HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-89-96THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DN: PTOFNEW.GPA
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #
Date: Monday, June 17, 1996 Res. #
Report #: PD -89 -96 File #: PLN 32.9.1 By -law #
Subject: SUBMISSIONS ON THE COUNCIL ADOPTED MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
REGARDING THE PORT OF NEWCASTLE
FILE: PLN 32.9.1 (X -REF: DEV 96 -004 AND 18T- 91004)
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -89 -96 be received;
2. THAT the modification to the Council- Adopted Clarington Official Plan as
contained in this report be APPROVED FORTHWITH;
3. THAT all interested parties and delegation regarding each submission dealt with
in this report be advised of Council's decision with respect to that submission;
and
4. THAT a copy of this report and Council's decision be forwarded to the Durham
Regional Planning Department.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The issue of residential development on the south side of the coastal road (Street
"B ") at the Port of Newcastle was raised by Mr. Bill Daniell for The Kaitlin Group
Ltd. in Submission 16 and was originally addressed by Report PD- 69 -96.
1.2 As a result of the Committee's consideration of Report PD- 69 -96, staff were
directed to discuss the issue with Kaitlin. Subsequently, an Addendum to Report
PD -69 -96 was prepared in light of Council's concerns and which recommended
517
REPORT PD-89-96
a compromise to allow limited coastal villa development south of Street "B" within
the vicinity of the local Central Area.
1.3 Report PD -69 -96 and the Addendum Report was considered by Council on May
16, 1996. Council resolved to table the proposed modification for the Port of
Newcastle Neighbourhood (Section 2.6 of Report PD- 69 -96) until after a Public
Information Meeting was held at the Newcastle Marina.
1.4 A Public Information Meeting occurred on May 23, 1996 and was attended by
representatives of the Public Works and Planning and Development Departments.
The meeting was intended to provide a forum for the residents and The Kaitlin
Group Ltd. to discuss issues relating to the proposed draft plan of subdivision
18T- 91004. One of the issues which arose was the issue of coastal villas on the
south side of Street "B"
1.5 Since the meeting, the Region of Durham has received a submission from the
Bond Head Community Association.
2. SUBMISSION ON THE PORT OF NEWCASTLE NEIGHBOURHOOD
2.1 Submission 16 The Kaitlin Group Ltd.
The Kaitlin Group Ltd. states that they were not aware that the Clarington Official
Plan would preclude residential development on the south side of the coastal
road, and thus Kaitlin did not previously indicate a concern with respect to this
issue. it was their position that clusters of three storey condominium apartments
would ensure a level of activity along the waterfront and provide a sense of
enclosure and visual interest to the street.
2.2 Submission 30 Bond Head Community Association
The submission states that the Bond Head Community Association objects to the
we
REPORT • :• •. PAGE 91
proposal by The Kaitlin Group Ltd. to develop residential units south of the coastal
road. The Association notes that Section 4.6.1 of the Council adopted Clarington
Official Plan recognizes the Lake Ontario Waterfront as a unique and dynamic
feature and a vital public resource. Section 4.6.1 also states that the Municipality
shall seek to enhance opportunities for public access to the waterfront. As a
result, the Association is of the opinion that residential units south of the coastal
road is not consistent with the principles of the Official Plan or the
recommendations of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust.
3. COMMENTS
3.1 The original Kaitlin submission proposed to develop six blocks on the south side
of the coastal road. This was subsequently reduced to four blocks. Each block
would contain two separate three storey buildings with 18 units per block; 72
units in total.
3.2 Section 4.6.1 of the Official Plan recognizes the Lake Ontario Waterfront as a
unique and dynamic feature and a vital public resource. The Municipality is to
maintain the distinct character of the waterfront and enhance opportunities for
public access, which includes visual access. Staff originally reported that to
permit residential development to intrude into the Waterfront Greenway is contrary
to the principles of the Official Plan and is not consistent with the
recommendations of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust. The Waterfront Trust has
concurred with these comments (Attachment #5).
Staff also noted that the modification proposed by Kaitlin would set a precedent
for other future waterfront developments in the Municipality. Despite the large
length of shoreline, there are very few areas in all of Clarington where the public
can view the shoreline and gain access to the waterfront. Staff also noted
concerns that there would be future problems and complaints by residents who
519
REPORT NO. PD -89 -96 PAGE 4
reside adjacent to public lands where noise, trail and public activities along the
waterfront may be considered an infringement on their privacy and lifestyle. As
such, in report PD- 69 -96, staff did not support the modification proposed by
Kaitlin.
3.3 Council tabled report PD -69 -96 to "allow for discussions between Kaitlin and staff
regarding the Port of Newcastle Neighbourhood ". As a result of this direction,
staff negotiated a compromise which would preserve the west half of the lake
frontage as parkland while the east half will contain a combination of residential,
local central area, public and open space uses.
3.4 At the Public Information Meeting on May 23, 1996, Kaitlin presented their plans
for the area to the residents of Bond Head. Three alternatives were discussed:
s parkland only on the south side of the coastal road;
s medium density coastal villas concentrated on the easterly portion of the
land;
s medium density coastal villas spread along the entire length of the
waterfront.
Kaitlin indicated that the coastal villas were essential to the viability of the project.
However, there was no acceptable solution to both the residents and The Kaitlin
Group.
3.5 Kaitlin has indicated to the residents and Council that their expectation of
residential development on the south side of the coastal road was based on a
letter from the Planning Department dated November 11, 1995 which included a
draft concept plan previously discussed with Bramalea Limited. Said concept
plan shows residential development south of the coastal road. Staff note that the
draft Official Plan released in May, 1994 did not provide for residential
520
REPORT NO. PD -89 -96 PAGE 5
development south of the coastal road. The Kaitlin Group was aware of this prior
to making an offer of purchase and sale for the Bramalea lands in October, 1995.
3.6 Although the draft concept plan proposed certain residential development south
of the coastal road, it should be noted there are significant differences between
the concept plan and the Kaitlin proposal. For example; the concept plan
proposed approximately 16 large residential lots for bungalow style homes; the
Kaitlin proposal contains 6 blocks of coastal villa with an 18 units 3 storey
apartment for each block.
3.7 The draft concept plan that was forwarded to Kaitlin is intended as a draft for
discussion. It had not been reviewed by other Departments or by Council and
had no status. On November 7, 1995, Planning staff published its
"Recommended" Official Plan, which was picked up by Kaitlin the same day.
Staff's position from the Draft Official Plan (May 1994) to the Recommended
Official Plan (Nov. 1995) was to maintain an open parkland corridor along Lake
Ontario Waterfront.
4. SUGGESTED DISPOSITION
4.1 The proposed modification would allow some residential development south of
the coastal road on the east half of the Kaitlin property. The coastal road in this
location is moved further away from the coast line thus allowing sufficient land to
be developed on both sides, while at the same time retaining a narrower band of
waterfront land. This narrow band represents land within the 100 year erosion
limit and is appropriately 40 metres (130 ft.) wide, although it varies at different
locations. This strip of land contains more than sufficient area to allow
construction of the future waterfront trail which can be extended easterly towards
the marina. Public access to the waterfront will not be impeded. In this regard,
the intent of the Official Plan with respect to public access to the waterfront can
521
REPORT NO. PD -89 -96 PAGE 6
still be achieved.
4.2 Staff recognize that the proposed modification is not ideal. However, one must
recognize that the Municipality is only entitled to 5% parkland dedication from the
proposed development. A majority of the 5% is accounted for in securing a
neighbourhood park within phase I of the proposed subdivision. As a result the
Municipality has very limited residual parkland entitlement to secure waterfront
land. The residual parkland has been applied to acquire a 40 metre (130 ft.) wide
strip of land on the west side of the shoreline, between the coastal road and the
100 year erosion limit which averages 27 metres (86 feet) wide. In this area, the
Municipality will have an average 67 metres (215 feet) wide waterfront land.
Should the Municipality wish to acquire additional land along the waterfront,
purchase of land from Kaitlin Group would be required at substantial cost. Given
the financial constraints faced by the Municipality, it is not advisable to pursue this
at this time.
5. CONCLUSION
Staff originally recommended no residential development south of the coastal
road as per the recommendations contained in Report PD 69 -96. However,
subsequent to Council's direction to hold further discussion with The Kaitlin
Group, we revisited the issue with particular emphasis on finding a workable
solution that would not jeopardize the intent of the Official Plan, while at the same
time, find a solution that would bring the waterfront lands into public ownership
in a reasonably quick time frame.
As the Municipality does not have a waterfront land acquisition program nor does
it have a large amount of public funds to acquire waterfront lands, the Municipality
has to rely significantly on the opportunity to acquire waterfront land through the
development process, and in so doing, the Municipality is limited to the amount
of land that can be dedicated.
M
REPORT NO. PD -89 -96 PAGE 7
Given the constraints explained earlier in this report, staff are satisfied that the
proposed modification contained in Attachment # 1 represents both a reasonable
and sensible compromise.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.,
Director of Planning
and Development
WM *FW *cc
Reviewed by,
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
Attachment #1 - Proposed Modification to Map A4, Port of Newcastle
Attachment #2 - Council- adopted Map A4
Attachment #4 - Submission #16
Attachment #4 - Submission #30
Attachment #5 - Letter from Waterfront Regeneration Trust
June 11, 1996
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
The Kaitlin Group Ltd.
1029 McNicoll Avenue
Scarborough, Ontario
M1W 3W6
Bond Head Community Association
c/o 40 Boulton Street
R.R. # 8
Newcastle, Ontario
1_113 11_9
w
PORT NEWCASTLE NEIGHBOURHOOD
AS PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED
MAP A4, LAND USE, NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA
lw
524
•
:M:
uM!,r1
4
524
•
:M:
'•e.'t:;.![t..ti'� /:'.��2 :� MS'S:' %•::i.:..i.•
....
524
Att;aChM
PORT NEWCASTLE NEIGHBOURHOOD
AS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL
MAP A4, LAND USE, NEWCASTLE VILLAGE URBAN AREA
u
■
Tr
r c':t:•::i %i::r-
525
L 'fiW�
■
Tr
r c':t:•::i %i::r-
525
'APR 10 '96 10:23AM DURHAM PLANNING DEPT
P]
March 27, 1996
Mr. Alex Georgieff, MCIP
Commissioner of Planning
The Regional Municipality of Durham
1615 Dundas Street East,
P.9 /10
Attachment #3
The Kaidin Group Ltd,
1029 Mch l Avenue L
Scarborough, Ontario M I W 3W6 v
Tcicphonc (416) 495.7050
Fax (416) 495 -8820
-�. n ON Dbowa Wkh
U No* `elum Tom~
4th Floor, Lang Towe tri r '�`- ��'� �` re- A~ 1 -"
� a
Whitby, Ontario
Gne�°�*'� a,
L1N 6A3
Got. - c:
Dear Sir,
Re: Municipality of Clarington Offici
(Port of Newcastle' Develo went 8T -91004
i6 r oo1
As you may be aware, a related company of the Kaitlin Group Ltd., namely 1138337
Ontario Inc., has recently submitted a revised plan of subdivision application for the
above -noted property.
In our recent discussions with Clarington staff, we have been advised that staff interpret
the proposed new Official Plan, adopted by Clarington Council on January 29, 1996, as
precluding the development of any residential uses on the south side of the coastal road
(Street `B').
In a number of meetings and discussions with Clarington staff prior to the adoption of the
Plan, they had expressed some concerns about limiting the amount and type of coastal
development, but never was it indicated that such development was prohibited. For this
reason, we did not object to the Official Plan on this issue at Clarington Council's
deliberations and public meetings on December 7, 1995 and January 29, 1996.
We fully appreciate the significance of the waterfront areas and the need to provide an
abundance of public access and we feel that this has been fully addressed by our plan.
There are many benefits to the coastal development including providing a sense of
enclosure and visual interest to the street, rather than a windswept plain. Placing a limited
amount of residential units in clusters ensures that there are "eyes on the park" and
introduces a level of activity into an area that otherwise may be deserted at various times
of the year,
Wo!
.,./2
M
'96 10:23AM DURHAM PLANNING DEPT
2 v
P. 10/10
The style of development proposed would be clusters of three storey condominium
apartments arranged around a central public open space with underground parking, The
central access corridor to the clusters would be aligned with the north -south street internal
to the plan to form a framed vista to the lake. For your reference, we have enclosed a
base plot of the revised dram plan which illustrates the limited impact of these `Coastal
Villa' units along Street `13% and as well a concept of the architect's elevations and
floorplans.
For these reasons we strongly feel that permitting this limited amount of highly attractive
development along the south side of the coastal road is in the public interest and therefore
respectfully suggest that the Region modify the proposed Clarington Official Plan to
clarify that this development is permitted.
Your consideration of this request is much appreciated and please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned in the event further information or clarification is required,
kYours very truly,
-i William J. Daniell,
President
cc: Municipality of Clarington
Attn:. Mr, F. Wu, MCIP
Director of Planning
C
n \
Attachment +4
BO N DHEADC OMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
June 3, 1996
Mr. J. Brooks
Durham Region Planning Department
Box 623
1615 Dundas Street East
4th Floor, Lang Tower
Whitby, Ontario
LIN 6133
Dear Mr. Brooks:
OFIX LIR-1 11WIA11)
JUN 0 4 1996
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The Bond Head Communicty Association would like to convey its strong objection to the recent
proposal by the Kaitlin Group for the Port of Newcastle development.
The Kaitlin Group is proposing to develop units south of the costal road and extending into the
waterfront greenway area.
Section 4.6.1 of the Clarington Offered Plan recognizes the Lake Ontario Waterfront as a unique
and dynamic feature and a vital public resource. The Municipality is to maintain the distinctive character
of the Waterfront and enhance opportunities for public access which includes visual access. Permitting
residential development to intrude into the Waterfront Greenway is contrary to the prinicples of the
Official Plan and is not consistent with the recommendations of the Waterfront Generation Trust.
We fully support the original recommendtions of the Clarington Planning Staff in the original
report NO. PD 69 -96 item 2.6 in which they do NOT support the requeted modifications of the Kaitlin
Group. See copy of the enclosed report (appendix 1). We are also enclosing the report from the Bond
Head Community Association (appendix II) to support our objections and the report from the Waterfron
Regeneration Trust (appendix III).
We respectfully request that you consider all these points carefully and support the total denial
of the requested modifications by the Kaitlin Group.
.../2
528
BO N DHEADC OMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Page 2
Letter to Mr. J. Brooks
As stated in our By -Laws, the purpose of the Bond Head Community Association is to monitor
and deal with various issues and events that challenge the quality of life in this area (appendix IV). The
formation of the Associtaion is viewed as a positive venue to channel the concerns of local residents
and to provide input to both the Local and Regional authorities. There are currently approximately sixty -
five (65) members in the Association. We have already conveyed our objections to the Town of
Clarington council on May 13, 1996 and to the Kaitlin Group at a number of public meetings with them.
Would you please keep our Association informed of any correspondence, meetings, information,
etc. pertaining to this matter.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
Lynda MacGreg r,
Secretary of Bond Head Community Association
Home 905 - 987 -5480
Business 1- 800 -469 -3311, ext. 3545.
529
REPORT ,
2.6 Pannit residwWal dovelopm" on the south side of the coastal road to the
Port of Newcastle Neighbourhood
Submission 16 Bill Daniell for the Kaitiin Group
The submission states that the Kaitlin Group was not aware that the Ciarington
Official Plan would preclude residential development on the south side of the
costa! road, and thus have not previously indicated a conoem with respect to
this issue. tt is .their position that dusters of three storey condominium
apartmerrts would w isuue a level of acWW in the waterfront area, as well as
providing a sense of enclosure and visual interest to the street.
Comment
The Kaitiin Group has proposed to develop four blocks on the south side of the
coastal road (sw aftached sketch). Each block would confiain two separate three
storey buildings, with 18 units per block and 72 units in total.
Section 4.6.1 of the Official Plan recognizes the Lake Ontario Watarf rout as a
unique and dynamic feature and a vital public resource. The Municipality is to
• maintain ttie distinctive character of the Water€ront and enhance opportunities for
public access, which Includes visual access. As such, permitting residential
development to intrude into the Waterfront Greeriway is contrary to the principles
of the Official Plan and is • not went with the recommendations of the
Waterfront Genetaiion Trust
As well, the suggested mod> o4on, if approved, would set a precedent for other.
future waterfront developments in the M
urik:lpalitlr. There are very few areas in
all of Clarington where the public can view the shoreline. In addition, them, WO
be problems and future complaints from residents who reside adjavent to. publio
lands, where noise, trail and public activities along the waterfront may be
considered an infringement on their privacy and lifestyle. As such, Staff: do -not
support the requested modification. 5 ....7
COASTAL. VILLAS
L4kE ONTARIO
0
PROPOSED lAC
COASTAL. V
( IS T -910
PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE
COASTAL VILLAS
531
v- I
�■
NNW
ON D' HEAD C OMMUNITY • sS • C I A T 10
c/o 40 Boulton Street
R.R. #8 Newcastle, Ontario
LIB 1 L9
We strongly object to the recent proposal by the Kaitlin Group for the Port of Newcastle
development. We have six points to make to you to support our objections. .
POINT # 1
Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent over the past few years in establishing the
Clarington Official Plan with in -put from the public, business community, planning department and
council. A great deal of thought, effort and numerous compromises were made at the time to
establish an extensive and comprehensive official plan for Clarington. The plan was established
in the best interest of the residents of Clarington and recently approved in its entirety by the
Clarington council.
Is it logical or rational to start requesting modifications to such an extensive, up to date plan which
recently received your unanimous approval?
POINT #2
In particular I refer you to page 68 of the Clarington official plan which contains the definition of
Waterfront Greenways. "The predominant use of land within the Waterfront Greenways should
be passive and active recreation use, compatible tourism uses, conservation and agriculture". This
clearly excludes the encroaching of housing development such as The Kaitlin Group proposes in
their requested modifications. The existence of the Waterfront Greenways is a fact that should be
respected, protected and supported by Council.
POINT #3
Even with the proposed compromise to the modifications, the same issues will still exist as outlined
by your own planning department:
(i) it would set a precedent for other future waterfront developments in the Municipality,
requesting modifications or amendments to the Official Plan or realignment of roadways to
suit their development plans.
(ii) there will be problems and future complaints from residents who reside in these
condominiums adjacent to public lands where noise, trail and public activities along the
waterfront may be considered an infringement on their privacy and lifestyle.
532 /2
Page 2
In fact this most recent compromise and proposed modifications now move the coastal villas into
one of the most popular public access area of the whole Kaitlin property.
The south east corner is where Graham Creek meets the lake, Bond Head Parkette is located
directly across the river, the pier runs out into the lake at this point. This is the entrance for boats,
and hub of marina activity. This area is already popular for year round fisherman; smelt fishing,
bonfires and social gatherings.
Despite the fact that the Kaitlin group says there will be opportunities for public access to the
waterfront area between the housing units, the public perception will be that this is private property
and they will be viewed as intruders. How tolerant will the new residents be, and how long will
it take for complaints to escalate, about bonfires, noise, litter, vandalism and parking issues?
POINT # 4
A number of major concessions have already been made to accommodate the development of these
lands by Kaitlin Group. Examples of these concessions include:
(i) waiving of the requirement for a Secondary Plan from the Kaitlin Group.
(ii) an increase in the number of units from approximately 800 to over 1,000 units.
How many more concessions and modifications will continue to be made and why?
This is a large piece of land, approximately 200 acres, able to accommodate development well
within confines of the Official Plan, zoning and local by -laws.
There are many other viable options available which do not require modifications or encroachments
and that do not entail cluttering of 4 condominiums with 72 units into the south east corner.
This is obviously in the selling interest of the developer only.
POINT # 5
Of prime interest to us, is the appearance of these 3 storey condominiums also known as "coastal
villas, along the waterfront.
In the most recent brochure the Kaitlin Group says "bungalow development means low rise
appearance and unobstructed views. With emphasis on bungalows and bungalows with lofts the
Port of Newcastle will boast a low rise appearance. Street layout has been planned to maximize
exposure to the lake".
Four, 3 storey condominiums along the most southerly lakefront aspect, in the corner with the most
spectacular view would not seem to support this concept.
Are these 4 condominiums part of the 363 units proposed for development or are they additional
to this total? /3
C% /tea S e. g__ v 3
Page 3
POINT # 6
In recent discussions with officials of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, we were informed that
they also have expressed similar concerns with regards to preservation and use of the Waterfront
Greenways.
CONCLUSION
A) The Kaitlin Group are experienced developers and when they bought the property were fully
aware of the Clarington Official Plan. We would be very naive to assume otherwise.
B) I am sure you will all agree that Council is elected to act in the best interest of the public.
We fail to see the rationale for the need for these compromises and modifications.
However, if Council or the Kaitlin Group can give us good reasons to show how this is in
the best interest of the Public we would be very interested.
As is stands now, it seems to be in the best interest of the developer only.
We respectfully request that you consider all these points carefully and deny the requested
modifications.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the process.
Respectfully submitted on behalf
of the members of the BHCA.
Lynda MacGregor, Secretary
Bond Head Community Association
- ���� iii � i� I
534
BY -LAWS
BOND HEAD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Article
1.
Name
Article
2.
Purpose
Article
3.
Geographical Boundaries
Article
4.
Head Office
Article
5.
Members
Article
6.
Membership Dues
Article
7.
Directors
Article
8.
Officers
Article
9.
Meetings
Article
10.
Committees
Article
11.
Fiscal Year
Article
12.
Banking Arrangements
Article
13.
Books of Record
Article
14.
Instruments
Article
15.
Amendments
Article
16.
Interpretation
535
BY -LAWS
1992
BOND HEAD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
BE IT ENACTED AS A BY -LAW OF THE BOND HEAD COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AS
FOLLOWS:
Article 1. Name
The name of the Association shall be "Bond Head Community Association"
hereinafter referred to as the "BHCA ".
Article 2. Purpose
To monitor and deal with various issues and events that challenge the quality
of life in this area.
Article 3. Geographical Boundaries
The Bond Head Association boundaries shall be -
North The CNR right of way.
West South from the CNR overpass on Mill Street, including Clarke and
Baldwin Streets to the junction of Mill Street and Graham Creek;
south along the east bank of Graham Creek to Lake Ontario.
East South on the Lakeshore Road from the junction of the CNR
overpass and Lakeshore Road to Lake Ontario.
South The north shore of Lake Ontario between the east and west
boundaries described above.
536
2G -P3
-2-
Article 4. Head Office
The Head Office shall be in the Town of Newcastle in the Province of Ontario,
and at such place therein as the Board may from time to time determine.
Article 5. Members
a) Eligibility
Any property owner or resident of the specified area, who is 18 years or
over is eligible for membership in the BHCA.
b) Voting
One vote per member.
c) Term
Membership status shall be on an annual basis, renewable at the BHCA's
Annual Meeting.
Article 6. Membership Dues
An annual membership fee, as established (annually) by the Board shall be
payable by each member within 30 days of the Annual Meeting.
Article 7. Directors
1. The BHCA shall be managed and operated for the members by a Board
of Directors each of whom shall be a member of BHCA.
2. The Board of Directors shall consist of an Executive Committee of not
less than 7 and no more than 9 members including 4 Executive Officers.
3. The Executive Officers shall be the President, Vice - President, Secretary
and Treasurer.
4. Each Director shall be elected to hold office until the 1 st Annual Meeting
after his /her election or until a successor has been duly elected.
5. The election of Directors shall be held at the Annual Meeting.
6. A majority of the Directors shall constitute a quorum at any meeting of
the Board.
7. Should a vacancy occur on the Board, the remaining Directors may
appoint an appropriate member to fill the. vacancy for the remainder of
the term. 537
9 y.
•'rte :�
"LIFESTYLE, LIFESTYLE, LIFESTYLE"
Living in the country delivers freedom from the Port of Newcastle will be as special as a
the pressures and stress associated with the Lifestyle Community can get.
everyday world of work ..... a- place where
families, friends and the surroundings come Just 45-minutes from everything that Toronto
538
Community Centre and Specialized Services Distinguish
Lifestyle Development
The Port of Newcastle will not only feature a Clubhouse for use
at the Marina, but also a community centre for the residents.
Architecturally designed to enhance the community anc
positioned on Lake Ontario, the community centre will be
focus for social activities and gatherings for indoors anc
outdoors. Planned facilities include tennis, walking and hiking
trails, bicycle path, and fishing in Wilmot and Graham Creek
within the community.
Lounges and reading rooms, cards and billiards, banque
facilities with kitchen, an indoor pool plus sauna and whirlpool
an exercise gym and more are being planned.
And it won't end here - a host of other specialized services wil
be available for the homeowners including golf and skiing jus
a few minutes away; within the community itself plannec
services include an activities coordinator, 24 hour Gatehouse
Security, on Holiday Security Check Service, optional Lawi
Maintenance and Snow Removal, Housekeeping Services anc
24 hour Management Pager Services.
The Port of Newcastle homes are all freehold or condominiun
tenure with a very low monthly fee for community facilities
Full municipal services - including snow removal and garbage
collection - will be available to residents on a year round basis
The Port of Newcastle is a sensible investment in every way.
Streetscape Opens Community
to Lake Views
The Port of Newcastle is much more than just a
collection of fine homes and great amenities. From the
moment you arrive you'll realize that the street layout
has been planned to maximize exposure to the lake
with a series of north south streets designed to maintain
a continuous view corridor from the lakefront deep into
the heart of the community.
The integration of parks and other open spaces is
another central component of community design,
creating a series of formal and informal centres of
activity for residents and visitors.
Also, in conjunction with the waterfront park areas a
one and a quarter mile coastal trail - part of the David
Crombie Waterfront Trail System - is planned for the
enjoyment of residents and their friends.
III
Price Range to Reflect Lifestyle Needs of the Community
The range of home prices at the Port of Newcastle will have atimeari average of between $15 00 $200 "000
increasing to $350,000 plus. Lifestyle needs will be addressed wit' the inclusion of; smaller homes, or retire
and upscale waterfront condos for those seeking such a lifest� �`'. They -'wort of 'N�wcastle �s not' r tender as a first
time homebuyer community; primarily it has been plaiine.k as a e atio sort home fo' act�,�v'e ad�i ts' whose children
have left home, and who are now ready to enjoy a ea e �{'�� ,w t� i fr' f 1� sT le ' "
� r
,y f
.r P
i
v 1 wa
ifh )hnbuii - losrt. a "ovvs;v t �iofts, P y -
�' ort`° ?
otewcasfle ill boas Sao e = e nce o wrd thin
i pr an gaga °ges liicl` en a, a� sld� the hom s�; will so elp ""
t`'oCC -c fet'ea`pleasngz
convenience ari Wi71--- eaGure_ptionl-= attdiCions, -rGn as
sunrooms' — h&�7 offige5, f replaces, 9' high ceilings,�pgrehes,
finished basements, and:fu111andseaping packages:
A � _
,r
T �5 :1 4
l'' frr � g � :a` � +�xP �;� �lt r ✓j�� "� J (rl !i i�',11�
540
"The Town of Newcastle and Bond Head have a distinctive architectural character largely due to the era of the
development and prosperity from 1820 to 1880. To slumber through the
pluralism of new and revival architectural styles from 1890 to present
day has allowed the area to keep an overall stylistic quality ", said Clive
Grandfield, a local architect.
The objective therefore is to create a new community based on authentic
regional origins which will appeal to the increasingly discerning home -
buyer for a community balancing residential uses with retail, recreation
and cultural activity in a traditional setting.
NAMES ARE A
REMINDER
HISTORY
The Historical Society of Newcastle have supplied a listing of
proposed street names which reflect the history of the region. The
development of the community will involve emphasis on the history of the area.
"ARE YOU INTERESTED IN DETAILS? DO YOU WANT TO REGISTER YOUR NAME FOR A
SPECIAL PRIORITY PREVIEW APPOINTMENT BEFORE
aTHE GRAND OPENING TO THE PUBLIC?"
Registration or a request for additional details on the Port of Newcastle are a telephone call away.
Please call The Kaitlin Group at (416) 495 -7050 today, or write to 1029 McNicholl Avenue, Scarborough, Ontario, MlW 3W6
Waterfront Regeneration
Trust
Commissioner
The Honounabte David Crombie, P. C.
Deputy Commissioner
David A. Carter
May 10,1996
Ms Patti Y3=ie
City Clerk
Municipality of Claxington
40 Temperence Street
Bowmanv -Hle
Ontario L1C 3A6
fax 905- 623 -MO
Dear Ms Barrie:
Attachment #5
Commissaire
L'honorable David Crorntk, p.c.
sous-cornmissaire
(416) $14 -9471 David A. Carter
At its Ming of May 1$,1996, C arington CouneiI will consider a May 6th planning report on
submissionrregarding the recently approved Quixigion Oifid$l Plan. rn reviewing this report
we noted that the con w=4 of the Waterfront RegexuTation Trust, which were provided to the
Regional Municipality of Durham in January 1996, were not riefex+enCed in Attachmen# 1. This is
almost certainly because our latest comments, like those submitted earlier at the Draft Plan
stage, are generally quite supportive of the Official Plan's waterfront policies, particularly
those related to the establishment and protection of a Waterfront Greenway for public
en oyment and use.
In addition to their inherent value, C larir►gton's forward- looking Greenway policies are
Consistent with the Trust's mine waterfront principles and with the goal and objectives of the
Lake Ontaxio Greenway Strategy.
Consequently, the Trust endorses Commissioner Wu's advice in Section 2.6 of the May 6th
planning report with respect to Submise4on No 16 from the Kaitlin Group regarding the Port of
NeWUStle Neighbourhood. We continue to support the policies of the Clarington Official Plan
which preclude residential development in the Waterfront Greenway,
Sincerely,
Suzanni Barrett
Director, Lake Ontario program
cc Mr A. L. Georgieff, Comntissioner of rlannin, Durham Region
207 Queen's Quay West • Suite 580. Pox 129 • Toronto. Ontario MSS 1A7
Telephone (416) 314 -9490
Facsimile (41 s) 314.9497
��r J 542