Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-64-89DN: .14. ,N" _. 11 uu w, ., UNFINIAHWS BUSINESS TOWN OF NEWCASTLE 5 (m) REPORT File # Q_`36 % Res.�� By -Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, March 6, 1989 SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS APPLICANT: L. STANEK PART LOTS 31/32, CONC. 4, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON FILES: OPA 87 -74/D, DEV 87 -86, AND 18T -87074 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD -64 -89 be received; and 2. THAT the Official Plan Amendment submitted by L. Stanek, as revised, to permit the development of a eight (8) lot estate residential subdivision be DENIED; and 3. THAT the accompanying Rezoning and Subdivision applications be DENIED; and 4. THAT the Region of Durham, the applicant and the applicant's agent be so advised. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 On October 26, 1987, the Town of Newcastle Planning Department received an application submitted by L. Stanek to rezone an 8.0 hectare parcel of land to permit an ten (10) lot estate residential subdivision. Subsequently, on October 29, 1987 and November 6, 1987, the Town was advised ...2 592 REPORT NO.: PD-64-89 PAGE 2 by the Region of Durham of application submitted by L. Stanek for subdivision and to amend the Durham Region official Plan respectively. 1.2 on January 18, 1988, the General Purpose and Administration Committee conducted a Public Hearing and resolved to refer the application to rezone the lands back to Staff for further processing until such time as the official Plan Amendment and Subdivision applications have been given due consideration. 1.3 on January 19, 1989, the applicant submitted a revised plan reducing the number of lots to eight (8). 2. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS 2.1 The lands are presently designated "Major Open Space" and "Environmentally Sensitive" under the Regional official Plan, and are zoned "Agricultural (A)" and "Environmental Protection (EP)" within the Town's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63. 3. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 3.1 No public submissions have been received regarding this application to date. 4. CIRCULATION 4.1 The subject application was circulated by the Town of Newcastle and Region of Durham to various agencies and departments to obtain comments. The following agencies/departments offered no objection to the proposal: - Public School Board - Separate School Board - Ministry of Agriculture & Food - Trans Northern Pipeline - Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission The following agencies/departments offered no objection to the principle of this proposal, but did outline conditions for Draft 513 ...3 REPORT NO.: PD-64-89 Approval: - Newcastle Public Works Department - Newcastle Community Services Department - Regional Works Department - Regional Health Services - Ministry of Environment PAGE 3 4.2 The Ministry of Natural Resources noted that Farewell Creek and its associated valley traverse the northeast portion of the subject property. The Oshawa Second Marsh is located downstream of Farewell Creek and is a significant warm water spawning area and wildlife habitat area. The ministry recommends that the "Major Open Space" and "Environmentally Sensitive" designations remain on the creek and its valleylands, to protect the Oshawa Second Marsh from excess sedimentation upstream. The Ministry has no objection to the remainder of the subject property being designated "Estate Residential". 4.3 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority provided extensive comments on the proposal summarized as follows: "Approximately 750 of the site, consisting of all of the valleylands and the forested portion of the tableland, has been classified as exhibiting the highest level of sensitivity in the Authority's Environmental Sensitivity Mapping Project. The general indications of Environmentally Sensitive and Hazard Lands has also been assigned to the relevant portions of the site in the Regional Official Plan. This section of the Farewell Valley Woods supports a variety of vegetative associations, presenting a diverse range of habitat opportunities for wildlife. The valley and its forested margins link the Courtice and Holt Road forest blocks, providing an important corridor for wildlife movement throughout this greenbelt area... It is the Authority's policy to only support those proposals which are relatively free of constraints to development. This policy intends to minimize potential conflicts between the proposed land use and the natural environment and thereby maintain the integrity of the environmentally sensitive unit. In this regard, we have reviewed the Environmental Impact Analysis for the proposal, prepared by Henry Kortekaas and Associates, date October, 1985. However, Staff have difficulty in accepting some of the data and a number of the conclusions presented in the report. Based on the information presented in the Environmental Impact Analysis, we cannot agree with the consultant's conclusion that any environmental impact would be small scale, short term and mitigatable". On the contrary, thq- rt indicates unmitigatable � Tr ... 4 REPORT NO.: PD-64-89 PAGE 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ impacts on uncommon plant species, wildlife habitat and a number of uncommon and/or significant wildlife species, which have either been reported to occur or observed on site. Further, a number of the proposed mitigation measures are impossible to implement or have proven to be ineffective in the past. As the Environmental Impact Analysis prepared for the proposal has in fact, stated or inferred m number of impacts which would degrade the sensitive nature of the site, as a consequence of the planned development, Staff cannot support the approval of the Official Plan amendment or draft plan of subdivision." 4.4 The Town of Newcastle Fire Department expressed oouoecu noting that due to the increase in population and the number of developments taking place throughout the Municipality, the 4 full time firefighters of Station #4 will not be able to maintain the existing level of emergency service. 5. COMMENTS 5.1 The applicant has submitted o Soil Investigation prepared by 3niI-Dug Limited. The Study revealed that subsurface conditions indicate that the subsurface drainage is generally poor to fair. However, the study further noted that according to the Manual of Policy, Procedures and Guidelines for i Disposal Systems published by the Ministry of the Environment, the site is suitable for iugr000d absorption of the sewage effluent, but the septic bed should be designed to suit the occurring ground conditions. 5.2 & 8ydrogeologioal Assessment prepared by Qibanu 6 Associates for the applicant indicates that adequate groundwater ceooucomo exist in the buried aquifer system to readily supply the domestic water requirements of the proposed residential development. The report is based on Ministry of the Environment well water data and related soil investigations, however, does not address the impact of the fifty-one (51) lot residential estate subdivision (Plan 1OM-808) which borders the subject site on three sides. This Bydcogeologicol Assessment was prepared March, 1988, prior to the registration of Subdivision ...5 - j ��()� 7J REPORT NO.: PD -64 -89 PAGE 5 1OM -808. Additional field work and test drilling would be required before any results could be considered conclusive. 5.3 The applicant has also submitted an Environmental Impact Analysis prepared by Henry Kortekaas and Associates. The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority have noted that the report fails to recognize adverse impacts on the natural environment and wildlife, and that they cannot accept many of the premises put forth by the consultant. The Conservation Authority does not agree that environmental impact on the subject site will be small scale and mitigable. 5.4 The applicant has submitted a revised plan to address the concerns of the Central Lake Ontairo Conservation Authority. An accompanying letter from the applicant's consultant emphasizes that: - Farewell Creek will be retained in its natural state - the developer will implement erosion control measures - existing vegetation will be retained - restrictions will be implemented to encourage two storey homes instead of bungalows to limit the house foot print - homeowners will be encouraged to plant native species However, these measures do not alter Staff's opinion on the principle of this development, in that this proposal will increase the existing concentrated estate residential development in this area. 5.5 This application represents an increase of eight (8) residential units to the concentration of estate - residential development north of Courtice, which presently totals ninety -seven (97) residential units. As discussed within the Rural Residential Development Information Report, the continuing development of this area north of Courtice is of concern. Section 10.3.1.3 of the Durham Region Official Plan states: "A limited number of estate - residential subdivisions on large lots may be permitted by amendment to this Plan. The limits to the numbers of such estate - residential subdivisions shall be established by their scale and location, their financial implications for the Region and their effect on the Region's transportation facilities and utilities." 596 ...6 BBP0BT 00.: PD-64-89 PAGE 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ Further estate residential development north of Courtice can no longer be viewed as limited. Concentrated estate residential development such as these will: distort municipal service priorities (i.e. parkland and schools); likely invoke premature request for extension of municipal services (i.e. water and/or sanitary sewer); compound environmental impacts which are difficult to mitigate; and impede the orderly urban growth of Courtice. 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the extensive c000ecuo raised by Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the issues raised within the Rural Residential Development Information Report, Staff are unable to support this application and would respectfully recommend that the various applications by L. 8tooeh for an Ten (10) lot estate residential subdivision be DENIED. Respectfully submitted, Franklin Wu, M.C.Z.P. Director of Planning & Development JB*DJC*EW*'ip *Attach. February 22, 1989 CC: Mr. L. Stanek 85 Sk}nnuck Drive Suite 1705 WZLLUW}&LD' Ontario M28 309 Wm. Michael Armstrong Barrister 6 Solicitor P.O. Box 2396 32 8imcoe Street South OSBJWA, Ontario LI8 7\/6 J7/ [�7 Recommended for presentation to the Committee Lawrence E. Kotaeff Chief Administrative officer 34� LOT 33 LOT 32 LOT 31 LOT 30 LOT 29 -1--1 1 I If I I I 1111 1 11 .1 11111 1111 1 ul i w . EXISTING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL MM PROPOSED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL ® DRAFT APPROVED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL SUBJECT SITE rai Z 0 W W U Z 0 U M Z 0 W W W U Z O U