Loading...
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