HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-48-89DN: 31
5(g)
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT File # '30 -Z2;
Res. #
By -Law #
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday February 20, 1989
REPORT #: PD -48 -89 FILE #: 87 -59 /D
SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN
APPLICANT: MOSPORT PARK LIMITED
PART LOT 33, LOT 34 AND PART LOT 35, CONC. 9, CLARKE
FILE: 87 -59/D
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -48 -89 be received; and
2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle
recommends the following:
a) THAT the Official Plan Amendment Application 87-59/D submitted by
Mosport Park Ltd. be DENIED as it relates to the development of
174 Residential Lots; and
b) THAT the development of the additional tourist /recreational
facilities at Mosport Park as proposed by the applicant be
considered as an expansion of existing uses and variation to
similar uses under Section 16.6.5 of the Durham Region Official
Plan which can be dealt with through an application to amend the
Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By -law; and
3. THAT Mosport Park Limited, The Procter Redfern Group.Mr. Kenneth Smith
and the Region of Durham be so advised.
2...
REPORT NO.: PD-48-89 PAGE 2
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 On September 15, 1987, the Town received notice from the Region of
Durham of an application submitted by Mosport Park Limited to amend the
Regional Official Plan to permit the development of a multi - faceted
Tourist and Resort Development on 2901 hectares at Mosport Park in Part
of Lot 33, Lot 34 and Lot 35, Concession 9, former Township of Clarke
(Attachment No. 1).
1.2 The requested amendment seeks, in addition to the existing racetrack,
to permit the development of an oval dirt track and drag strip, a
family amusement area (racing museum, motel and mini - golf), go -cart
track, campgrounds, golf course, downhill and cross - country ski runs, a
theme park, and a golf club which would double as a ski chalet
(Attachment No. 2).
1.3 The original proposal also called for the development of 160 detached
and 601 attached recreational residential units. This was later amended
to 174 detached recreational residential units.
1.4 The applicant has argued that the proposed residential units are
intended for seasonal or occasional use and therefore should not be
considered as estate residential as defined by the Official Plan. The
applicant is proposing that the Official Plan be amended to introduce a
new "Tourist Node" designation with appropriate goals and policies to
build on the existing attraction of Mosport Park.
1.5 A "Traffic Impact Analysis" submitted by the applicant concludes that
the additional traffic to be generated by the Mosport Development site
represents no significant change to the current operating conditions on
a typical race weekend. It is noted, however, that the Region of
Durham Road Needs Study (1986) identified a number of roads in the
immediate vicinity which require improvement including Concession Road
...3
REPORT NO.: PD-48-89
PAGE 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 and Mosport Road bounding the north and east limits of the site,
portions of Regional Road # 14, Regional Road # 57 and within the next
five years, Regional Road # 20. The Traffic Impact Analysis identified
critical intersections at Regional Road # 20/Regional Road # 57 and
Regional Road # 20/Highway # 35. The Analysis also concludes that peak
traffic flows may be staggered due to a variety of other facilities and
there is sufficient potential area available on the site to provide
parking for peak race day demand.
1.6 An "Economic Impact Analysis" submitted by the applicant concludes that
the planned tourism development should attract an estimated 166,000
additional visitor days per annum by 1995, an increase of 740 over
current levels. It would result in 102 man years of additional direct
employment (both full-time and part-time) annually when fully
operational. Over the seven year period direct expenditures would
increase by 650.
1.7 A "Preliminary Geotechnical and Hydrogeological Evaluation" also
submitted by the applicant concludes that the soil conditions at the
site are generally favourable for the design of conventional septic
tank and the drainage systems. Based on Ministry of the Environment
water well records for the area, the report further concludes that the
potential exists for the site to be developed with individual private
wells, but recommends further detailed study prior to final approval.
2. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW CONFORMITY:
2.1 The subject site is designated "Major Open Space - Oak Ridges Moraine',
by the Regional Official Plan. Section 12.2.2 of the Plan permits
golfcourses, campgrounds and fairgrounds in the major Open Space; as
well, recreational uses are allowed in zoning by-laws provided they are
compatible with their surroundings and are in conformity with the
intent of the official Plan.
__4
TAMA
PAGE 4
2.2 Most of the site is zoned "Agricultural Exception (A-11)" by By-law
84-63 which permits a motor vehicle race track; the remainder is zoned
"Agricultural (A)".
3. CIRCULATION:
3.1 The subject application was circulated by the Town and the Region to
various agencies and departments to obtain comments. The following
departments/agencies offered no objection to the proposal:
- Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
- Public and Separate School Boards
3.2 Town of Newcastle Public Works Department - November 26, 1987
"We have reviewed the above-noted application and recommended that
before this development proceeds that the owners provide this
department with information relating to the following comments:
1. That a Functional Report be prepared with respect to the impact on
Town roads (Mosport Road, Concession Road 10, Clarke, Concession
Road 8, Darlington and the Darlington-Clarke Townline). The
Functional Report shall include all the information listed in the
Town of Newcastle's Design Criteria and any such information deemed
necessary by the Director of Public Works.
2. That the Region of Durham is contacted regarding the designation of
Darlington-Clarke Townline as a Regional Road.
3. That all works are completed in accordance with the Town of
Newcastle's Design Criteria and Standard Drawings.
4. That any easements required by the Town be granted free and clear
of any encumbrances.
5. That road widenings be dedicated to the Town that come as a result
of the Functional Report.
6. That the developer will bear the costs (100%) of any works on Town
Roads which are necessitated as a result of this development and
the Functional Report.
7. That the developer contributes to the costs of reconstructing any
abutting Town road which necessitated as a result of this
development and the Functional Report.
...5
1 9 0
PAGE 5
Town of Newcastle Public Works Department ® November 26, 1987 (Cont'd)
8. That the developer meet all the requirements of the Public Works
Department, financial or otherwise.
9. That the Owner enter into a Development Agreement with the Town and
that this department be kept informed of the status of same at all
times.
10. All of the other standard requirements re: Lot Grading, Site
Servicing, Schedules of Work Performance Guarantees, Cost Estimates
etc., should be included in the development".
April 6, 1988
"We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis and submit the following
comments:
1. Some assumptions and conclusions reached are without true facts or
reason.
a) Quarry pit operations do occur on weekends, so trucks do
present a factor to the traffic impact.
b) It is very unlikely that a significant or measurable amount of
traffic would access Mosport Park via Regional Road #42,
Woodley Road, Best Road and Darlington-Clarke Townline Road,
thus traffic volumes on major access routes are higher than
reported.
c) The amount of traffic leaving the site one hour after an event
would be significantly higher than 400 from an on site
observation.
2. The majority of traffic counts used for this analysis are somewhat
outdated and do not reflect the recent revitalization of Mosport
Park and the expanding mineral extraction development in the area.
3. The proposed construction of Highway # 407 is not going to relieve
impact on local roads immediately or not likely to within the next
10 years.
4. No consideration was given to the intersection of Regional Road #20
and Concession Road 10 which has very high turning volumes and
accident rates.
5. There is little or no consideration for the following proposed
facilities which would significantly impact on local roads at
various times:
1. Oval Dirt Track
2. Drag Strip
3. Family Amusement Area
4. Go Kart Track
5. Campground
6. Golf Course
7. Ski runs
...6
REPORT ND~; pD_48-89 PAGE 6
8. Theme Park
9. Recreational Housing
We would suggest that this analysis be revised to reflect the above
3~3 The Town of Newcastle Fire Department indicated an objection to the
application, noting a serious concern with the availability of
sufficient quantities of water for fire fighting purposes. Response to
this location would be from Station # 3, Orono which is on the border
of the recognized five ndIe limit for insurance purposes. In an area
where municipal water is not available, an adequate water ouDpIv for
fire fighting purposes shall be assured by means of a reservoir (water
storage tank) of adequate size to allow for sufficient water supply to
cover an emergency, and shall not be used for any other purposes.
3.4 The Town of 0asvoaatle Community Services Department indicated no
objection to the application and requested cash-in-lieu of 5% parkland
3.5 The Region of Durham Works Department has stated that a more detailed
Traffic Study is required to permit the impact of the proposed
development on the Regional Road system to be assessed. The Department
does not aol4port the establishment of a communal water system for the
residential component due to the high costs associated with
construction, operation and maintenance and concerns regarding possible
Inog term problems with quality and quantity. The Department also
recommended that the developer undertake a comprehensive groundwater
3.6 The Region of Durham Economic Development Department indicated strong
support for the application/ noting that the proposed uses are, for the
most part, of a tourist nature and compliment the tourist aspects along
with the motor sport elements of the development. The Department also
indicated no objection to the proposed residential component.
REPORT NO.: PD -48 -89 PAGE 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.7 The Region of Durham Health Department indicated no objection to the
proposed residential development, but requested more detailed
information in respect of both the proposed residential and commercial
components.
3.8 The Ministry of Natural Resources noted that the subject property is
identified by the Regional Official Plan as a high potential mineral
resource area. A preliminary report of the property prepared in 1979
indicates that aggregate extraction is not commercially viable at the
site due, in part, to the minor amounts of coarse aggregate
encountered. The Ministry also noted that the headwater area of Wilmot
Creek and a tributary of Soper Creek, both of which are significant
trout streams, are located on -site, and accordingly, requested further
information regarding the impact of the proposal on these water
courses.
3.9 The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has no objection to the principle
of developing the site, but noted an arc of influence as defined by
the Agricultural Code of Practice relating to a small livestock
operation to the west of the Mosport site (Attachment No. 2).
3.10 The Ministry of Transportation advised that the subject lands will not
be directly impacted by any of the proposed Highway # 407 corridors
under consideration by this Ministry.
3.11 Victoria County noted that their only concern related to the volume of
truck traffic on Regional Road 20 generated by gravel extraction
operations in Manvers Township, and the implications of this traffic on
possible additional tourist traffic on the road.
3.12 Staff note for the Committee's information that comments are still
outstanding from Ministry of the Environment.
REPORT PD-48-89
4. PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS:
4.1 One hundred and eighty -six residents have submitted letters or signed a
petition in objection to the proposed Mosport Park development and, in
particular, the proposed residential development. The residents cited
concerns regarding the possible permanent occupancy of the homes, the
serious intrusion into a productive farming area including increased
traffic, responsibility for the wells and septic systems, and noise
pollution.
4.2 One Whitby resident and one Bowmanville resident who own land to the
east of Mosport submitted letters in support of the proposed
development.
5. COMMENTS:
5.1 The development proposal submitted by Mosport Park Limited consists of
2 distinct elements - namely, the expansion of the existing
recreational facilities and the development of a new residential
subdivision.
5.2 Expansion of Existing Tourist and Recreational Facilities
5.2.1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12.2.2 of the Durham Region
Official Plan, the development of the golf course, campgrounds, pool,
tennis and ski facilities are permitted in the "Major Open Space"
designation and could proceed through amendment to the Town's
Comprehensive Zoning By -law.
...9
REPORT 00.: PD-48-89 PACE 9
5.2.2 The family amusement area, theme park, oval dirt track and drag strip
are not recreational oeeo as envisioned by Section 12.2.2. However,
under the provisions of Section 16.6.5 of the Plan, existing ooeo which
do not conform to the designations and provisions of the Plan my be
rezoned to permit the continuation, expansion or enlargement of such
uses, or variations to similar uses. Mosport Park Raceway is
recognized nationally and internationally as an important motorapVz±
facility. These latter-referenced facilities would be capitalizing on
the biob profile and attraction cuczeotIl` provided by the existing
raceway, and therefore could proceed through rezoning.
5.2.3 It abooId be noted that Section 16.6.5 requires that such uses must
have no adverse effect on the present uses of the surrounding lands or
the implementation of the provisions of the Official Plan. In this
regard, such matters of traffic impact, noise and scale of the tourist
development would be considered as part of the rezoning process.
5.3 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
5.3.1 The applicant has stated that the proposed residential area would be an
integral component of the comprehensive Moaport Park tourist node, with
the residential units being targeted for porcboaeza attracted to the
various recreational and motor sport facilities on the Moopoct site.
The units are not intended to be permanent residences, but rather
marketed as second homes, to be occupied by their owners on an
occasional/intermittent basis. The applicant has compared the entire
MDsport Dark development to other multi-faceted residential and
recreational developments in Ontario, most notably in the District of
Muskoka. The applicant has also indicated that there are several
umtoragort facilities in the United States with associated residential
development.
1 '•' •. �1 i i�
PAGE 10
As a major tourist attraction in the Region, it is a recognized need
that there may be a provided accommodation for persons attracted to the
events and recreational facilities at Mosport Park. Staff do not,
however, support the development of freehold, estate -type residential
dwellings as a sound basis to provide for this need. Such units are
not suitable for short -term visitors to Mosport Park. Much of the
residential development associated with other tourist /resort facilities
in Ontario is oriented -to temporary accommodation (hotels /motels) or
condominiums, many of which have time -share or frequency of turnover
requirements. As well, given that the residential units will be owned
by individuals rather than controlled by Mosport Park Limited, the
linkage between the residential and tourist components, in a legal
sense, would be tenuous, thereby undermining the concept of a multi -
facetted tourist node.
The tourist resort facilities in the District of Muskoka are also not
comparable to the proposed Mosport Park development in that they are
not located in proximity to any major urban centres. Residential
dwellings at the Mosport site would be close to the major employment
centres of Toronto and Oshawa to be attractive as permanent residences,
rather than second homes. The year -round recreational amenities such
as the golf course and ski trails would also serve to icrease the
attractiveness of the dwelling units as year -round residences.
5.3.2 Staff are concerned with the potential for permanent occupancy of the
proposed residential units at Mosport Park. The dwellings are not
intended for "seasonal /summer" use, but rather for intermittent use
throughout the year. The Ontario Building Code would require the homes
to be built for year -round occupancy and the subdivision roads would be
built to municipal standards and maintained year- round. Planning Staff
in area municipalities with a significant number of seasonal/
recreational homes have confirmed that there is an increased demand for
year -round occupancy of such residences and that, for planning purposes,
they no longer differentiate between seasonal and permanent residency.
They have also noted a trend towards older people retirinq in their
seasonal residences.
...11
REPORT N0,: PD-48-89 PACE II
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mosport Park Limited has proposed a number of measures to discourage
the permanent occupancy of the residential units. These oayaeuzee are
discussed in detail in "Proctor and 8edferu`o ootmiaaioo to the Town on
behalf of Moopoct (Attachment 0o. 3) and include the following:
- restrictive covenants registered on title to the benefit of all
homeowners, Mosport Park and the Town with the Town having the only
right to waive the restriction.
- provisions in the implementing zoning By-law.
- notices io the Agreements of Purchase and Sale and iumarketing
material.
- Moaport Park Limited to retain the right to approve any/all future
The Town's solicitor has indicated that the oueoonreo proposed by
Mmaport Pack to restrict occupancy of the dwelling unite would not be
very effective. Eutnzoeuneut of occupancy reatriotiouae and zoning
by-law provisions would be the Town's responsibility given that the
developer and property mmzeco have little vested interest in doing so.
The difficulties in enforcing intermittent occupancy would make these
restrictions essentially unenforceable. As well, notices of
restrictions on occupancy in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale and in
the marketing neteriaI would be effective only against the first
purchasers of the property.
5.3.3 It is Staff's assertion that the recreational dwelling units would not
be, or at least remain as, intermittently-occupied second dwelling
units. They would become permanent residences. As a result, Staff
considered the "recreational." residential use in much the same manner
as Estate Residential development under the provisions of the Regional
Official Plan.
The Official Plan states that the proposed development should be located
in a scenic well-vegetated area of rolling topography. In this regard,
the proposed residential area is heavily treed with pleasant views in
some spots to the south and over-looking the racetrack.
...l2
REPORT K0~: PD-48-89 PAGE 12
_______________________________________________________________________________
Estate residential developments are not to be located on lands having
biob capability for agriculture or mineral extraction, or unduly
restrict the use of adjacent properties for these activities. The
subject site is not suitable for either agriculture or aggregate
extraction. There are small scale agricultural operations to the south
and west, although the proposed residential area is not affected by the
Code of Practice Arc of Influence identified by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Bbm].
The site is located in an area identified by the Official Plan as
having biob potential for mineral aggregate resources. At the present
time, there are 770 ha of land licensed for mineral aggregate
extraction in the general area, including a 42 ha site immediately to
the south east of the proposed residential development (Attachment 0o.
4). There are also additional lands being proposed for aggregate
extraction in the general area. & goal of the Regional official Plan,
in keeping with Provincial policy as outlined by the Mineral Aggregate
Resource Policy Statement, is to protect high potential aggregate
resources from incompatible land uses. Given the magnitude of concern
expressed by residents already living in the area regarding the
existing and proposed extraction operations, the introduction of a large
number of new residents would not seem yzm]eut.
5.3.4 Lastly, Staff are concerned with the size ofthe proposed residential
development. The development of 174 residential units would be larger
than all of the existing hamlets in the Town with the exception of
Orono and Hampton. It is more than twice the size of any estate
residential proposal approved to date. The impact of such a
development and the conflicts with rural land use activities would be
intensified by its size. Moreover, permanent occupancy of these
dwellings would create a demand for commercial and community services
in an area which is somewhat isolated from these facilities at the
nvnoeot.
...I3
BBP0BT 0O.: pD-48-89 PAGE 13
_______________________________________________________________________________
6. C00CQD8IO03 & RECOMMENDATIONS:
6.1 In Staff's opinion the proposed residential development is not
necessarily linked to the development of Mooport Park as a major
tourist node. Due to the difficulties for the Town to enforce
occupancy restrictions it must be viewed as a permanent residential
development. Due to the potential conflicts with Provincially-
important aggregate resources, the scale of the development and the
likely demand for municipal services which can be expected from new
residents, Staff are recommending denial of the residential component of
the Mnopozt Park Official Plan Amendment Application.
6.2 The recreational/commercial component of the Mosport Park development
proposal does not require an Official Plan Amendment inasmuch as the
ooeo proposed can be considered through a rezoning aooliatiou Ducaoaot
to the provisions of Section 12.2.2 and 16.6.5 of the Durham Region
Official Plan. It is therefore recommended that the Region of Durham
nlnao Official Plan Amendment Application 87-59/D as it relates to the
proposed commercial/recreational development.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.D.
Director of Planning 6 Development
JA8*DC*I0V*'ip
*Attach.
February 10, I989
CC: Moapoct Park Limited
c/o Mr. Harvey 8mdea
73 Alueao Street
Unit 6&
Dovmnoview, Ontario
M3J 2B2
See Attached List
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
--c�~------- -----------
Lawrence E oeff
Chief Admini�itrative Officer
Mr. Glen Easton
The Proctor 6 Redfern Group
45 Green Belt Drive
D00 MILLS, Ontario
M3C 3K3
INTERESTED PARTIES
ON MOSPORT OPA - FILE 87 -59/D
1. Mr. John E. Syer
10. Mr. and Mrs. Roy Scott
50 Horsey Street
R.R. #2
Orono, Ontario
Bowmanville, Ontario
LOB IMO
L1 C lY 9
623 -3718
983 -5977
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth R. Smith
11. Mr. and Mrs. D. Luke
R.R. #5
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
L1L 3K6
-8497
(Chairman /Spokesman)
263 -2957
.263
3. Mrs. B. Walsh
12. Miss Grace Smith
Mr. L. Grawbarger
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -2798
L1C 3K2
263 -8500
13. Mr. and Mrs. Tom Wilcock
4. Mr. and Mrs. Jack Purdy
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -25.57
L1C 3K6
263 -2932
14. Mr. and Mrs. Kevin Wood -
5. Mr and Mrs. Walter Loveridge
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
7687 Regional Road 14
L1C 3K6
R .R.#5
263 -2370
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -2317
15. Mr. and Mrs. Gabriel Kovacs
R.R. #5
6. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Varcoe
Bowmanville, Ontario
R.R. #5
L1C 3K6
263 -2330
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1 C 3K6
263 -8896
16. Mr. and Mrs. John Webb
R.R. #5, Box 73
Bowmanville, Ontario
.7. Mr. D. Dalzell
L1C 3K6
R.R. #2
263 -2186
~ -' Orono, Ontario
-LOB 1M0
983 -5307
17. Ms. Shirley Skinner
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
8. Mr. and Mrs. W. Cane
L1C 3K6
801 Fernhill Blvd.
263 -8167
Oshawa, Ontario
L1J 5K5
579 -1711
18. Mr. and Mrs. Donald R. Davey
R.R. #5
9. Mr. and Mrs. L. Helpard
Bowmanville, Ontario
R.R. #2
L1C 3K6
263 -2577
Orono, Ontario
LOB IMO
983-9867
19. Mr. Jack M. Ferguson
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -2144
20. Mr. and Mrs. Henry Pannekoek
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -2575
21. Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Ulrich
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
22. Mr. and Mrs. John Williams
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
23. Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Ridge
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
LFC 3K6
263 -8405
263 -8896
263 -8314
24. Mr. and Mrs. Harvey H. Broersma
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -2985
25. Mr. and Mrs. Larry Cooper
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
26. Mr. David Snowden
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1 C 3K6
263 -8048
263 -8476
27. Mr. and Mrs. Robert W. Cameron
R.R.#5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -2536
28. Mr. and Mrs. Harri Sagur
R.R.#5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -8464
29. Mr. Thomas V. Pleasance
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -2719
30. Mr. Steve Pleasance
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -2719
31. Mr. and Mrs. Doug Ryckman
R.R. #2
Orono, Ontario
LOB 1 MO
983 -5949
32. Mr.' and Mrs. R.W. Pakosta
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario -
L1C 3K6
263 -2171
33. Mr. and Mrs. John Hallowell
Towniine Road
R.R. #2
Orono, Ontario
LOB 1MO
'.983-5077
34. Mr. and Mrs. Ed Lepard
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -8429
35. Mr. Douglas F. Southweli
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -8025
36. Mr. Alexander Krebel
102 Exeter Road
AMAX,_Ontario
L1S 21 <5
37. Mrs. Edna Wood 46. Mr. K. McGill
R.R. #5 R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6 L1C 3K2
263 -2598 263 -2135
38. Mrs. M.A. Gibbs 47. Mr. Clarence Stainton and Family
Box 40, R.R.#5 R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario
- L1C 3K6 L1C 3K2
263 -2588 263 -2156
39. Ms. Laverne Taylor
48. Mr. and Mrs.
Roy Paterson
Box 34, R.R. #5
R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario
Bowmanville, Ontario
3owmanville,
Ontario
L1C 3K6
L1C 3K2
263 -8496 L1C 3K2
No Number
263 -2181
40. Mr. Don Skinner
49. Mr. and Mrs:
John Bowler
R.R.#5
R.R. #1
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
Bowmanville,
Ontario
L1C 3K6
L1C 3K2
U C 3K6
Bowmanville,
263 -2102
263 -2224
41. Mr. L.-Pascoe
50. Mr. and Mrs.
Richard Van Heuvelen
Box 39, R.R.#5
R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario
.- Bowmanville,
Ontario
LI-C 3K6
L1C 3K2
No number
263 -8588
42. Mr. Lloyd Skinner 51. Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Rusaw
R.R.#5 R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6 L1C 3K2
No number 263 -2748
43. Mr. and Mrs. Wade Penwarden 52. Mrs. Diane Adams
R.R. #5 R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario
UC 3K6 L1C 3K2
263 -8455 263 -2683
44. Mrs. Pearl Brown
53. Mrs. Anne McKee
R.R. #5
Group 8, Box
8
Bowmanville, Ontario
R.R. #1
L1C 3K6
Bowmanville,
Ontario
263 -8496 L1C 3K2
263-2356
45. Mr. Clayton Brown
R.R. #5
54. Mr. and Mrs.
John Bertrim
Bowmanville, Ontario
R.R. #1
U C 3K6
Bowmanville,
Ontario
263 -8496 L1C 3K2
263 -2394
v
55. Mr. and Mrs. Lars Christensen
R.R. #1
Bowmanvi-lle, Ontario
L1C 3K2
263 -25 71
56. Mr. Clinton C. Bigelow
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -8271
57. Mr. and Mrs. Fred Smith
R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K2
263 -8223
58. Mr. L. McKenna
R.R. #1
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K2
263 -2184
59. Mr. R. Oalzell
R.R. #2
Orono, Ontario
LOB 1M0
983 -5601
60. Mr. and Mrs. John Gorman
R.R. #2
Orono, Ontario
LOB 1MO
983 -5117
61. Mrs. Joyce Virtue
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1 C 3K6
263 -8648
62. Mr. G. Flontek
R.R. #5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K6
263 -8823
63. Mr. Julius Schmegner
R.R. #4 & 5
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1 C 3K6
983 -5 986
64. Mr. Gordon Martin
8 Winners Circle
WHITBY, Ontario
LIN 7B5
I-
C
ATTACHMENT #1
O.P.A. 87-59-/D
REGIONAL RoAD20'
•
CONCESSION - • •
oa:,
10
OAD
• ® �•
lz
i
i
I
O.P.A. 87-59-/D
.. _
j1
MIN—
Mm
vs X
I>
!fir 0 1 #i►I'����' %��.��;�� �', 6:�' ��1
•�,�;�, �,� =ate! , - :�`�, ������
J
i
Mosport P.
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE. 0.41- DM TR�CK-- Tito
GO-KART TRACK 'Ziot.
Master Plan •
Tourist . • • ...
•'
• • . M No, 87216.
TOTAL 290.01. PoAtw: 16,ji66,-
The
Proctor
Group
Consulting Engineers and Planners
88 10 28 Project EO 87216
Town of Newcastle
Planning Department
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Attention Mr. Franklin Wu
Director of Planning
Dear Mr. Wu
Re: Mosport Park Limited
Official Plan Amendment Application
File 87 -59/D
ATTACHMENT #3
45 Green Belt Drive
Don Mills, Ontario, Canada M3C 3K3
Telephone (416) 445 -3600
Fax (416) 445 -5276 Telex 06- 986173
NA,
�
N4`I 1 198
of
ptiP P
We wish to thank you for meeting with Mosport Park Limited and ourselves on
September 8, 1988. At that meeting David Crome, Manager of Strategic
Planning, and you verbally outlined the staff position in respect of this
application. Essentially you indicated that all of the non - residential uses
proposed could likely be deemed as permitted pursuant to Section 16.6.5 of the
Regional Official Plan. You are therefore treating the Official Plan
Amendment application as pertaining to the residential component only. The
intent of the application we filed was to establish the new designation of
"Tourist Node" in the Durham Regional Official Plan.
We believe that such a designation would assist in the promotion of the
"Durham Regional Tourism Development Strategy" (as recommended by the
Regional Commissioners of Economic Development and Planning in their
report number 87 -73 dated April 14, 1987) by:
• stimulation of tourism investment in Newcastle and Durham
• promotion of tourism as a growth industry
• enhanced employment and economic opportunities in the
Town and Region
• improved Regional and Town image as a tourism opportunity
area
• expansion and enhancement of the existing Mosport Park
facility.
The Economic Impact Analysis, prepared by Pannel Kerr Forster, examined
this multi- faceted tourism proposal, including the recreational residential
component. The report identified substantial direct and indirect employment
and expeditures as a result of the development as proposed.
..../2
Page 2 88 1028 Project EO 87216
We did not file an Official Plan Amendment application for an estate
residential subdivision. The residential component is intended as a
development of recreational residential units targeted to the market that is
attracted to the various facilities proposed. It is seen as an integral part of a
comprehensive tourist node. The subject Official Plan Amendment application
responds to this demonstrated inter - relatedness between recreational/
tourism /resort activities and accommodation - the ski chalets of Collingwood,
the multi - faceted residential and recreational development surrounding
Horseshoe Valley, the Grandview, Deerhurst and Muskoka Sands developments
in the Muskoka area, the Beacon Hill development in Aurora, etc.
The discussions at our meeting focussed primarily on the residential
component. Several issues were identified in respect thereof:
• staff position that seasonal/ intermittent cannot be controlled
and the residential is considered to be permanent occupancy
• incompatibility with surrounding uses particularly gravel pits
• impact on rural community
• lot sizes too small
• homes will not blend with the existing landscape but rather
will necessitate substantial grading.
PERMANENT OCCUPANCY
The interest expressed to Mosport Park Limited prompted it's
consideration of a comprehensive tourist node in this location. Included
in this expressed interest is a desire for recreational /resort dwelling
units located within the proposed park complex. The subject Official
Plan Amendment application responds to the demonstrated inter-
relatedness ._ between recreational /tourism /resort activities and
accommodation - the ski chalets of Collingwood, the condominiums of
Lake Muskoka, etc. These other resort destinations, such as in the
District of Muskoka, have successfully implemented non - permanent
seasonal intermittent occupancy restrictions on recreational dwelling
units.
Other examples include the Sandy Point Recreation Development located
in Harvey Townhip which is in the North Kawartha Planning Area.
Leisure needs are an increasing and permanent reality. The notion of
recreational /resort residential uses in association with motor sport and
active tourism uses is a feasible and marketable concept responding to
these leisure needs.
We believe that the market for permanent year round occupancy would
likely be non- existent because of the tourist /resort nature of the
adjacent facilities. These activities are seasonal and will ensure only
..../3
Proctor & Redfern
r
Page 3 88 1028 Project EO 87216
seasonal occupancy of the residential accommodation. The nature of the
tourist destination resort proposal is intended to restrict and deter
permanent residential occupancy of the residential components.
It is intended that the dwelling units will be recreational in nature and
occupany will be restricted to that,of a second home or resort. This will
be enforced through restrictive convenants registered on title, clearly
worded notice registered on title and through the implementing Zoning
By -law.
Additional measures that the developer will take are:
• The Agreements of Purchase and Sale will contain a notice in
bold print advising the purchaser that occupancy is limited to
a recreational /seasonal nature and that municipal services
typically provided to year round residential developments will
not be provided for this development. It will be a
requirement that the purchaser place his /her signature beside
this bold print notice.
• All marketing material will clearly state the nature of the
occupancy.
• Clearly visible signage will be posted at the entry(s) to the
residential area advising of the nature of the occupancy and
concomitant limitations on municipal services. Identical
signage will be prominently displayed at the sales centre(s).
• The proposed restrictive covenant re: recreational/
resort /seasonal occupancy will be to the benefit of all
homeowners, Mosport Park Limited, and the Town with the
Town having the only right to waive the restriction.
• Mosport Park Limited will retain the right to approve any /all
future sales.
We cannot agree with your assertion that restrictive convenants are a "band -
aid" solution. As a society we have a multitude of rules and regulations to live
by. We are cognizant of the Town's concern about a demand for provision of
municipal services. However, we cannot understand why the Town would feel
obliged to provide these services to someone who knowingly has waived his
right to them by virtue of the occupancy restrictions.
We understand the Town's general concern about By -law enforcement and
enforcement of restrictive covenants through court proceedings. However, in
this case the onus will not lie with the Town. Mosport Park Limited fully
intends to protect it's development and it's clientele from intrusion by people
desiring permanent occupancy. Mosport is prepared to publicly commit to
undertake action against anyone violating the restriction on occupancy.
....A
Proctor & Redfern
C
Page 4 88 1028 Project EO 87216
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
We cannot understand and do not agree with staff's assertion that the
recreational residential component of this application is incompatible with
surrounding land uses, particularily gravel pits, for the following reasons:
The Ministry of Natural Resources has voiced no objection to the
proposed development, and sees no conflict or impact on or by the
proposal. Surely the Ministry, within it's mandate, reviews development
applications with a view to protecting the Province's aggregate initiative
by considering potential impacts of extractive operations on residential
uses and the impact of potential. resident complaints on extractive
operations.
- The concept plan calls for all exterior edges of the recreational
residential area to be bounded by the golf course and existing dense
vegetation will be retained.
- No lot will abut the external road system of secondary roads which
gravel trucks rarely use, nor will any lot be in proximity to a gravel pit.
The residential area has no direct access to Road 20 which is the road
carrying the most gravel truck traffic.
- The concept plan places the residential area in a location which would
not promote the use of these roads by gravel trucks. Trucks will not be
permitted to use the residential roads by municipal by -law and signage to
prevent noise and disturbance.
- The notion of incompatibility because of residents utilizing the same
roads as gravel trucks is difficult at best to understand. Surely roads are
built to facilitate car and truck traffic. The traffic impact study we are
now completing will address this issue.
Mosport Park Limited negotiated with the administration of the former
Township of Clarke to have Road 20 improved easterly from Road 57 to
facilitate traffic flow to and from Mosport Park. It is ironic that the road
improved at Mosport's impetus now carries gravel truck traffic that is viewed
as a constraint on Mosport's development proposal.
IMPACT ON RURAL COMMUNITY
We do not believe that the recreational residential component impacts on the
surrounding rural community for the following reasons:
- The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has voiced no objection to the
proposal with the exception of a stipulated Minimum Distance Separation
requirement pursuant to the Agricultural Code of Practice.
Proctor & Redfern
Page 5 88 1028 Project EO 87216
The Mosport proposal is destination oriented. As such, it is unlikely that
the users will interfere and /or disrupt the various components of the
existing social fabric of the rural community.
We believe that any impact on the rural community will be positive in
the sense of the economic benefits that the rural community could
realize from the supply of goods and services.
LOT SIZES
The concept plan envisions lots having a minimum size of 0.30 hectares. All
lots back onto the golf course so their effective size certainly meets the
Town's suggestion of 0.48 hectares. We would welcome further discussion on
this matter.
SITE GRADING CONCERNS
The concept plan has been analyzed with respect to potential disruption of the
existing landscape. With the exception of a couple of isolated locations were
road gradients dictate some grading, the proposal appears to blend
harmoniously with the existing landscape. We intend to submit a grading plan
in accompaniment with the requisite and subsequent draft plan of subdivision
application. Mosport intends to impose convenants regarding minimum
dwelling size, setbacks, number of dwellings on the lot, control of exterior
building facades as well as garages and /or carports. This will ensure that a
minimum of disruption occurs to the existing landscape and that the
recreational units blend with the site conditions.
PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES
Garbage Collection - this can be handled in one of several ways. The
Town could provide this service at a cost to the unit owner above and
beyond property taxes. The unit owner could personally take garbage to
the dump. The unit owner could contract collection to a local business.
The developer, Mosport Park Limited could provide privatized collection
services. The developer is prepared to post a Letter of Credit as /if
required.
Snowplowing - this can be handled in an identical fashion to garbage
collection.
Schools - since the residential units will be recreational/ resort in nature
and occupancy will be restricted to that of a second home /part -time
dwelling, permanent residency will not be permitted. As such, there will
be no demands placed on the various aspects of the supply and delivery
of education programming.
..../6 Proctor & Redfern
Page 6 88 10 28 Project EO 87216
Both the Northumberland and Newcastle School Board and the
Peterborough- Victoria - Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic
Separate School Board have responded to the subject application and
have no objections to it's approval.
- Police and Fire Protection - this is presently provided and will have to be
provided for the other tourist node uses permitted. Protection for the
recreational residential component should only have a marginal extra
cost.
MUNICIPAL REVENUES
- The recreational residential component of this proposal increases the
number of rateable properties in the Town.
Additional municipal income is generated through property taxes and lot
levies.
Rateable value of the proposed recreational component is: 175
recreational units at an estimated average cost of $200,000 results in a
_ tax base of $35,000,000.
- The Assessment Office has provided a "ball park" estimate between
$2,200 and $2,500 for property taxes. Using this estimated tax rate, the
recreational residential component of our proposal would generate
between $385,000 and $437,500 in 1988 tax dollars.
Lot levies would provide the Town with (175 x $1,860) $325,500 in
revenues.
SUMMARY
In conclusion we believe that seasonal or part -time occupancy of the
recreational residential units can be successfully implemented and that there
will be no undue financial implications placed on the Town.
The recreational residential component of this proposal represents an integral
component of the overall concept and responds to the demonstrated inter-
relatedness between recreational /tourism /resort activities and residential
accommodation. It should not be considered as a permanent occupancy estate
residential application. Mosport Park Limited has a clear interest in
protecting the tourist node nature of it's proposal and has no intention of
allowing permanent occupancy of the recreational residential units. Such
occupancy has deleterious implicatons on the other proposed uses and Mosport
will exercise the proposed restrictive covenant to prevent this.
•.../7 Proctor & Redfern
C'
Page 7 88 10 28 Project EO 87216
As a final note, we have the distinct impression that staff are of the opinion
that Mosport Park Limited only wants to create fee simple freehold lots and
that the balance of the proposal will never materialize. If this impression is in
fact true, we would advise that Mosport Park Limited intends to fully
implement it's proposal and that to this end it would be happy to discuss a
phasing program that would link recreational residential development with
tourist attraction development.
We would be pleased to discuss this matter further with you.
Yours very truly
The Proctor do Redfern Group
Glen Easton, OPPI, MCIP, AICP
Senior Planner
GE /am
cc: Mr. Harvey Hudes, President and General Manager,
Mosport Park Limited
Mr. Bernard Kamin, Q.C., Vice - President,
Mosport Park Limited
Proctor & Redfern
Z 'ONOO 1 'ONOO I 'ONOO 6 'ONOO 8 'ONOO
1 \� -�� \ /_� � ,. ♦ - \� �`i „�1 `\���T'_ '� Cry /I�/ `i:1i�� t'\ I��L /_C�t\ J_L,Tj ilcr
\ / / \1. \f -/� 1 ``\ i \�I�l, r:. /� i i -S / /l �` /;\♦ 1���1` /_t i` %/ \,',` \\i \` /I I j, /1� I
it lit � _\/ /- / /\ f \/ ,�. �. t `/ :� � If \�` III /�l{� a ?f ^II � ./♦ I
o= ,`�:liv+l�
t.Ii/i \itt;\a.g!C{
z ------- :<f �...?OA.sti^^ --------\ -
LLJ ♦ 1 \ ` /\ lyl..r / �� 1 / / :t .�+ \: .1^!T-
- - -- \IL:, /\ ♦' /'I` \i�.I trt` - --- 1 �� -- 1 !�.i -- - - - - - - - - -
CL
ZI
M � �1��� \i �' 1 � • � \ \i\ / - "7�Sa� t_•4VOid,. /......ilOdSOW
f - - --
_, N'tY 'l.: W
l 3N1 MO l HVIO -NO1JN -18va J
W
w
Z
WW
CL
Q J H f-
`\/ /� / -�� Z J Q OQ
zw
W U' UQCC =C9
/�"`a %jam li.l \mil \ /�� --- - - -- -- - - - - - -- - Z U)z Q
�1 j , �4 =�1 lz�%�/ .4 \� a �!/ \! \''• %tiK-eF«a \C�,�O�/� _ X C� w _
\ �_� /' ` /`i /' A/ \ /'\ �1^ / i -� `I- 1 ■O 1 j \� \i - 1VN0193U W J Q. im Q 2
r` - l >t��`�i hI= \ /,Lr ��`, / \-•,N \ \/ % \/L.`ct /----- - - - _CD - - - -- ■ P
r2i
In
'f li /ill 1'
`iJ i I -I \ /O'\
-.4
-\ o
01 'ONOO 6 'ONOO 8 'ON OO L 'ONOO