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