Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75-113REPORT NOs� REPORT ON BRIEFS SUBMITTED ON THE INTERIM DISTRICT PLAN I Introduction: In response to the Mayor's invitation to the public to submit briefs on the draft Interim District Plan we received 41 submissions. These submissions are listed below: 1. Susan M. Sawyer, Box 2129 Orono, Ontario. 2. John Liptay, 126 Martin Road S.9 Bowmanville 3. Sam L. Cureatz, Box 99 Newcastle, Ontario. 4. E. R. Lovekin, Box 9, Newcastle (Preservation Sanc- tuary Camp Club) 5. Schickedanz Dev. Suite 105, 3311 Bayview Ave.9 Willowdale Limited 6. Joseph B. Cramer, R.R. #39 Bowmanville 7. D. Brinkman, R.R. #1, Bowmanville 8. K. E. Lyall, 28 Emily Street, Newcastle 9. Joel R. Palter, 22 King Street West, Oshawa 10. Joel R. Palter, 22 King Street West, Oshawa 11. Joel R. Palter, 22 King Street West, Oshawa 12. Joel R. Palter, 22 King Street West, Oshawa 13. Joel R. Palter, 22 King Street West, Oshawa 14. Joel R. Palter, 22 King Street West9 Oshawa 15. Fred R. Thomas, Grp. Box 16, Box. 99 R.R.#39 Bowmanville 16. N. Pd. Groot, R.R. #1, Orono, Ontario. 17. Burney Hooey, R.R. }r`l, Hampton, Ontario. 18. Murray Payne, R.R. #3, Newcastle, Ontario. 19. Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce, c/o Keith D. Barr, Newcastle, Ontario. 20. Donald C. Kerr, 424.,Hemsall Circle, Mississauga, Ont. 34. Mr. & Mrs. Dan Newcastle, Ontario. Maskell, (Square 100 Developments) 21. F. R. Lovekin, per Dennie Norman Thompson 22. E. R. Lovekin, per Douglas and Francis Wright 23. E. R. Lovekin, per Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge 24. E. R. Lovekin, per Royal Canadian Legion 25. E. R. Lovekin, per Robert Simpson 26. E. R. Lovekin, per Lot 359 Concession 1 27. E. R. Lovekin, per Ridge Pine Park Limited 28, E. R. Lovekin, per The Newcastle Lions Club 29. E. R. Lovekin, per Leslie Horvath and Joseph Caife 30. Steve Liptay 31. James W. Robinson 32. Gatehouse Hodlings Limited, 208 Park Road North, Suite 1, Oshawa, Ontario. 33. M. D. Brown, 121 Queen Stree, Bowmanville, Ontario, 34. Mr. & Mrs. Dan Newcastle, Ontario. Maskell, 35. Mr. Sam L. Cureatz, Box 9, Newcastle, Ontario. 36. Durham Region Federation of Agriculture, c/o Don Welsh, R.R. #4, Bowmanville, Ontario. 37. Mr. Wm. Humber, 138 Liberty Street North, Apt. #3027 Bowmanville, Ontario. 38. Mr. Roger. Yates, Newcastle, Ontario, 39. R.C. Hodgins, Assistant Resources Manager, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority 40. Howard S. Swartz, per Jan Ochonski 41. Harnden and King Construction Limited In total the briefs submitted were approximately three times as voluminous as the plan itself. It soon became obvious that if the briefs themselves were merely tabled in front of the Planning Advisory Committee, an endless meandering discussion staff and consultants therefore concluded that some organization of the submissions was nec- essary for the Committee to deal with them expeditiously. In order to provide this organization the following course of action was taker. Each point raised in each brief was listed according to the section of the text or the map to which it related. For each request or suggestion an analysis was produced by staff and consult- ants. This analysis contained the name of the submittor, the number of his brief, a synopsis of his submission, a staff response to the submission, and a recommendation. These analyses are contained in Parts II and III of this report. In order to make this report manageable in size, it was necessary to make an abbreviation of many of the points raised and to paraphrase some submissions which were not entirely clear as to the changes in the Plan which they wanted. I apologize if anyone's point of view was unintentionally misrepresented. We found it impossible on grounds of cost alone to make a full copy of every brief submitted, available to each Committee member; and we doubt whether most members of the P.A.C. would have been able to find the time to read and analyse every brief. if copies had been produced. However, copies of each brief are available on request from the Hampton office for any member who wishes to read the full text of any brief. (iv) Part III of this report contains a biref summary of submissions which were made but found not to relate directly to the Interim Dis- trict Plan, Part IV of this report contains a number of small suggested changes in the plan which arose during our review of the briefs but were not suggested in any particular submission. It should be noted that the purpose which the Interim Plan was intended to serve was mainly as an administrative device to enable us to function during the next 18 months while the Regional Official Plan and our own final District Plan are being produced. It was intended also to allow us to proceed with a new comprehensive zoning by-law covering the whole municipality. In view of the limited purposes of the Interim Plan, I feel that it has already taken up more time than it really warrants- especially when it is considered that an amendment to the plan can be initiated at any time. Hembers of the Committee will note that the briefs received cover a great number of the sections of the text and a large part of the maps as well, The Committee could easily find itself reviewing the whole plan again including all of the work which it spent many meetings in producing. To avoid the Committee's becoming bogged down in this way, I think that this report should not be reviewed item by item, Rather I would suggest that each member read the report fully and carefully, and that members indicated any items which they wish to question or disagree with at the start of discussion. In this way discussion would be limited to any questionable or contentious recommendations, and the Plan could be forwarded to Council without any unnecessary delay, II - TEXT: SECTION: 1(1) Brief No: 19 Submittor: Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce Synopsis of Submission: The correct name of the plan should be "INTERIM DISTRICT PLAN". Staff Response: The title of the plan is dictated by the wording of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, however, Sections 1 (1) and 1 (2) identify the interim nature of the plan. Recommendation: No change. Brief No: 17 SECTION: 10) Submittor: Bill Humber Synopsis of Submission: The phrase 'best form of development is not clearly defined'. Staff Response: The form of development which is considered best for the interim period is defined in Section 1(2) above. The principles guiding long term development will be spelled out in the Goals and Objectives Section of the final District Plan. Recommendation: SECTION: 1(1)(b)(iii) Submittor: Synopsis of Submission: No change. Brief Ng: 8 K. E. Lyall The requirement that building lots front on a public road should be deleted. Staff Response: The deletion of this requirement would permit development in locations which were adverse to the safety of the public by being inaccessible and it would lead to many de- mands to open up new roads at public expense. - 2 - SECTION: 1(1)(b)(iii) (cont'd........ ) Staff Response: This requirement can be met in sufficient numbers of lots without allowing ribbon development along roads in the rural area. Recommendation: No change. Brief No: 17 & 16 SECTION: 1(1)(b)(y) (Brief No. 17) Submittor: Burney Hooey Synopsis of Submission: Ribbon development should not be prevented and a farmer should be allowed to sell a lot every three years. Staff Response: This proposal would (a) lead to the break- up of viable farms, (b) create more con- flicts between agriculture and rural resi- dential populations, (c) greatly increase municipal and school board expenditures for roads and school bus services, (d) in- crease traffic hazards, and (e) reduce the accessibility of the country for the urban population. (Brief No. 36) Submittor: Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Synopsis of Submission: This section should be changed to read "as defined by Canada Land Inventory (C.L.I.) classes 19 2, and 3, and unique agricul- tural areas on other classes such as tob- acco farms. Staff Response: The change should be accepted in principle to recognize that certain lands have impor- tant value for specialized types of agric- ulture although they do not rate highly in the Canada Land Inventory. - 3 - (Brief No. 36 cont'd..... 0 Recommendations The sentence beginning with the word consents, should be amended to reads "Consents for non-agricultural uses should not be granted on lands where the soil capability for agriculture is rated in the Canada Land Inventory as Class 1, 2, or 3 or on other lands used for producing specialized types of crops". Brief No°19 SECTION° �(2)( ) Submittor: Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce. Synopsis of Submissions The plan provides that urban development be generally on the basis of full piped services, but it also frowns on the ext- ension of services. Staff Responses The plan does not frown on the extension of services provided that extensions are within the capacity of the overall system being extended. Recommendations No change. Brief No° U SECTION: 10) Submittor: Bill Humber Synopsis of Submission: The plan should contain a statement as to municipal housing needs, population growth policy and phasing. Staff Response: The above subjects will be dealt with in the final plan, but are not necessary for the limited amount of development which is possible during the interim period. Recommendation: No change. Brief No° 8 SECTION: 3(4)(b Submittor: K. E. Lyall Synopsis of Submission: It should be stated whether the 5% cash in lieu of parkland is calculated before or after services. Staff Response: The P.A.C. decided after considerable dis- cussion that it wished to leave optional the exact method of calculating the cash - in -lieu. In any case the plan provides that cash would only be taken in relatively rare cases where a conveyance of land was not practical, such as in very small sub- divisions where 516 would be less than one lot. Recommendation: SECTION: 4(3) No change. Brief No: 39 Submittor: R. C. Hodgins, Assistant Resources Manager, Ganaraska Conservation Authority Synopsis of Submission: A non -conforming use should not be permit- ted simply because it is a public use. For example, a public building in the flood plain is just as damaging as a private building. Staff Response: The submission is considered to be correct in saying that agencies should not be exempted from the controls of the zoning by-laws merely because they are public agencies. The exemptions given by present by-laws have led to some questionable decisions in the past (eg. location of Clarke High School). Recommendation: The following words should be added to the end of the section "and that such use is permitted in the implementing zoning by-laws". SECTION. 4(5)(a)(i) (Brief No. 8) Submittor. - 5 - K. F. Lyall Briefs No: 8 & 17 Synopsis of Submission. The submittor wishes to know who will be permitted to construct medium density residential development and who will give permission? Staff Response. There is no way of knowing to whom permis- sion will be given but it will be given by Council through its zoning by-laws. (Brief No. 37) Submittor. Synopsis of Submission. Staff Response. Recommendation. SECTION. 4(5)(a)(ii) Submittor. Bill Humber Medium density residential development should not be restricted to 10% of the Urban Residential area. The restriction of medium density devel- opment to 10% of the urban residential area would permit this to form approximately 30% of new units. The distribution of various densities over the long term will be dealt with in the final plan. In view of the limitations of the services in Bowmanville, Newcastle, and Orono, substan- tial new urban development of any land is unlikely within the life of the interim plan. No change. Brief No° 19 Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce. Synopsis of Submission. The submittor wants to know whether the section would permit 5,000 to 6,000 square foot lotse - 6 - Staff Response; The exact size of residential lots would be regulated by the zoning by-law. Recommendation; No change. Briefs No: 8 & 19 SECTION: 4(5)(a) --(viii) Submittor: K. E. Lyall Synopsis of Submission: Conversion of single family dwellings to multiple units should not be permitted. Staff Response: Conversions would be regulated by the zoning by-law which permit it to occur only in those large older houses which are difficult to maintain as single family dwellings. These would have to conform to the same zoning, building and fire protection stand- ards"as new multiple units. This is con- sidered to be a way of preserving older houses of sound construction and providing reasonably priced rental accomodation. In addition, many of these houses have an im- portant architectural and historic character which would be lost if an economic use can- not be found for them. (Brief No.19) Sulmittor: Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce. Synopsis of Submission; The submittor wishes to know whether con- versions will be restricted to those cases where homeowners in the area agree? Staff Response: Homeowners would have an opportunity to object to any zoning by-law which permitted conversions in any zone, but as always, the O.M.B. would make the final decision. Recommendation: No change. SECTION: 4(5)(d)(ii) Submittor: Synopsis of Submission: - 7 - K. E. Lyall Brief No• 8 The submittor wants to know who owns the land designated estate residential in Bowmanville and why it was singled out for special treatment: Staff Response: The land is owned by L.D.C.M. and the designation is merely a repetition of that contained in the approved Official Plan for Bowmanville. Although this land does not meet the criteria for estate residential development stated elsewhere in the plan, the Committee felt that it could not with- draw a designation granted in a recently approved official plan. Recommendation: No change. Brief No: 2 SECTION: 4(6) Submittor: John Liptay Synopsis of Submission: The submittor requests that - (a) Hamlets be redesignated to the size shown on existing (presumably draft) official plans. (b) public meetings be held in each hamlet for the purpose of asking the residents what they think should be planned for their community. (c) a 'wise person' from Newcastle be incl- uded in the Region's special committee dealing with the planning of hamlets. (d) that land under existing houses in hamlets be included in the hamlet unless they are built on a flood plain. (continued.....) g — (e) that obsolete registered plans of subdivision be reconsidered. (f) that hamlets9schools and school lots not be sold. Staff Response: (a) The hamlets as shown on the previous draft official plans were designated for a 20 year period with growth dep- endant in most cases on the install- ation of services now under Regional jurisdiction. The region are not prepared to accept large scale growth in hamlets until detailed plans for the growth of such hamlets and the provision of the hard and soft serv- ices have been undertaken. Local staff support this policy as the correct way to proceed, and the Town has already commenced the first of such studies in the case of Newtonville. (b) This request is supported by staff, but it seems to run contrary to request (a) above which would result in the major decisions re -,the long term growth of each hamlet to be made prior to public participation. (c) This request does not relate to the Interim Plan. The Town's Planning Director is included on the said Reg- ional Committee. Whether this consti- tutes a 'wise person' is left to the submittor to make his own judgement. (d) The hamlets have been designated on the basis which the submittor suggests. (e) Obsolete plans of subdivision whose lots do not conform to by-law requirements or whose layout no longer makes sense for development should be deemed not to be plans of subdivision under Section 29(3) of the Planning Act. This, how- ever, does not form part of the Official Plan. - 9 - Staff Response: (cont'd)..... (f) This matter is not under the juris- diction of the Town. Recommendation: The following sub -section should be added Section 4(6)(a) to explain the Towns proposed procedure in respect to long term hamlet development. (ix) Future Development In the course of preparing the new District Plan, the development potential of each existing hamlet will be assessed, and for those which are considered to be potentially suitable for significant development, a planning strategy will be developed in the form of a Secondary or Hamlet Plan prior to any extensive new development being approved other than minor development or infilling. Such a planning strategy shall take into account the impact of Hamlet extension on the local environment with particular consideration given to the adegiiacy of water supplies, storm drainage, methods of sewage disposal, urban design, aesthetics, landscaping and the physical relationship of new building development to existing development and the natural topography. The secondary or hamlet plans will be pre- pared in consultation with the Regional authorities responsible for any services involved and in consultation with the residents of the hamlets concerned. Brief No. 8 SECTION:4(8)(b)(i) Submittor: K. E. Lyall Synopsis of Submission: Apartments over stores should not be per- mitted. Staff Response: Apartments over stores were permitted in the draft for two purposes. The first was to re- cognize existing apartments in the main streets of Bowmanville, Newcastle and Orono, and to (continued)...... - 10 - allow for renovation and modernization. The second was to encourage redevelopment in the downtown areas of these communities, which is not economical unless some residential com- ponent is included. Apartments over stores would only be allowed by a specific zoning amendment, and they would presumably have to meet the same requirements regarding parking, open space, etc., as would apartments not located over stores. Recommendation. No change. Brief No. 8 SECTION:4 (8)(b)(ii) Submittors K. E. Lyall Synopsis of Submission: General Commercial Uses should be permitted in hamlets and at four corner locations. Staff Response. General commercial i_.ises are permitted in hamlet areas. There is little demand for this type of use nowadays at rural cross-roads and in any case it is not desirable from the tra- ffic standpoint to have commercial entrances close to major rural intersections which are the only ones which might be viable locations. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 8 SECTION: 4 (8)(c)(11) Submittors K. E. Lyall Synopsis of Submissions Block A of Plan 698 should be designated re- sidential instead of commercial. Staff Responses This property is designated commercial in the present official plan and, despite the legal proceedings underway regarding its zon- ing, it was always intended by Bowmanville Council that this land would be used for some Commercial purposes. Recommendations No change. Brief No. 8 SECTION: 4(8)(d) (i) Submittors K. E. Lyall Synopsis of Submission-, The submittor wishes to know why motels are not permitted in this section. Staff Responses Under the category of tourist establishments, motels are permitted in this section. Recommendation. No change. Brief No. 17 SECTION:. 4(8)(f)(i) Submittors Bill Humber EY:iopsis of Submission: The submittor commends the decision to with- hold approval for large scale shopping centres until completion of a commercial needs study He wishes shopping centre to be controlled by strict site plans and to include for diversity some residential and other non-commercial uses. Staff Response: The points raised are valid but there is no need to include policies in the plan for a use which is not permitted. Recommendations No change. Brief No. 11 SECTION: 4(9)(b)(v) Submittors James Robinson Synopsis of Submissions The word "medium" should be struck from the last line and the word "high" restored and high density should be defined as not more than 50 units per acre. Staff Response: The word "medium" was used here to exclude high rise and other forms of residential dev- elopment which would not fit in with the existing development and the traffic capacity (continued)...... - 12 - of the street system in the downtown fringe area. Medium density was purposely not defined precisely to allow flexibility, but it would normally include up to 40 units per acre or more in the case of senior cit- izen apartments where the units are small and the occupancy rate is low. Recommendation: No change. Brief No, 19 SECTION: 4(10) Submittor: Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce Synopsis of Submission: The submittor wishes to know why there is no adequate plan for municipally owned indus- trial land. Staff Response: The provisions of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act forbid local municipalities in the region to acwuire additional land for industrial purposes. This is now a regional function. In any case it is normal to spe- cify in an official plans how land will be developed, but it is not normal to specify who will develop it. Recommendation: SECTION: _4(11) (Brief No. 36) Submittor: Synopsis of Submission: No change. Brief No. 36 &_3.2 Durham Region Federation of Agriculture The Federation objects to the designation of land for industrial purposes in advance of requirements because this may inflate land prices and drive agricultural land out of production. This section also conflicts with the consents policy of the plan by providing for non-agricultural use of CLI Class 1, 29 and 3 land. - 13 - Staff Response: Staff and consultants already recommended deletion of this section, but the P.A.C. did not agree. (Brief No. 37) Submittor: Bill Humber Synopsis of Submission: The submittor feels that the "deferred industrial" category is an example of a tendency to .regard all rural land as a hold- ing category until some "better use" comes along. He objects to this view. Staff Response- Same as above. Recommendation- The Committee is already aware of staff and consultants views on this section. Brief No. 16 SECTION. 4(11)(a) Submittor- Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Synopsis of Submission- Some of the areas designated Major Open Space still contain farms or parts of farm units. Agriculture should be permitted until such time as these lands are needed for open space purpose. Staff Response- The Major Open Space designation should per- mit agricultural uses except speciali ed farming as referred to in Section 4(16)(b)(iii). Recommendations The following sentence should be added to the Section. where land designated Major Open Space is not presently used or required for any open space purpose, agricultural uses may be permitted on such land, but the est- ablishment of any new specialized farming operation as referred to in Section 4(16)(b)(iii) shall not be permitted. Brief No, 17 SECTION: _4(13)(b) Submittor- Bill Humber Synopsis of Submission- The submittor objects to the second sentence which appears to him to make the Major Open - 14 - Synopsis of Submissions (cont'd).... Space designation merely a holding category until a private owner finds a tetter use for the land. Staff Response: The municipality is always obligated by the Planning Act to consider an application for the redesignation of any lands, but this is spelled out here in particular because the permitted uses to a private owner are very restricted. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. � SECTION: 114) Submittor: Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Synopsis of Submission: The term "unique natural features" should be more precisely defined. Staff Response: The Interim Plan is intended to be a flexible document and not as rigid as a zoning by-law, hence there are no exact definitions. The term unique natlzral features was included to describe those features of the natural envir- onment such as wildlife refuges which should be protected from development but which are not related to any hazard to human occupation. Recommendation: SECTION:, 4 (14)(b) Submittor: No change. Brief No, 19 R. C. Hodgins, Assistant Resourcer Manager, Ganaraska Conservation Authority Synopsis of Submission: The submittor objects to "marine facilities restrooms, shelters" or similar uses being permitted in the Environmental Protection Area. Staff Response: The words "marine facilities should be dele- ted since this would open the whole shoreline and the marshlands at the mouths of streams Staff Responses (cont'd).... to any kind of marine development. The other permitted buildings and structures are small and serve as necessary acces- sories to the public enjoyment of Environmental Protection Areas. Recommendations The phrase "marine facilities" should be deleted. Brief No. 37 SECTION: 4 (14)(c) Submittor: Bill Number Synopsis of Submission: The sumbittor objects to the use of the Environmental Protection Designation as a holding category and to the use of engi- neering criteria as the basis for redesi- gnation. Staff Response: If the reason for designating an area of land "Environmental Protection" is some physical hazard, then there is no obligation for public acquisition of the land. However, if land is desingated Environmental Protec- tion for some reason not related to any physical hazard or if the physical hazard can be overcome then the public is responsible where it wishes to maintain the designation. Private landowner cannot be expected to forgoe all feasible economic uses of their land merely to achieve some public objective not related to any physical hazard inherent in the land, then it is incumbent upon the public to purchase such lands. Recommendation: The last sentence of the first paragraph should be amended to read: "If the municipality or other public agency does not wish to acquire such lands at the time an application for the redesignation of such. lands for other purposes is duly com- pleted and submitted, then such application may be ..,..... ...". - 16 - Brief No, 36 SECTION¢ 4 (14)(d) Submittor: Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Synopsis of Submission: In the case of agricultural uses, devel- opment agreements should be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Conservation Authority. Staff Responses Agriculture is presently a permitted use in the Environmental Protection Area, therefore, development agreements would not be required for any agricultural development no matter how much it affects the natural environment. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. �9 SECTION. 4 (14)(h) and (i) Submittor. R. C. Hodgins, Assistant Resources Manager, Ganaraska Conservation Authority. Synopsis of Submission: The submi.ttor compliments the municipality on the inclusion of these sections. Staff Response: This is one of the few compliments we rec- eived. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 16 SECTION: 4(16)(a)(i) Submittor: N.W. Gross Synopsis of Submission: There should be complete freedom to build on lots of two acres in the rural area. The town should upgrade any unopened road allowances to make more lots available. - 17 - Staff Responses This proposal would lead to an impossible tax burden, would be destructive of the agricultural industry in the area, and would destroy the open character of the rural environment. Recommendations SECTION: � (16)(b)(i) (Brief No. 8) Submittors Synopsis of Submissions No change. Briefs No.8 & 16 K. E. Lyall The submittor wants to know what is the au- thority for this section? Staff Responses The power to regulate severances is given to the Land Division Committee by the Planning Act and the Ministry of Housing require that such policies be included in Official Plans to guide Land Division Committees. (Brief No. 36) Submittors Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Synopsis of Submissions Severances on agricultural land can lead to promotion of future non-farm use. Staff Responses The Durham Federation of Agriculture wish to eliminate farm related severances, but we feel that all faraiers are not necessarily in accord with that wish. If a farmer feels that severing a lot would lead to future problems for his farm. operation, he need not make an application. Recommendations No change. Briefs No. 7, 8 and 16 SECTION: 4 (16)(b)(ii) (Brief No. 7) Submittor: D. Brinkman — 18 — (Brief No. 7) (cont'd)....... Synopsis of Submission: The Certificate of Compliance is too res- trictive on the farm operation. Staff Response: The Agricultural Code of Practice is cur- rently being revised to contain more realistic criteria, but until this revision is adopted this section should be removed from the Interim Plan. (Brief No. 8) Submittor: K. E. Lyall Synopsis of Submission: This section means more red tape for the farmer. Staff Response: Same as above. (Brief No. 36) Submittor: Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Synopsis of Submission: The Agricultural Code of Practice is now being revised and should not be included until such revisions are complete. Staff Response: Same as above. Recommendation: The section should be deleted. Brief No. 19 SECTION: 4 (16)(c) Submittor: Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce Synopsis of Submission: The submittor wishes to know why there is not provision for estate residential dev- elopment in the former Village of Newcastle. Staff Response, A policy for estate residential development is being investigated and will be included in the final plan. In the meantime a limited number of lots can to created, some of which could be in the Village of Newcastle if they meet the criteria. Recommendation: No change. SECTION- 4 (16)(c)(i) Submittor- — lg — K. E. Lyall Brief No,_8 Synopsis of Submission- The submittor wants to know who will be granted the proposed 25 estate residential lots? Staff Response: Presumably the lots will go to the first 25 applicants to the Land Division Committee who meet the criteria in the plan. Recommendation- No change. Brief No. 16 SECTION- 4 (16)(c)(iii) Submittor- Durham Region Federation of Agriculture Synopsis of Submission- The restriction. of Estate Residential Dev- elopment should be to C.L.I. classes 4 to 7. Staff Response: Since the plan imposes a limit of 25 estate residential lots, these should be restricted to the least valuable agricultural land. Recommendation; No change. Brief No. 17 SECTION. 4 (16)(c)(iv) Submittor: Bill Iiumber Synopsis of Submission- The Estate Residential classification en- courages housing for the affluent while there is no provision for housing for less affluent people. The effects of such development should be studied before it is promoted. Staff Response- Only 25 estate residential lots are allowed in 1975. The municipality is currently undertaking housing studies in three areas which would provide for the housing needs of lower and middle income groups. Recommendation: SECTION. 4 (17)(Q Submittor. - 20 - No change. Bill Humber Brief No. i7 Synopsis of Submission. Music festivals should not be banned at Mosport, since there are better ways of ahcieving a positive use of the grounds for a variety of purposes other than motor rac- ing should not be totally prohibited. Recommendation. The last sentence should be stricken and replaced by the following. Other uses of and entertainment nature which are compa- tible with surrounding uses and create no pollution problems may also be permitted subject to restrictions contained in the implementing zoning by-laws. SECTION. 5 (1) Submittor. Bill Humber Brief No. E Synopsis of Submission, Control over road widenings should be based on factors in addition to the effect on near- by trees. Staff Response., The P.A.C. specifically wanted this last line of the section stated to emphasize its imp- ortance. However, this does not mean that other factors of need and extent of road. widening would not be considered. Recommendation. No change. Brief No, 19 SECTION. 6 (5)(b) Su.bmittor. Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce. Synopsis of Submission. The requirement for advertizing meetings should be more accurately spelled out. 21 - Synopsis of Submissions (cont'd)...... Meetings should be advertized two weeks in a row with final advertizing one week prior t6 the meeting date. Staff Response: The Planning Act only .requires that notice be given. The submittor's comments are valid but they go into too much detail for formal inc- lusion in an Official Plan. Recommendation; No change. - 22 - III - MAPS: MAP 1: Lot 14 & 15, Concession 1. CLARKE (Brief No. 1) Submittor: Susan M. Sawyer Briefs No. 1 & 27 Synopsis of Submission: She objects to the inclusion of the Wilmot Creek Cove Retirement Park. Staff Response: The proposed retirement park is not included in the Interim Plan. The P.A.C. have already decided on another procedure for dealing with this application. (Brief No. 27) Submittor: E. R. Lovekin Synopsis of Submission: Objects that the lands are not designated as a mobile home park and the Interim Plan does not reflect Amendment No. 1 to the Clarke Official Plan. Staff Response: Amendment No. 1 has teen withdrawn and the P.A.C. has already decided on a procedure for dealing further with this application. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 2 MAP is Lot 11 & 14+ Concession B DARLINGTON Submittor: John Liptay Synopsis of Submission: The Environmental Protection Arca in Haydon is inaccurately defined. Staff Response: The E.P.A. in Haydon has been reviewed and should be shown as beginning slightly to the east of Maple Street. Recommendation: The E.P.A. designation in Haydon should be revised as above. NAP 1.: Lot 29, Concession 4. CLARKE Submittor: - 23 - Sam Cureatz Brief No. 3 Synopsis of Submission: An existing small subdivision south of Orono should be shown on the map. Staff Response: The Official Plan recognized small clusters of housing in the rural area and existing vacant lots without attempting to show them all on the map. This small subdivision will be recognized in the zoning by-law. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 4 MAP 1. Lot 3, Concession 10. DARLINGTON Submittor: E. R. Lovekin Synopsis of Submission: The submittor objects that the lands of the Preservation Sanctuary Camp Club are not shown in a suitable designation. Staff Response: These lands are designated rural which would permit zoning for a private tourist camp. Recommendation: No change. NLAP 1: Lot 109 Concession 1_, CLARKS Submittor: Joel Palter per. Gujda Brief No. 10 Synopsis of Submission: The submittor objects to the reduction in the area of the Hamlet of Newtonville. If this land cannot be designated residential immediately the proposed study of Newtonville should be proceeded with quickly. - 24 - Staff Response: See pave 9 of this report for a description of the procedures to be followed in hamlet planning. This procedure has already been initiated in Newtonville and proposals have been received from three consultants bidding to do the necessary work. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 11 MAP lz Lot 9, Concession 1. CLARKS Submittor: Joel Palter per H. Swartz Synopsis of Submission: Same as previous submission re Lot 109 Concession 1. Staff Response: Recommendation: Same as previous submission. No change. Lot 89 Concession 19 CLARKE Submittor: Joel Palter per M. Swartz Brief No. 1� Synopsis of Submission: Same as previous submission re Lot 109 Concession 1. Staff Response: Same as previous submission. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 18 MAP �,s Lot 7 & 8. Concession 2y CLARKS Submittor: Murray Payne Synopsis of Submission: There should be provision for gradual con- trolled development in Newtonville. - �5 - Staff Response° See staff response to previous Brief No. 109 page 23 of this report. Recommendation: No change. Brief Noe 21 NIAP 1: Lot__32, Concession 7. CLARKE Submittor: E. R. Lovekin per Dennis Thompson Synopsis of Submission: Por. Thompso.n's land should be given a. des- ignation which would permit residential zoning. Staff Response: The portion of the applicants land which lies above the flood plain should be excluded from the Environmental protection area. Recommendation: The E.P.A. designation in this area be revised to show more accurately the flood plain of the stream. MAP 1: Lot 20,.Concession 2,�,_CLARKE Submittor: E. R. Lovekin Brief No 2 Synopsis of Submission. The Interim Plan should be drafted to permit the severance of two existing dwellings from the golf course. Staff Response: The District Plan can not give approval for specific severances. The Plan does allow for recognition in the zoning of specific existing uses, whereupon those uses could be severed with the consent of the Land Division Committee. Recommendation: No change. MAP 1: Lot 35, Concegsion .1. CLARKE Submittor: 26 - E. R. Lovekin Brief No. 26 Synopsis of Submission: Tho s7lbmittor wishes to have his land des- ignated highway commercial or residential. Staff Responses This interim plan recognizes only existing commitments and does not provide for sub- stantial new development beyond the Interim Period. In any case we have received no indication of exactly what the submittor proposed so it is impossible to make any judgement at this time, Recommendations No change. Brief No. 22 L\ILP 1: Lot �0, Concession 1, DARLINGTON Submittor: E. R. Lovekin per Leslie Horvath Synopsis of Submission: The submittar wishes a zoning to permit division of this property which is jointly owned by two persons. Staff Response: The District Plan is not a zoning by-law. Any division of land must be governed by Official Plan policies and zoning regula- tions and the fact that land is owned by two or more persons has never been regarded as a sufficient reason for subdividing it. Recomriiendation, No change. MAP 1: Lot 14, Concession 8, DARLINGTON Submittor: Steve Liptay Brief No, 10 Synopsis of Submission: The submittors land west of Maple Street should not be designated En ironmental 27 Synopsis of Submission; (cont'd)........ Protection Area. Staff Response- The environmental Protection Area should be reviewed in this vicinity to reflect the actual extent of the flood plain. Recommendation; The E.P.A. s',iould be revised as above. Brief No, -32 MAP 1 Lot 'i5. Concession 1 & 2. DARLINGTON Submittor: Calvin Potter per Gatehouse Holdings. Synopsis of Submission: The su.bmittor objects to the Llnvironmental Study Area designation on part of their lands and to the Courtice Concept Plan. They wish their proposal for a residential subdivision to be considered on its own merits. Staff Response: The Courtice Concept Plan is separate from the Interim District Plan and has not yet been approved. The Interim Plan does not pre -designate land uses but only reflects at this time existing land uses and those applications which have been approved. Despite any services which might be avail- able in the vicinity now or in the near future, the Region has decided that the plan is premature. We also note that the prop- osal lies within the Parkway Belt as pro- posed in the C.O.L.V.C. study and its inclu- sion could delay approval of the Interim Plan. ve have not yet received an applica- tion for approval of this plan so we can form no judgement of it at this time. Recommendation; No change. Brief Noo�, 14AP 1: Lot 18 & 12., Concession 8, DARLINGTON Submittor: Merrill D. Brown 28 - Synopsis of Submissions The submittor wishes to know whether two proposed subdivisions in Enniskillen would be jeopardized by designations in the Interim Plan. Staff Responses One of the proposed developments consists of 5 lots on the west side of Scugog Street opposite the public school. This develop- ment is in an area designated hamlet and hence can proceed subject to the signing of a subdivision agreement. The other development has received draft approval by the Province without consultation with the Town or Region. The development would require a new servicing system to be insta- lled, and is thus premature until such time as the Regional policy for the development and servicing of hamlets has been decided. This land is now designated rural and would need an Official Plan amendment. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 9 MAP 3 Lot 28, Concession to VILL4GE OF NEWCASTLE Submittore Joel Palter per S. Gujda Synopsis of Submission; The submittor objects to his lands being designated Environmental Study Area and wishes them redesignated Urban Residential. Staff Responses This area was placed in an Environmental Study Area because of the many complex factors affecting this area. No develop- ment should be approved until such time as all of these factors have teen analysed and taken into account. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 12 Lot 294 Concession 2� VILLAGE OF NFWCI�STLE Submittore Joel Palter per S. Gujda L - 29 - Synopsis of Submission: The applicant's lands adjacent to the new well should be designated for residential use. Staff Responses The new well for the Village has produced water with a high nitrate content due to the presence of too many septic tanks in the vicinity. No further develo nient on the basis of septic tanks could be approved in this vicinity. Brief Noo 71} MAP a: Lot 269 Concession 2. VILLAGE OOi'NEWCASTLE Submittor: Joel Palter per veil -Sway Enterprises Synopsis of Submission: The submittor objects to his land being designated Environmental Study Arca and wishes it designated Urban Residential. Staff Response: The Interim Plan designates as Urban Res- idential only those areas where there are existing commitrients and servicing capacity is available. All other lands which app- ear to have some development potential have been placed temporarily in the "nvironmental Study Area designation. Recommendation: No change. Briefs No. 19 & 11 MA_ 3: Lots 29 & 309 Concession 19 and Lot 279 Concession 29 VILLAGE OF_NEWCISTLE Submittor° Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce Synopsis of Submissions Two plans of subdivision having draft app- roval have been ignored in the plan. Staff Response: Since both of these plans have draft approval, they should be shown as Urban Residential but a provision should be added to the effect that 30 Staff Response- (cont'd)..... development would not proceed until water supply was adequate. Recommendation: The two subdivisions in Newcastle having draft approval should be designated urban Residential and the following sentence should be added after the word services in Section 4(5)(a)(v) - "Development shall take place only when the authorities res- ponsible are satisfied that the capacities of the servicing systems are adequate to accomodate the proposed development". Brief No. 20 ULP 3' Lots 289 299 & 309 Concession 1 and Lots 29 & 10. Concession 2, VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE Subrlittor: Square 100 Development Limited Synopsis of Submission: The submittor objects to the designation of his lands as an Environmental Study Area and to his exclusion from the O.H.A.P. study area. Staff Response: Ude note that there are a number of factors affecting the potential future development in the whole area south of Highway 401 and between the Graham and Vilmot Creeks. Specifically they are: (1) An existing feed lot (2) An existing sewage treatment plant (3) An existing marina and federal harbour project (4) Limitations of access (5) h proposed 500 IAV power transmission line (6) Proposed subdivisions (7) A proposed marina -hotel complex It is considered i -portant to preserve or obtain some public access to the shoreline both on the lakes and the harbour fronts. - 31 - Staff Responses (cont'd)...... In view of the complexity of this area, we feel that precise designations of land in this area at this time would be premature, but that this area should be studied together with the existing village. Recommendation: No change should be rade in the Interim, District Plan but Murray V. Jones should be instructed to include this area in his study. We understand that 14urray V. Jones have already included this area in their information gathering process, so there would be little or no increase in cost in including it in the Secondary Plan Area. Brief No. 2; MLI -P-3 Lot 28. Concession 1. VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE Submittor: E. R. Lovekin per D. Wright Synopsis of Submission: The Interim Plan should recognize a proposed severance of serviced lots on the north side of Clarke Street. Staff Response: The District Plan cannot sever land but the proposed lots are designated Urban Resident- ial which would permit an application to the Land Division Committee. Recommendation: No change. Brief No. 21 L4LP 3 • Lot 2i, Concession 19 VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE Submittor: E. R. Lovekin per Durham County Senior Citizens Lodge Synopsis of Submsiion: The Interim Plan should recognize the sub- nittor's proposed application for a senior citizens housing project. - 32 - Staff Response: The subnzittor has not yet made an application for this project so we are unable to evaluate it. Lie do not know how many units are pro- posed here but we note that other approved developments have been held up for lack of service capacity, and it would be difficult to give this priority over them. Recommendation: No change. The submittors should put in their application as soon as possible. Brief No. 28 j j ,3:. Lot 27. Concession 1. VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE Submittor: E. R. Lovekin per Newcastle Lions Club Synopsis of Submission: The Lions Club wish their land to be given a suitable designation.. Staff Response: We understand that a "suitable designation" means a designation permitting a public swimming pool. The land is designated Major Open Space which would permit such a use. Recommendation: No change. Lot 22,_ Concession 2, VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE Submittor: Nr, and Mrs. Dan Maskell Brief No, 14 Synopsis of Submission; They wish that. the Nal-Gor Nursing Home be designated Commercial with no private dwelling permitted. Staff Response: The Nal-Gor Nursing home is now within an Urban Residential designation which would permit nursing holies. As with other small institutional uses it is not shown specif- ically in Map 3 but it would be zoned insti- tutional in the implementing zoning by-law. We can see no reason to designate it commer- cials Recommendation. No change, 33 - Lot 26 Concession A B.F., VILL!GE OF NEWCASTLE Submittor: Sam Cureatz Brief No. -5 Synopsis of Submission. The slabmittor requests that his land on the north side of Lakeshore Road be changed from Open Space to Rural, Staff Response. The whole area of Open Space shown along Lakeshore Road and Boulton Street should be removed and redisignated Rural. This land is occupied by existing houses and cottages and there is no practical possibility of public acquisition of these lands in the near future, Recommendation. The lands designated Major Open Space along Boulton Street and Lakeshore Road should be re -designated Rural, MAP 3s Lot 28 & 29 Concession 1 & 2 VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE Submittor: J. R. Yates Brief Synopsis of Submission: It is slzggested that the Corimercial Area along King Strut extend westward to Foster Creek or at least to North Street, Staff Response: The Comnercial Area should be extended to North Street to recognize existing uses, Recommendation. The Commercial designation should b•e extended to North Street alon both sides of King Street, MAP 1. Lot 329 Concession A, B.F. and Submittor. - 34 - J. I1. Yates Brief No. 18 Synopsis of Submission. Lands adjacent to the Lake front should be designated Major Open Space. Staff Response. All Open Space designations should be re- moved along the lake front throughout the Town, because this implies public acquisi- tion. The whole shoreline should be des- ignated Environmental Protection Area. Recommendation; The whole of the Lake Ontario shoreline should be designated Environnental Protec- tion Area. L21_22.,_ Concession B B.F. VILLAGE OF NEWCI.STLE Submittor. J. R. Yates Brief.No. J8 Synopsis of Submission. The homes and cottages on the south side of Boulton Street should not be designated Major Open Sp:.ce. Staff Response. Recommendation. MAP See previous comments. See previous comments. Lot 22, Cc cession A B.F..,_VILLAGE OF NEWCASTLE Submittor. J, R. Yates D—T —i e—L No. 'i8 Synopsis of Submission. The unopened road allowance between Queen Street and Boulton Street should be deleted. - 35 - i Staff Response; Agreed, Recommendation: The allowance should be deleted. Brief io. 5 MAP 4•. Lot 89 Concession 2, BOWPIUUNVILLE Submittors Schickedanz Development Limited Synopsis of Submission: The Environmental Protection Area designa- tion is not correct in this area. Staff Responses The whole Soper Creek watershed north of Highway 44019 was re-examined and revisions were made. Recommendations Map 4 should bo revised to show the E.P.A. more correctly. Brief No, 40 MAPS s Lot 29 & 10. Concession 5. CLARIE Submittors Howard Swartz per Jan Ochonski Synopsis of Submissions Mr. Ochonski's lands should be designated in an "Estate Residential" category to honour commitments made to him by the previous Council and Planning Board. Staff Response; Mr. Ochonski's proposal inolved approx- imately 72 acres of Estate Residential development. It has already been decided by the P.A.C. that estate residential development, will not be included in the Interim Plan aside from a small number of lots to be created by severance. Major estate residential development would have to wait for the final plan which would contain a consistant policy applicable to the whole municipality. This particular land does not appear to be a likely candidate - 36 - Staff Response: (cont'd)..... since it is very flat, has no tree cover, and appears to be poorly drained. Mr. Best advises that there is a layer of hard clay underneath the topsoil on the land and this is likely to make it impossible for septic tanks to perform satisfactorily. The site was inspected and a ponding of water was noted on the surface of the land in several places and in the adjoining ditches. The commitment of the former municipality appears to have been initially made through a verbal promise by a former Planning Board Chairman. The land was zoned agric- ultural in by-law 1653 and was not included as residential in the first draft of the Clarke official plan. Apparently, as a result of a threatened lawsuit, the proposal was included in the revised Official Plan and a zoning amendment was passed to permit it. Neither of these documents have ever been approved, by the Ministry or the O.M.B. and provincial officials who inspected the land indicated that the proposal would not be approved by the province. In these cir- cumstances it would,of course, have been a provincial decision which turned the prop- osal down and the township would not have been legally liable in any way. It is not the responsibility of planning staff to make judgements about the moral or leg,al commitments of Council, but it is noted that the municipality also has an obligation to future purchasers who might be led unwillingly to purchase a lot having severe drainage or pollution problems. In this case on planning grounds, it must be recommended that the proposal not be inclu- ded in the Interim Plan. Recommendation: No change. 37 - (1) The Ministry of the Environment refused app- roval because of lack of available water supply. This was later amended to state that residential development in Orono could be given approval as additional water from a second well carne into supply. Since that time the Regional Works Department have taken over this responsibility and they have stated that the second well will only make up for deficiency in the present supply, and that new development will have to wait for a third well for the village. (2) The Durham Health Unit found 10 of the pro- posed to su— nsa£i-ac ory by virtue of their lying within a natural drainage course. The remaining lots would have to be doubled in size to accomodate septic tanks and tile beds. (3) Ministry of Housing officials criticized the length of the cul-de-sac, which was far in excess of the standards of C.M.H.C. It appears that this long narrow strip of land can rea- lly only be developed if an when it is dec- id.ed to develop the whole surrounding, area, giving it more than one access. This depends on the provision of Regional services not yet contemplated. We note the Interim Plan is intended to include only those proposals Brief No. 40 MAP 2.- :Lot Lot29, Concession 5_,_ORONO Submittors Howard S. Swartz per Jan Ochonski Synopsis of Submissions Mr. Ochonski's lands should be designated Urban Residential to honour commitments made to him by the previous Council and Planning Board. Staff Response: Mr. Ochonski's proposal involves 34 single family dwellings along a proposed cul-de-sac entering onto the west side of Main Street north in Orono. This subdivision has existed as a proposal for several years. It has never been turned down definitely by the Province, but it has r.ceived the foll- owing critical comments which led the Min- istry to close the file on it. (1) The Ministry of the Environment refused app- roval because of lack of available water supply. This was later amended to state that residential development in Orono could be given approval as additional water from a second well carne into supply. Since that time the Regional Works Department have taken over this responsibility and they have stated that the second well will only make up for deficiency in the present supply, and that new development will have to wait for a third well for the village. (2) The Durham Health Unit found 10 of the pro- posed to su— nsa£i-ac ory by virtue of their lying within a natural drainage course. The remaining lots would have to be doubled in size to accomodate septic tanks and tile beds. (3) Ministry of Housing officials criticized the length of the cul-de-sac, which was far in excess of the standards of C.M.H.C. It appears that this long narrow strip of land can rea- lly only be developed if an when it is dec- id.ed to develop the whole surrounding, area, giving it more than one access. This depends on the provision of Regional services not yet contemplated. We note the Interim Plan is intended to include only those proposals (cont'd)..... for which services are already available. With respect to the development of the larger area of which this land forms a part, the municipality must ensure that it does not unintentionally create a need for a sewerage system in Orono. This would be unacceptable both in terms of cost and because it would require an up- stream plant on the Wilmot Creek. We are not aware of the exact comni_tment made to Mr. Ochonski, but it appears to have arisen initially at the O.M.B. hearing into Bylaw 1653 at which time someone unspecified in the report of the O.M.B. member stated that the land could be rem zoned, (it is presently zoned Agriculture). It subsequently was rezoned but the zoning amendment and the subdivision have never received approval. In conclusion, it is not the function of planning staff to interpret the meaning of supposed commitments by previous councils, but it would appear to be Risleading to include the proposal in the Interim Plan since there is no way in which the subdiv- ision could proceed in the limited period in which the plan will be in force. Recommendation. No change. Brief Noe 41 MAP 1. Lot 29. Concession �. DARLINGTON Submittor: E. E. Smith per Harndon and King Synopsis of Submsiion: A small existing sand pit on the south side of the Fourth Concession Road about 175 feet west of Durham Road 34 should be des- ignated Pits and Quarries. - 39 - Staff Response. This is a small pit of approximately 8 acres which has not as yet been licensed under the Pits and Quarries Act because of a temp- orary drop in the market for sand fill. The pit is not large and is already partly excavated so that there cannot be much material left in it, Recommendation: The land should be re -designated Pits and Quarries. I - 40 - IV -OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED NOT RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE DISTRICT PLAN: 1. Fred R. Thomas sii-omitted comments relating to the Courtice Concept Plan and not the Interim District Plan. 2. Keith Barr per Newcastle Village Chamber of Commerce submitted comments related to a newspaper article and to the need to con- sult with the former Village Planning Board. To comply with this suggestion we specifically requested a brief from the former Chairman of that board. 3; James Robinson submitted comments relating to the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and Bill 88 which gives the municipality powers to undertake land acquisition for purposes of developing the Official Plan. In order to use these powers, we must insert a policy statement in our District Plan, but we have been unable to discover from the Province what kind of policy statement they require. In any case we do not think that any land banking is likely to be undertaken during the life of the Interim Plan. 4. Bill Humber submitted a number of comments which were quite valid but which related to the Goals and Objectives section to be incl- uded in the final District Plan rather than to the Interim Plan. - 41 - V - STAFF COMMENTS: In the course of our review of the briefs submitted we noted a number of small changes which we felt should be nade in the plan. These are summarized below: 1. Highway 35 north of the ;unction with Highway 115 should be shown as a Provincial Highway. 2, The lands southwest of Mill Street. and Somerville Drive in Orono should be designated Urban Residential, 3. The parking lot of the Orono fairground north of Centre Street should be shown as Major Institutional. 4, The land southwest of the corner of Highway 115 and Mill Street in Orono should be designated Urban Residential, 5, The following streets should be deleted from Map 4 (Bowmanville) since they do not exist as public streets, a) Frank Street north of King Street b) St, George Street north of Ding Street c) Wellington Street west of Scugog Street, 6, The lands on Map 4 which belong to St, Mary's Cement Company and have received a license under the Pits and Quarries Act should be designated Pits and Quarries (Note that this exc- ludes the area presently zoned Light Industrial), 7, The existing gravel pit in Lots 13 and 14, Concession 3, Darl- ington is not shown in its actual location -9 and this should be corrected. — 42 — 8. The area designated Residential north of Jackman Road adjacent to Durham Road 57 should be designated rural as it is in the present Official Plane 9. The 'limited non-farm residential' uses which are permitted need some further definition to spell out what those limitations are. The following sentence should be added to Section 4 (16)(a)(v)a "Existing residential development may be recog- nized in the implementing restricted area by-law and, where several dwellings are grouped, infill- ing within the zone may be permitted on lots which conform to the requirements of the by-law for rural residential development". Respectfully submitted, v George F. Howden, Planning Director, Town of Newcastle.