Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-149-89DN: hamlet i TOWN OF NEWCASTLE File # c, Res. # By -Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, June 19, 1989 REPORT #: PD- 149 -89 FILE #: 85 -33/N SU&JECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 9 - HAMLETS AMENDMENT NO. 22 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON (NOW REFERRED TO AS THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE) RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD- 149 -89 be received, 2. THAT Modifications No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 to the deferred Section 9 of the Town of Newcastle Official Plan as proposed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in a letter dated May 11, 1989 to Dr. M. Michael, be endorsed; 3. THAT Modification 6A (Parkland Symbols), save and except as it applies to the Hamlet of Haydon be endorsed; 4. THAT Modification 6B (Possible Access Points Symbols) not be endorsed; 5. THAT additional modifications contained in Attachment #3 to Report PD- 149 -89 be approved; and 4. THAT the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Region of Durham be so advised and forwarded a copy of Report PD- 149 -89. 599 21 REPORT NO.: PD-14989 PAGE 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kvlvnnn��° 1.1 The provisions of the Town of Newcastle Official Plan related to Hamlets were deferred for further consideration by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs at the time of approval of Amendment No. 22 to the official Plan for the former Township of Darlington. These provisions were reviewed in conjunction with the resolution of the servicing needs for the Hamlet of Newtonville. A revision to the Hamlet Plan policies was approved by Town Council and subsequently by Regional Council on January 11, 1989. 1.2 The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is nearing completion of their review of the Hamlet Plan policies. On May 11, 1989, the Ministry forwarded their preliminary comments on the Hamlet Plan policies and proposed several minor modifications (Attachment #1). In addition, the Ministry forwarded the comments of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority which proposed additional modifications (Attachment #2). 2. COMMENTS: 2.1 The proposed modifications of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are mostly of a technical nature with a view to clarifying the text. As such, Staff have no concerns and recommend that the modifications No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 be endorsed. 2.2 Ministry modification #6 proposes two changes to the Land Use Schedules. In Modification #6(a) the Ministry has recommended that the references to "Neighbourhood Parks" be deleted and replaced with "Community Parks" so as to be consistent with the Parkland policies. Revisions to the parkland policies are also deferred by the Ministry at the present time but approval is expected shortly. The Parkland Policies, as revised, identify Community Parks in the Hamlets of Burketon, Enniskillen, Hampton, Kendal, Orono, Mitchell's Corners, Newtonville, Solina and Tyrone. Consequently, Staff concur with the Ministry's modification in this regard, save and except for Haydon. The park in Haydon should remain identified as only a "Neighbourhood Park". ...3 REPORT 00.: 9D-149-89 PAGE 3 ______________________________________________________________________________ 2.3 A further modification # 6(b) is proposed to the Land Use Schedules to delete references to "Possible Access Points". The concern of the Ministry is that such detail may lead to a cumbersome amendment process for relatively minor details which can be determined in the process of preparing plans of subdivision or processing consents. While this concern is valid, Staff's opinion is that the orderly development of hamlets in depth is facilitated most readily through the predesignation of the most appropriate access points. In this regard, the almuboIio representation of "Possible &ooeoa Points" has been most helpful in discussions with hamlet landowners. ZL is the proposal of staff that a further section be added to the Hamlet Plan policies to assist with the interpretation of the document and this symbol specifically. The proposed modification would identify lot lines, the street pattern and "Possible &oceoa Points" as only references which could be altered without the necessity of an amendment to the Plan. It is Staff's opinion that such a modification would meet the concerns raised by the Ministry. 2.4 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority submitted oononeuto on the proposed Hamlet policies. Many of the ooucecuo raised by the C.L.O.C.&. ( are matters which are under review either through the Hampton and Orono Secondary Plan studies or through the review of the Durham Regional Official Plan. At this time, Staff ceoonxneod only one further modification as a ceooIt of C.L.O.C.&.'a comments. C.L.0.C.&. has suggested that Section 9.4(iv) be amended to ensure that in the consideration of development within the "Long Term Residential Expansion Areas" proponents prepare a more comprehensive Engineering Report. At the present time' the Engineering Report is to address "any possible servicing impacts that additional growth could have no the existing and designated development areas of the Hamlet". C.L.O.C.A. is ...4 [OO �7 J// L� REPORT 00.: PD-149-89 P&OB 4 _______________________________________________________________________________ concerned that such a report abVold also examine any possible impacts on the fIoodpIaioa and receiving watercourses which are designated as "Areas subject to Development Restrictions". It is recommended that a further modification be made to Section 9.4(iv) as contained in Attachment No. 3. Respectfully submitted, Director of Planning & Development DJC*FW*'' *Attach. June 8' 1989 �U0 �A J// �I f Recommended for presentation to the Committee Kotoeff ,�awrence E. Chief Administrative Officer Ministry of UVMunicipal Affairs Ontario Ministere des Affaires municipales May 11, 1989 Dr. M. Michael Commissioner of Planning Regional Municipality of Durham 105 Consumers Drive Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 ATTACHMENT N0. 1 777 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 E , zp vAAY 17 1989 /,/ / / / C 777, rue Bay Toronto (Ontario) M5G 2E5 u.'XrLTMENT Dear Dr. Michael: Re: Revisions to Section 9 - Hamlets of Amendment No. 22 to the Official Plan for the former Township of Darlington (now referred to as the Official Plan for the Town of Newcastle) Regional File No.: 85 -33 Ministry File No.: 18 -OP- 0994 -022 Enclosed please find our preliminary comments on the Hamlet policies which were recently submitted to us as "Appendix II to Addendum No. 2 to Commissioner's Report No. 88- 140 ", in addition to the comments received from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. We would appreciate receiving your comments on the modifications being suggested and by copy of this letter, we are requesting same from the Town of Newcastle. We also wish to acknowledge receipt of Mr. C.W. Lundy's letter dated April 20, 1989, requesting a modification to the Hamlet of Enniskilllen Secondary Plan. To assist us in our review of the Town and Region's request, we would appreciate being provided with a copy of the agency comments received with respect to the proposed modification. 599 25 /2 - 2 - Dr. M. Michael Additional revisions may be submitted to you in the future, as comments have not yet been received from the Ministry of the Environment, Ontario Hydro and Ministry of Transportation's Rail Office. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Francoise Caron at 585 -6067. Yours truly, U Brian Nixon Senior Planner Plans Adminstration Branch Central and Southwest Encl. C.C. Mr. F. Wu, Planning Director, Town of i- Newcastle 599 26 PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE REVISIONS TO SECTION 9 - HAMLETS OF AMENDMENT NO. 22 TO THE NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN 1. Section 9.2 ii) We suggest that the words "with a total of" be replaced with "with a growth limit of ". 2. Section 9.4 vii) We suggest that the word "All" be added at the start of the sentence. 3. Section 9.5 i) We suggest that the word "residential" be introduced after the words "may be permitted within any". :> 4. Section 9.6 ii) We suggest that the word "Minor" be inserted at the start of the sentence. 5. Section 9.9 iv) The words "subject to development restrictions" should be deleted and replaced with the following: "identified as being "Subject to Development Restrictions " ". 6. Schedules: a) References to "Neighbourhood Parks" and the related symbol, should be deleted and replaced with "Community Parks" and an appropriate symbol, to ensure consistency with the Parkland policies. b) References to "Possible Access Points" and \I�_ the related symbol should be deleted. 599 27 LAKE O I !�, 0 ATTACHMENT N0. 2 March 22, 1989• Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Plans Administration Branch, 777 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2E5 AUTHORITY FAX: (416) 579 -0994 REF NO. j — V JZU MAR 29 1989 MIhY�MUIy Pq� AFFAIRS Attention: Francoise Caron, Area Planner Dear Madam: Subject: Proposed Hamlet Policies for the Town of Newcastle Official Plan, Ministry File No. 18 -OP -0994 -022 Authority staff have reviewed the revised policies of section 9, Hamlets of the Newcastle Official Plan and provide the following comments. Please be advised, as schedule 9 -6 and sections 9.2 (ii), 9.4 (ix), 9.10 (ii) and (iii) are specific to areas outside of this Authority's watershed boundary, no comments are offered on these policies'. Section 9.1 indicates those hamlets, as identified in the Regional Official Plan, for which Hamlet Secondary Plans may be prepared. This section also proposes that with the exception of schedules 9- 1 to 9 -6, which are introduced as Hamlet Secondary Plans, the delineation of hamlet limits, land use structure and development areas, shall be defined in future Secondary Plans and adopted by amendment to the Newcastle Official Plan. Until a Secondary Plan for a hamlet has been adopted, section 9.3 restricts residential growth to infi]ling and minor extensions to existing development; with the exception of Burketon Station (schedule 9 -2) and Enniskillen (schedule 9 -3) , which have been designated as 'Hamlets for growth' through section 9.2. 599 28 CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Ministry of Municipal Affairs March 22, 1989 Attention: Francoise Caron Page 2 We generally agree with the intent of these policies to restrict major residential expansion within hamlets until the overall land use structure and growth limits have been defined through a Hamlet Secondary Plan. This approach provides the opportunity for the Authority to express any concerns that may arise with a specific Secondary Plan, through the provisions of section 10.4.2.2 of the Regional Official Plan. 10.4.2.2 "In preparing a any Hamlet, the area municipalit Regional Council public agencies development plan. Hamlet c Council y shall and with prior levelopment plan for of the respective consult with the any other concerned to adopting such However, unlike section 3.5.4.100 of the Town of Newcastle District Plan, which provides a general guideline for what is to be considered minor infilling and additions to existing development, section 9.3 of the proposed hamlet policies do not offer a similar guideline. Section 3.5.4.1 (iv) Subject to the provisions of Section 3.5.4.2(i) and (vii), the residential development in the remaining Hamlets as designated on Schedule 1 and not mentioned in Section 3.5.4.1 (ii) shall be limited to minor internal infilling and /or minor additions to existing development. For the purpose of this section and as a general guideline minor internal infilling and /or minor additions to existing development shall represent an increase of approximately 25% over the existing number of residential units. The Town may wish to reinstate the guideline of the former plan, or provide some other guideline for infilling and minor extensions to existing development in section 9.3; to assist with the future interpretation of this section, regarding 'Other Hamlets'. It is also noted that section 9.3 only Similar policy statements regarding Hamlets' are not forwarded. Section applicable to hamlets which have ar inclusion of a policy statement, to expansion, in hamlets that do not h Plan, may be appropriate. refers to residential expansion. industrial expansion in 'Other 9.7 (1) (Industrial) is only adopted Secondary Plan. The deal with industrial uses or 3ve the benefit of a Secondary 599 29- cont'd ...... 3 J Ministry of Municipal Affairs Attention: Francoise Caron Section 9.4 Residential Development CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY March 22, 1989 Page 3 All new residential development within Hamlets shall be serviced by a private drilled well, drawing from deeper aquifers than existing wells, and a private waste disposal system which complies with the standards of the Ministry of the Environment as amended from time to time and as administered by the Medical Officer of Health or otherwise. Where a municipal water system exists, new development may be required to connect to same subject to capacity of the system. it would appear that the intent of the above provision is, at least in part, to avoid well draw -down and well /septic cross contamination problems. However, as sections 9.10 (ii) and (iii) of the proposed policies provide specific exceptions to section 9.4 (ii), for the Hamlets of Orono and Newtonville, we must regard section 9.4 (ii) as an all encompassing policy, applicable to all new residential development, unless a specific exception is,stgted. In this regard and with the following reference to section 10.4.2.7 of the Durham Regional Official Plan, we consider it necessary to include a policy which indicates, that within the Hamlet of Hampton, new residential, commercial and industrial development may have to be deferred until such a time as an investigation into providing the hamlet with municipal services has been carried out and the recommendations of the study implemented. 10.4.2.7 In addition to Section 10.4.2.6 Regional Council in co- operation with the Council of the respective area municipality and the Ministry of the Environment, shall continue to investigate the feasibility and desirability of providing municipal services to correct existing water and /or soil pollution problems within the Hamlets of Blackstock, Hampton and Orono. Such investigation shall be undertaken in concert with the preparation of a district plan for the respective Hamlet by the Council of the respective area municipality. (iv) This sub - section requires the submission of a detailed Engineering Report, in support of amendments to permit the development of 'Long Term Residential Expansion Areas'. The focus of the report is " . . . to address water supply, sewage disposal and surface drainage aspects of additional growth" and " . . . should identify any possible servicing impacts that additional growth could have on the existing and designated development areas of the Hamlet." Our principle concern with this policy is its stated limitations; that the impact evaluation is only assessed in terms of existing and designated development areas. �j e ;lr CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Ministry of Municipal Affairs March 22, 1989 Attention: Francoise Caron Page 4 The routing of surface drainage and changes in stormwater runoff rates and volumes, will ultimately impact on receiving watercourses. Contamination of groundwater by septic effluent or changes to groundwater recharge characteristics, may also result in adverse impacts on the quality and quantity of groundwater baseflow contributions, to local watercourses and /or zones of spring discharge. However, as the watercourse and its floodplain area would be contained within the 'Area subject to Development Restrictions' designation, no evaluation of these impacts would be required under the terms section 9.4 (iv). In order for the Engineering Report required by this section to provide a comprehensive evaluation of development impacts caused by the servicing scheme(s) of additional development, the potential impacts on the 'Areas Subject to Development Restrictions' must be included within the scope of the report. 'Areas Subject to Development Restrictions' must have equal status to existing and designated development areas, when identifying potential servicing impacts through the Engineering Report. Section 9.10 Servicin (i) This policy stipulates, that prior to the commencement of any new development within an area designated as 'Residential Expansion' on a Secondary Plan, sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff issues must be addressed, to the satisfaction of the Town of Newcastle and Region of Durham. Further, the" . . . likely impact of the proposed development on existing water supplies within the Hamlet and surrounding area" must also be addressed through an Engineering Report. As with section 9.4 (iv), the focus of the Engineering Report, required by section 9.10 (1) may be too restrictive to provide a truly comprehensive overview of potential development impacts on water related issues. Further, as sections 9.4 (iv) and 9.10 (i) specify that the required studies must be carried out to the satisfaction of the Town and /or the Town and Region; no consultation with, or approval of the Authority is required by these policies. Unless the referred to policies are broadened 'and scope and include the Authority in an approval capacity, we must rely on the opportunity provided through section 10.4.2.2 of the Regional Official Plan to have the Authority's water resource management concerns addressed at the preparation and commenting stage of a Secondary Plan. Although in some instances it is preferable or necessary to resolve stormwater management and other water related issues at a preliminary planning stage, it may not be necessary in all circumstances. However, the policies proposed by sections 9.4 (iv) and 9.10 (i) do not afford the Authority with the flexibility necessary, to ensure these matters can be adequately resolved at a later planning stage; under the hamlet policies governing residential growth. Consequently, the Authority may have to ensure that all water related issues can be resolved, prior to the lands being designated for residential growth in a Secondary Plan. 599 3 1 CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY Ministry of Municipal Affairs March 22, 1989 Attention: Francoise Caron Page 5 Section 9.9 Development Restrictions Section 9.9 (ii) requires hazard lands and environmentally sensitive areas to be accurately defined in zoning by -laws, in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the respective Conservation Authority. Permitted uses, within an area designated as being subject to 'Development Restrictions', as outlined by sub - section (i), are limited to agriculture, conservation and public or private open space, providing the proposed uses are 'compatible with their surroundings and particular site restrictions'. Sub - section (iv), further restricts these permitted uses by prohibiting 'permanent structures or buildings, septic tanks or tile beds'. We generally agree with the policies proposed by section 9.9 (i), (ii) and (iv). These policies will serve to restrict uses within the 'Subject to Development Restrictions' designated areas, to those that are compatible with particular site constraints and are free of structures. However, as the limits of hazard lands and environmentally sensitive areas are to be defined in consultation with the respective Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources, it would seem appropriate to include these agencies with regard to the determination of the compatibility of a proposed use in these areas. Even though sub - section (iii) indicates the Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation Authority will be consulted in establishing building and /or lot line setbacks from the limits of hazard lands and /or environmentally sensitive areas, no similar provision is provided for determining the acceptability of a proposed use wholly within such an area. Given the nature of the lands contained within this designation, it is imperative to involve these agencies in the assessment of the compatibility of a proposed use. Section 9.4 (iii) advances a policy which enables the Town to determine, in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation Authority, building and /or lot line setbacks from hazard lands and /or environmentally sensitive areas, where warranted by site conditions. We view this provision as a progressive policy which allows the physical constraints or amenities of a particular site to be considered not only for the delineation of lot boundaries but also the siting of buildings within the lot. The policies of this sub - section also propose to 'ensure a reasonable degree of flood protection' from watercourses which are not floodplain mapped, by establishing building setbacks; determined in consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Conservation Authority and recognized through zoning by -laws. While we agree that every attempt should be made to ensure that buildings are not subject to flood hazards, it is the policy of the Authority to also discourage lot creation within flood risk areas. Consequently, we would prefer section 9.4 (iii) to state, that minimum building and /or lot line setbacks may be required to ensure a reasonable degree of flood protection. 599 S-2 r' Ministry of Municipal Affairs Attention: Francoise Caron CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY March 22, 1989 Page 6 Secondary Plans (Schedules 9 -1 to 9 -5) Authority staff have previously reviewed the Development Plans represented by schedules 9 -1 to 9 -5 and have no objection to their introduction into the Newcastle Official Plan as Secondary Plans. Thank you for providing the opportunity to review and comment on these proposed policies. Yours very truly, J ' Donald Wright, Resources Planner. DW /klt cc F. Wu, Director of Planning, Town of Newcastle cc J.A. Szwarz, Long Range Planner, Town of Newcastle cc V. Cranmer, Manager, Current Operations Branch, Region of Durham • • r ATTACHMENT N0. 3 ''t *• ► it • • � i • _• •. • • •. i 1. Modify Section 9.4(iv) by deleting the words "existing and designated development areas of the Hamlet" and replacing it with the following: "existing development, the designated development areas of the Hamlet and the receiving watercourses for stormwater run - off ". such that Section 9.4(iv) reads as follows: "In considering amendments to permit development of "Long Term Residential Expansion Areas" Council shall require proponents to prepare a detailed Engineering Report to address water supply, sewage disposal and surface drainage aspects of additional growth. Such Engineering Reports should identify any possible servicing impacts that additional growth could have on the existing development, and designated development areas of the Hamlet and the receiving watercourses for stormwater run - off ". 2. Add a new Section 9.12 "Interpretation" 119.12 Interpretation Street patterns and lot lines are indicated on the Schedule of the Hamlet Secondary Plans for reference purposes only. These features and the "Possible Access Points" may be added, altered, or deleted without the necessity of an amendment to this Plan."