HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-52-89DN: 17.
5(a)
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT File
Res. #
By-Law #
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, March 6, 1989
REPORT #: . PD-52-89 — FILE #: OPA 88-106./D AND DEV 88-123
aRJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING APPLICATIONS
MR. & MRS. J.R. GIBSON
PART LOT 7, CONCESSION 9, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
FILES: OPA 88-106/D AND DEV 88-123
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-52-89 be received; and
2. THAT the applications for official Plan Amendment File: OPA 88-106/D and
Zoning By-law Amendment File: DEV 88-123 submitted by Mr. & Mrs. J.R.
Gibson, to permit the creation of four (4) non-farm rural residential lots,
be DENIED; and
3. THAT the Region of Durham be so advised; and
4. THAT the applicants be so advised.
1. BACKGROUND
On November 17, 1988 the Planning and Development Department received an
application from Mr. & Mrs. J.R. Gibson to amend By-law 84-63.
Subsequently, on November 28, 1988 the Town was advised by the Regional
Planning Department of an application to amend the Durham Regional Official
Plan. The subject applications would seek to amend the current Mineral
510 1 ...2
REPORT 00.: DD-52-89 PAGE 3
_______________________________________________________________________________
^
Aggregate Extraction identification and symbol and zoning ona2.24
hectare parcel to permit the creation of four (4) non-farm rural
residential lots.
1.2 Within the C0cbam Regional Official Plan, Section 4.2.2 states that
once mineral aggregate extraction has been exhausted, only those ooea
within the "Permanent Agriculture Reserve", n(eoezml Agricultural",
and nMo'Vr Open Space" designations are permitted, without an
aoasodneot to the Plan.
1.3 Within the provisions of 84-63, the "Extractive Industrial
(M3)n zone, residential uses are prohibited.
`
1.4 Staff would note for the Committee's information that the Ministry of
Natural Resources had cancelled the licence for aggregate extraction
on this site in November, 1987.
2. LOCATION
2.1 The subject lands are located on the north side of Regional Road 20'
west of Regional Road 14, being Part Lot 7, Concession 9' former
Township of Darlington.
3. SURROUNDING LAND USES
3.1 The existing land uses adjacent to the proposed development are:
To the North: 31 bo parcel, vacant
To the South: 40 ha parcel, vacant
To the East: 3.5 be parcel, non-farm rural residential
To the West: .375 ha DacoeIr non-farm rural residential
4. PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS
4.1 Pursuant to Council's resolution of July 26, 1982 and the requirements
of the Planning Act, the appropriate oiguage acknowledging the
application was installed on the subject lands. In addition, the
jUL
...3
REPORT NO.: PD -52 -89 PAGE 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
appropriate notice was mailed to each landowner within the prescribed
distance.
4.2 As of the writing of this report, Staff have not received any written
submissions. However, the landowner has indicated to Staff that there
are a number of underground springs in the area. He was concerned that
the proposed septic systems would effect his well water.
5. AGENCY COMMENTS
5.1 In accordance with departmental procedures the applications were
circulated to obtain comments from other departments /agencies. The
following departments /agencies offered no objection to the proposal as
filed:
- Town of Newcastle Fire Department
- Ministry of Agriculture and Food
- Public School Board
- Separate School Board
- Ontario Hydro
5.2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Department noted that the applicant
would be required to submit a Lot Grading Plan, to address the
drainage of the spring fed pond, and the open pit which was left from
the Gravel Pit operation.
5.3 The Town of Newcastle Community Services Department offered no
objection, however, requested that the applicant be required to pay 50
cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication.
5.4 The Regional Health Services Department does not recommend approval of
the proposal, due to the pond on the lot, there is insufficient area
for private sewage disposal. However, if the pond was filled in and
the area was drained, the department would re- examine the proposal.
...4
503
11101 OR . 0
PAGE 4
-----------------------------®__-----__-_®_-__---®_-_-----__---------_-_-------
5.5 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has objected to the
proposal. The subject lands are abut the Long Sault Conservation Area
and have been identified as lands for future acquisition with the
Authority's Conservation Planning Study. The Plan recognizes this
area as "Environmentally Sensitive ", citing the high soil erosion
potentials associated with the Oak Ridges Moraine. The moraine
itself, functions in groundwater recharge of acquifers systems and
spring recharges of major stream systems. The Plan has identified the
recharge systems as having a high priority in the function of the
moraine. The proposal would not appear to be in conformity with the
intent of the Plan.
5.6 The Ministry of Natural Resources have offered no objection, however
have noted that the area has a high potential mineral aggregates and
the demand is expected to increase, therefore, there will be an
increase in the amount of truck traffic on Regional Roads 14 and 20.
5.7 The Regional Works Department offered a verbal objection to the
proposal, indicating that four (4) proposed accesses onto a Regional
Road was contrary to current Regional Policies. In addition, the
Works Department indicated that Regional Road 20 was a major
thoroughfare for truck traffic and accesses could be hazardous.
5.8 Staff would note that comments are outstanding from the following
agencies:
- Ministry of the Environment
- Ministry of Transportation
6. STAFF COMMENTS
6.1 Within the Durham Region Official Plan this particular area is located
within the Major Open Space - Oak Ridges Moraine designation, in
addition to being identified as a Mineral Extraction Area. The Plan
recognizes the Moraines as a valuable landform for its mineral
aggregates resources. Mineral aggregates are a non renewable resource
and high potential mineral extraction should be protected from
incompatible land use.
504
...5
REPORT NO.: PD -52 -89 PAGE 5
6.2 As a result of application for mineral aggregate extraction, and the
public opposition thereto, Staff was directed to prepare a report on
Mineral Aggregate activity within the Town. Report PD -8 -89 indicated
that the amount of current extractions was not at its full potential
as licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Furthermore, it is
anticipated that there will be a substantial increase in the amount of
activity on both sides of the Clark - Darlington - Manvers Townlines.
6.3 The report also illustrates the current volumes of truck traffic using
an arterial road Regional Road 20, as a major thoroughfare to
Regional Road 57 and Highway 115/35. It is anticipated that the
volumes will increase as a result of increase in extraction activity.
For example, from the Canada Building Materials application alone, it
is anticipated that there will be 200 truck trips a day generated by
the new operation by their sixth year of operation. Given this, Staff
is of the opinion that, an additional four (4) access points on
Regional Road 20 would be hazardous to the functions for Regional Road
20 and to those who must enter and exit onto the road to access onto
their residential properties.
6.4 In addition Section 13.2.7 of the Durham Regional Official Plan states
that arterial roads shall be designed primarily as limited access roads
to facilitate traffic movement between major land use activities.
6.6 The Plan discourages the development of new non -farm related
residential uses unless such development proceeds in a form of
infilling between existing residential dwellings and provided that
such a use is definable as a node or cluster.
N
505
D8p0BT NJ.: PD-52-89
PAGE 6
6.7 Accordingly, the criteria within the Dozbom Regional Official Plan are
that a Cluster or 0m]e must be definable as a separate entity so as
not to be considered as strip or scattered development, the existing
group of dwellings moat be on relatively small Iuta and new Clusters
may not be located on Provincial Bigboam'a or Arterial Roads.
6.8 Staff have reviewed the application with the above noted criteria and
would note that there is no definable cluster in this area. There is
one residential lot situated to the west of the subject lands, the
addition of four more lots would promote undesirable strip
development in this area.
7.
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 In consideration of the above, Staff cannot support the creation of
four (4) non-farm rural residential lots, as filed.
Respectfully submitted,
--
Franklin Wu, M.2.I.D.
Director of Planning 6 Development
CI0/*FW*'ip
*Attach.
February 33, 1989
CC: 2b. J.B. Gibson
P.O. Box 57
B&M2IO0, Ontario
LOB lJO
]U�
�O�
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
--------- ------------
Lawrenc toeff
12 II 10 9
8
7 6
5 4
3
BOUNDARY
1
I
0
�
I
- - i--- '------ i--
-
- - -�- j
A7
- - -�-
--
U
1
I (
i I I I I
,
Al
1 .0
l
o
O
I I
I
M3
1 I I
'REGIONAL' ROAD 20 '
i-M3 M
i p
t
I
p
I IAI
�.�{
I I
I
OD
EP
o
I
'o �'
� { i
�
I
�
i -
Al
{
j
i I
3
o
V
i
EP
i
I
W
0: EP
I
{ 1 I
I
I 0
{
CONC. ROAD 8
.. ...
Dev. 88� 123 .5 -0 EP. 88�
507