assessment Areas
a) Sites with potentially contaminated soils identified by the
Ministry of the Environment are identified on Schedule 6-2.
Prior to approval of any development, a report shall be
prepared by a qualified consultant characterizing the soils
and recommending a remediation plan in accordance with
the Ministry of the Environment's policy and/or guidelines.
b) For those sites identified as contaminated, a qualified
engineer shall be on-site throughout the duration of
excavation and soil handling activities to ensure that the site
is cleaned up in accordance with the Ministry of the
Environment's policy and/or guidelines.
c) Prior to any development occurring, a qualified person shall
undertake a verification sampling program and shall certify
to the satisfaction of the Ministry of the Environment and the
Town that the site has been made suitable for the use
proposed. II
Jj4
- 2 -
3. Renumbering the existing Sections as follows:
From:
Section 6.5.2 (i)
Section 6.5.2 (i) (a)
Section 6.5.2.(i)(b)
Section 6.5.2 (i)(c)
Section 6.5.2.(i)(d)
Section 6.5.2.(ii)
Section 6.5.2.(ii)(a)
Section 6.5.2.(ii)(b)
Section 6.5.2.(ii)(c)
Section 6.5.2. (iii)
Section 6.5.2.(iii)(a)
Section 6.5.2.(iii)(b)
Section 6.5.2.(iii)(c)
Section 6.5.2. (iii)(d)
Section 6.5.2.(iii)(e)
Section 6.5.2.(iv)
Section 6.5.2. (iv)(a)
Section 6.5.2.(iv)(b)
Section 6.5.2. (iv)(c)
Section 6.5.2. (iv)(d)
Section 6.5.2.(iv)(e)
Section 6.5.2. (iv) (f)
Section 6.5.2. (v)
Section 6.5.2. (vi)
Section 6.5.2. (vi)(a)
Section 6.5.2.(vi)(b)
To:
Section 6.5.2.1
Section 6.5.2.1 (i)
Section 6.5.2.1 (ii)
Section 6.5.2.1 (iii)
Section 6.5.2.1 (i)
Section 6.5.2.3
Section 6.5.2.3 (i)
Section 6.5.2.3 (ii)
Section 6.5.2,3 (iii)
Section 6,5,2.4
Section 6.5.2.4 (i)
Section 6.5.2.4 (ii)
Section 6.5.2.4 (iii)
Section 6.5.2.4 (iv)
Section 6.5.2.4 (v)
Section 6.5.2.5
Section 6.5.2.5 (i)
Section 6.5.2.5 (ii)
Section 6.5.2.5 (iii)
Section 6.5.2.5 (i)
Section 6.5.2.5 (v)
Section 6.5.2.5 (vi)
Section 6.5.2.6
Section 6.5.2.7
Section 6.5.2.7 (i)
Section 6.5.2.7 (ii)
4. Adding a new Section 6.5.2.2 as follows:
116.5.2.2
Sub-Central Area
i) The Sub-Central Area, in conjunction with lands identified in the City of
Oshawa, shall serve as a focal point of activity providing an integrated
array of shopping, personal and business service, office, residential and
community uses serving portions of the Oshawa and Courtice Urban
Areas. It shall be planned and developed similar to Main Central Areas.
In Newcastle, it is recognized that this area provides a unique loeational
opportunity at the entranceway to the municipality.
" J7 J[-
,J
- 3 -
ii) A maximum of 28,000 square metres of gross leasable floorspace shall be
permitted for the retailing of goods and personal services as follows:
Policy Area A - 2,000 sq. m.
Policy Area B - 18,000 sq. m.
Policy Area C - 8,000 sq. m.
iii) Council shall seek to achieve an integrated urban design having regard to
the planned function area as a Sub-Central Area and a major gateway to
the Town of Newcastle.
iv) Council shall require the provIsion of appropriate public amenities,
services and facilities in conjunction with new development on lands in the
Sub-Central Area.
v) In exercising its powers of regulation, review and approval under the
Planning Act, for the development of lands in the Sub-Central Area,
Council shall implement the following objectives:
. the integration of development to create an image and character for
the area appropriate to this major entranceway to the Courtice
Urban Area;
. provision of direct street pedestrian access, wherever possible;
. implementation of a comprehensive streetscape improvement
strategy;
. the consolidation of entranceways at 80 metre intervals;
. common internal traffic circulation with an integrated laneway
system;
. appropriate provision for public transit including shelters;
. use of common themes in signage; and
. the rationalization of irregular lot boundaries, where possible, to
achieve a more efficient development pattern.
':)36
- 4 -
vi) An integrated private laneway system shall be provided to permit ease of
movement between adjoining commercial properties. Such a laneway
system shall be dedicated to adjoining landowners by means of
easements registered on title. It shall have a minimum width of 8 metres.
vii) Council shall seek to ensure that smaller parcels are incorporated into
comprehensive development schemes. To achieve this, Council may
require that proponents prepare comprehensive block plans to
demonstrate that development proposals do not negatively impact the
development potential of adjacent lands.
viii) Policy Area A: Office Commercial Area
a) Lands designated as Policy Area A shall be used for professional
and business offices. Ground floor retail and personal services may
be permitted but shall generally not exceed 20% of the gross
leaseable floor area.
ix) Policy Area B: General Commercial
a) The predominant use of lands in Policy Area B shall be retail,
personal service uses, and professional and business offices. In
addition, community and residential uses are encouraged in
association with commercial facilities,
b) Council shall encourage existing commercial development to co-
operate in the implementation of integrated development plan. As
a condition of redevelopment of any land within this designation,
the proponent shall be required to consolidate access points,
incorporate the development of a rear laneway system, and improve
landscaping.
x) Policy Area C: Mixed-Use Development Area
a) The lands designated as Policy Area C are to be the focal point of
architectural interest in the Sub-Central Area. The following uses
are permitted:
. mixed-use commercial/residential buildings with retail and
personal service uses on the ground floor;
. office buildings in accordance with the policies of Section
6.5.2.2 (viii);
:J 3 7
- 5 -
. medium or high density residential buildings not exceeding
80 units per net hectare,
b) Lands within Policy Area C shall be permitted to develop up to a
maximum floorspace index of 1.00 and up to a maximum height of
6 storeys.
c) In addition to the policies of 6.5.2.2 (v), in exercising its powers of
regulation, review and approval under the Planning Act, Council
shall implement the following objectives for the development of
lands in Policy Area C:
. The location and form of buildings shall contribute, to the
creation of an attractive environment for pedestrians.
. Buildings shall be sited in a manner which clearly define a
prominent corner and the edges of streets with appropriate
setbacks and heights.
. The location and form of buildings shall minimize adverse
impacts, including shadowing, on low-density residential
areas.
. Retail and service uses shall provide an attractive streetfront
facade and direct street access.
. Pedestrian amenities and appropriate landscape features
shall be provided at the intersection.
. The residential component of integrated
commercial/residential buildings should have separate and
secure entrances, a separate parking area and appropriate
indoor and outdoor amenity areas. II
5. Deleting subsection 6.5.2.5 (vi) as renumbered (formerly subsection 6.5.2 (iv)(f).
6. Deleting the words IICommunity and Local Central Areasll and replacing it with the
words IICentral Areasll in subsection 6.5.3 (i).
':.)38
- 6 -
7. Adding a new policy 6.7.3(iii) as follows:
"iii) In areas of commercial development and redevelopment in Central Areas,
entranceways to commercial uses from arterial roads shall be limited to 80
metre intervals. II
8. Amending Schedule 6-1 as shown on Exhibit 'A' to this Amendment as follows:
i) Identify "Sub-Central Are a" and various policy areas contained
therein;
ii) Adjust population in Neighbourhood 1 A from 4,200 to 4,500
persons and Neighbourhood 18 from 2,400 to 2,800 persons; and
iii) Identify neighbourhood park.
9. Amending Schedule 6-2 as shown on Exhibit '8' to this Amendment to identify
"Soil Contamination Assessment Areas",
. ~J 3 9
r
MODIFIED EXHIBIT "A" TO AMENDMENT NO. 41
TO THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN
(Courtice Urban Area)
CHANGE FROM
"RESIDENTIAL" TC
"SUB-CENTRAL AREA"
AND IDENTIFY POLICY
AREAS
CHANGE FROM "SPECIAL
PURPOSE COMMERCIAL" TO
"SUB -CENTRAL AREA" AND
IDENTIFY POLICY AREAS
CHANGE FROM
"RESIDENTIAL" TO
"SUB-CENTRAL AREA"
AND IDENTIFY PCLlCY
AREAS
ADJUST POPULATION
FROM "2400" TO "2800"
. ,-
J4Ll
EXHIBIT "B" TO AMENDMENT NO. 41
TO THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN
(Courtice Urban Area)
::4 '
I I,',e,
'~'"T.' b~
, "
(I .
'\
co
.,~
,~ CQ
C g
.e ~
::l03
I
I
.,
u
o ).. '"
~ :;; ~
C:-Oc..t:
" c"
O<E~
Io..Ea:;:
o .!.~ 'v;
-. "" > c:
~~JiJ;
)..'"
-0
0"
]<
E !'
co:;
,g.;
> c
c"
wVl
r ("\1
:~) W;
.. ....]1J
<!w
Oi ~ ~
!!! W Z
.: ~<!
ffi ..- lD
m 0:: a::
~ ;:);:)
o 0
:g u
...J
~
ffi >-
::!: !:
z >
o'!::
~ I/)
> z
zw
WI/)
W
...J
=>(\J
C I
~w
()
I/)
, ~t
+.~ '..
J~
-e'~
'"il
. I
~'~
'~
;.~. '~
t ~
. .
t ,
II
"'Y-""l,
"
/
- --t
,~
"
w
..So
i
"..'
;.~ tf
. ,~ ~
r-.....,..-n
, ~) 4 1
ATTACHMENT #5
AMENDMENT # 10 TO THE
COURTICE WEST NEIGHBOURHOOD ,DEVELOPMENT PLAN
PURPOSE: The purpose of this amendment is to implement modifications to
Amendment # 41 to the Town of Newcastle Official Plan and to recognize
lands in the vicinity of Townline Road and Highway No.2 as a Sub-Central
Area in accordance with the 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan and
Amendment #256 to the 1976 Durham Regional Official Plan.
BASIS: This amendment is based on the planning study undertaken by the Town
for the Courtice West Highway No. 2 Corridor area, the designation of a
new Sub-Central Area in the Durham Regional Official Plan, and an
application by Valiant Property Management Ltd. for a commercial centre
with approximately 8,000 square metres of retail and personal service
floorspace on the east side of Townline Road between Highway NO.2 and
Nash Road.
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT:
The Courtice West Neighbourhood Development Plan is hereby amended
as follows: '
1. Delete all references to "Gateway Commercial Area" and "Gateway
Commercial Policy Area" and replace it with 'Townline Sub-Central
Area".
2. Delete the first paragraph in section 2.5.3 (ii) and replace it with the
following paragraph:
"ii) The Townline Sub-Central Area is comprised of three policy
areas: General Commercial Area; Mixed-Use Area and Office
Commercial Area."
3. Delete subsection 2.5.3 (ii)(a) and replace it as follows:
"a) General Commercial Areas shall be developed for retail,
personal service and office uses. Community and residential
uses are encouraged in association with commercial
development.
4. Delete Subsection 2.5.3 (ii)(b) and renumber the following
subsections.
{ :J 42
- 2 -
5. Add new subsections 2.5.3 (ii)(c) as follows:
"c) Office Commercial Areas shall be redeveloped in accordance
with Section 2.5.6 of this Plan. Buildings shall be a minimum
of three storeys in height, be sited to clearly define the
edges of streets, and provide a point of architectural interest
at the entranceway to the municipality.
6. In Section ~.5.3 (iii) replace the words "maximum of five storeys"
with "maximum of six storeys".
7. Amend Section 2.6.5 by changing all references from IIService
Lanesll to "Internal Lanesll.
8. Amend Schedule 1 to the Courtice West Neighbourhood
Development Plan as shown on Schedule 'A' to this Amendment.
IMPLEMENTATION:
The provisions regarding implementation, as set forth in the courtice West
Neighbourhood Development Plan shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
INTERPRETATION:
The provisions regarding interpretation, as set forth in the Courtice West
Neighbourhood Development Plan shall apply in regard to this
amendment.
':J43
r
SCHEDULE IIAII TO AMENDMENT NO. 10
TO THE COURTICE WEST
NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RELOCATE "INTERNAL
LANEWAY SYSTEM"
1~111&_'
.:.:.:
.....
:::::
,',',
ii1i!
.:.:
....
:.:.
.:.:
CHANGE FROM IISPECIAL
PURPOSE COMMERCIAL"
TO "OFFICE II
::::::: :::::::::::: :::: ~:;:~