Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-32-945. THAT the Durham Region Planning Department, all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Councilfs decision. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Municipality of Clarington Waterfront Study was initiated as part of the Official Plan Review to provide a long -term strategic plan for the enhancement, preservation and development of the Lake Ontario Waterfront. The Study is R....R RECYCet THI515 PRIMED M RECYCLED PAPER THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON DN: WTRFRONT.GPA REPORT PUBLIC MEETING General Purpose and Administration Committee �. File #& � � � � Meeting: • Monday, March 21, 1994 Res. #'�i Date: By-Law # PD -32 -94 OPA 94 -C /001 Report #: File #: Subject: AMENDMENT NO. 57 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE FORMER TOWN OF NEWCASTLE POLICIES FOR THE LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT FILE: OPA 94 -C /001 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD -32 -94 be received; 2. THAT Amendment No. 57 to the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle, being Attachment No. 1 to this Report, be approved, and that the necessary by -law be adopted; 3. THAT Official Plan Amendment No. 57 be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval; 4. THAT the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be advised that Council: a) is satisfied with the progress of the Municipality of Clarington Waterfront Study to date; and b) will provide more detailed policies for the Waterfront, including land use designations, through the adoption of a new Official Plan for the Municipality of Clarington; C) requests payment of the balance of the financial assistance provided to the Municipality of Clarington to undertake a Waterfront Study; 5. THAT the Durham Region Planning Department, all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Councilfs decision. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The Municipality of Clarington Waterfront Study was initiated as part of the Official Plan Review to provide a long -term strategic plan for the enhancement, preservation and development of the Lake Ontario Waterfront. The Study is R....R RECYCet THI515 PRIMED M RECYCLED PAPER REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 2 being undertaken in four phases. The Phases I and II Report, entitled 'Background Information and Options', was received by Committee on October 5, 1992. 1.2 The third phase report, being the 'Recommended Land Use Strategy', was received by Committee at a Public Meeting on November 15, 1993. Committee, and subsequently Council, endorsed the Waterfront Greenway and Trail in principle, and referred the Report back to Staff to bring forward an amendment to the Official Plan. 1.3 Phase IV, which involves the preparation of a Secondary Plan for Newcastle Village Waterfront, is in its final stages. 1.4 The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation each granted $50,000.00 to the Municipality to assist in undertaking Phases I, II and III of the Waterfront Study. The full grant from the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation was provided to the Municipality in 1991. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs provided an initial payment of $42,500.00 in 1991, with the balance due upon completion of the Study. Phase IV of the Waterfront Study is being completely funded by the Municipality. 1.5 The original deadline for completion of the Study was June 30, 1993; this was subsequently extended by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to January 31, 1994. Due to other Staff commitments, it was not possible to meet this deadline. However, in order to meet the terms of the Community Planning Grant for the Waterfront Study, the Municipality must adopt an Amendment to the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle, prior to March 31, 1994 1.6 The Ministry has recently agreed with a Staff proposal that, in order to meet the terms of the grant, the current Official Plan Amendment need only incorporate strategic policy E REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 3 directions, and that detailed land use designations and related policies for the Waterfront could be incorporated into the new Official Plan. Council should also adopt a resolution to indicate this intent and satisfaction with the Waterfront Study to date. 2. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES 2.1 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan 2.1.1 The 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan designates the Lake Ontario Waterfront as part of the 'Major Open Space System'. The Waterfront, as one of the main features of the Major Open Space System, is to be protected for its special natural and scenic features, its role as a predominant landscape element and potential recreational opportunities. The predominant use of lands in the Major Open Space System, including the Waterfront, shall be conservation, recreation, reforestation and agriculture and farm- related uses. 2.1.2 The Plan specifically indicates that the Lake Ontario Waterfront shall be developed as a 'people place' with the exception of significant natural areas which will be protected in their natural states. The Waterfront is to be a continuous system, penetrating and linking the urban and rural areas. Furthermore, waterfront development is not to negatively impact environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat. 2.1.3 The Plan designates the areas back from the immediate shoreline in the former Township of Clarke as 'Permanent Agricultural Reserve' and the 'General Agricultural Area'. As well, the land use designations for the St. Mary's Cement lands have been deferred, while the designations for the Port Darlington area have been referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Port Granby Waste Management Site is designated as a 'Special Policy Area'. REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 4 2.2 Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle 2.2.1 The local Official Plan currently does not provide land use designations for the rural portions of the Municipality. Only the Newcastle Village Urban Area extends south of the C.N. rail line; these lands are primarily designated 'Residential'. In addition, symbols for a 'Tourist Activity Node', a 'Recreational Node' and a 'Marina' are indicated for the Port of Newcastle. 2.2.2 As part of the Clarington Official Plan Review, specific land use designations and detailed policies for the Lake Ontario Waterfront are being formulated. The policies and land use designations in the new Official Plan will reflect and elaborate on the policies and land use designations for the Waterfront provided in the 1991 Regional Official Plan, as well as the 'Recommended Land Use Strategy' as presented in the Phase III Report for the Waterfront Study. 3. OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENT NO. 57 3.1 Amendment No. 57 forms Attachment No. 1 to this report. The policies set out in the Amendment are intended to reflect the nine principles for the development of the Lake Ontario Waterfront as articulated by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, and more recently the Waterfront Regeneration Trust - that is, the Waterfront is to be 'clean, green, connected, open, accessible, useable, diverse, affordable and attractive'. 3.2 In this regard, the Amendment indicates support for the protection and enhancement of the cultural and physical environment of the Waterfront, as well as the establishment of a Waterfront Trail and Greenway. The Greenway is envisioned as a linked system of parks and open space lands which would generally incorporate those lands directly adjacent to the shoreline, including the Shoreline Flooding and Erosion Setback. ��U REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 5 3.3 Other significant policies in the Amendment include: • the predominant use of land within the Greenway shall be passive and active recreational uses, compatible tourism uses, and conservation and agricultural uses; • the development of tourism nodes within the Greenway shall be promoted, specifically Darlington Provincial Park, Port Darlington and the Port of Newcastle; • support for the establishment of a new Conservation Area at the mouth of Wilmot Creek; • provision for the establishment of a public land acquisition program; • a prohibition on new development, including new lots, and restrictions on the expansion of existing residential uses, within the Shoreline Flooding and Erosion Setback Zone; • the requirement for studies for proposals to create or reclaim additional waterfront land through lakefilling. 3.4 As noted earlier, the purpose of Amendment No. 57 is to incorporate policies of a strategic nature for the Waterfront into the Official Plan. As such, the Amendment does not contain a map indicating specific land use designations for the Waterfront lands. It is intended that more detailed policies and land use designations for the Lake Ontario Waterfront, including the Greenway and such areas as Bond Head, St. Marys Cement, and the Wilmot Creek Community, will be provided through the comprehensive review of the Official Plan. 4. AGENCY COMMENTS 4.1 Copies of Amendment No. 57 have been forwarded to all agencies j, REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 6 represented on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Waterfront Study. No agency comments have been received to date. It is standard practice for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to circulate the Amendment prior to their granting of final approval. If necessary, the streamlined timeframe may result in the need for some modifications to the adopted Amendment. In addition, Staff have requested the various agencies to copy their comments on Amendment No. 57 to Clarington so that they may be considered as part of the Official Plan Review process. 5. PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSIONS 5.1 Public Notice 5.1.1 Notice of the Public Meeting to consider Amendment No. 57 was provided in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Specifically, notice was published in local newspapers on Wednesday, February 16, 1994. As well, notices were mailed to all parties who have made submissions regarding or who have expressed an interest in the Waterfront Study. 5.2 Submissions 5.2.1 Comments received from the public on both the 'Recommended Land Use Strategy' Report and resulting from the Public Notice for Amendment No. 57 are summarized below and attached to this report. 5.2.2 Ian MacNaughton of the consulting firm MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, submitted a letter on behalf of St. Mary's Cement (Attachment No. 2). The letter noted that the Mineral Aggregate Resource Policy Statement requires Official Plans to identify and protect licensed quarries and zone them so that their operations are a permitted activity. The letter also stated that land use on licensed aggregate extraction areas is regulated by the Province under the Aggregate Resources Act, and that "it would be misleading to suggest that the municipality has the REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 7 jurisdiction to consider or propose alternative land uses for these lands. Existing licenses must be recognized..." 5.2.3 Mr. Harold Drake of East Beach wrote a letter (Attachment No. 3) indicating that, if the Municipality wanted a public beach, his property should have been purchased years ago. He also indicated concern with the condition of a number of houses on the Harbour Commission property. 5.2.4 Mr. Boris Mather from the group 'Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway' submitted a letter (Attachment No. 4) indicating concern with the future of the West Side Beach Marsh. He also stated this group hopes to cooperate with municipal staff "to increase public access to a clean, green and attractive waterfront...". 5.2.5 The Port Darlington Community Association submitted a letter (Attachment No. 5) indicating a number of concerns with issues addressed in the 'Recommended Land Use Strategy' Report. These concerns generally relate to the West Side Creek Marsh, proposed land use designations, compensation for area residents, alignment of the Waterfront Trail, conflict resolution, public access to the waterfront, and the St. Marys operation and proposed dock expansion. 5.2.6 The Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association submitted a letter (Attachment No. 6) at the Public Meeting on the Phase III Report. Concern was expressed regarding the negative effect that a trail along the Waterfront would have on the security and life style enjoyed by Wilmot Creek residents. It was also suggested that any special study for the Wilmot Creek community should consider its special character. 5.2.7 Ms. Barbara Humphrey submitted a letter (Attachment No. 7) in which she expressed a number of concerns regarding the costs of construction and maintenance of the Waterfront Trail along Lakeshore Road, and impacts related to the use of the Trail. REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 8 5.2.8 A number of other submissions were made by residents at the Public Meeting on the Phase III Report (Attachment No. 8). Concerns expressed included the impact of agricultural chemicals on users of the Waterfront Trail along Lakeshore Road, the designation of a Waterfront Greenway and its impact on shoreline residential communities, and public access to the waterfront through the Darlington Generating Station and the St. Marys lands. 6. STAFF COMMENTS 6.1 The underlying principle of Amendment No. 57 and the Waterfront Study is the recognition of the Lake Ontario Waterfront as a vital public resource to be protected, managed and enhanced for the benefit of all residents. In this regard, the Amendment conforms to and implements the new Durham Regional Official Plan. 6.2 This long term vision however, frequently conflicts with the objectives of existing land owners and residents on the Waterfront. The Amendment attempts to be sensitive to the concerns of these parties within the larger policy context for the Waterfront through, for example, the policy allowing existing residential uses to continue. 6.3 Given the strategic nature of Amendment No. 57, it would be inappropriate to set out detailed policies for the areas along the Waterfront where the land use issues are more complex. For example, a resolution of the issues relating to the St. Marys quarry operation, adjacent residential communities and the West Side Beach Marsh will require further discussion and negotiation among a large number of parties, including the Provincial Government. Similarly, addressing the concerns of the residents of the Wilmot Creek Retirement Community and the transition of this area to a residential community reflective of its new urban context will also require more detailed study. In this regard, the Amendment defers detailed REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 9 consideration of these and other complex matters to the Official Plan review. 6.4 With respect to the potential impact of agricultural chemicals on users of the Waterfront Trail along Lakeshore Road, Council did not endorse an alignment along Lakeshore Road in recognition of these and other difficulties. However, the concept of a Waterfront Trail is still endorsed and specific issues related to its implementation can be addressed through a more detailed review. 6.5 The concern raised with respect to the condition of a number of buildings in Port Darlington is valid. While this has been an ongoing concern for the Municipality for a number of years, the success achieved under the Property Standards By -Law has not been satisfactory. The Municipality could begin to address some concerns through a staged land acquisition program, as anticipated in this Amendment. 7. CONCLUSION 7.1 Amendment No. 57 is intended as an interim step in the implementation of the long -term vision for the Waterfront, and also to fulfil the Municipality's obligations under the Community Planning Grant provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Amendment will establish the policy framework within which more detailed policies and land use designations for the Waterfront can be developed. Respectfully submitted, Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning and Development JAS *DC *FW *df *Attach 14 March 1994 Reviewed by, W. H. Stoc well Chief Administrative Officer REPORT NO.: PD-32-94 PAGE 10 Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Ms. Betty Adams 678 Sunset Blvd. NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1E1 Mrs. Esther C. Allin 3292 Concession Road 3 R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Robert G. Allin R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Neil Allin Durham Region Federation of Agriculture R.R. # 1 ORONO, Ontario LOB 1J0 Mr. R. St. C. Armstrong Armstrong, Harrison Associates 1 -1380 Hopkins Street WHITBY, Ontario L1N 2C3 Mr. David T. Ashcroft Group 5, Box 36 R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario Ms. Geri Bailey 5801 Ochonski Road ORONO, Ontario LOB 1M0 Mrs. Phyllis Baker 11 Cabot Court NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1S 1A7 Mr. Bill Ballinger One on One Consultants 20 Freel Lane, Suite 9 STOUFFVILLE, Ontario L4A 8B9 Mr. Ian Bennie Group 1, Box 35, East Beach BOWMANVILLE, Ontario. L1C 3K3 - Jack and Olga Bergs 3770 Concession Road 3 R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Normund Berzins President Committee of Clarke Constituents Box 20028 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1M3 Mr. David J. Billham 480 Brunswick Avenue TORONTO, Ontario M5R 2Z5 Ms. Wendy Boothman No Ganaraska Dump Committee R.R. # 1 KENDAL, Ontario LOA 1E0 Mr. Jeff Boucher Bowmanville High School 49 Liberty Street North BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 2L8 Peter and Kay Branton 21 Jane Avenue COURTICE, Ontario L1E 2H9 Ms. June Brants 3837 Highway # 2 R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Bruce Brown 55 Division Street BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 2Z8 Mr. T. F. Brown 63 Hobbs Drive BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3M2 X26 REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 11 Roy and Ann Cameron 10 Veterans Avenue BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 2C2 Mrs. Mavis Carlton President Port Darlington Community Association Group 2, Box 21 R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Hope and Gordon Carveth 612 Mill Street South R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Joe Christl 4212 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Wayne Churchill 30 Deer Park Crescent BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3M3 Don and Peggy Clark 4 Wellington Street BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 1V1 Ms. Ursula Dexter 94 Jones Avenue OSHAWA, Ontario L1G 3A2 Wes and Geta Down 726 Townline Road South OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K6 Mr. Harold Drake 70 East Beach Road R.R. # 1 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. Erskine W. T. Duncan 27 Boulton Street NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Ms. Charmaine Dunn 56 West Beach Box 53, Group 2 R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. & Mrs. G. Ewington 4659 Lakeshore Road NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 East Stephen Leach and Candace Forest 127 Cedar Crest Beach Road BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. Douglas Cronk Chair, Bond Head Community Association 88 Bloor Street East Unit 2205 TORONTO, Ontario M4W 3G9 Ms. Susan Cumming Senior Planner Cole, Sherman & Associates Ltd. 75 Commerce Valley Drive East THORNHILL, Ontario L3T 7N9 Mr. Stan Found 1246 Prestonvale Road COURTICE, Ontario LlE 2N9 Mr. Iry Gill Port Darlington Marina R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Lila and Lionel Gledhill 14 Grey Abbey Trail WEST HILL, Ontario M1E 1V7 REPORT NO.: PD-32-94 PAGE 12 Ms. Ruth Hinkley Mr. Brad Greentree 158 Wilmot Trail Courtice and Area Community NEWCASTLE, Ontario Association L1B 1B9 Box 253 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3L1 Mr. Wayne Haas 11 Mistflower Road WILLOWDALE, Ontario M2H 3G8 Mr. Paul Halminen Halminen Homes 1748 Baseline Road COURTICE, Ontario L1E 2T1 Mr. Phil Hamblin 135 Queen Street BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 1M7 Mr. Irwin Hamilton Hamilton & Associate Barristers and Solicitors P.O. Box 39 1 Division Street BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K8 Muriel and Eric Hansen 8 Renwick Road COURTICE, Ontario L1E 1V6 Mr. R.W. Harris 3883 Concession Road 5 R.R. # 1 ORONO, Ontario LOB 1MO Mr. Lynn Helpard Committee of Concerned Citizens R.R. # 2 ORONO, Ontario LOB 1M0 Mr. William Hockett 3 Hetherington Drive BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3P9 Dr. Thomas H. Holmes R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario LIB 1L9 Mr. Roger Howard The Rice Group 17 Dean Street BRAMPTON, Ontario L6W 1M7 Ms. Barbara Humphrey 4563 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Ms. Judy Hurvid R.R. # 1 NEWTONVILLE, Ontario LOA 1J0 Mr. Tom Januszewski 14 Sulkara Court TORONTO, Ontario M4A 2G9 Mr. Bryce Jordan G.M. Sernas & Associates Ltd. 110 Scotia Court, Unit 41 WHITBY, Ontario L1N 8Y7 Mr. Robert Kernohan P.O. Box 40 LEITH, Ontario NoH 1V0 Ms. Elizabeth Kernohan 66 Clancy Drive WILLOWDALE, Ontario M2J 2V8 Mr. Jack Kimball 4430 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 13 Mr. Jack Kilbeck 626 Mill Street South R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario LIB 1L9 Ms. Irene Kock Executive Director Durham Nuclear Awareness Box 2143 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7V4 Ms. Maria Kordas- Fraser 4570 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Bill Lake 3663 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Reginald LeGresley 573 Mill Street South R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Mr. Wilson Little St. Marys' Cement Corporation Technical Centre Waverly Road South BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. Ron Locke Durham Central Agricultural Society R.R. # 2 NEWCASTLE, Ontario LOA 1H0 Rev. Frank Lockhart 116 Church Street BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 1T2 D.F. Lomas and M.N. Box 2, R.R. # 2 103 West Beach Road BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Bill and Lorraine Lover 59 Mill Street North P.O. Box 520 NEWCASTLE, Ontario LIB 1H8 Mr. Gordon Lowe 1496 Rudell Road NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1E1 Mr. Iain MacIver 7 Hetherington Drive BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3L9 Ms. Helen MacDonald Port Granby- Newcastle Environment Committee R.R. # 1 NEWTONVILLE, Ontario LOA 1J0 Mr. Bill Manson WDM Consultants 20 Clematis Road WILLOWDALE, Ontario M2J 4X2 Mr. Boris Mather 505 -485 Kingston Road TORONTO, Ontario M4L 1V6 Mr. Joe McKenna 13 Poolton Crescent COURTICE, Ontario L1E 2H4 Mr. Michael McQuaid Weir and Foulds Barristers and Solicitors Exchange Tower Suite 1600 P.O. Box 480 2 First Canadian Place Toronto, Ontario. M5X 1J5 Mr. David Metcalfe Lomas 4116 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 14 Elias and Joseph Michael 4162 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Ms. Cheri Michael 4162 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario. L1B 1L9 Mr. Al Michael 4188 Lakeshore Road NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Ms. Anna Millburn Sutton Group Status Realty Inc. 286 King Street West OSHAWA, Ontario L1J 2J9 Ms. Jean Morrow 63 East Beach Road R.R. # 2, Box 10 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. Bob Morrison 97 Cedar Crest Beach Road Group 5, Box 25 R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. & Mrs. T. Moyer 15 Walbridge Court BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 4B7 Ms. Maureen Mumford 4 Peter's Pike ORONO, Ontario LOB 1M0 Mr. & Mrs. B. Niklaus 55 Metcalf Street NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1M3 Mr. Raymond Rae Osbourne 1774 Bloor Street East COURTICE, Ontario LlE 2M9 ) 3 0 Mr. Bill Panta 4272 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario UB 1L9 B. Parkin 1 Canfield Place DON MILLS, Ontario M3B 2V5 Mr. James Parkin McNaughton Planning 171 Victoria Street N. KITCHENER, Ontario N2H 5C5 Mrs. Jean Payne R.R. # 1 NEWTONVILLE, Ontario LOA 1J0 Mr. Martyn Peterson 4220 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1L9 Ms. K. Powell 57 Mill Street South NEWCASTLE, Ontario UB 1C4 Mr. Les Pullen 80 Gibbon Street OSHAWA, Ontario L1J 4X9 Ms. Elva Reid Vice- President, SAGA R.R. # 1 Ganaraska Road NEWTONVILLE, Ontario LOA 1J0 T. & M. Remington Box 44021 600 Grandview Street South OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 3R5 Mr. Ken Ridge Durham Region Field Naturalists 787 Glengrove Road OSHAWA, Ontario. L1J 1B6 REPORT • •4 PAGE Mr. and Mrs. Rosskopf 24 West Beach Road R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. & Mrs. Paul Riley 179 Riley Road NEWCASTLE, Ontario. LlB 1L9 Mr. Ray Ripley 707 Harmony Road North OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5 Ms. Niva Rowan Save the Oak Ridges Moraine R.R. # 1 NEWTONVILLE, Ontario LOA 1J0 Don and Betty Samis 1794 Highway 2 COURTICE, Ontario L1E 2M5 Peggy Clark & Susan Saunders 4 Wellington Street BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 1V1 Mr. John Shaw 4401 Lakeshore Road R.R. # 8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario LIB 1L9 Jim and Frieda Smith 115 Cedar Crest Beach Road Group 5, Box 15 R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Jill and Stuart Smith 103 Cedar Crest Beach Road BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. Dan Spence Chairman Courtice for Clean Air 3339 Courtice Road COURTICE, Ontario. L1E 2L7 - Mr. Bill Stewart 25 Bennett Road BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K5 Ms. Penny Waghorne Community Relations Officer Darlington Information Centre Ontario Hydro P.O. Box 1000 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3W2 Mr. Ronald R. M. Strike Strike, Salmers and Furlong Barristers and Solicitors 38 King Street West P.O. Box 7 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K8 Ms. Evelyn Stroud 89 Little Avenue BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 1J9 Mr. Julius Toms 110 George Henry Blvd. Unit 46 WILLOWDALE, Ontario M2J 1E7 Mr. Kevin Tunney Tunney Planning 340 Byron Street South Suite 200 WHITBY, Ontario L1N 4P8 Mr. John Veldhuis 8 Vincent Cresc. NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1E2 Ms. Gail Waisglass Haas Shoychet Waisglass Group P.O. Box 401 WHITBY, Ontario L1N 5S4 REPORT NO.: PD -32 -94 PAGE 16 Mr. Kevin Walters c/o Cumming Cockburn 65 Allstate Parkway Suite 300 MARKHAM, Ontario UR 9X1 Mr. J. W. Wells 15 Firwood Avenue COURTICE, Ontario. LIE 1T6 Mr. Bernard Wessling 60 West Beach Road BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Gordon White Group 2, Box 21 R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 Mr. John Whitehead Bramalea Limited 20 Richmond Street East TORONTO, Ontario M5C 2Z4 Mr. John Willan St. Mary's Cement Co. P.O. Box 68 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K8 Mr. Allan Willison 3414 Westwood Trace VINELAND, Ontario LOR 2C0 Mr. and Mrs. H. E. Wyatt 92 The Cove Road NEWCASTLE, Ontario L1B 1B5 Mr. Matthew Yeatman 19 Barley Mill Crescent BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 4E6 Mr. Gary Zolumoff 151 Cedar Crest Beach Road R.R. # 2 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K3 _. Mr. Harry Zosik 4520 Anderson Street R.R. # 1 BROOKLIN, Ontario LOB 1C0 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NUMBER 94- being a By -law to adopt Amendment Number 57 to the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle WHEREAS Section 17(6) of the Planning Act. R.S.O. 1990 as amended, authorizes the Municipality of Clarington to pass by -laws for the adoption or the repeal of Official Plan Amendments thereto. WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle to incorporate strategic policy direction for the future of Clarington's waterfront. The policies address a number of issues related to the waterfront, in particular, public access, the protection of natural and cultural heritage values, active and passive recreational opportunities and the Waterfront Trail and Greenway. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment Number 57 to the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle being the attached Explanatory Text is hereby adopted. 2. That the Clerk of the Municipality of Clarington is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number 57 to the Official Plan of the former Municipality of Clarington. S. This by -law shall come into force and take effect on the date of the passing hereof. BY -LAW read a first time this day of 1994. BY -LAW read a second time this day of 1994. BY -LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 1994. im CLERK 5 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY -LAW NUMBER 94- being a By -law to adopt Amendment Number 57 to the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle WHEREAS Section 17(6) of the Planning Act. R.S.O. 1990 as amended, authorizes the Municipality of Clarington to pass by -laws for the adoption or the repeal of Official Plan Amendments thereto. WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it advisable to amend the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle to incorporate strategic policy direction for the future of Clarington's waterfront. The policies address a number of issues related to the waterfront, in particular, public access, the protection of natural and cultural heritage values, active and passive recreational opportunities and the Waterfront Trail and Greenway. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment Number 57 to the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle being the attached Explanatory Text is hereby adopted. 2. That the Clerk of the Municipality of Clarington is hereby authorized and directed to make application to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval of the aforementioned Amendment Number 57 to the Official Plan of the former Municipality of Clarington. 3. This by -law shall come into force and take effect on the date of the passing hereof. BY -LAW read a first time this day of 1994. BY -LAW read a second time this day of 1994. BY -LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of 1994. TIME CLERK X34 Attachment N ®. AMENDMENT • 57 TO THE OFFICIAL FORMER PURPOSE: The Municipality of Clarington Waterfront Study is an integral component of the Municipality's Official Plan Review. The Waterfront Study was initiated to provide a long term plan for the enhancement and preservation of the Lake Ontario Waterfront in Clarington. The purpose of this Amendment is to incorporate policies of a strategic nature for the Waterfront into the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle. More detailed policies for the Waterfront, including land use designations, will be provided through Council's adoption of a new Official Plan for the Municipality of Clarington. LOCATION: The lands subject to this Amendment are located on the north shore of Lake Ontario south of Provincial Highway 401, between the municipal boundaries with the City of Oshawa and the Township of Hope. BASIS: The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, and more recently the Waterfront Regeneration Trust, articulated nine principles for the development of the Lake Ontario Waterfront, specifically that the waterfront should be 'clean, green, connected, open, accessible, useable, diverse, affordable and attractive'. The'Recommended Land Use Strategy' Report, prepared as part of the Waterfront Study, presented a long -term strategic plan for the Lake Ontario Waterfront which was consistent with these nine principles. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle is hereby amended as follows: 1. By adding a new Section 2.3 as follows 112.3 WATERFRONT 2.3.1 GOALS 2.3.1.1 To protect, manage and enhance the Lake Ontario Waterfront as a vital public resource for the benefit of current and future residents of the Municipality and the Region. 1 2.3.1.2 To ensure that the Waterfront is clean, green, connected, open, accessible, useable, diverse, affordable, and attractive. 2.3.2 OBJECTIVES 2.3.2.1 To establish a Greenway along the Waterfront of Lake Ontario. 2.3.2.2 To establish a walking and cycling trail within the Waterfront Greenway to facilitate public access to and travel along the Waterfront. 2.3.2.3 To minimize property damage and hazards to residents due to erosion, flooding and wave action. 2.3.3 POLICIES 2.3.3.1 The Waterfront Greenway shall be comprised of a system of parks and green spaces linked by open space corridors. The Waterfront Greenway shall, wherever possible, be directly adjacent to the Lake Ontario Shoreline. It shall have a minimum width of 30 metres, or shall include the Lake Ontario Shoreline Flooding and Erosion Setback, as defined by the relevant Conservation Authority plus 10 metres, whichever is greater. 2.3.3.2 It is Council's policy to provide for the protection and enhancement of significant cultural heritage features and environmentally sensitive lands along the Waterfront, including but not limited to archaeological sites, buildings of architectural or historical significance, wetlands, unstable slopes, areas of sediment erosion and accretion, Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest, and fisheries and wildlife habitat. The predominant use of land within the Waterfront Greenway shall include passive and active recreation uses, compatible tourism uses, conservation and agricultural uses. 2.3.3.3 Any new development along the Waterfront must ensure preservation of the waterfront for the public, protect natural features and their ecological functions, protect .cultural heritage features, and ensure land use compatibility. New development within the Waterfront Greenway shall also facilitate physical and visual access to the waterfront for all members of the public, including the physically challenged. 2 X36 2.3.3.4 It is Council's intent to establish a continuous Waterfront Trail for walking and cycling purposes within the Waterfront Greenway. The Waterfront Trail shall connect, wherever possible, to other trails, corridors and natural areas within the Municipality and adjacent municipalities: The Waterfront Trail shall be appropriately located and constructed so as to avoid adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive lands, and to avoid erosion - sensitive bluff areas or other natural hazard areas. Appropriate buffering between the trail and adjacent non - compatible land uses shall be provided. 2.3.3.5 It is the policy of Council to promote Darlington Provincial Park, Port Darlington and the Port of Newcastle as tourism nodes which may include commercial uses which support or complement recreational uses on the waterfront. The nodes shall be developed in accordance with the following principles: ® integration with the Waterfront Greenway and trail system ® provision of physical and visual access to the waterfront ® protection of natural features and environmentally significant areas ® compatibility with existing and future residential areas 2.3.3.6 Council supports the establishment of a new Conservation Area at the mouth of the Wilmot Creek and will investigate its feasibility in co- operation with the conservation authority and relevant provincial agencies. 2.3.3.7 The creation of additional waterfront land through lakefilling, or the placement of permanent structures in Lake Ontario, shall be generally discouraged. However, erosion control works with limited lakefilling or projects that would provide tourism benefits may be considered subject to appropriate studies satisfactory to relevant Federal and Provincial agencies. 2.3.3.8 New development and the creation of new lots for any purpose other than public recreation uses shall be 'prohibited on all lands within the Lake Ontario Shoreline Flooding and Erosion Setback Zone as defined by the relevant Conservation Authority. 2.3.3.9 Existing residential uses within the defined Lake Ontario Shoreline Flooding and Erosion Setback Zone shall be allowed to continue subject to the following conditions: a) no expansion or enlargement of the existing foundation footprint, including accessory structures; b) no conversion of any existing seasonal dwelling into a year round dwelling; 3 c) once a dwelling is destroyed or demolished by whatever reason and reconstruction is not commenced with twelve months, the existing residential use is deemed to cease. 2.3.4 IMPLEMENTATION 2.3.4.1 Council shall endeavour to implement the Waterfront Trail and Greenway in phases having regard to development opportunities and the financial capability of the Municipality. 2.3.4.2 Council shall adopt a public land acquisition program for the Waterfront, establish priorities for acquisition and investigate sources of funding, including the possibility of including the cost in the Municipality's Ten Year Capital Works Program for development charge purposes. 2.3.4.3 In the comprehensive review of the Municipality's Official Plan, land use policies shall be adopted to address future land use designations of: a) Port Granby Waste Management Facility b) Bond Head c) Wilmot Creek Retirement Community d) Port Darlington Area e) Cove Road and Cedarcrest Beach Residential Areas f) St. Marys Cement g) Darlington Nuclear Generating Station 2.3.4.4 Council shall review measures for the long -term protection of individual features of natural heritage significance on private lands within the Waterfront Greenway that may be threatened or damaged by development activities. 2.3.4.5 Proposals to create or reclaim additional waterfront land or other permanent structures through lakefilling must demonstrate, through appropriate studies satisfactory to the Municipality and relevant federal and provincial agencies, that such activity will contribute to the healthy functioning of coastal and biological processes, and provide public benefits including: a) improvements to water quality; b) the creation, maintenance or enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitat; 4 c) minimal disruption to normal coastal processes;- d) opportunities for additional public open space or year round water - related recreation; e) public and private works that achieve other public benefits for the residents of Clarington. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment. 61 539 Dwmber 25, 1993 Ms. Janice SZWarz MimickpEty of Clarington 40 'Temperance Street Bowmariville, Ontario LIC 3A6 rQEC 3 o 1993'. RE: WATERFRONT STUDY AND OMCLAL PLAN R W MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON G DEPARTMENT I am writing on behalf of St. Mary's Cement who have a licensed quarry on the Bow I have reviewed the Recommended Laud Use Strategy for the Waterfront (Phase 3 report, November 199: ;). 1 understand that the municipality's response will be a "general" Official Plan Amendment- and, subsequently, addressing the details through the Official Plan Review.' My comments are based on the feral Aggregate Resources Policy Statement (b&WS) and its requirement to identify and protect licensed quarries and zone them so that their operations are a permitted acd%ity -(see MARTS 2.1 and 3.1).* Accordingly, any fatum Official Plans must clearly recognize the licarzed quarry and. the uses. that are permitted in accordance with ft Aggregate Resources Act. Land use on the site is regulated under t1x, Aggregate Resources Act and site plans. Sep oa 66 of the Aggrepts R Act' states Ahat where the same subject matter is treated differently in an Official A!esources Plan, must prevail. This legal requirement underlines the importauce of the Official Plan properly reflecting the Aggregate Resources Act license. I aL;x) draw yotr attention to Section. 19A.3.10 of the recently approved Dartim Official Plan. This section requites municipal Official Plans to recognize Resource Extraction Areas and ideWify the detailed location. of these areas on a land use map. "Resource Extraction Areas" are sites licensed' under the Aggregate Resources Act including the Bowmanville quarry. The SL Muys Bowm=ville quarry as been recognized on the Region's Schedule 4 as a licensed site. The Regional Plan thereby coinplies with the Provincial Policy. * Plewe also refer to jinpl=entation Guidelines for the Wetlands PdUcy Statement whi(k state,, on page 30- "Also the (Wetland) Policy Statement cannot be applied retroacjively to legally exis-iing pia and quarries." The November 1993 Recommended I.And Use Strategy includes a discussion of MARTS and the St Marys lands (pages 36 *and 118). It is important to reco ga= the distinction between legally edsting pits and quairies-and, mineral aggregate =ouroes which are not licensed-but are protected in the Official Plan for A=re use. The MARTS provision which permits non aggregate land uses in areas of mineral aggregate resources would not apply to legally existing pits and quarries Cl.e. licensed). Land use on licensed sites tba h municipality bas the is m&ated by the Province. and it would be m1sleading to suggest the In c !P V jurisdiction to consider or propose alteni-4ve uses for tizese lands. Existing licenses, must be recognized as outlined abovei." My odier specific comment mlates to Figure, I and any Amire Official Plan designations. In order to pmrcidy.implement Provincial Policy, it is required that the licensed area be designated for extraction. Please keep me advised of any Official Plan Amendmdritk, meetings, reports or other developments related to the Cl.arington Waterfront Thank you for considering these comments. Yours truly'. MACNkUGHTON EN BR WON CLAMON PLANNING Lrv=D A U Ia]iiF_ MacNaugliton; MMA. LP Ir-N-ibac - —1 oZCn A V 'AftM 9'Ye_t1MV cc: Planning Mayor & Members of Council To Whom It May Concern: At tachment: No'.. Waterfront Meeting March 21/94 The deed to my property reads to the waters edge. I've had too many problems in the past (LITTER, SMASHED BOTTLES, FOUL LANGUAGE, ECT.) to ever allow it to become public. If the town wanted a public beach it should have bought up my property years ago when beach property was very run down and cheap to buy. There is several houses on the harbour com. property with no doors or windows. They should be fixed up or torn down. People at the beach have had to look at these eye sores too long. What must people from out of town think? Is there no by -laws to prohibit houses being left in such dangerous condition? Harold Drake 70 East Beach /Bow. 623 -6884 (Typed as written) J_� i 1 e S Central office: Phone: DEC 1993 11 25 Mayor Diane Hamre, The Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville L1C 3A6 Your Worship, RE: Waterfront Study • WOV 2 9 1993 ,VUUMPALlTY OFIC MAYOR'S Pf _4, I � DEC 0 C 1993 r�ARINIGTON P L Aii - `i Z 0 PARTlVENT This letter is to thank you for the material which your staff has kindly sent to our Association. We regret that we were unable to officially attend the public meeting of November 15, 1993 on the Phase 3 Report, although some of our Clarington members were present. You will recall that we did make a presentation to Council on October 5, 1992 to voice some of our concerns about the preliminary report. One of our primary concerns with the future of the Clarington waterfront is with respect to the West Side Beach Marsh. This has become more acute with the news of the intent to divert West Side Creek. That would be most undesirable as we pointed out in our brief-to Council in October of 1992. We hope that action will be forestalled. We wish you success in reaching the objective of your Land Use Strategy to increase public access to a a clean, green and attractive waterfront: We hope to cooperate with your staff in attaining that objective. Sincerely, i Boris Mather, President, Citizens for a Lakeshore Greenway. cc. F. Wu M. Carlton D. Williamson J 4 2 I CUR ~..� ._.__ ._. t.• l;y .. ._ _. i RR 2, Group 2, Box 63, BowmanviR e, Ontario O C 3K3 K-1 -• November 8, 1993 Planning and Development Department Municipality of Clarington NOV - 9 1993 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6�_' i!,•�;: �r -p a,' Attention:. Mr. Franklin Wu Dear Mr. Wu: RE: ciarincfton Waterfront Stud The Port Darlington Community Associa- ti- on..__(PDCA) commends the Municipality of Clarington for their effort to formulate a long -term strategic plan for the protection and development of the Clarington ( Waterfront Area. However, the PDCA has identified a number of concerns with issues addressed in the plan as well as concerns about opportunities not yet considered. Protection of the Westside Creek Marsh PDCA has, for several years, expressed concern about the fate of the West Side Creek Marsh. This marsh has received the highest classification of any wetland within the Municipality of Clarington. PDCA has continually requested that this very significant wetland be protected for future use as a recreational area. In fact, representatives of the Municipality, when making a presentation to the Royal Commission on the Future of the Greater Toronto Waterfront, requested that the licence to quarry this wetland be revoked. As a result, a recommendation regarding the necessity for protection was specifically included in the Commission's reports, Watershed' and Regeneration. Given the on -going destruction of wetlands in southern Ontario,- and particularly along the Lake Ontario shoreline, those that remain become even more critical for migratory and nesting birds and fish habitat. As no recent evaluation of this marsh has been undertaken to determine its .� current role in Ontario's eco- system, PDCA has requested that the Ministry of Natural Resources update their evaluation of the marsh. 543 - 2 - Specifically, our letter requested: That, prior to any action which may result in eradication or damage to the marsh, the environmental attributes of the West Side Creek Marsh be re- evaluated, including plants, animals, fish and migratory and nesting birds; and That this evaluation include consideration of the historical impact of adjacent quarrying operations on sedimentation, water quality, plant life and use of the marsh by nesting and migratory birds. Open Space Access to Waterfront The Study proposes that the principal access to the waterfront be through Special Policy Area B. Use of this area necessitates dislocation of an existing and long- standing residential community. At the same time, the expansion of quarrying and other industrial operations is to be allowed. As a result, the Waterfront Open Space will be surrounded by heavy industry and other commercial uses which are not compatible with environmentally sensitive or recreational lands. PDCA questions the planning wisdom in disrupting an existing and long - established community when there are a number of alternatives, including undeveloped lands west of Bennett Road and east of the East Beach community and /or lands currently under the control of the Port Darlington Harbour Company. Until relatively recently, the harbour lands were treated as public parklands with special summer community recreation programs offered by the Municipality. Watershed When reviewing and planning the Municipality's waterfront area, serious consideration must also be given to the watersheds of the streams and creeks which travel through the study area. Planning controls on these watercourses and their watersheds have been limited to flood controls. Use of these environmentally sensitive areas for recreational purposes, with pedestrian connections to the waterfront, would appear to provide a multitude of benefits. Therefore, PDCA requests that the field south of the hydro corridor and CN railroad tracks and north of the Cove lands, through which the Bowmanville Creek travels, be rezoned as Open Space. This would also ensure a connection to other Open Space lands further north along this Creek. Existing Residential Communities Little consideration, if any, has been given to the historical importance and heritage of the West Beach, Cove and Cedarcrest communities. Historically, this area was used as a summer recreational area for Town residents as well as visitors from more remote communities. In addition, weekend and holiday guests have spent time at waterfront houses, all contributing to the economy of the Town. � 4 - 3 - In recent years, there has been a revival of the waterfront community, resulting in part from increasing awareness of the unique attributes of the area. It would be a tragedy for the Municipality to destroy this heritage, rather than using it as a basis for increasing appreciation and use of the area. As such, PDCA believes that waterfront access alternatives to Special Policy Area B are preferable. These include the as yet undeveloped lands west of Bennett Road and the Port Darlington Harbour Company lands. In addition, consideration should be given to rezoning excess industrial and commercial lands south of Highway 401, particularly in view of the amount of industrial lands already held within the municipality. Should the proposed Special Policy Area be approved, the PDCA requests that a special compensation package be implemented as of the adoption date to compensate residents of the area for the loss of neighbourhood, the loss of future enjoyment of their property and homes and depreciation of property values. It is important to note that a similar compensation package is currently being offered to residents living adjacent to proposed landfill sites by the Interim Waste Authority. This offer provides compensation for financial loss resulting from the landfill siting process and recognizes the impact of such planning issues on the community as well as real estate values of private property owners. Compensation for residents negatively impacted by municipal planning decisions must be an integral aspect of the Waterfront Study process. PDCA would appreciate further details related to the proposed development of Special Policy Area B as Waterfront Open Space, including the schedule and timeframe for acquisition and the method for determining the value of these properties. Waterfront Development PDCA recommends that consideration be given to the development of the. waterfront trail along West Beach and across the mouth of the Bowmanville Marsh. While the prospect of bridging the mouth of the marsh may appear to be onerous, a number of relatively simple and inexpensive alternatives do exist. For example, approximately 50 years ago, a hand operated ferry was used to transfer pedestrians, cars and goods across.the creek outlet. This ferry was not only quite effective but was also designed to accommodate the passage of boat traffic, such as the fish industry's trawlers and pleasure boats. Resolution of Conflicts in Special Policy Areas Section 1.6 of the summary Draft Recommended Policy Directions refers to the Municipality's intention to identify means by which conflicts within the Special Policy Areas may be mitigated or resolved. However, no information is provided on the methodology or process which is under consideration. As a number of points of conflict have already been identified within these Special Policy Areas, a clear and agreed upon process to resolve and /or mitigate these concerns is extremely critical. - 4 - St. Marvs Dock Due to concerns regarding erosion, noise, dust and "water and air quality, PDCA has requested a full environmental review of the proposed expansion of the St. Marys dock. As no decision has yet been made on this undertaking, PDCA objects to the Waterfront Study process being based on the assumption that the expansion will be allowed. PDCA also believes that it is premature to assume that the St. Marys Dock will become the Bowmanville Dock and Marine Terminal, serving the Region of Durham. While the City of Oshawa has indicated interest in reclaiming and rehabilitating their port area for parkland for the use of residents of the City of Oshawa, the necessary permits, approvals and planning decisions to support the Bowmanville Dock and Marine Terminal are not in place. It is important to note that the City of Oshawa, having experienced a waterfront port in conjunction with their waterfront recreational areas, are now moving towards less industrial and more recreational and light commercial use of their waterfront. This may be an opportunity for the Municipality of Clarington to learn from another community's experience and. to forego the temptation to misuse its own waterfront in order to increase its industrial tax base. Noise Abatement A number of years ago, the Municipality implemented a Noise Control Bylaw which exempted St. Marys Cement Company from compliance. Surely the development of the waterfront as recreational open space would suggest that industry operating in the area be required, at a minimum, to meet standard municipal and provincial noise control levels. PDCA requests that the Municipality immediately implement a review of its noise bylaw, with specific reference to the exemption given to St.'Marys. Summary of Recommendations In summary, PDCA recommends that the Waterfront Study: • incorporate protection of the West Side Creek Marsh for use as recreational open space; • identify alternatives to the use of the residential areas in Special Policy Area B as the designated Waterfront Open Space, such as the undeveloped lands west of Bennett Road to the east of the East Beach community and /or lands currently under the control of the Port Darlington Harbour Company; • incorporate protection of the watersheds of creeks feeding the waterfront in order to ensure access to open space lands further north along these watercourses; • incorporate rezoning of the lands south of the hydro corridor and the CN railroad tracks and north of the Cove lands, through which the Bowmanville Creek travels, as Open Space; ' 46 - 5 - recognize the community heritage and historical value of the residential community located along the Municipality's lakefront; incorporate the rezoning of excess industrial and commercial lands south of the 401 in view of the amount of industrial lands already held within the municipality. • include a compensation package, to be effective as of the Waterfront Study adoption date, to compensate waterfront residents in the Special Policy Areas for impacts arising from the Study's implementation including loss of neighbourhood, the loss of future enjoyment of their property and homes and depreciation of property values; • include details related to the proposed development of Special Policy Area B as Waterfront Open Space, including the schedule and timeframe for acquisition and the method for determining the value of these properties; • include consideration of the development of the waterfront trail along West Beach and across the mouth of the Bowmanville Marsh, incorporating relatively simple and inexpensive methods to bridge the mouth of the Bowmanville Creek; • include details with respect to the means by which conflicts within the Special Policy Areas may be mitigated or.resolved; • refrain from basing proposed waterfront planning and uses on the assumption that the expansion to St. Marys dock will be allowed until such time as approval is granted; • refrain from basing proposed waterfront planning and uses on the assumption that an expanded St. Marys dock will become the Bowmanville Dock and Marine Terminal until such time as the necessary permits, approval and decisions are in place; • incorporate experiences of other communities related to the co- existence of recreational and industrial areas when planning for the future uses of the Municipality's waterfront; • incorporate a re- evaluation of the exemption to the Noise Control Bylaw granted to St. Marys due to its proximity to environmentally sensitive areas, residential communities and proposed recreational areas. We thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Waterfront Study and look forward to hearing from you regarding these recommendations. Sincerely, PORT DARLINGTON COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, a,,, Mavis Carlton President cc: Bird and Hale 54/ INTRODUCTION WILMOT CREEK HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION Attachment NO s WHEELHOUSE DRIVE,UNIT 5. NEWCASTLE, ONTARIO, LIB 1B9 This Submission on the Phase 3 Report of the Clarington Waterfront Study, :, Document ing -the Recommendations for Land Use Strategy.; ..iS..' made on behalf of the Wilmot Creek Homeowners' Association. The Association represents approximately 1000 residents in Wilmot.Creek, a privately owned Retirement Community situated on the shores of Lake Ontario in`'the Municipality of Clarington. The Association commends, as it has in past Submissions, the form- ation-of a long term strategic plan for the development of the .Lake Ontario resources in Clarington, as well as their preservation and enhancement. Also, the Association recognizes the vision of an accessible lakeshore which would include a gzeerrway._ffe two rk :.as well_ as traile for pedestrians and cyclists. It was in the latter regard, the development of a pedestrian trail and bicycle system continuous across waterfront areas, that past submissions expressed concern and pointed out the negative impact of a system which included a public walkway across the lakeshore of the Wilmot Creek community. This Submission repeats that concern and responds to proposals for 'Land .tJs1j: "Stra- t64ied;z- ,. SPECIAL STUDY AREA 2. WILMOT CREEK COMMUNITY..... Page 42 `hi8. sect:t °on sets--.-Out-:, that the.:area should be subject to w ch would address _a. study hi the existing residential area but promote the development of a residential community consistent with urban areas characteristics and municipal services..." the requirement for a compreh redevelopment approach-. redevelor Page 44 notes P pproach. The association agrees that the Wilmot Creek Community should be a Special Study Area and note that the area'is identified in the September 1993 Waterfront Background Paper. It is suggested that there is the need in such a study for the planners to seriously consider the special character of Wilmot Creek as a caring close -knit community which has been chosen by-it s re-siAents .::not only for the amenities but for its privacy and a community in which they can enjoy their senior safety, y contribute to the surrounding area. The residents contributelnots as only financially but,give of themselves in thousands of hours of volunteer work in area institutions. ......2 J4 - Page 2. ,7 GREENWAY NETWORK COMPONENTS..... Page 42 The Phase 3 Report envisages.a waterfront trail which will carr along the Wilmot Creek lakeshore atop the shore bluff and y users Submissions, the Association expresses the strong objectionssofn past residents to this proposal. There is a particular concern regarding security for the homes which are on the lakeshore. As noted under the r preceding comments with regard to a Special Study of the Area, the homes have been purchased with the intent of spending senior years in a private and safe environment. It is noted that the purchase price takes into consideration the amenities in the community which include= the present lakeshore trail along the western half of the community. The amenities,.also include, along the eastern end,the recreation centre swimming pool; tennis courts and a section of the Golf Course. However, it is not only in the purchase price that the residents ' amenities, the y pay for these y pa too toward the maintenance and administration in their monthly rent payments as well as within their municipal p 1 taxes. The Association suggests that, in view of the fore would need going, the planners to involve in their planning the Ministr of Housin g, which through the Rent Control Act regulatethe monthly rent a 1' ii well, there.vould.be a need to.consult.the ts changes in Assessments. Ontario Municipal Board as, to Also, if the public trail is sited across the shoreline there would be the need to ensure not only security measures for homes but security for the recreation facilities, fbr,xhich"'initial and ongoing-costs have been paid by the landowner and: the= residents. Another consideration should be reimbursement to resident life style. s for loss of The Interim Trail comprises Wilmot Creek Drive, the Ontario Hydro trans- mission corridor and the south service road. The.Association requests consideration b the the Interim Trail as the Y Planners of designating If it is possible to circumvent "Vaterfront Trail" in the.Wilmot Creek Area. shoreline at the Darlington Nuclear Generating oStationswould �it and the n asible•to circumvent an area which will in the future comprise ab be 1800 persons, each of whom will cal su add their finani out municipality of Clarington. pport to the PhANNING AND MANAGEMENT ISSQES ----- Pages 42 and 43 The Phase 3 Waterfront Study,the Phase 3 Draft,Recommended Polic y Dir ion,the September',1993 Waterfront Study Background Paper and the p ect- 2 Discussion Paper on Planning Options for the Clarington Official hPla n each refer to a twenty year planning horizon to 2011 and this includes long term redevelopment of Wiimot Creek to ultimately facilitate public access to the waterfront.T.he Phase 3Waterfront Stud " the long term redevelopment Opportunities a c that current residence ownership is based onaae twenty year lea the fact twenty year lease of the J49 .....3 ,ege 3. ,t dwelling lots along with a common interest in the shoreline and other open area amenity areas. The amenities covered under the home purchase and the monthly rental,as well as taxes has been referred to under Greenvay Network Components, The leases issue will affect all residents, present and future, of the Wilmot Creek Community. The Study recognizes that the twenty year leases are staggered and the Association notes that such leases are still being provided by the landlord to purchasers of new homes. Under a recent initiative, perhaps in preparation for the proposed redevelopment propos- al, purchasers of older homes assume a lease for the years remaining on the original lease. The Association notes that new purchaser leases and some assumed prior to the new process, already exceed the planning horizon of 2011. With regard to transition of services, the Association notes its aware- ness that the services in Wilmot Creek do not meet Municipal standards. The Association recognizes there would be need to coordinate the services if the redevelopment plans come to fruition. The issue of the landowner's Rezvriing'Applications is of special interest to the Wilmot Creek residents, especially the applications which relate to the building of a Retirement /Nursing Home and a Recreation Centre. In these instances the Association has supported the Landowner's applications Many residents have indicated to the landowner their wish to become residents of the facility when it is built. The recreation centre is needed in order to deal with. the increasing population of the community so the newcomers will be able to take part in the numerous "in house" activities sponsored by the Association. i�The Association will continue to support the Applications but at this time we will appreciate clarification of the statement that " any land use planning decisions in this area will have a bearing with respect to these development applications." The statement could be interpreted to mean the applications will be judged on the basis of the landowner permitting the public trail to cross the Wilmot Creek community. The Association appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Phase 3 Report of -the Clarington Waterfront Study and again commends the formation of a long term strategic plan for the development,enhancement and preservation of of the Lake Ontario resources in the Municipality of Clarington. Ruth Hinkley November, 1993 D' 0 . 1.. Attachment No'.. 7 March 3, 1994 4563 Lakeshore Road R.R. #8, Newcastle, Ontario. 1-113 11-9 Attention: Janice Szwarz Re: Waterfront Trail Proposal I'm an owner of land along the shore of Lake Ontario, south of Newtonville. I have a number of concerns in regards to the trail being. established along the shoreline of the lake or along Lakeshore Road: 1) My property taxes are already atrociously high. Will the construction and maintenance of this proposal affect my property taxes? Somewhere the revenues must surface. Will they come at the expensive of another service? 2) There is extensive wave erosion and water level fluctuations directly along the shoreline. It would be physically difficult to construct and maintain this trail beside the water's edge. 3) Along my property there are large bluffs approximately 100 feet high that are always eroding and collapsing towards the lake. In addition the area is covered with poison ivy. Again construction /maintenance of a trail along the top of the bluffs would be difficult, if not impossible. 4) There is also the massive question of liability if some walker is injured. This can range from dog bites, horsekicks, cliff tumbles, poison ivy reactions etc. or any injury while on my property or township land. 5) There will be a disruption to natural wildlife, plant and animal as crowds of people pass by. 6) Who will be responsible for garbage left behind by "nature" walkers? Who will be responsible for any damage done to properties? 7) 1 live in the country to get away from crowds of people. My rural life will be disrupted by the increase in people traffic. 8) Can Lakeshore Road accommodate a footpath or bicycle path? Whose taxes will pay for its construction and maintenance? (Will it be the people walking or people of this community ?) Will a strip of my land be expropriated for the benefit of people outside of this community who do not support the tax base of this area? _ �5i Page 2 9) Who will be responsible for refreshment or medical attention for these people passing by in need? 10) Will this influx of city people into the country result in more rural vandalism or breakins? 11) Who will police the paths in order to keep dirt bikers or snowmobilers off these paths? The noise pollution from these are definitely objectionable. I feel the Planning Department could more wisely spend their time and money preventing any more build up of heavy industry along the lakefront. In the benefit of city folk who also want to enjoy the lake side and nature walking, perhaps the municipalities could buy land and designate these as park/nature walk areas. Revenues could be raised from nominal entry fees. Furthermore existing parklands ie. Darlington could be further promoted. Although the proposal may have a general ideological flavour to it, the problems associated with it may destroy the beauty of nature the trail is trying to promote. Typed as Written 552 Sincerely, Barbara Humphrey (905- 786 -2360) Attachment • G.P.& A. Minutes - 3 - November 15, 1993 PUBLIC MEETING CONTU Ruth Hinkley, 158 Wilmot Trail, Newcastle, LIB 1B0 - circulated a letter from the Wilmot Creek Homeowners Association dated November 15, 1993 which addressed the Phase 3 Report of the Caarington Waterfront Study. She indicated that "the Association agrees that the Wilmot Creek Community should be a special study area and that this area is identified in the September, 1993 Waterfront Background Paper ". She requested that, in future discussions, the Ministry of Housing, which through the Rent Control Act regulates the monthly rent payments, be involved in discussions. If the public trail is sited across the shoreline there would be the need to ensure not only security measures for homes but security measures for the recreation facilities and reimbursement to residents for loss of lifestyle. She concluded by stating that the Association commends the formation of the Long Term Strategic Plan for the development, enhancement and preservation of the Lake Ontario resources in the Municipality of Caarington. Al Michael, 4188 Lakeshore Road, Newcastle, LIB MO - advised that he operates a commercial vegetable farming operation on approximately 200 acres of land which runs 3 kilometres along both sides of Lakeshore Road. He advised that he has a very serious concern pertaining to toxic chemicals which he sprays approximately once per week. The re -entry period for some of these chemicals runs from 24 to 48 hours and exposure to these chemicals could be very hazardous for someone walking along the trail which would traverse fields which have been sprayed. Maureen Remington, Box 44021, Oshawa, LM 8R5 - referred to a letter previously sent to the Planning Department expressing her concerns pertaining to the contents of the Waterfront Study. She strongly objects to the expropriation of over 100 homes to create open space and noted that St. Marys Cement operation should only be allowed to operate under the regulations of its original permit. Bob Morrison, 97 Cedar Crest Beach, Bowmanvlle, L1C 3K3 - suggested that the Darlington Hydro Plant and St. Marys Cement Plant should be approached to determine their willingness to allow access to the lake from their lands. He requested clarification on an "after use plan" for St. Marys to determine if the property could be restored to a useful form. John Shaw, 4401 Lakeshore Road, Newcastle, LlE 1L0 - expressed a concern pertaining to this public meeting being held during the day because people who are employed cannot attend. He also suggested that consideration be given to contacting the Ganaraska Conservation Authority in Port Hope and Orono in the interim, to determine the feasibility of North/South trails. Bernard Wessling, 60 West Beach Road, Bowmanv$le, L1C 3K3 - requested clarification of the intent of the Port Darlington Secondary Plan and noted that West Beach Road is a private road and that the Harbour Commission lands comprise less than 1/3 of the land area on West Beach Road. 5 3 Q3 G.P.& A. Minutes - 4 - November 15, 1993 PUBLIC MEETING CONT'D. John Wells, 15 Firwood Avenue, Courtice, LlE 1T6 - noted that consideration should be given to double railway tracks running along the lakeshore. Wesley Down, 726 Townline Road South, Oshawa, LlE 1C1 - advised that he owns land adjacent to Darlington Park and asked if there is a land freeze between the area of Darlington Park and Darlington Generating Station. Roger Howard, Ridge Pine Park Inc., Rice Capital Group, 17 Dean Street, Brampton, L6W 1M7 - circulated a letter dated October 22, 1993 enclosing his proposal with respect to the accommodation of the Waterfront Trail in relation to the Wilmot Creek lands. He stated in his letter that "this proposal offers a viable solution for all sides, on one hand providing an acceptable and efficient route for the trail and on the other, preserving the integrity of the Wilmot Creek community, the desires of the Wilmot Creek residents and the direction of Municipal Council". He requested that the Waterfront Study report not be approved until such time as the existing trail in Wilmot Creek is officially realigned. Mavis Carlton, President of the Port Darlington Community Association, R. R. #2, Group 2, Box 63, Bowmanviille, L1C 3K3 - noted that, in her estimation, the report has given little consideration to the cultural and heritage history of the area. The Waterfront Study, she advised, does not encompass an evaluation of the health risks associated with the proposed industrialization of the lands on the lakefront. David Crombie, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, 207 Queen's Quay West, Suite 580, Toronto, M5J 1A7 - reiterated to Members of the Committee that "expropriation of privately owned lands is not part of the equation" for creating access to waterfront. He addressed the various concerns expressed by the delegations and advised that he is looking forward to round table discussions with municipal officials, organizations and members of the public. Resolution #GPA- 632 -93 Moved by Councillor Hannah, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT Mr. David Crombie and members of the Waterfront Regeneration Trust be thanked for their excellent presentation and advised that the Municipality of Clarington looks forward to future meetings. No one spoke in support of this application. Resolution #GPA- 633 -93 Moved by Councillor Novak, seconded by Councillor Dreslinski THAT the Committee recess for lunch until 1:15 p.m. " 1 1 '� F'4