HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-183-87
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
~~9>
REPORT File # ;,•:3~.~~,~,,
Res. # /~ `~~
By-Law #
NEFTI(~i: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, July 6, 1987
T #: PD-183-87
FILE #: 87-17/D/N and OP 3.12(3)
CT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION - FILE: 87-17/D/N
HAMLET DEVELOPMENT PLAN AN~NDMENT APPLICATION - FILE: OP 3.12(3)
PART LOT 23, CONCESSION 6, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
APPLICANT: MR. EHUD TELEM
RECON4MENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-183-87 be received; and
2. THAT the Region of Uurham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that
Official Plan Amendment Application 87-17/D/N submitted by Mr. Ehud Telem to
redesignate the Hamlet of Solina as a "Hamlet for Growth" be denied; and
3. THAT the application to amend the Solina Hamlet Development Plan OP 3.12(3)
submitted by Nlr. Ehud Telem to permit the development of a thirty (30) lot
residential subdivision, a commercial block and a block for future development in
Part Lot 23, Concession 6, former Township of Darlington, be denied; and
4. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the
applicant and the interested parties indicated hereto.
BACKGROUND:
On April 13, 1987, the Town was advised by the Region of Durham of an application
submitted by Mr. Ehud Telem to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Town of
...2
~~~
REPORT NO.: PD-183-87 Page 2
Newcastle Official Plan to designate the Hamlet of Solina as a "Hamlet for
Growth". The applicant's proposal involves the creation of a 30 lot
residential subdivision on 15.54 ha, a 0.73 ha commercial block and a 32.3
ha block for future development in Lot 23, Concession 6 (see key map). The
Town subsequently advised the applicant of the requirement to amend the
Solina Hamlet Development Plan to include the area subject of the
application within the limits of the Hamlet. That application was recently
received by the Planning Department.
The lands subject of the application currently lie directly to the east of
the limits of the Hamlet of Solina as defined by the Solina Hamlet
Development Plan, and are designated "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" by the
Durham Regional Official Plan and zoned "Agricultural (A-1)" by By-law
84-63.
In general, residential development in hamlets identified by the Region a1
Official Plan are intended to be limited to minor internal infilling and/or
minor additions to existing development (Section 10.4.1.4). However,
additional residential Bevel opment up to a s peci fi ed maxi mum of res i denti al
units is permitted in Hamlets designated by the Official Plan as "Hamlets
for Growth" (Section 10.4.1.2). Staff note that currently, within the Town
of Newcastle, the Hamlets of Burketon and Enniskillen are designated as
"Hamlets for Growth" and are limited to a maximum of 150 and 200 residential
units respectively.
The Town of Newcastle Official Plan (Section 9.11) states that an
application for development in a Hamlet shall be accompanied by a detailed
Engineering Report based on test drilling which confirms soil conditions
satisfactory for the effective operation of private waste disposal systems,
no adverse effects upon existing water supplies and an adequate supply of
potable water to service the proposed development, and an adequate
separation between the water table and septic the fields.
...2
y~9~
REPORT NO .: PD-183-87 Page 3
The results of a geotechnical investigation were submitted in conjunction
with the application. This study indicated that a clayey silt till was the
primary soil unit underlying the topsoil on-site at depths ranging from 0.2m
to beyond 3.5m. In some spots, this soil unit was underlain by silty sand.
The investigation found the c 1 ayey si 1 t ti 11 to have low perme abi li ty and
poor water absorption capacity and therefore recommends the installation of
raised leaching beds. Free groundwater was encountered in one borehole in
the south end and three boreholes at the north end of the site at depths
ranging from 2.2m to 4.6m. The report states however, that the observed
groundwater condition may not represent the true water table as there was
insufficient time for long term observation and the permeability of the
silty soil is generally low. A test well to determine depth of water table
and yields was not drilled. An existing drilled well on-site is 38.7m de ep
and encountered groundwater at 12m of depth. This well yielded 5 gallons
per minute. The report also studied other wells in the area, but noted that
the logs of these wells do not contain sufficient information to determine
whether there i s one continuous aqui fer and the yield of the aqui fer. The
report concludes however that, given the depth of overburden in excess of
76m and the predominance of sandy soils in the upper 60m, it should be
possible to obtain freshwater at adequate yields from wells greater than 30m
in depth.
The subject applications were circulated by the Town and Regional Planning
Departments to various agencies for comment. The fol lowing i s a summary of
the comments received:
Town of Newcastle Community Services Department
"No objection. Recommend 5% in lieu of parkland dedication be requested."
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
"This Department has no objection to the above-headed application.
Emergency fire response is from Station #4, which is within the recognized
five mile response distance from a fire station. Water supply for
firefighting is by Fire Department tanker trucks.
I do have concern with how this part-time Fire Department is to maintain the
existing level of emergency service considering all of the development that
is taking place throughout the municipality."
...4
~~y
REPORT NO.: PD-183-87
Region of Durham Health Unit
Page 4
"Please be advised that this Department has no objection to the above
Official Plan Amendment. However, the number of lots that are suitable for
on-site sewage disposal will be determined when the subdivision proposal or
severances are circulated to this Department, along with other pertinent
information.
The following information will be required for this Health Department to
comment on the above proposed subdivision:
1. Plans of the proposed subdivision indicating existing and proposed
contours at two metre intervals, as well as a surface drainage plan.
2. A soil analysis report indicating that a sufficient number of
representative test holes were excavated to a depth of two metres based
on final grades. The number of test holes, preferably test pits, and
their locations, is to be determined by representatives of the
consultant firm and the Health Department.
3. Subdivision plot plans indicating the house, wel 1 and septi c system
locations on each lot.
The report must indicate groundwater elevations in all test holes after a 24
hour waiting period. Soil samples taken from each test hole at one metre
depths are to be analysed for grain size distribution and co-efficient of
permeability. A percolation rate for each sample must be estimated in
min./cm."
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
"Staff of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food have reviewed the
above development proposal . Consi deration has beengi ven ~to the proposal in
terms of the goals and objectives of the Ministry and of the criteria and
policies outlined in the Food Land Guidelines.
The application is to expand the hamlet of Solina to the east on soils that
have an agricultural capability rating of Class 1, and are currently used
for agricultural production. Expansion of urban areas onto prime
agricultural lands is addressed in Section 3.14 of the Food Land Guidelin es.
Additional criteria are outlined in Section 4.C (Urban designations).
There is a barn to the south that conflicts with part of the proposed
development. The Agricultural Code of Practice requires a separation
distance of 430 feet. The arc of incluence is indicated on the attached
photo.
In view of the location of the barn, the size of the expansion proposed and
the quality of the agricultural soils, our preliminary assessment is that
the proposal does not comply with the Food Land Guidelines, however we would
need to review the documentation as outlined in Sections 3.14 and 4.C of the
Guidelines before stating a final position."
...5
~~~
REPURT NO.: PD-183-87
Ministry of Natural Resources
Page 5
"Ministry Staff have completed our review of these proposed amendments. We
have no objections to these proposals.
A small tributary of Black Creek is located adjacent to the site. Any
concerns that we may have for maintaining water quality in Black Creek may
be addressed when the draft plan of subdivision is circulated for comment."
The following agencies indicated no objection to the subject applications:
- Town of Newcastle Public Works Department
- Town of Newcastle Building Department
- Region of Durham Works Department
- Ministry of Transportation and Communications
- Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education
- Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and Newcastle
Roman Catholic Separate School Board
Two area residents submitted letters in objection to the proposed
development. The concerns as expressed by the residents are as follows:
- extensive development currently occurring in Solina with its present
status as a Hamlet for infilling
- loss of prime agricultural land
- contrary to intent of Regional Official Plan
- adverse impact on character of Hamlet
- sufficient land designated for residential purposes in urban areas
- adverse impact on well water supply to existing homes
- increased demand for and burden on municipal services
COMMENT:
A number of concerns with respect to the proposed development have been
identified through the circulation of the subject applications. In
particular, Staff reference the comments from the Ministry of Agriculture
and Food that the subject lands are rated Class 1 according to the Canada
Land Inventory of Soil Capability for Agriculture. Class 1 lands are
considered to be the most productive. In accordance with Official Plan
...6
%~
REPORT NO.: PD-183-87 Page 6
Policy to protect prime agricultural lands from development, the subject
site is designated "Peprmanent Agricultural Reserve" by the Durham Regional
Official Plan. Only farms and farm-related uses are permitted on lands so
designated. Staff are concerned that a redesignation of the subject site
would undermine the intent of Official Plan policy and would set a precedent
for the development of other prime agricultural lands.
Staff also note the setback from an adjacent agricultural operation as
required by the Agricultural Code of Practice would eliminate 3 lots, would
affect a portion of one other and approximately one-half of the proposed
commercial block. Notwithstanding that a large portion of the subject lands
lie outside the area of conflict as specified by the Agricultural Code of
Practice, Staff note that the intent of the code is to highlight potential
conflicts and that the distance specified by the Code represents the minimum
distance between conflicting uses. Development of a residential subdivision
just beyond the calculated area of influence does not represent good
planning in that such development could potentially limit any expansion of
the agricultural use. In that regard, By-law 84-63 (Section 3.19(c))
specifies a minimum separation of 300 metres from agricultural buildings
housing livestock. This setback would affect approximately the southern
half of the 16.24 ha parcel proposed for immediate development, resulting in
the elimination of 12 residential lots and the commercial block and a
significant impact on four other lots.
From a review of the findings of the geotechnical report submitted with the
subject applications, Staff are not satisfied that the proposed development
could proceed in accordance with Section 9.11 of the Town of Newcastle
Official Plan. The geotechnical report cites the inability of the
predominant subsoil to absorb sewage effluent and consequently recommends
the use of raised the beds. Staff also cite the apparent presence of the
water table at depths ranging from 2.2m to 4.6m and note that the report
does not address the potential impact of the sewage effluent on the water
table. Furthermore, a test well was not drilled on-site and the report has
not conclusively demonstrated that sufficient potable water is available to
...7
~~9~
REPURT NO.: PD-183-87 Page 7
service the proposed development and that such development would not
adversely impact on the water supply to existing homes.
Staff also share many of the concerns identified by area residents in their
letters of objection. One of the residents noted that extensive development
is already occuring in Solina with its present status as a Hamlet for
infilling. There are currently 76 residential lots existing within the
boundaries of the Hamlet as defined by the Hamlet Development Plan. Staff
note that approximately 33 of these lots have been created since the
adoption of the Solina Hamlet Development Plan in 1978. Draft approval of a
plan of subdivision with 14 lots in the southeast quadrant is pending.
Staff further note that the southwest quadrant of the Hamlet has yet to be
fully developed.
The subject development application proposes the creation of 30 lots plus a
32.3ha block for future development. Staff calculate that this block could
accommodate up to 70 new residential lots. The subject proposal could
therefore result in a doubling of the designated number of lots within the
Hamlet. Staff share the concerns of area residents as to the impact of
development of this scale on the character of the hamlet, and the increased
demand for and burden on municipal services. Large concentrations of
non-farm residents outside of designated urban areas can strain the
municipality's ability to provide services to these residents.
Given the above considerations, it is therefore recommended that the Region
of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that Official
Plan Amendment Application 87-14/D/N submitted by Mr. Ehud Telem to
designate Solina as a "Hamlet for Growth" be denied. It is further
recommended that the application to amend the Solina Hamlet Development Plan
...8
f~9~
REPORT NO.: PD-183-87
(File: OP 3.12(3)) also submitted by Mr. Ehud Telem be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
CC: Mr. Ehud Telem
678 Shephard Avenue West
DOWNSVIEW, Ontario
M3H 2S5
Joseph Rady-Pentak Ltd.
678 Shephard Avenue West
DOWNSVIEW, Ontario
M3N 2S5
Mr. William G. Grant
R.R. #1
HAMPTON, Ontario
LOB 1J0
Mr. Robert K. Muller
R.R. #1
NAMPTUN, Ontario
LOB 1J0
Page 8
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
~awrenc , Kotseff
Chief ~ ni strati ve Officer
y~9
~ __ _, ~ __
\ / / \~ f... iT
;\
~\ ~.~ ~ i
~ ~ l ~i ~
~' ~ ~ I ~(
:~ % ~, ,'
I
-~ '
.~
I
J ~ '~~ 4
i ~i
r ~ vl
~o I •i.
.C k 1' n
Y
~ ~~
c~i
i ~ a ~I
._ ~ >
~~ _
~I
_, -__ ~ .~. I V
`~ 'r
__ ~ ~ ~~ ~ i
~ / / / Y ~i
~~ ~/ / ~i
o ~ , YI
„_ x'~~, /
~ ~ -~' ~ /
i
:_/ ~ / :r
^ ~
»~
i~ ~ /
_ ~ I°~
a o r ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 1
.~ i
w
~~ ~ ' ~
a t ~.
V~ ~ s Y I
r ~
V 4 N N N
~~ I '~~
Y ` , w i.
YA10 O[ V ~ i N V; ! V ~ A ,
~~ ~#~
T,1~_
' 4010 ~l LlO xAMLC LTx H1 ~~
.-~.... .L 1r4N.. i$.NE4~Ll2lL~ ~.N.~. L.
' ONC. ROAD 6 T`
0
~28 27 26 25 24 23 22 2I 2n is iR ~>
KEY MAP ~«~~`~" ~