HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-8-95 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DN: REFERRAL.GPA
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File#
Date: Monday, January 23 , 1995 Res. #
PD-8-95 Pln 2 . 2 .7 By-Law#
Report#: — File #:
1991 DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN REFERRALS TO THE ONTARIO
Subject: MUNICIPAL BOARD
FILE: PLN 2.2.7
Recommendatfts: is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-8-95 be 'received;
2 . THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Municipality of
Clarington is opposed to the following Referrals: Referral Nos. 6
and 37 (Mark and Gertrude Tomina) ; Referral No. 10 (811461 Ontario
Limited) ; Referral No. 20 (Eyman Estates) ; and Referral No. 36.
(Laidlaw Waste Systems) ;
3 . THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Municipality is
willing to work with the Regional staff and the referrer to resolve
Referral No. 17 (168215 Ontario Limited) , Referral No. 22 (Haas
Shoychet Waisglass) and Referral No. 27 (Bramalea Ltd. ) to avoid
the necessity of a hearing;
4 . THAT the Municipality not participate in the Ontario Municipal
Board Hearings on Referral Nos. 6 and 37 (Mark and Gertrude
Tomina) ; No. 10 (811461 Ontario Limited) ; No. 20 (Eyman Estates) ; and
Referral Nos. 23 and 24 (Lovekins) but that Planning staff be
authorized to appear as witnesses for the Regional Municipality of
Durham if so requested by the Regional solicitor;
5. THAT Council provide direction with respect to the Municipality's
participation in Referral No. 1 (Kingsberry Properties) ;
6. THAT Council provide direction with respect to the Municipality's
position and participation in Referral No. 16 (Mosport Park) ;
7 . THAT the Municipality's solicitor be authorized to represent the
Municipality at the pre-hearing conference with respect to Referral
No. 36 (Laidlaw Waste Systems) and subsequently report back to
Council on the scope of the hearing, the level of participation by
the Municipality and budget requirements for legal and consulting
expertise;
8. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Municipality does not
support the joining of the subdivision referral and zoning appeal
to the hearing on Referral No. 10 (811461 Ontario Limited) and that
the hearing on the subdivision and zoning matters be heard
T RECY
3 5 15
11-E
& All
PlI M PRNflE0Q4 RECYCLED PAPER
REPORT NO. : PD-8-95 PAGE 2
subsequent to the establishment of the principle of urban
development; and
9. THAT the persons listed in this report and any delegation be
advised of Council's decision
1. BACKGROUND
1. 1 The Durham Region Official Plan was approved by the Minister of
Municipal Affairs on November 24, 1993 with modifications, except
for portions referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and deferred
pending further consideration. A total of 37 matters were referred
to the Board. Referral No. 2 (Bowmanville Mall) and Referral No 21
(Markborough Properties) were joined the Bowmanville West Main
Central Area Hearing recently concluded. Referral No. 5 (Akal
International) was withdrawn.
There are 13 outstanding referrals in Clarington. It is anticipated
that some referrals may be resolved shortly. The remaining
referrals will be heard by the Board.
1. 2 A pre-hearing conference of the Board will take place on January
30th and 31st. The purpose of the pre-hearing conference is to
deal with preliminary and procedural matters including;
• identification of parties and participants;
• identification of issues;
• consolidation of matters;
• possibility of settlement of any issues;
• directions for pre-filing of witness lists, expert witness
statements and written evidence;
• start date and duration of the hearing.
1. 3 The purpose of this report is to confirm the position of the
Municipality for these referrals and to determine the role the
Municipality will take at the hearing.
2 . REFERRALS
2 . 1 Regional staff in consultation with the area municipal staff have
been seeking to resolve some of the matters prior to the hearing.
_66
REPORT NO® : PD-8-95 PAGE 3
Where there is a settlement or a possibility of a settlement, this
will be noted below.
2 . 2 Staff recommended that the Municipality take a limited role for
p Y 1
most of the matters before the Board in an effort to minimize costs
and staff time required for the hearing. Wherever the position of
staff, Council and the Region are coincident, it is recommended
i
that Region take carriage of the case and Planning staff be made
available as witnesses if the Regional solicitor so desires. The
only exception to this is Referral No. 36 by Laidlaw Waste Systems
where the Municipality should take a direct active role, and that
the Municipality's staff, Solicitor and consultants can make a
significant contribution to augment the Region's case in opposition
to Laidlaw Waste Systems referral.
I
2 . 3 On any of the referrals, regardless of Council's position, planning
staff may be under subpoena by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,
or the Board to appear at the hearing and give evidence. Planning
staff are obligated to provide evidence on the basis of their
professional opinion regardless of Council's decision.
2 . 4 The following referrals are currently scheduled for hearing by the
Board:
• Referral No. 1 Kingsberry Properties Pt. Lot 26, Conc. 3
Courtice
• Referral Nos. 6/37 Mark & Gertrude Tomina Pt. Lot 26, Conc. 2
Darlington
• Referral No. 10 811461 Ontario Ltd. Pt. Lot 26, Conc. 2
Clarke
• Referral No. 16 Mosport Park Ltd. Pt. Lot 33-35, Conc.
Clarke
• Referral 17 168215 Canada Inc. Pt. Lot 19, Conc. 1
Clarke (Brownsville)
• Referral No. 20 Eyman Estates Ltd. Pt. Lot 26, Conc. 3
Darlington
• Referral No. 22 841221 and 841222 Ont. Ltd. Pt. Lot 5-9, B.F.C.
Haas Schoychet Waisglass Darlington
REPORT NO.: PD-8-95 PAGE 4
Referral No. 23 James Lovekin Pt. Lot 33-35, Conc. 1
Clarke
• Referral No. 24 James Lovekin Pt. Lot 34, Conc. 1
Clarke
• Referral No. 27 Bramalea Limited Pt. Lot 34, Conc. 1
Clarke
• Referral No. 30 651183 Ontario Ltd. Pt. Lot 8, Conc. 7
and Ray Abbott Darlington (Tyrone)
• Referral No. 36 Laidlaw Waste Systems Pt. Lot 12, Conc. 3
Clarke
Each of the referrals are summarized in Attachment No. 1 of the
report with an synopsis of the referral request, the positions of
staff and Council, comments and recommendations.
2 . 5 There are no public notification requirements for this report since
it deals with referrals to the Durham Regional Official Plan.
However, staff received requests for notification from the two
parties listed below and they have been notified.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C. I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
DC*FW*df
18 January 1995
Attachment No. 1: Referrals
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision:
Mr. Lorne Butterfield Mr. Normund Berzins
North Clarington Ratepayers Assoc. Ctte. of Clarke Constituents
2891 Regional Road 20, R.R.#5 Box 20028
Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K6 Newcastle, Ontario. L1B 1M3
i
i
ATTACHMENT #1
Referral No.: 1 _ --
"- E� pNEPp MUNICIPALITY OF
Name: Kingsberry P CLARINGTON _
Properties COURTICE
Site: A 21.9 ha (54.2 pm°b
acre) parcel east of
Trulls Road, south
of Pebblestone
8
Road in Lot 29,
Concession 3, FN
Darlington Twp.
ND`SN Pp
a
HIGHWAY 2
91,6CK CF;EEK
Summary: Requesting Living Area designation for the lands in Lot 29,
Concession 3 north of the Courtice Urban Area.
Municipal Staff Position: Recommended no northerly expansion to the Courtice Urban
Area (Reports PD-59-91 and PD-77-93).
Municipal Council Position: Council opposed the designation of any Living Area in north
Courtice. However, Council did support a Special Study
Area for lands bound by Townline Road, Pebblestone Road,
Courtice Road and Adelaide Avenue.
Regional Staff Position: Recommended Special Study Area for lands north of
Courtice to future Highway 407.
Regional Council Position: Approved as Living Area.
Comments: In responding to the Minister's proposed modifications to
delete all Study areas and a referral request from Kingsberry
Properties, on July 14, 1993 Regional Council added
additional Living Area lands which incorporated the subject
site. The Minister of Municipal Affairs did not approve
Regional Council's request and has referred the matter to the
Ontario Municipal Board.
J ')7
Referral No. 1
Clarington Planning Staff are not able to appear in support of
Council's decision on this matter, having recommended for
no urban development north of the existing urban area
boundary. Staff remain firm in the view that there should be
no urbanization of these lands.
Council's position is also divergent from the Region on this
issue. Given Council's position in support of a Special Study
Area and in opposition to the Living Area designation,
Council may has two options. If Council wishes to support
its position for a Special Study Area in North Courtice,
Council should adopt the following recommendation:
"That the Municipality's solicitor to represent the
Municipality at the pre-hearing conference with respect
to Referral No. 1 and subsequent report back to
Council on the scope of the hearing, the level of
participation by the Municipality and the budget
requirements for legal and consulting expertise."
Alternatively, Council may wish not to participate in the
hearing. In this case Council should adopt the following
recommendation:
"That the Municipality not participate in the Ontario
Municipal Board hearing on Referral No. 1 ."
Recommendation: That Council provide direction with respect to its participation
on the hearing on Referral No. 1. (Recommendation 6)
540
i
I
I
I
Referral No.: 6 and 37
PE�`�gpNEpO MUNICIPALITY OF
Name: M. and G. Tomina CLARINGTON
COURTICE 6
Site: A 9.05 ha parcel in Part
Lot 26, Concession 2, ay
Darlington Township.
Northeast corner of O
Highway 2 and Hancock �°� y / 20
Road.
9 90 O�
Z �
NPSN FO
i
R6
HIGHWAY 2
L,ACK CREEK l
r
Summary: Designated Major Open Space in Regional Plan. Applicant
is requesting an 80 unit motel and 150 seat `restaurant
development. Also Referring Section 20.7'policies on land
severance.
Related Applications: Official Plan Amendment Application 87-096/D proposed a
motel and restaurant. This application was denied by
Clarington Council on February 11, 1991 and subsequently
denied by Regional Council at the time of the consideration
of the Regional Plan.
Municipal Staff Position: Recommended urban expansion areas to the south of the
Courtice Urban Area. Supported Major Open Space
designation on these lands.
Municipal Council Position: Endorsed Courtice Urban Boundary and Major Open Space
designation.
Regional Staff Position: Recommended the designation of the subject lands for Major
Open Space and policies regarding land severance.
Regional Council Position: Approved Major Open Space designation and land severance
policies in Section 20.7
5 4 1
II
Referral No. 6 and 37
Comments: The Municipality has denied the Official Plan Amendment
application by Mr. and Mrs. Tomina. The Municipality has
also endorsed the Major Open Space designation on the
Tomina property.
i
Recommendation: That the Municipality not participate in the Ontario Municipal
Board hearings on Referral Nos. 6 and 37. (Recommendation
4)
That staff be authorized to appear as a planning witness for
the Regional Municipality of Durham if so requested by the
Regional Solicitor. (Recommendation 4)
II
i
i
ao
Referral No.: 10 MUNICIPALITY
OF CLARINGTON Noes
Name: 811461 Ontario Ltd. .
Site: A 26.1 ha (64.4 .'
acre) parcel in Part
of Lot 26,
Concession 2, �m
Clarke Township o
AY 2
'• CPR N�
m0
Sm
: ., Nog H\GNWAy 40\
O
NEWCASTLE \
VILLAGE 1
PoWEH SINE.-
Summary: Site designated Permanent Agriculture Reserve. 'Referrer is
requesting Living Area designation to incorporate the lands
within the Newcastle Village urban area.
Related Applications: OPA Application 90-006
Plan of Subdivision 18T-90002 for 371 residential units
Rezoning Application DEV 90-05.
At the time of the approval of the Durham Plan, Regional
Council denied OPA 90-006.
Municipal Staff Position: Staff did not support urban development north of the CPR
tracks (Report PD-311-90). Staff supported the retention of
the Permanent Agriculture Reserve designation.
Municipal Council Position: Council supported the inclusion of new urban lands north of
the CPR with Arthur Street being the eastern boundary.
Council supported the Permanent Agriculture Reserve
designation on the subject lands.
Regional Staff Position: Recommended denial of OPA application in Report 91-P-70.
Recommended designation of lands as Permanent
Agriculture Reserve.
Regional Council Position: Denied OPA application and approved Permanent Agriculture
Reserve designation June 5, 1991.
i
Referral No. 10
Comments: The applicant has referred the application for plan of
subdivision and appealed the rezoning application to the
Ontario Municipal Board. It is anticipated that applicant will
request the Board to join these applications to the referral of
the Durham Regional Official Plan. While the consolidation
of applications is often done, in this case the Board is
resolving basic principles of long term (30 year) urban
boundaries. It is premature to consider the details of a plan
of subdivision. The consolidation of the referrals/appeal
would serve to only extend the length of the hearing and not
serve to shorten the development process. Accordingly, it is
recommended that the Municipality oppose any consolidation
of the development applications to the Regional Plan referral.
I
Recommendation: That the Municipality not participate in the Ontario Municipal
Board hearing on Referral No. 10 but that staff be authorized
to appear as witnesses for the Regional Municipality of
Durham if requested by the Regional solicitor.
(Recommendation 4)
That the Region be advised that the Municipality does not
support the joining of the subdivision referral and the zoning
appeal to the hearing on Referral No. 10. (Recommendation
8)
i
i
I
i
Referral No.: 16
Name: Mosport Part Ltd.
0
Site: A 289.6 ha (715 acre)
parcel in Lots 33, 34 and 9
35, Concession 9, Clarke a 90
Township.
9Q
t
R16
MUNICIPALITY
OF CLARINGTON �N
N
9
s
Summary: Mosport Park was recognized as a Regional Node to permit
existing uses only. The referral of Regional Node designation
for Mosport Park is due to limitation to uses existing uses as
of June 5, 1991,
Municipal Staff Position: Staff initially raised concerns about the provisions of the
Recommended Plan which stated that regional nodes shall
intensify and attract other compatible uses. This was of
concern particularly due to its location in the Oak Ridges
Moraine. Staff recommended that only existing uses be
permitted until the area municipal official plan review (Report
PD-59-91). Staff did not object to the deletion of Mosport
Park as a Regional Node in the Council approved Plan
(Report PD-108-92).
Municipal Council Position: Council supported the deletion of the phrase "intensify" and
the subsequent deletion of Mosport Park as a Regional Node.
Regional Staff Position: Mosport was not recommended for recognition as a regional
node in Report 91-P-70.
Regional Council Position: Mosport Park was not recognized in the version of the
Regional Plan adopted by Council on June 5, 1991.
Regional Council subsequently modified the Plan to
recognize Mosport as a regional node but limited to existing
uses. Any additional uses would require an amendment to
the Plan.
j4 )
Referral No. 16
Comments: Section 15.3.1 (j) of the Regional Official Plan identifies
Mosport Park as a Regional Node with the following policies:
Mosport Park recognizing the uses existing on the
date of adoption of this Plan. Notwithstanding Section
15.2.2(a), any new uses shall be by amendment to this
Plan."
In the Draft Clarington Official Plan, Mosport is recognized as
a tourist node. The current policies proposed by staff would
permit existing uses, expansion of these uses and
introduction of related uses provided they do not adversely
impact the environment. In the finalization of the Official
Plan, the recommendations of the Oak Ridges Moraine
Strategy will be incorporated.
If Council concurs with the policies of the draft Clarington
Official Plan to allow for additional compatible uses at
Mosport Park, it may be possible to resolve this referral with
the consent of all parties. In this regard, staff would
recommend that the following recommendation be approved:
"That the Region be requested to modify Section
15.3.10) to permit the expansion of existing uses and
the introduction of related compatible uses; and
"That the Region of Durham be advised that the
Municipality is hopeful that Referral 16 (Mosport Park)
can be resolved without the necessity of a hearing."
If Council wishes to restrict uses to those which currently
exist and to require an amendment to the Regional Plan for
any additional uses, it is recommended that Council
participate at the hearing. In this regard, Council should
adopt the following:
"That the Municipality's solicitor be authorized to
represent the Municipality at the pre-hearing
conference and subsequently report back to Council
on the scope of the hearing, the level of participation
by the Municipality and the budget requirements for
legal and consulting expertise."
546
I
Referral No. 16
Recommendation: That Council provide direction with respect to its position and
the extent of its participation on Referral No. 16.
(Recommendation 6)
I�
i
i
I
i
5 Yei
Referral No.: 17 $y cpNG��`ONp`
Name: 168215 Canada Inc. mCO,
MUNICIPALITY T
Site: A 24.3 ha(60.1 acre) '9 OF CLARINGTOW � CIO
lop
parcel in Part Lot p
9
19, Concession 1, TA
Clarke Township Z ao
e
HIGH
CPR _ Nm
mZ
.. .. Npy H\GtN1 pV q0
0
NEWCASTLE
VILLAGE WER��NE
Summary: Referral of the cluster of Brownsville as it is not designated as
a hamlet in the Durham Plan, to allow their development at
the southwest corner of Highway No. 1 and Brownsville``
Road.
Related Applications: OPA 90-042 was originally submitted as an estate residential
proposal; subsequently revised to request only recognition of
Brownsville as a hamlet in the Regional Plan.
Plan of Subdivision Application 18T-90023 and Rezoning
Application DEV 90-019 propose a 30 lot subdivision on the
applicants lands.
Municipal Staff Position: Recommended the designation of Brownsville as a hamlet
(Reports PD-311-90). Recommended approval of revised
OPA 90-042 (Report 129-94).
Municipal Council Position: Supported the designation of Brownsville as a Hamlet on
November 12, 1990). Position reconfirmed on October 24,
1994 in the consideration of OPA 90-042.
Regional Staff Position: Regional Staff did not recommend designating Brownsville as
a "Hamlet" in Report 91-P-70 in 1991.
Regional Council Position: The Durham Region Official Plan as adopted by Regional
Council on June 5, 1991, did not designate Brownsville as a
Hamlet.
i
i
Referral No.: 17
Comments: In an effort to resolve this referral, Regional staff have met
with both municipal staff and the applicant. Regional staff
are prepared to recommend the recognition of Brownsville as
a hamlet. Should this recommendation be approved by
Regional Council, the referral will be withdrawn from the
OMB.
i
Recommendation: In light of the above, it is anticipated that there will be no
hearing on this referral. However, in the event that a hearing
is conducted on this matter, it is recommended that the
Municipality not participate.
i
i
X49
Referral No.: 20
P���tig�owE"O MUNICIPALITY OF
Name: Eyman Estates CLARINGTON
COURTICE `6
Site: A 41.7 ha (103 acre)
parcel of land in Part 9%
of Lot 26, Concession R 1 90
3, Darlington
i
0
NpSN P
R6
,.HIGHWAY 2
SLACK CREEK
Summary: Designated major Open Space. Requesting urban area
designation for residential uses.
Related Applications: OPA 91-011 proposed the extension of the Courtice urban
area boundary to accommodate a plan of subdivision for 783
units on the east side of Hancock Road north of Nash Road.
This application was denied by Regional Council concurrently
with the adoption of the Regional Plan on June 5, 1991.
Municipal Staff Position: Supported Major Open Space designation. Staff
recommended urban expansion areas to the south of the
Courtice urban area.
Municipal Council Position: Supported Major Open Space designation.
Regional Staff Position: Recommended Major Open Space designation (Report 91-P-
70).
Regional Council Position: Approved Major Open Space designation on June 5, 1991.
Comments: Staff have not supported any northerly or north-easterly
extensions to the Courtice urban area. These lands are not
needed for urban uses at this time and do not support a
compact urban form.
Referral No. 20
Recommendation: That the Municipality not participate in the Ontario Municipal
Board Hearing on Referral No. 20 and that staff be authorized
to appear as a witness for the Regional Municipality of
Durham if so requested by the Regional solicitor.
(Recommendation 4)
I
551
i
I
Referral No.: 22
Name: 8411221 Ontario m z
z
Ltd. 990 c,� mQ j
841222 Ontario Ltd. c p
and Haas Shoychet
WaisglasS `' !i HIONMAY 40
Site: Part of Lots 5 to 10, ER SIN
Broken Front -PQ
Concession, - -
Darlington Township --'
R22 Lake Ontario
fl
Q /
Summary: Designated Waterfront Open Space. Requesting area be
designated for residential development.
Related Applications: OPA 89-129 by Haas Shoychet and Waisglass for residential
development. This application will be considered in the
context of the Clarington Official Plan Review.
OPA 90-022 was submitted by 841221 Ontario Ltd. and
841222 Ontario Ltd. for a hotel, retail and residential uses.
The companies no longer have an interest in the land and
the file is closed.
Municipal Staff Position: Staff recommended that the Port Darlington Area be
designated as either a Special Study Area or Living Area in
the Regional Plan.
Municipal Council Position: Council supported the identification of either a Special Study
Area or Living Area.
Regional Staff Position: Staff recommended that the waterfront area be designated as
Waterfront Open Space within the Bowmanville Urban Area.
Regional Council Position: Approved designation of lands for Waterfront Open Space.
J52
Referral No. 22
Comments: There have been discussions with Regional staff in an effort
to resolve this referral. Staff is optimistic that a solution can
be reached but there have been no commitments as of the
writing of this report. Staff will report back further on this
issue.
Recommendation: That the Ontario Municipal Board be requested that the
Municipality of Clarington is seeking to resolve Referral 22
(Haas Schoychet Waisglass) without the necessity of a
hearing. (Recommendation 3)
i
i
I
i
Referral No.: 23
MUNICIPALITY OF
Name: James Lovekin CLARINGTON
GSjGNAG �\
Site: Approximately
142.23 ha (57.6 HIGHWAY 2
acres of land in Part .- NEWCASTLE
VILLAGE
Lots 32, 33, 34 and
Lot 35, Concession °�
1, Clarke Twp. and ?� R23
Part Lot 1, Broken �a
Front Concession,
Darlington Twp. in ,
the Hwys. 401 and � P
35/115 triangle
CNR
�weR LINE- O -
-' 9
-- O
Summary: Requesting Special Study Area designation.
Municipal Staff Position: Supported designation of lands as General Agricultural Area
(Report PD-311-90). In consideration of the Minister's
modifications, staff noted that the deletion of this Special
Study Area was consistent with Council's resolution for a
target population of 15,000 for Newcastle Village. The latest
staff position is reflected in the Clarington Draft Official Plan
released in May 1994 where the Lovekin's property, both
north and south of Hwy. 35/115 were designated as "Special
Study Area".
Municipal Council Position: Supported designation as Special Study Area in
consideration of draft Regional Plan on November 12, 1990.
However, on May 10, 1993, in consideration of Minister's
modifications and establishment of thirty year timeframe for
Plan, Council supported the deletion of the Special Study
Area designation.
Regional Staff Position: Supported designation as Special Study Area (Report 91-P-
70).
Regional Council Position: Supported designation of Special Study Area.
554
Referral No. 23
Comments: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has refused to approve the
Special Study Area designation. There are ongoing
discussions between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the
Region and the Lovekin family in an effort to resolve this
referral. The Municipality's position is consistent with the
Region's position that the land should be designated as
Special Study Area.
Recommendation: That the Municipality not participate in the O.M.B. Hearing on
Referral No. 23 and that staff be authorized to appear as
witness for the Region if so requested (Recommendation 4)
i
Referral No.: 24 mo MUNICIPALITY GIVEN RD
`y OF CLARINGTON_
r
Name: James Lovekin
HIGHWAY 2
Site: Approximately (20 "
acres) of land north
of Highway 35/115
in Part of Lot 35,
Concession 1, NEWCASTLE
Clarke Twp. VILLAGE a
�R24 �
CNR
PpWERLINE-- ------
N
I
Summary: Designated Special Study Area No. 5. Referrer is requesting
Special Study Area designation.
Municipal Staff Position: Staff originally supported the Permanent Agriculture Reserve
designation. However, its latest position is Special Study
Area through the Clarington Draft Official Plan.
Municipal Council Position: Council supported the Permanent Agriculture Reserve
designation.
Regional Staff Position: Regional staff recommended that the lands north of Highway
35/115 be designated Permanent Agriculture Reserve.
Regional Council Position: In the consideration of the Minister's modifications, on July
14,1993 and referral requests, Regional Council added
Special Study Area No. 5 to incorporate the Lovekin lands on
the north side of Hwy. 35/115.
Comments: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs has refused to approve the
Special Study Area designation. There are ongoing
discussions between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the
Region and the Lovekin family in an effort to resolve this
referral. The Municipality's position is consistent with the
Region's position that the land should be designated as
Special Study Area.
i
556
Referral No. 24
Recommendation: That the Municipality not participate in the O.M.B. Hearing on
Referral No. 24 and that staff be authorized to appear as
witness for the Region if so requested (Recommendation 4)
Referral No.: 27
Name: Bramalea Ltd.
i
Site: An 88.2 ha (218
acres) in Part Lots
28 to 31, B.F.C.
Newcastle Village
i
i
Summary: Referral of population target of 17,500 for the Newcastle
Village urban Area in Section 3.3.5. Bramalea is concerned
that the population- target -may--restrict- the--project--from -
achieving the proposed residential densities.
Related Applications: OPA 91-020 to increase neighbourhood population target
from 1,000 to 4,500 persons.
Plan of Subdivision 1 BT-91004 for 1650 dwelling units
C
Rezoning Application DEV 91-016.
Municipal Staff Position: Recommended population target of 12,000 (Report PD-311-
90) for the lands south of the CPR main line. The Clarington
Official Plan Review is reviewing the population target in light
of additional lands incorporated in the approved Regional
Plan.
Municipal Council Position: Supported population target of 15,000 on May 11, 1992 but
did not object to approved population target of 17,500 in
commenting to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on May 10, j
1993.
i
Regional Staff Position: Recommended population target of 17,500.
Regional Council Position: Adopted population target of 17,500 on June 5, 1991.
Comments: Staff have met with Regional staff and Bramalea on this
issue. Discussions are continuing and staff will report back
if necessary.
I
i
I
I
II
Referral No. 27
Recommendation: That the Region of Durham be advised that the Municipality
is working with Regional staff and Bramalea Ltd. to resolve
Referral No. 27 (Bramalea Ltd.) without the necessity of a
hearing. (Recommendation No. 3)
I
i
I
I
l
i
i
�I
i
I
I
I
Referral No.: 30
MUNICIPALITY OF A,
Name: Georgian Woods/Ray CLARINCT®N r'
o ,
Abbott
TYRONE
Site: A 15.5 ha (38.30 acre)
parcel located in Part of
Lot 8, Concession 7,
Darlington Township
G�NC�SS`oN p0 O' Oo
R30
POWER LINE
-------------- --------------
n
n
2 N m
O r 91 x
m a
9a
Summary: Referral of Sections 13.3.5, 13.3.8, 13.3.9 a), 13.3.10 and 13.3.21.
h) as they pertain to the Hamlet of Tyrone. The Sections cover the
following matters:
• the requirement of a settlement capacity study to delineate
the limits of a hamlet and identify land uses
• the requirement for an updated settlement capacity study,
hydrogeological report, lot servicing plan, soil sampling
program and grading plan for consideration of a plan of
subdivision
• the requirement for reconfirment of studies if plan of
subdivision is not registered within 3 years of studies
• the exemption of small plans of subdivision from the
monitoring requirements provided a cumulative impact of all
proposals is examined
• the requirement for a country residential subdivision to have
2 access points
Related Applications: OPA 86-36 to designate Tyrone as a "Hamlet for Growth" and
expand the hamlet boundary.
560
Referral No. 30
Comments: On January 10, 1995, Regional Planning committee considered a
report in which Regional staff stated that a settlement capacity study
was not required since the application predated the 1991 Regional
Official Plan. Based on this position, the applicant is willing to
withdraw their referral. The decision of Regional Council is not
know at the time of writing this report.
There will be a separate Ontario Municipal Board Hearing related to
the application to amend the Official Plan for the former Town of
Newcastle. This hearing has not been scheduled but will consider
the number of permitted units and the boundary for the hamlet.
Recommendation: With the resolution of the Regional Plan issues, there will be no
hearing on this matter. Consequently-no decision is required.
561
i
Referral No.: 36
Name: Laidlaw waste "Epo �a2
System Ltd.
Site: A 125.4 ha (310 acre)
parcel in Lots 11 and
12, Concession 3,
Clarke Township R36
s� Z
9
MUNICIPALITY OF
CLARINGTON
i
Summary: Referral of their property in tot 12, Concession 3 (Clarke) and the
following:
A) Sections 2.3.6, 2.3,7, 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 2.3.10 and 2.3.11 in their
entirety regarding the establishment of new waste disposal
sites, the process for reviewing applications, the identification
of former waste disposal sites and decommissioning and
environmental audits of activities which discharge pollutants.
B) Minister's modification 18 regarding decommissioning and
redevelopment of former industrial sites.
C Section 2.3.14 regarding Environmental Impact Studies as it
relates to waste management sites.
D) Section 2.3.21 (g) regarding the requirement for area
municipal official plans to contain policies and designations
for former and active industrial waste disposal sites.
E) Sections 7.2.1 and 7.3.1 as they fail to recognize waste
management sites as part of the regional structure.
F) Section 20.4.4 regarding continuation, expansion or
enlargement of existing uses.
G) All of Section 12-Agricultural Areas and Section 14-Major
Open Space System as they relate to the Laidlaw lands.
Referral No. 36
Municipal Staff Position: Staff recommended the inclusion of specific policies for waste
management sites (PD-59-91 and PD-108-92).
Municipal Council Position: Council supported the inclusion of the waste management
policies and land use designations.
Regional Staff Position: Regional staff recommended the inclusion of waste
management policies and the Major Open Space and
Permanent Agriculture Reserve designation for the Laidlaw
lands.
Regional Council Position: With the exception of Minister's modification 18, Regional
Council supported the referred policies and land use
designations at the time of adoption.
Comments: Many of the policies are referred in respect of waste
management sites generally, not just the Laidlaw site. The
object of Laidlaw's referrals appears to be preparing the
groundwork for their site specific proposals. In this case, the
referrals are premature in the absence of a specific
application submitted for the Laidlaw lands. Such an
application would be considered at a Consolidated Hearing
where the Environment Protection Act and Environmental
Assessment Act approvals could be considered concurrently.
In light of the importance of the Laidlaw proposal in the
Municipality, it is important for the Municipality to be
represented with legal counsel, staff and possibly
consultants. It is not possible to estimate costs until such
time as the prehearing is held and the issues are clarified.
There are funds in the Planning Department's proposed
budget to cover the costs of legal representation on this
issue at the pre-hearing conference.
Recommendation: That the Municipality's solicitor be authorized to represent the
Municipality at the pre-hearing conference with respect to
Referral 36 and subsequently report back to Council on
scope of the hearing the level of participation by the
Municipality and the budget requirements for legal and
consulting expertise. (Recommendation 7)
I
566