HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-231-87~cQ~
`+1~ v,MIIUU ,~y
i~,~~ J
y,~ , ~~
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT File # ~C~ ~j~ Y,,,,
Res. #~~~ ~ G~~;.~;I
By-Law #
N~~ING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
~~~ .Monday, October 19, 1987
REPORT #: pn_~~i_R~ FILE #~ ()FV R~8~ end 18T-86073
Sl1B.JECT: REZONING AND SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS - MACOURTICE DEVELOPMENTS
PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
FILES: DEV 86-82 and 18T-86073
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-231-87 be received; and
2. THAT Rezoning Application File: DEV 86-82 submitted by Macourtice Developments to
rezone a 15.26 hectare parcel of land in Part Lot 28, Concession 2, Courtice to
permit the development of a 144 lot residential subdivision be denied as premature;
and
3. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that
Subdivision Application 18T-86073 submitted by Macourtice Developments be denied as
premature; and
4. THAT the Region of Durham, the applicant and the interested parties indicated hereto
be advised of Council's decision.
BACKGROUND:
The subject applications seek to develop a 144 lot residential subdivision in Part Lot 28,
Concession 2, Courtice (see Key Map). The site is currently zoned "Environment al
...2
<Q
REPORT NO.: PD-231-87 Page 2
Protection (EP)" and "Holding - Urban Residential Type One ((H)Rl)". The
Public Meeting in respect of the rezoning application was held on March
16, 1987. In Report PD-80-87, Staff noted that there were some
outstanding issues regarding the related subdivision proposal, including
municipal servicing and density. The Report recommended that the
rezoning application be referred back to Staff for further review.
At the Public Meetiny, one area resident who operates a dairy farm in 'the
area, questioned the impact that the proposed subdivision will have on
area farms. Another area resident expressed a concern regarding the
flooding of the watercourse on site. Council, on March 23, 1987,
resolved that the agricultural, servicing and density concerns regarding
the subject application be addressed by the Director of Planning prior to
the submission of a subsequent report.
The applicant's engineering consultant has proposed acquiring an easement
across the Town's land south of the Courtice Nigh School to allow
sanitary sewer services to be extended from the intersection of Nash and
Trull's Road to the subject site. The consultant has also noted that the
Courtice Storm Water Management Study indicates a stormwater management
pond in the northwest corner of the subject site, and has proposed that
the detention facility be located on the Town's lands to the west of
Courtice Road. This latter suggestion is unacceptable to Staff.
The Gartner Lee Study identifies the lands associated with the tributary
as being Environmental/Hazard Areas and recommends that such lands not be
developed due to the environmental functions they serve. As well,
portions of the site are identified as Special Policy Areas due to the
presence of high water table. The Study recommends that development
applications be supported by a Hydrogeologist's Report which assesses the
impact of permanently lowering the watertable. No such report has been
submitted.
Circulation comments received in respect of the rezoning and subdivision
applications are summarized below:
...3
~'Cai
REPORT NO.: PD-231-87 Page 3
Town of Newcastle Public Works Department
"In addition to this Department's standard requirements in respect of
urban residential subdivisions, that the developer acknowledge that the
drainage of the site and the upstream watershed (i.e design of storm
sewers) must be controlled in accordance with the provisions of the
Courtice Storm Sewer Water Management Report. In addition, the developer
should be aware that this site constitutes part of Development Block #8
which has Pond #7 proposed within this site. In the event that this
proposal proceeds, the developer's engineer must satisfy this Department
and that the provisions of the Courtice Storm Water Management Report are
addressed properly."
Town of Newcastle Community Services
"This department has the following comments:
(a) cash-in-lieu of 5% parkland dedication will be required.
(b) a walkway is required between any of the following Lots: 88, 89,
90, 91, 92 or 93.
(c) block 146 shall be dedicated gratuitously to the Town as per
policy."
Region of Durham Works Department
"Policies exist within both the Durham Regional Official Plan and the
Newcastle Official Plan outlining the conditions under which local
Councils may consider the removal of Holding symbols. In this regard, I
would like to bring to your attention Subsection 16.6.4(b) of the Durham
Regional Official Plan which states that prior to the passage of an
amendment to remove an "H" symbol, the local Council shall ensure that
the owner has satisfied the Region with respect to the provision of water
and sewer services.
To date the Owner has not entered into a Servicing Agreement with the
Region. Given that the Official Plan policy stipulates that the
serviciny aspects of proposed developments must be resolved prior to the
lifting of any Section 35 controls, we would consider the proposed
amendment to be premature at this time."
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
"The subject lands appear generally suitable for residential development.
Provided the Black Creek valley system is protected and the base flow
function of the site is essentially maintained, we would have no
objection to the approval of the plan.
...4
c~~
REPORT NO.: PD-231-87 Page 4
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (Cont'd)
In the interest of protecting downstream fishery and water quality
concerns, storm drainage from the site should be in conformity with the
recommendations of the Court ice Storm Water Management Study. In that
report, a detention facility is proposed for the northwest corner of the
subject property. The proposed facility would accommodate storm runoff
from this plan, residentially designated lands eastward to Hancock Road,
and those lands in Lots 27 & 28, Concession 3 in the Urban Area.
Autho rity Staff has also reviewed a preliminary drainage-environmental
report for the site, prepared by G.M. Sernas and Associates Limited.
This report recommends, that since the Town of Newcastle has acquired
those lands west of Courtice Road, that consideration be given to using
that area for stormwater detention. The investigation of this
possibility by the proponent may be warranted. At this time, however,
the issues of storage availability, hydraulic gradients and acceptability
to the Town regarding this proposed detention area have yet to be
ascertained."
Ministry of Natural Resources
"While Ministry Staff have no objections to the principle of development
on this site, we do have concerns which should be addressed prior to the
approval of the Plan.
Black Creek is located in Block 146 of the plan. This watercourse flows
into Farewell Creek. The southern reach of Farewell Creek is used as a
migration route for rainbow trout and pink salmon in the spring and fall,
respectively. The Oshawa Second Marsh, a provincially significant
wetland, is located at the Farewell Creek mouth on the Lake Ontario
shoreline. These downstream resources should be protected against excess
sedimentation resulting from upstream development activities.
In addition to the above, a tributary of the Black Creek traverses the
northwestern portion of the subject property. The plan indicates that
several residential lots and Street "C" are to be located in the area of
this watercourse. Any alterations to this watercourse will require
approvals pursuant to the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. By copy of
this letter, we are forwarding an "Application of Approval of a Work" to
the developer's consultant in order that the review process may be
initiated."
Ministry of the Environment
"We have identified a noise concern due to the development's proximity to
Highway No. 2. We therefore recommend draft approval be conditional upon
the owner engaging the services of a consultant to complete a Noise Study
recommending noise control features satisfactory to this Ministry and the
Town.
...5
~(a>
REPORT NO.: PD-231-87 Page 5
Ministry of Transportation and Cotr~nunications
"This Ministry has concerns with the future development of Block 145. We
suggest the Owner contact our District Office to discuss the
appropriateness of access onto Highway No. 2 from this Block."
The following agencies have recommended no objection to the subject
applications:
- Town of Newcastle Fire Department
- Public School Board
- Separate School board
- Ministry of Agriculture and Food
- Ontario Hydro
With respect to the concern regarding the impact of the proposed
development on adjacent agricultural operations as identified by an area
farmer at the public meetiny, Staff note that the site is designated for
"Residential" development by both the Region and the Town of Newcastle
Official Plan.
Neither the Ministry of Agriculture and Food nor the Ministry of the
Environment have indicated an objection 'to the proposed development. As
well, under the provisions of Section 3.19(d) of By-law 84-63, the 300
metre setback required between agricultural buildings and residential
development does not apply to agricultural buildings located within a
designated urban area. Without an amendment to remove the lands from the
urban area, -there does not appear to be any basis for denying the subject
application due to conflict with adjacent agricultural operations. This
issue was further discussed by Staff Report PD-194-87 which was
considered on September 8, 1987.
A review of the other comments submitted on the subject proposal
indicates that the primary concerns lie with the provision of sanitary
sewer services to the site, storm drainage, environmental issues, and
the issue of non-sequential development. Municipal water is currently
available at the intersection of Nash and Courtice Roads. Regional Works
Staff have indicated that the site lies outside the parameters of the
defined sanitary sewer service area and that the Region has no current
...6
~j (A
REPORT NO.: PD-231-87 Page 6
plans to assume the costs involved in extending and oversizing the trunk
sewer. Accordingly, the applicant would be required to bear the full
cost of extending the trunk sewer to the site including the acquisition
of any necessary easements, one of which is proposed to cross Town owned
parkland.
The Regional Official Plan (Section 16.10.5) states that development
shall be based on the progressive extension and economic utilization of
municipal services, and that (Section 16.10.2) in the further expansion
of capital works, priority will be given to those works which implement
development which will have no undue burden on the Region and the area
municipality.
The site is currently zoned "(H)Rl" by By-law 84-63. Both the Region's
(Section 16.6.4) and the Town's (Section 2.1.2) Official Plans contain
policies which indicate that the use of the "Holding" symbol is intended
to achieve orderly phased development, and to ensure that matters such as
servicing, roads, design and any other Council requirements have been
addressed. Prior to the passing of a by-law to remove the "Holding"
symbol, the local Council should ensure that the development is
consistent with the orderly and phased development of the municipality,
the Owner has satisfied all the requirements of the municipality and the
requirements of the Region in respect of sewer and water services, and
that all necessary agreements have been entered into.
Staff feel that a number of issues remain unaddressed not the least of
which is the issue of storm water management and impacts upon the local
groundwater. As noted earlier, Staff will not support location of the
detention facility upon Town parkland and therefore this facility must be
located on site. Similarly, the long term impact of development upon
groundwater levels and recharge rates is unknown which could potentially
result in further well interference and capital expenditures for
resolution of any problems so identified.
e•s7
A~a~
REPORT NO.: PD-231-87
Page 7
As indicated by the Region of Durham Works Department, the applicant has
not entered into a Servicing Agreement with the Region. The Region has
indicated that they consider the application to be premature. Given the
Department's position on not financing any sanitary sewer extensions
necessary to service the site, it would appear that the provisions of
such services to the proposed development would not be economically
feasible.
As well, the proposed development does not represent orderly phased
development as intended by the Official Plan. All major subdivision
activity within the Courtice Urban Area is currently occurring to the
west of Trull's Road. No plans of subdivision have yet been received fo r
the area between Trull's Road and Courtice Road and the approval of the
proposed plan would result in leap-frogging development. On September 8,
1987 the General Purpose and Administration Committee considered the issue
of development east of Courtice Road and, in view of the many unresolved
issues and problems in the presently developing areas to the west of
Trull's Road, resolved to defer all subdivision applications in the area as
being premature. Staff concur with and support this position.
The subdivision application submitted by Macourtice Developments would
therefore appear to be premature within the intent of the Official Plan as
would be Rezoning Application DEV 86-82. It is therefore recommended that
the two applications be denied as premature. It is further recommended
that the Region of Durham be so advised.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Lawrence Kotsett
Chief Ad i istrative Officer
JAS*TTE*jip
*Attach.
September 4, 1987
CC: Attached List
F3
~~~
REPORT NO.: PD-`L 31-87
Page 8
CC: Macourtice Developments INc.
7~7 Don Mills Road
Suite 1110
DON MILLS, Ontario
M3C lU1
Tunney Planning
117 King Street
Box 358
WHITBY, Ontario
L1N 4Z1
Mr. Jim Muir
R.R. #6
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K7
Mr. & Mrs. D. Vanderkooi
R.R. #3, Nash Road
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K4
Mr. & Mrs. P. Tuerk
Group box 18, Box 22
R.R. #6
BUWI'~IANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K7
Mr. D. Sams
R.R. #6
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K7
L c L cI't
`=' o I~ ~
" rn
e
g' ~
~
v 3~
o ~ a ~
~ 'j 3 ~ ~I I
V~
~
$ r
1
1 I
1
`
Alin ~ ~ ~ ~ ,"~l. c~ 1
~ $
'
Z N
I U q 3 y
~ a
~
•
' \\ \
~ - J a
a o -
,
tO oil
,ga ~
o ~ ;
~
~
~ -
-
~ ~
~
~
a
e
.i ~
.
\~~\~~ ~`' ~, ~
J cNn Q °
W - ~
,
N .. .
r • N
_~ EE y
~'E W
> y
g y
~' ? A ~ 3 E - tt~~
V e
.
t3°
~~ \\\. ¢ U U 4. o i~~ ~ o
~ d i o i
N a
~
I
~
_U
L_
r• O 1- ~- Z 2
~ UU 03
~ rte- w ~ O ~`^r
d~ Y ~
U C ~ R
b $ ~ ~ Y i
Z
~~
< ~ ~ o o ~
S o~ ~ E`r ~d~ ~
F 00~ a
~ 3
~ ~ "5
~ ~ >r
' _I
~ ~
o
o~
~ ~~ ° v N~
~ r ? hm~
8
~ f h
i _ $
r a a
a Y.. ~' O ~ ° z
W~W F ~°N Wo ~ ~
N ..a
~~a ~ p
~i 4 ~ [~- X
u
V 0 ~~u..~~o~
W
Y O ~ o C7
a ^ o a F- ~ J ~ ? m ~ N
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
z ~ o
M~~ N
~ ~ 4 ~ ~ IC
I
~ 3.-
~ ~` U
Q ~ ~~ ~ "•. Q
~i~ ~g-
~
¢ t7i ~ ~ ~
' r F
s ~.
~ ~ :~3
---~
~ ~
i
i
~~
I
I
~~
F ~
J
. ~
1
~'\
Y
,~
~ ~~
g ~~ ~
i
i
i# i
i ~
i ~
i ~
i ~
~ i
~ ~
'.~ ~
~r,N\
*1
s~ ~~
~~ ~
Y\ \
~~
H\
~~R\ ~ ~ \~
r ,ti04ac.OtN \
?~ ~
~ \
R /x`
~z J
SI M '- __
I V :J
~~~~
_~~ ~_~~ ~
~-----/ ~
/ ~
/ ~
----/ ~
/ ~
---~
~CA~
J