The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD-63-89DN: 19. 5(l) TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File Res. By -Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, March 6, 1989 REPORT #: PD -63 -89 FILE #: OPA 87-61/D SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: MR. & MRS. VICTOR COSCARELLA PART LOT 29, CONCESSION 4, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE: OPA 87 -61 /D RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD -63 -89 be received; and 2. THAT the Official Plan Amendment submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Victor Coscarella to implement a twelve (12) lot Estate Residential subdivision be DENIED. 3. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to the Region, the applicant and the applicant's agent. 1. BACKGROUND: 1.1 On September 21, 1987, the Town of Newcastle was informed by the Regional Municipality of Durham of an Official Plan Amendment application by Mr. & Mrs. Vic Coscarella. The subject application seeks to develop a twelve (12) lot estate residential subdivision on a 9.0 hectare parcel located on Courtice Road north of Pebblestone Road. �►a 587 REPORT NO.: PD-63-89 PAGE 2 1.2 These lands were the subject of a previous rezoning application (DEV 86-66) which was denied. The applicant proposed the development of five (5) residential lots fronting onto Courtice Road. The application was denied because the proposal did not conform to the policies of the Regional Official Plan for the development of a Node or Cluster. Concern was expressed at that time with respect to impacts upon Farewell Creek and the number of entrances onto Regional Road #34. This new application proposes development through a plan of subdivision. Entrances to individual lots would be from an internal road network. 2. OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 2.1 The subject site is designated "Major Open Space", "Environmentally Sensitive" and "Hazard Land" within the Durham Region Official Plan. 3. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS: 3.1 No public submissions have been received to date regarding this application. 4. CIRCULATION: 4.1 The subject application was circulated by the Town and the Region to various agencies and departments to obtain comments. The following agencies/departments offered no objection to the proposal: - Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board - Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education - Town of Newcastle Fire Department - Ministry of Agriculture and Food The following agencies/departments offered no objection to the proposal in principle, but have outlined conditions for draft approval: - Town of Newcastle Community Services - Regional Works Department - Ministry of Natural Resources - Trans-Northern Pipeline ...3 REPORT NO.: PD -63 -89 PAGE 3 4.2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Department raised a concern that the proposed road allowance would be partially located within the Regional Storm Floodline. 4.3 The Regional Department of Health do not recommend approval for this application. Several of the lots are low and wet and there does not appear to be enough area on the lots to situate septic systems outside of the Regional Storm Fill Limit. The Regional Department of Health's minimum requirement is 30,000 square feet for private services. 4.4 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority have identified concerns with this application. C.L.O.C.A. asserts that, "in view of the Environmentally Sensitive aspects of the site, cold water fishery, wildlife habitat, regionally rare breeding bird species and regionally rare herbaceous species, we must question the suitability of the site for residential development, if the environmental integrity of the site is to be maintained." 4.5 Comments have not been received from the Ministry of the Environment to date. 5. COMMENTS: 5.1 The application has submitted an Environmental Analysis prepared by Henry Kortekaas and Associates. It is the opinion of the consultant that the site offers an opportunity for unique housing development. Furthermore the consultant states that the proposed building envelopes do not impinge on any environmentally sensitive areas. However, the consultant notes, " °that construction activities could potentially result in sediment being washed into the Farewell Creek valley resulting in degradation of water quality, stream structure, and aquatic life. This could also increase the erosion along the outer bank curves of the Farewell Creek. Construction could also result in the disruption of Farewell Creek's vegetative community and the ...4 588 natural processes which occur on site! It is the opinion of the consultant that these concerns are mitigable. 5.2 The applicant has provided a Groundwater Assessment prepared by Hydroterra Limited. The consultant indicates that the groundwater from developed overburden aquifers is expected to be very hard and to contain low to moderate concentrations of iron, nitrate and sulphate. The consultant also noted however, commercial treatment for the removal /control of iron and hardness may be locally required. The installation of conventional in- ground sewage systems appears feasible throughout the majority of the plan, however raised beds may be locally required where shallow - saturation conditions occur. This is a preliminary investigation and further field work and test drilling would be required before any results could be considered conclusive. 5.3 The applicant has also submitted a Soil Investigation prepared by Soil -Eng Limited. The consultant concludes that construction should be carried out between April and late September. Since the sand and gravel are susceptible to water erosion the bare graded surface should be sodded immediately after construction. 5.4 As mentioned within the Rural Residential Development Information Report, this proposed subdivision is situated within an area of concern. This application proposes to increase the concentrated residential development north of Courtice from 87 existing estate residential units to 99 estate residential units. This application would further extend this suburban area and is contrary to Section 10.3.1.3. of the Regional Official Plan which states: A limited number of estate - residential subdivisions on large lots amy 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. Further residential development in this area can no longer be considered limited. Concentrated estate - residential development such as these will 589 PAGE 5 distort municipal service priorities (i.e. parkland and schools); likely involve premature requests for extension of municipal services (i.e. water and sanitary sewers)' compound environmental impacts which are difficult to mitigate; and impede the orderly urban growth of Bowmanville. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 6.1 In view of the concerns raised by the Town of Newcastle Public Works, Regional Department of Health and the 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 this application by Mr. & Mrs. Coscarella for a twelve (12) lot estate-residential subdivision be DENIED. Respectfully submitted, -------------- Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning & Development JB*FW*bb *Attach. February 23, 1989 cc Mr. & Mrs. victor Coscarella 492 Simcoe Street North Oshawa, Ontario LlG 4T8 cc Sam L. Cureatz Humphrey's Hillman & Cureatz 36 1/2 King Street East Oshawa, Ontario LlH 7L1 I_- J90 Recommended for presentation to the Committee ----------------------------- Lawrence E. Kotseff Chief Administrative officer II:►ym:1: KA:"m 0a : 1 wim:='Yi 0 0,