HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-17-95THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
File
Res. #
Subject: DEFERRAL NO. 6 TO THE 1991 DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN
PROPOSED FAREWELL CREEK NEIGHBOURHOOD
FILE: OPA 93 -002 /C
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -17 -95 be received;
2. THAT Report PD -17 -95 be approved as the comments of the
Municipality of Clarington on the matters identified by the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs in their letter of December 5, 1994
regarding Deferral No. 6 to the Durham Regional Official Plan;
3. THAT a copy of this Report and Council's decision be forwarded to
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the Office of the Provincial
Facilitator, Mr. Gord Mills,, M.P.P., the Region of Durham Planning
Department, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the
Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Environment and
Energy, WDM Consultants, Kingsberry Properties and Mr. Stan
Racansky.
4. THAT all other interested parties listed in this report and any
delegation be advised of Council's decision.
1. OVERVIEW
1.1 Purpose of Report
1.1.1 The purpose of this Report is to respond to a letter from the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs regarding Deferral No. 6 to the
Durham Regional Official Plan (Attachment No.1).
1.2 Ministry of Municipal Affairs Letter
1.2.1 On December 12, 1995, the Planning Department received a copy
of a letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
to the Regional Commissioner of Planning regarding Deferral
No. 6. In approving the Durham Regional Official Plan in
ER
PAP E EE° c°
T IS IS PRIMED CN RECYCLED PAPER
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 2
November 1993, the Ministry deferred consideration of the
subject lands and the related urban area boundary. The lands
subject of the deferral are north of the existing Courtice
urban boundary, bounded by Farewell Creek on the west, Trulls
Road on the east, and Pebblestone Road on the north.
1.2.2 The Ministry, in their letter, indicated their review of
Deferral No. 6 had identified two primary concerns:
• The identification of the subject lands and much of the
surrounding area both within and outside the urban
boundary as "Environmentally Sensitive Areas ", in
recognition of the area's importance for natural habitat
and the maintenance of ground and surface water quantity
and quality, especially in relation to the coldwater
fisheries in Farewell and Black Creeks, and drainage into
the provincially significant Second Marsh;
• The inclusion of the subject lands in the Courtice Urban
Area by Regional Council, given that Regional Staff had
not identified either a need for the lands nor provided
any justification for their inclusion.
1.2.3 The Ministry's letter also noted Clarington Council's
resolution of July 18, 1994 which requested the Ministry to
support a 30 year urban boundary in the Clarington Official
Plan to facilitate the resolution of water quality problems on
Courtice Road. The Ministry indicated the following in
response:
"First, although completely supportive of the need to address
potential health hazards arising from quality problems with
well water supplies along Courtice Road it has not been
demonstrated that such an action would assist in resolving the
situation. Further, neither the DROP or this Ministry's
policies permit area municipalities to designate more than 20
years of lands for development. As a result, we do not
support the use of a 30 year urban area boundary within the
Clarington Official Plan."
1.2.4 The Ministry requested various agencies, including the
Municipality and the Region, to provide the following:
REPORT NO.: PD -17-95 PAGE 3
o comments on the adequacy of the technical reports
submitted by the proponent for the lands subject of
Deferral No. 6;
• the identification of any approaches, policies and /or
measures needed to maintain and /or enhance the quality
and quantity of ground and surface water resources as
they relate to the environmental sensitivity of the
subject lands, Farewell and Black Creeks and the Second
Marsh.
1.2.5 The Ministry also noted that justification needs to be
provided for the inclusion of the subject lands, particularly
given the land budget analyses undertaken through the official
Plan Review process for Clarington. The justification
analysis is to be undertaken in the context of a 20 year urban
boundary for both Courtice and Clarington as a whole.
1.3 Deferral No 6 to the Durham Regional Official Plan
1.3.1 The lands subject of Deferral No. 6 are located in Part Lots
31 and 32, Concession 3, former Township of Darlington, and
have an area of 54.3 ha (134 acres).
1.3.2 The official Plan approved by Regional Council in June 1991
and July 1993 designated the subject lands as 'Living Area' as
part of the Courtice urban area, with 'Environmentally
Sensitive Areas' indicated. Regional Staff recommended that
the lands north of Courtice to the future Highway 407,
including the subject site, be designated as 'Special Study
Area'.
1.3.3 Clarington Staff recommended that no northerly expansion to
the Courtice Urban Area be permitted. At that time, Council
also opposed the designation of any Living Area in north
Courtice, but supported the designation of a Special Study
Area for the lands bounded by Townline Road, Pebblestone Road,
Courtice Road and Adelaide Avenue. This position was
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE
subsequently changed as a result of the July 18, 1994
resolution of Council referred in Section 1.2.3.
1.4 Official Plan Amendment OPA 93 -002 1C
1.4.1 Application OPA 93 -002 /C to amend the Official Plan of the
former Town of Newcastle and Application NPA 93- 006 /CN to
amend the Courtice North Neighbourhood Plan were submitted on
May 7, 1993 by WDM Consultants on behalf of William Tonno
Construction Ltd., Erhard and Henrietta Witzke and 687120
Ontario Limited (Steve Devesceri Construction Ltd.). These
parties together own 36.8 ha (90.9 acres) in Part Lots 31 and
32, Concession 3, former Township of Darlington. The balance
of the lands subject of the Official Plan Amendment
Application (17.5 ha/43.2 acres) is owned by individual
property owners located on the west side of Trulls Road. The
area covered by the application is the same as that subject .to
Deferral No. 6.
1.4.2 The applications seeks to expand the
Courtice Urban Area to include the
Neighbourhood 3d, and to designate said ]
Area' with associated symbols for parks,
facilities and population allocation.
valley would be designated 'Major Open
Lands'. The lands were referred to as
Community' by the applicant.
boundaries of the
subject lands as
ands as 'Residential
schools, commercial
The Farewell Creek
Space' with 'Hazard
the 'Farewell Creek
1.4.3 The following technical reports were submitted'in support of
the subject applications:
• Development Concept (April 1993) - Bousfield, Dale -
Harris, Cutler & Smith Inc.;
• Conceptual Servicing Report (April 1993) - D.G. Biddle &
Associates Limited;
e Hydrogeologic Assessment (March 1993) - Gibson &
Associates Ltd.;
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 5
s Preliminary Environmental Overview Final Report (April
1993) and Addendum Report (August 1993) - Ecoplans
Limited.
Summaries of these technical documents are provided in
Attachment No. 3 to this Report.
1.4.4 By letter dated May 20, 1993, Staff advised the applicant that
the processing of the applications would be held in abeyance
pending Council's approval of a new Official Plan in
accordance with Council Resolution # C- 63 -92. This
resolution, approved by Council on January 27, 1992, stated
that applications for residential development in the urban
expansion areas added by Regional Council in the 1991 Official
Plan would not be processed for the period of the Official
Plan Review.
1.5 Meeting with the Provincial Facilitator
1.5.1 Staff attended a meeting with the proponent and a number of
agencies at the Office of the Provincial Facilitator on
February 8, 1995. The purpose of the meeting was to identify
what concerns various agencies have with respect to the
designation of the subject site as Living Area in the Regional
Official Plan. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority suggested that a
sub- watershed study and plan should be prepared to more
properly assess the environmental effects of development. The
proponent indicated that environmental concerns could be
assessed once the site has been given a Living Area
designation. A second meeting has been scheduled for February
27, 1995.
2. AGENCY COMMENTS
2.1 The technical documents were circulated to other municipal
departments for their review and comments. Staff also
obtained the comments of some of the other agencies involved
in the review process for Deferral No. 6. Summaries of the
comments are provided below. Complete copies of the comments
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 6
from the Public Works Department and the Region form
Attachment Nos. 4 and 5 respectively to this Report.
2.2 It should be noted that there are two elements to the
comments:
• The principle of development;
• The form, design, scale, intensity of development and
conditions the agencies would require. Most of the
comments are of the second type and are not necessarily
relevant to determining the basic issue of the principle
of development.
2.3 Public Works Department
2.3.1 The
Department identified the following preliminary concerns
to
be addressed prior to the submission of a draft plan for
approval:
1.
The preparation of a watershed study addressing
stormwater management and water quality issues for the
ENTIRE watershed;
2.
The confirmation of proposed future development patterns
within this watershed in order to tie in with the
development plans for this approval;
3.
The inclusion of any and all improvement works to roads,
sidewalks and street illumination necessary to properly
facilitate this development in the Municipality's
Development Charge Study, and the budgeting of the
appropriate funds by the Municipality;
4.
The submission of a Traffic Impact Study to assess the
impact of the proposed development on vehicular and
pedestrian traffic;
5.
The approval of the final alignment of Adelaide Avenue;
6.
The revision of the draft subdivision plan to preserve
both Farewell Creek tributary drainage channels to
provide a natural link between Farewell Creek and the
Trulls Road - Courtice Road Woods and Bowmanville Creek
valley;
f iJ 6
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 7
7. The revision of the draft plan to provide a buffer along
the top -of -bank of Farewell Creek.
2.4 community Services Department
2.4.1 Community Services Department noted that if these lands are to
be developed, parkland dedication is required on the basis of
either 50 or 1 ha per 300 dwelling units, which ever is
greater. The parkland, wherever possible, should be abutting
the open space blocks. All open space and flood plain lands
are to be dedicated to the Municipality gratuitously. All
open space is to be transferred in an acceptable condition
(disturbed land to be restored, and undisturbed land free of
erosion, debris or dangerous or dead trees). A tree
preservation plan is to be prepared and submitted for
approval.
2.5 Fire Department
2.5.1 The Department indicated that the approval of the application,
in conjunction with other growth in the Courtice area, will
put a strain on the existing resources which the Department
has in that area.
2.6 Region of Durham
2.6.1 Regional Staff confirmed that Regional Council supported the
inclusion of the subject lands within the Courtice Urban Area.
They also noted that there is an indication of environmental
sensitivity for the subject lands on Schedule A5 of the
Regional Plan. Accordingly, if the subject lands are included
within the Urban Area, an environmental impact study in
accordance with Section 2.3.17 of the Regional Plan would be
a prerequisite for any development proposal.
2.6.2 Regional Staff noted that their urban land supply calculations
have consistently included the acreage for the subject lands,
given that they have been part of the Council - adopted Official
Plan since June 5, 1991.
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 8
2.6.3 Regional Staff indicated that they were in.general agreement
with� the conclusions. - 6f .the Conceptual - Servicing - i2ep9rt as
they relate-to issues of sanitary sewage and water
distribution. No comments were provided on the other
technical reports.
2.7 Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
2.7.1 Hydrogeologic Assessment
2.7.1.1 Authority Staff stated that dewatering in the shallow aquife
will probably exceed the 0.4m lowering of the groundwater
elevations predicted by the Report. They also questioned the
thoroughness of the groundwater assessment, noting unexplained
conflicts with information provided in other technical
assessments undertaken in the area.
2.7.2 Preliminary Environmental Overview
2.7.2.1 Authority Staff identified the numerous groundwater seepage
zones along the valley slope of Farewell Creek as being
critical to the maintenance of the coldwater fish habitat
adjacent to and downstream of the plan area. They questioned
how the volume and distribution of base of slope discharge to
the creek would be maintained or enhanced given the reduction
in baseflow, the interception of groundwater by foundation
drains and a general lowering of the groundwater elevation as
identified by the hydrogeological report. They indicated a
concern that the proposal will result in the destruction of
fish habitat, given the predicted loss of baseflow and the
lack of analysis of thermal impacts.
2.7.2.2 Authority Staff noted that the report does not provide any
real evaluation of the impact of the new population on
Farewell Creek, and that environmental considerations have not
been properly evaluated in terms of the constraints that they
may place on development. They noted, for example, that the
ability of the naturalized corridor along the intermittent
tributary to improve connectivity for wildlife would be
REPORT NO.: PD-17-95' PAGE 9
undermined:by the stormwater management pond adjacent to
Farewell Creek and the level road crossings.
2.7.2.3 It is Authority Staff's opinion that the tableland forest had
been removed in anticipation of objections to the development
proposal based on the site's environmental sensitivity.
2.7.3 Conceptual Servicing Report
2.7.3.1 It was noted that the Courtice Storm Water Management Plan
( CSWMP), approved in 1980, makes no accommodation for run -of,f
from development areas beyond the 1976 Regional Official Plan
urban boundary for Courtice. A re- examination of the CSWMP
carried out by consultants for the Authority in 1989 -1991
concluded that both flooding and erosion within the Farewell
Creek system have actually been aggravated by the CSWMP. The
recommended off -line ponding sites have limited peak flows
from adjacent developing lands to pre - development levels.
However, the period of peak discharge from these ponds appears
to coincide with the larger peak discharge from upstream
areas, which has resulted in slightly increased downstream
peak flows and erosion. This emphasizes the need to plan such
controls on a watershed basis to ensure their effectiveness.
2.7.3.2 CLOCA Staff stated that the development proposal would add
additional flows into a storm water management system which
has already been found to be ineffective and a cause of
increased flood levels in the downstream reach of Farewell
Creek. The Authority's Staff concluded that the storm water
management concept for the Farewell Creek Community does not
meet the Authority's objectives in storm water management
since it.is neither comprehensive on a sub - watershed basis nor
does it assess its impacts on the watershed.
2.7.3.3 The Authority adopted a resolution in October 1994 directing
.staff to meet with Clarington staff to determine the feasibility
of undertaking a watershed plan for the Farewell Creek
watershed.
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 10
3. STAFF COMMENTS
3.1 Staff have reviewed the technical documents submitted in
support of Application OPA 93 -002 /C in order to provide
comments on their adequacy, as requested by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs in their letter.
3.2 Development Concept
3.2.1 The Development Concept Report provides a conceptual site
design for the proposed neighbourhood. If and when the
Minister renders his decision on the Deferral Area, staff will
review the concept design and detail all the land use
components within the new neighbourhood and incorporate such
in the Clarington Official Plan. At this time it is premature
for the Municipality to provide comments on detailed site
design until the principle of development has been
established.
3.3 Preliminary Environmental Overview
3.3.1 The subject site was classified by the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority, through its Environmental Sensitivity
Mapping Project, as 'moderate to high' and 'high'
environmental sensitivity, due in part to the high water table
conditions, groundwater recharge function, location in the
Farewell Creek watershed (coldwater fishery), and the presence
of significant vegetation /wildlife features and corridor
linkages. Most of the tableland forest was cleared prior to
the environmental overview being conducted in Fall 1992 and
Summer 1993.
3.3.2 A significant shortcoming of the Environmental Report is that
it assessed the environmental sensitivity of the subject site
in its current degraded and disturbed state. This is
reflected in the Report classifying most of the site as having
limited or no sensitivity to development. The Farewell Creek
valley, which now exists as an isolated environmental remnant,
was identified as the only significant and sensitive
1LIU
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 11
environmental feature associated with the site. The Report
does not adequately address how the loss of the forest cover
and the resulting reduction in groundwater recharge and
baseflow contribution to the creek, as well as the loss of
connectivity to other wildlife habitat, has impacted the
environmental value of the Farewell Creek valley. The Report
should have conducted its assessment on the basis of the
site's environmental condition prior to the clearance of the
tableland forest, and how these features and their
ecologically valuable functions could be restored.
3.3.3 The report does not meet the requirements of the Durham
Regional Official Plan which states that the Region, in
consultation with the Municipality shall undertake an
"independent" study and assess potential "cumulative impacts ".
3.4 Hydrogeological Assessment
3.4.1 We concur with the comments by the Conservation Authority that
the impact of the proposed development on the baseflow
contribution from the subject site to Farewell Creek was not
properly addressed in the Hydrogeological Assessment. In
particular, we question the statement in the Report that the
proposed development is not expected to have a discernable
impact on the volume of baseflow received by Farewell Creek
from the shallow aquifer on the subject lands.
3.4.2 We note that this statement is inconsistent with well -
understood impacts of urban development on groundwater
recharge and baseflow, due to the greater area of impermeable
surface and loss of vegetative cover. We also doubt that the
water management measures proposed, such as the foundation
drain system, would successfully mimic the natural pattern and
volume of baseflow contributed to the creek from the plan
area.
- 1'I I
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 12
3.5 Conceptual Servicing Report
3.5.1 Staff agree with the assessment of the Conservation Authority
and the Public Works Department that a storm water management
plan for the subject area needs to be developed in the context
of a watershed plan for the whole of the Farewell Creek
watershed, rather than on a site specific basis as provided in
the Servicing Report. This is of particular importance given
the apparent deficiencies with the Courtice Storm Water
Management Plan and the failure of any of the technical
reports to properly address the impact of development on the
coldwater fishery in Farewell Creek.
3.5.2 We note that the final alignment of Adelaide Avenue has not
yet been determined and will be subject to a Class
Environmental Assessment which has not yet been undertaken.
We also note that the Public Works Department has indicated
that a number of external site improvements may be required to
serve this site. We question whether these improvements can
be justified given the limited population to be served. In
this regard, a Traffic Impact Study and a Financial Analysis
should be submitted to specifically identify the on -site and
external infrastructure improvements required to accommodate
the proposed development, and the financial implications for
the Municipality, including Development Charges.
3.6 The letter from Ministry of Municipal Affairs also requested
the identification of any approaches, policies and /or measures
needed to maintain and /or enhance the quality and quantity of
ground and surface water resources as they relate to the
environmental sensitivity of the Deferral No. 6 lands,
Farewell and Black Creeks and the Second Marsh. Staff are not
able to suggest specific technical measures related to ground
water and surface water maintenance or enhancement. However,
the following approaches may assist in accomplishing these
objectives:
• the preparation of a Watershed Study for the
Black /Farewell Creek watershed;
REPORT NO.: D -17 -95 PAGE 13
special design considerations to ensure maintenance of
baseflow to Farewell Creek;
• long term monitoring of cumulative impacts on Farewell
Creek and the coldwater fishery.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not concur with
Council's resolution to utilize the 30 year urban boundary for
Courtice as a means to address water problems on Courtice
Road, noting there is no evidence that such action would
resolve the problem. If Council wishes to specifically
address the problem, it would be appropriate to request the
Regional Health Department to identify the scope of the
problem and potential solutions.
4.2 The Region has indicated that the subject lands were included
in their 30 year land budget since it was prepared subsequent
to the adoption of the 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan
during the discussions on the "structure" versus 1130 year"
approach to the Plan. This response would not appear to
address the issue of the 20 year urban boundary as requested
by the Ministry's letter.
4.3 Staff find that the studies do not adequately address the
principle of development for the Deferral Area 6 lands with
respect to the protection of Farewell Creek and the Second
Marsh, which is most appropriately addressed through a
watershed planning study.
4.4 It is premature to address the adequacy of the studies with
respect to details of developing this community prior to the
key issues related to the principle of development and
environmental protection.
REPORT NO.: PD -17 -95 PAGE 14
4.5 The preparation of a comprehensive watershed study for the
Farewell /Black Creek watershed and the implementation of
long -term cumulative impact monitoring for the watershed are
possible approaches to address the environmental sensitivity
of this area. However, staff is not advocating the
expenditure of public funds to finance such a watershed study.
Respectfully submitted,
Reviewed by,
C�<,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. W.H. Stockwell
Director of Planning Chief Administrative
and Development Officer
JAS *DC *FW *df
13 February 1995
Attachments:
No.
1 -
Letter
from Ministry of Municipal
Affairs
No.
2 -
Key Map
No.
3 -
Summary
of Technical Reports
No.
4 -
Letter
from Regional Commissioner
of Planning
No.
5
- Public
Works Department comments
on technical reports
Interested
parties to
be notified of Council and
Committee's decision:
Oshawa, Ontario. L1 H 3T3
Mr. Bill Manson
W.D.M. Consultants
20 Clematis Road
Willowdale, Ontario.
M2J 4X2
Mr. Stan Racansky
Friends of the Farewell
3200 Hancock Road
Courtice, Ontario.
L1 E 2M1
Mr. Donald Wright
Resources Planner
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
100 Whiting Avenue
Courtice and Area Community Association
Mr. Brad Greentree
95 Devondale Street
Courtice, Ontario.
L1 R 2A1
Mr. Mark Foley
Kingsberry Properties
319 College Avenue
P.O. Box 11
Oshawa, Ontario.
L1 H 7K8
�f'i�
REPORT PD-17-95 PAGE 15
Mr. John Bousfield Garritano Bros. Ltd.
Bousfield, Dale- Harris, Cutler and Mr. Nicola Provenzano
Smith Inc. 881 Nelson Street
3 Church Street Oshawa, Ontario.
Toronto, Ontario. L1 H 5N7
M5E 1 M2
Darren and Audrey Andres
William Tonno Construction Ltd.
3612 Trulls Road North
650 King Street East
R.R. #3
Suite 215
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Oshawa, Ontario.
L1C 3K4
L1 H 1G5
777 Bay Street
Tibor and Geraldine Kamondy
Jacinto Delgado
Mr. Robert Solitz
3644 Trulls Road
8 Munday Crt.
Courtice, Ontario.
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1 E 2L3
L1C 4R7
John Russell
John and Isabella Sklavos
Marily Knihnisky
18 Danbury Crt.
3666 Trulls Road
Markham, Ontario.
Courtice, Ontario.
L3R 7R9
L1 E 2L3
Ms. Anita Waytough Lawrence and Cynthia Chupa
3536 Trulls Road 3698 Trulls, Road
Courtice, Ontario. Courtice, Ontario.
L1 E 21_2 L1 E 2L3
Gary and Kathleen Norwick Mr. and Mrs. Witzke
3630 Trulls Road R.R. #3
Courtice, Ontario. Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1 E 2L3 L1C 3K4
Ruby Luke
Ms. Diana Jardine, Director
R.R. #3
Plans Administration Branch
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Central and Southwest
L1C 3K4
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
777 Bay Street
Tibor and Geraldine Kamondy
14th Floor
R.R. #3
Toronto, Ontario.
Bowmanville, Ontario.
M5G 2E5
L1C 3K4
Mr. Jim Barker
Reginald and Barbara Post District Manager, GTA
3518 Trulls Road Ministry of Natural Resources
Courtice, Ontario. P.O. Box 7400
L1 E 21_2 Maple, Ontario.
L6A 1 S9
REPORT .D PAGE 16
Mr. Stanley Janusas
Nanci Henri
Ministry of Environment
3822 Trulls Road North
7 Overlea Blvd.
Bowmanville, Ontario.
4th Floor
L1 C 3K4
Toronto, Ontario.
M4H 1 A8
Kenneth and Micheline Ball
Group 9, Box 20
Devesceri Construction Ltd.
R.R. #6
2 Kresia Lane
Bowmanville, Ontario.
Courtice, Ontario.
L1 C 3K4
L1 E 2G8
Fred and Rosalind Bull
3714 Trulls Road
Courtice, Ontario.
Li E 2L3
John and Mary Pettersen
3768 Trulls Road
Courtice, Ontario.
L1 E 2L3
Clair and Donna Brockman
3820 Trulls Road
Courtice, Ontario.
L1 E 2L3
Theresa Zluktik
R.R. #3, Group 4, Box 3
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1 E 3K4
John and Kerry Meydam
3828 Trulls Road
Courtice, Ontario.
L1 E 2L3
Dennis and James Homeniuk
16 Salter Crt., Box 11
Enniskillen, Ontario.
LOB 1 JO
Mr. Vernon Oneil
Group 4, Box 5
R.R. #3
Bowmanville, Ontario.
L1 C 3K4
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
A population target of 2200 persons was indicated for the neighbourhood, with 529 detached
dwellings and 106 townhouse units. Adelaide Avenue is proposed to run along the existing
northern urban area boundary, with a north -south collector road running through the
neighbourhood between Adelaide Avenue and Pebblestone Road. An elementary school block
and park were identified in the south central portion of the neighbourhood. Two local
commercial sites were proposed at the north and south ends of the collector road (0.39 ha and
1.04 ha respectively). Open Space blocks were identified for the Farewell Creek valley and an
intermittent tributary in the south end.
CONCEPTUAL SERVICING REPORT
Sanitary sewer and water services are proposed to be extended northward from existing urban
development in Neighbourhood 3A.
Minor storm water flows from the proposed community would be conveyed via a storm sewer
under Adelaide Avenue to a water quality pond on the north side of Adelaide Avenue directly
adjacent to Farewell Creek. The quality pond would discharge to a detention pond on the
south side of Adelaide Avenue which is intended to control post - development flows to Farewell
Creek to pre - development levels.
The possible incorporation of a foundation collection system was suggested. This would collect
cool clean groundwater and convey it through the minor drainage system to discharge with
surface storm water into Farewell Creek.
The possible use of infiltration techniques to enhance baseflow to Farewell Creek was also
suggested. It was noted' however, that the fine - grained sub - surface soils and shallow
groundwater table would minimize their effectiveness.
Major overland storm water flows from the proposed community would be conveyed within
roadway structures, and would flow to the water quantity pond before discharge to Farewell
E7
Page 2..
Creek using a soft (non- engineered) outfall within the channel of an existing tributary. It was
indicated that the use of a common outfall for all storm water would avoid the need for
additional discharges to the Farewell Creek valley.
An open space block along the existing intermittent watercourse through the site would
accommodate overland flow from a 75 ha drainage area east of Trulls Road. An engineered
channel would convey these flows directly to Farewell Creek.
HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT
The Report identified three main aquifers below the study area. The shallow overburden aquifer
within the granular mantle represents the principal aquifer for domestic water supply to area
wells and provides baseflow to Farewell Creek. Stable groundwater levels ranged from 0.15
m to 1.2 m below grade. The aquifer systems within the deeper glacial till and bedrock provide
baseflow directly to Lake Ontario and are not locally significant.
Recharge into the shallow aquifer occurs mainly from direct incident precipitation on the site.
The Report indicated that the development of the proposed community is not expected to have
a discernable impact on the volume of baseflow received by Farewell Creek from the shallow
aquifer. Also, the loss in baseflow attributable to the proposed development was estimated to
result in less than a 3% flow reduction in Farewell Creek related to summer flows.
Of the 38 private wells within and adjacent to the proposed community, 12 are shallow bored
or dug wells less than 4.5 m deep and would be would be within 75 m of buried services.
These wells would be considered sensitive to possible future impact.
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
The biophysical features of the plan area were evaluated and assigned a priority class from 1
(high) to 5 (low). Recommendations for the management of biophysical features were
developed based on the assigned priority class.
The Farewell Creek valley was identified as the most significant feature in the plan area. It is
well- defined and heavily forested with steep slopes. Numerous groundwater seepage zones
occur along the valley slope which contribute groundwater discharge to the creek. Due to
removal of the tableland forest cover, it remains as the only significant wildlife habitat in the
r5l x-
Farewell Creek also provides important habitat for a variety of resident and spawning coldwater
fish species. The preservation of the coldwater fish habitat adjacent to and downstream of the
plan area is dependent upon the maintenance and enhancement of baseflow, the coldwater
temperature regime, and stream morphology and character, as well as protection from
sediment, nutrient and contaminant loading.
The Farewell Creek valley was assigned a priority class of 1. The valley and its features are to
be protected with no encroachment by development permitted. It is proposed to dedicate the
valley and an adjoining top -of -bank buffer to the appropriate public authority.
Due to the clearing of the forests on the tableland adjacent to Farewell Creek, a previous
wildlife habitat linkage between Farewell Creek valley and the Trulls Road - Courtice Road Woods
to the east was eliminated. Only a few isolated and disturbed woodland remnants remain,
which offer limited potential for wildlife habitat. Residential development would further isolate
these remnant stands and limit their ecological function.
These remnant woodlands were assigned a priority class of 3 which indicates that these areas
are less sensitive to development, with a greater degree of intrusion and /or alteration permitted.
These woodlands are generally not well - suited for passive recreational use or tree preservation.
The Report suggested that a secondary habitat linkage could be created along the southern
drainage swale.
Most of the plan area was identified as possessing limited or no constraints to development,
and was assigned a priority class of 4 or 5. These areas included disturbed fields and cleared
woodlands.
1Li��
1
Ministry of Ministere des
Municipal Affaires
Affairs municipales
Ontario
December 5, 1994
Mr. A. Georgieff
Commissioner of Planning
Regional Municipality of Durham
Box 623
1615 Dundas Street East
Lang Tower,,West Building
4th Floor
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3
Dear Mr. gieff:
DEC 3 2 4
MUNICIPALITY OF GLA.piNGTON
PLANNING 0EPA1;1 PJ1[-'. y 1`
Re: Deferral No. 6 to the Official Plan for the Region
of Durham (1991) and the north Courtice area
Ministry File No.: 18 -OP -0012
In the approval of the Durham Region Official Plan
(DROP) the lands bounded by Farewell Creek, Pebblestone
Road, Trulls Road and the proposed Adelaide Street
extension were deferred (Deferral No. 6). In addition,
the lands immediately adjacent to the east were
referred to the Ontario Municipal Board (Referral
No. 1) .
The lands subject of Deferral No. 6 (and Referral No.
1) were supported by Regional Council for inclusion in
the Courtice Urban Area during the initial adoption of
the Plan. However, in reviewing the background
materials submitted with the Plan it was noted that
neither Region of Durham or Town of Newcastle planning
staff supported the inclusion of these lands within the
Courtice Urban Area.
In assessing this situation in the context of this
background information, the comments from various
agencies and the objectives of the Regional Official
Plan, this Ministry identified two primary concerns.
First, it was noted that all of the subject lands and
much of the surrounding area were identified as
"Environmentally Sensitive Areas" within the DROP.
These lands were described as having significant forest
cover which provided natural habitat and contribute to
the maintenance of ground and surface water quantity
and quality, specifically in relation to the baseflow,
of the Farewell and Black Creeks which are both
coldwater fisheries draining into the environmentally
sensitive and provincially significant Second Marsh.
/2
_2_
It was further noted that the north Courtice area
represented the only urban area anywhere in the Region
completely covered by an "Environmentally Sensitive
Area" designation.
Second, as part of the review of the Plan, there were
extensive discussions between the Region and the
Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Agriculture and
Food regarding the Region's ability to justify all of
the urban areas proposed in the Plan. Given that staff
did not identify a need nor provide any justification
for inclusion of the subject lands, the Ministry
questioned Council's rationale to include them.
Since approval of the Plan, we have convened a meeting
between the Region, Town, CLOCA and the proponents to
assess the facts surrounding this situation. Our
conclusions from that meeting were that there was
disagreement as to the conclusions of the proponents'
technical studies; that significant portions of the
forested area covering these lands had been removed;
and, that despite such deforestation CLOCA still
considered the lands to be environmentally sensitive.
Since adoption of the Plan, the Ministry has also been
advised of ongoing concerns regarding wellwater quality
along Courtice Road to the east. It has been suggested
that approval of the subject lands as "Urban Area"
would assist in bringing piped water to the residents
and institutional uses along Courtice Road.
More recently, on July 18, 1994 Clarington Council
passed a resolution requesting that the Ministry
support a 30 year urban area boundary in the Clarington
Official Plan in order to facilitate resolution of the
water problem along Courtice Road even though the
Courtice Road area would not be included within the
urban area boundary.
Having considered these matters, I offer the following
comments. First, although completely supportive of the
need to address potential health.hazards arising from
quality problems with wellwater supplies along Courtice
Road it has not been demonstrated that such an action
would assist in resolving the situation. Further,
neither the DROP or this Ministry's policies permit
area municipalities to designate more than 20 years of
lands for development. As a result, we do not support
the use of a 30 year urban area boundary within the
Clarington Official Plan.
/3
1 «1
l -3- ,
Second, by copy of this letter we request confirmation
from the Region, the Municipality, CLOCA, MNR and MOEE
as to the adequacy of the proponents' technical
reports. In addition, we request the identification of
any approaches, policies and /or measures needed to
maint in and /or enhance the quality and quantity of the
ground and surface water resources as they relate to
the environmental, sensitivity of these lands, Farewell
and Black Creeks and the Second Marsh.
Third, justification for inclusion of the subject lands
is required, particularly given recent land budget
analyses being undertaken by Clarington in support of
its new official plan. The justification for inclusion
of these lands as urban area should be undertaken in
the context of both the Courtice urban area and
Clarington as a whole in the context of a 20 year urban
area boundary for the municipality's urban areas.
In closing, we would be pleased to meet to discuss
these matters in detail and will be in contact to
ensure you are in possession of the proponents'
technical studies. If you have any questions, please
call Victor Doyle at (416) 585 -6064.
Yours truly,
—b) I
Diana Jar. ine, M.C.I.P.
Director
Plans Administration Branch
Central and Southwest
c.c. F. Wu, Municipality of Claringtont
D. Wright, CLOCA
J. Barker, Ministry of Natural Resources
S. Janusas, Ministry of Environment and Energy
W. Manson
M. Foley
D. Martin
Mr. Gord Mills, MPP Durham East
Attachment No.
%/%
................ . . . . .i, ...... ,
oil
•� r
•
P. •
1
Attachment No. 3
DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
A population target of 2200 persons was indicated for the neighbourhood,
with 529 detached dwellings and 106 townhouse units. Adelaide Avenue is
proposed to run along the existing northern urban area boundary, with a
north -south collector road running through the neighbourhood between
Adelaide Avenue and Pebblestone Road. An elementary school block and
park were identified in the south central portion of the neighbourhood.
Two local'commercial sites were proposed at the north and south ends of
the collector road (0.39 ha and 1.04 ha respectively). Open Space
blocks were identified for the Farewell Creek valley and an intermittent
tributary in the south end.
CONCEPTUAL SERVICING REPORT
Sanitary sewer and water services are proposed to be extended northward
from existing urban development in Neighbourhood 3A.
Minor storm water flows from the proposed community would be conveyed
via a storm sewer under Adelaide Avenue to a water quality pond on the
north side of Adelaide Avenue directly adjacent to Farewell Creek. The
quality pond would discharge to a detention pond on the south side of
Adelaide Avenue which is intended to control post- development flows to
Farewell Creek to pre- development levels.
The possible incorporation of a foundation collection system was
suggested. This would collect cool clean groundwater and convey it
through the minor drainage system to discharge with surface storm water
into Farewell Creek.
The possible use of infiltration techniques to enhance baseflow to
Farewell Creek was also suggested. It was noted however, that the fine -
grained sub - surface soils and shallow groundwater table would minimize
their effectiveness.
2 21
Major overland storm water flows from the proposed community would be
conveyed within roadway structures, and would flow to the water quantity
pond before discharge to Farewell Creek using a soft (non- engineered)
outfall within the channel of an existing tributary. It was indicated
that the use of a common outfall for all storm water would avoid the
need for additional discharges to the Farewell Creek valley.
An open space block along the existing intermittent watercourse through
the site would accommodate overland flow from a 75 ha drainage area east
of Trulls Road. An engineered channel would convey these flows directly
to Farewell Creek.
HYDROGEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT
The Report identified three main aquifers below the study area. The
shallow overburden aquifer within the granular mantle represents the
principal aquifer for domestic water supply to area wells and provides
baseflow to Farewell Creek. Stable groundwater levels ranged from 0.15
m to 1.2 m below grade. The aquifer systems within the deeper glacial
till and bedrock provide baseflow directly to Lake Ontario and are not
locally significant.
Recharge into the shallow aquifer occurs mainly from direct incident
precipitation on the site. The Report indicated that the development
of the proposed community is not expected to have a discernable impact
on the volume of baseflow received by Farewell Creek from the shallow
aquifer. Also, the loss in baseflow attributable to the proposed
development was estimated to result in less than a 3% flow reduction in
Farewell Creek related to summer flows.
Of the 38 private wells within and adjacent to the proposed community,
12 are shallow bored or dug wells less than 4.5 m deep and would be
would be within 75 m of buried services. These wells would be
considered sensitive to possible future impact.
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW
The biophysical features of the plan area were evaluated and assigned a
priority class from 1 (high) to 5 (low) . Recommendations for the
management of biophysical features were developed based on the assigned
priority class.
The Farewell Creek valley was identified as the most significant feature
in the plan area. It is well - defined and heavily forested with steep
slopes. Numerous groundwater seepage zones occur along the valley slope
which contribute groundwater discharge to the creek. Due to removal of
the tableland forest cover, it remains as the only significant wildlife
habitat in the area.
Farewell Creek also provides important habitat for a variety of resident
and spawning coldwater fish species. The preservation of the coldwater
fish habitat adjacent to and downstream of the plan area is dependent
upon the maintenance and enhancement of baseflow, the coldwater
temperature regime, and stream morphology and character, as well as
protection from sediment, nutrient and contaminant loading.
The Farewell Creek valley was assigned a priority class of 1. The
valley and its features are to be protected with no encroachment by
development permitted. It is proposed to dedicate the valley and an
adjoining top -of -bank buffer to the appropriate public authority.
Due to the clearing of the forests on the tableland adjacent Farewell
Creek, a previous wildlife habitat linkage between Farewell Creek valley
and the Trulls Road - Courtice Road Woods to the east was eliminated.
Only a few isolated and disturbed woodland remnants remain, which offer
limited potential for wildlife habitat. Residential development would
further isolate these remnant stands and limit their ecological
function.
These remnant woodlands were assigned a priority class of 3 which
indicates that these areas are less sensitive to development, with a
greater degree of intrusion and /or alteration permitted. These
woodlands are generally not well - suited for passive recreational use or
tree preservation. The Report suggested that a secondary habitat
linkage could be created along the southern drainage swale.
Most of the plan area was identified as possessing limited or no
constraints to development, and was assigned a priority class of 4 or 5.
These areas included disturbed fields and cleared woodlands.
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGT
Memorandum
MUNICIPALI?Y Q1= CL :PIftr,TON
PLANNING D-E-FAriTlltEidTT.
Attachment No 4.
To: Janice Szwarz, Senior Planner, Strategic Planning Branch
From: A.S. Cannella, Manager of Engineering, Public Works
Date: January 10, 1995 (Revised February 8, 1995)
Subject: DEFERRAL NO. 6 TO THE REGION OF DURHAM O.P. (1991)
COURTICE NORTH NEIGHBOURHOOD 3D
FAREWELL CREEK COMMUNITY
(TONNO ET AL.)
We have reviewed the preliminary technical reports submitted by
the proponent and feel that, though preliminary in nature, the
following concerns must be addressed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works prior to the submission of a Draft Plan
for approval.
1. That a watershed study addressing stormwater management and
water.quality issues for the ENTIRE watershed be submitted
to this department, the Ministry of Natural Resources and
the Central-Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for review
and approval. This report should address the groundwater
baseflow to Farewell Creek, minor and major flood routing,
and water quality as it relates to fish and riparian
habitat.
2. That proposed future development patterns within this
watershed be confirmed in order to tie in with the
development plans for this proposal.
The addition of this development to North Courtice will increase
the amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the proximity
of the proposed development. We anticipate that Pebblestone
Road, Trull's Road and Adelaide Avenue may require upgrades to
existing roads, sidewalks and street illumination, in order to
properly accommodate this development and the increased traffic
it will bring about. Some of the anticipated improvements are
not included in the Municipality's Development Charge Study.
3. This development cannot proceed until any and all
improvement works to roads, sidewalks and street
.../2
1 2,2-
-2-
illumination, which are necessary to properly facilitate
this development, have been included in the Municipality's
Development Charge Study, and until such time as the
Municipality has budgeted and allocated funds for all of the
necessary upgrades and improvements.
4. The developer will be responsible to submit a Traffic Impact
Study which assesses the impact of the proposed development
on vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The study must
identify any and all improvements external to the
development, which are necessary to properly accommodate
this development within the existing infrastructure of
Courtice.
5. The location and alignment of future Adelaide Avenue has
not yet been approved. This development cannot proceed
until the final alignment is approved by the Municipality
and the Region. The final approval process of the
Adelaide Avenue construction will involve an Environmental
Assessment.
6. That the proposed draft plans be adjusted to reflect the
recommendations of the Preliminary Environmental Overview.
The proposed revision shall include the preservation of both
Farwewell Creek tributary drainage channels providing a
natural link to the north /east and east between Farewell
Creek /Trull's Courtice Woods /Bowmanville Creek. The
ultimate design of these drainage channels should include
the replacement of riparian habitat.
7. That the proposed draft plans should be reviewed and
adjusted to provide the minimum buffer zone between the
Farewell Creek top of bank and the development zone per
Ministry of Natural Resources requirements.
Should this amendment be approved, additional comments regarding
the final design requirements will be addressed upon receipt of a
preliminary Draft Plan addressing the above comments.
If you have any questions regarding the above - mentioned, please
contact the undersigned or Nick Colucci.
Yours truly,
A.S. Cannella, C.E.T.
Manager of Engineering
ASC /NPC
12 -29
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning
Department
Box 623
1615 Dundas St. E.
41h Floor Lang Tower
West Building
January 18, 1995
Ms, Diana Jardine
Plans Administration Branch
Ministry. of Municipal Affairs
777 Bay Street, 14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2E5.
,J
JAN '1 9
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ORIGINAL BY tVli,
COPY BY FAX
Attachment Nop .5 .
Whitby, Ontario Dear Ms. Jardine;
Canada L1 N 6A3
()
Fax (905) 43616612 Re; Deferral No. 6 to the Durham Regional Official Plan
AL Georgieft, M.c.i.P: and the North Courtice Area
Commissioner Ministry File No.; 18 -OP -0012
eof:Planning File: 4.17.1 Please Quote Ref. No.: :Sd 900Z
Further to *your correspondence dated December 5i 1994,: we wish to confirm the
support of Regional Council for inclusion of lands subject of Deferral No. 6 (and
Referral No. l) within the Courtice urban Area.
Regarding *the technical reports. prepared on behalf of the- land. owners within Deferral
No, 6, we have reviewed the "Conceptual Servicing Report for Farewell Creek
Community" prepared by D.G. Biddle.& Associates Limited: 'We are in general
agreement with the conclusions of this report as they relate to'thelssues of sanitary
sewerage and water distribution. Trunk sanitary sewer capacity appears. to be adequate
and local sanitary sewers are marginally deficient only in a few areas.
Regarding the "Preliminary Environmental Overview" prepared by Ecoplans Limited
and the "Hydrogeologic Assessment" prepared by Walter H. Gibson & Associates Ltd.,, '
we understand that staff of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation. Authority, Ministry
of Natural Resources and Ministry of Environment and Energy will be providing you
with their technical assessment:
In the event that the subject lands are included within the Urban Area, an
environmental impact study in accordance with Section 2.3.17 of the Durham Regional '
Official Plan will be a prerequisite for any development proposal, since there is an
Indication of. environmentally sensitive area on Map A5 of the Plan.
Regarding the justification for inclusion of the subject lands, in context of the land
budget analysis, the Region's urban land supply calculations have consistently included
-the acreage for the lands subject to Deferral No. 6 since.-they were part of.the Council_
adopted Official Plan. since June 5, 1991.
i
Printed by Marie Knight 3/03/95 12:47pm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Szwarz CONFIRMED
To: Marie Knight
Subject: Report PD -17 -95 (Municipal Comments on Deferral Area 6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==== NOTE____ ___________ 2/27/95
Please add the following name to the list of interested parties for the
above - referenced report:
Mr. Yugo Costanzo
4131 Trulls Road
R.R. # 3
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3K4
Thanks