HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-126-95 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DN COURTICE GPA
REPORT 001•UPA .�a-N�oca
PUBLIC MEETING
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # ��,� 9a•U
Date: Monday, November 20, 1995 Res # �°`�
Report #- PD-1 6- s File #: OPA -N/007, DEV 94-067, DEV 92-033 By-law #
Subject: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING APPLICATIONS AND PLANS OF
SUBDIVISION - APPLICANT: COURTICE HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS
PART LOTS 27,28 & 29, CONC. 2 & 3, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
FILES: OPA 92-N/007, DEV 94-067, DEV 92-033 (X/REF: 18T-94027 & 18T-92014)
Recommend tiQns:
is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-126-95 be received;
2. THAT the applications to amend the former Town of Newcastle Official Plan and the
former Town of Newcastle Zoning By-law 84-63 submitted by WDM Consultants on
behalf of Courtice Heights Developments be referred back to Staff for processing and
preparation of a subsequent report pending receipt of all outstanding comments; and
i
3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of
Council's decision.
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
1.1 Applicant: Claret Investments Ltd. and Rexgate Holdings Ltd. (Courtice
Heights Developments)
1 2 Agent: W.D.M. Consultants
1.3 Official Plan Amendment: (see Attachment No.1)
• to increase the target population of Neighbourhood 3C
from 1900 to 3600
• to establish a Neighbourhood Commercial site of 0.4 ha
(1 acre)
• to designate medium and low density residential areas
• to realign the collector road network
• to add Minor Open Space designations, and
• to redefine the Hazard Land Areas.
...2
I
516
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 2
1.4 North Plan of Subdivision - 18T-94027: (see Attachment No.2)
A 175 unit residential plan comprised of*
• 75 single detached units
• 66 semi-detached units
• 34 townhouse units
• 0.1 ha of a future 0.2 ha parkette
• future development blocks
1.5 South Plan of Subdivision - 18T-92014: (see Attachment No 3)
A 127 unit residential plan comprised of:
• 115 single detached units
• 12 semi-detached units
• 1.41 ha of a future 2.43 ha school site
• 0.66 ha of a future 2.20 ha park site
• future development blocks
1.6 Rezoning: from "Agricultural (A)" and "Environmental Protection (EP)" Zone
to appropriate zones to implement the plans of subdivision
1.7 Land Areas: the Official Plan Amendment covers approximately 91 hectares
(225 acres), the north subdivision 9.4 hectares (23 acres) and
the south subdivision 10.8 hectares (26.7 acres)
2. LOCATION
2.1 Legal Descriptions:
• Official Plan Amendment - Part Lots 27 to 29, Concessions 2 and 3,
former Township of Darlington
• North Subdivision - Part Lot 28, Concession 3, former Township of
Darlington
i
• South Subdivision - Part Lot 27, Concession 3, former Township of
Darlington
i
I
3
I
517
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 3
2.2 Relative Locations:
• Neighbourhood 3C is bounded by the Courtice Urban Area boundary
to the north, Black Creek and Highway No. 2 to the south, Hancock
Road to the east and Courtice Road to the west (see Attachment No.
4)
• the north subdivision (18T-94027) fronts on Courtice Road, north of
Nash at the top of the urban area boundary (see Attachment No. 4)
• the south subdivision (18T-92014) is on the north side of Nash Road
between Courtice and Hancock Roads, and has frontage on both Nash
and Hancock Roads (see Attachment No.4)
3. BACKGROUND:
3.1 On April 13, 1992, the Planning and Development Department received applications
from Courtice Heights Developments for a Neighbourhood Plan Amendment and an
Official Plan Amendment for the area known as Courtice North Neighbourhood 3C.
3.2 On June 17, 1992, an application for rezoning of a 10 42 hectare site was filed with
the Municipality and a related request for a plan of subdivision was also filed with
Durham Region. These applications are referred to in this report as the "south
subdivision".
3.3 The applications for Official Plan Amendment, Neighbourhood Plan Amendment,
south plan of subdivision and related rezoning application were considered in a
Public Meeting on February 1, 1993. Council referred all applications back to staff
to be considered in the context of the Official Plan Review.
3.4 On December 28, 1994, a second application for a plan of subdivision of a 9.4
hectare site within Neighbourhood 3C was filed with the Region of Durham. On
December 29, 1994 a related application for rezoning of the lands was filed with the
Municipality. These applications are referred to in this report as the "north
subdivision". The applications were considered in a Public Meeting on March 20,
4
518
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 4
1995. Council referred these applications back to staff to be considered in the
context of the Official Plan Review.
3.5 Subsequent to the preparation of the Draft Official Plan, the applicant revised the
applications for official plan amendment, rezoning, and plans of subdivision. In a
similar manner to south west Courtice lands, a Secondary Plan rather than a
Neighbourhood Plan Amendment application is being pursued.
Since the original application was received for the south plan of subdivision the land
area has increased from 10.42 ha to 10.8 ha. Formal revised applications for
rezoning and subdivision approval were submitted in August of 1995, and the revised
official plan amendment September 8, 1995. As a result of these revisions a second
Public Meeting is being held.
4. PUBLIC NOTICE
4.1 In accordance with the Municipality's procedures and the requirements of the
Planning Act, written notice was given as follows:
• the appropriate signage acknowledging the Public Meeting for all revised
applications was installed on the subject lands;
• written notice was circulated to all assessed property owners falling within
Courtice North Neighbourhood 3C north of Nash Rd. and to those within a 120
metre radius surrounding the whole site; and
• a Public Meeting notice was also published in the appropriate newspapers on
October 18, 1995.
5. LAND USES
5.1 Existing Uses:
The area has partially developed north of Nash Road in the form of single
detached country residential lots along Courtice road, Nash Road and
Hancock Road. Cultivated and fallow farmland, along with wooded areas and
wetlands comprise the balance of the lands. The wooded portions of the
applicant's lands were cleared approximately 4 years ago.
5
519
I
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 5
5.2 Surrounding Uses:
North - wooded area and agricultural land
South - single detached, links and townhouse units to the west and
agricultural land to the east
East - agricultural land and wooded areas east of Hancock Road
West - single detached residential on large wooded lots west of
Courtice Road
6. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
6.1 Durham Region Official Plan
Within the Durham Region Official Plan the subject property is designated "Living
Area" with indications of "Environmentally Sensitive Areas". Lands designated for
Living Area shall be primarily for housing purposes. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
"shall be given paramount consideration in light of their ecological functions and
scientific and educational values". The Regional Official Plan also contains policies
about development with regard to the cumulative impact on the environment,
particularly ground and surface water resources; the maintenance of connected
natural systems; and, the impacts on environmental features and functions
i
The Plan also requires that an examination be made on surface water and
groundwater resources in order to ensure that quality and quantity is maintained to
meet the needs of existing and future area residents.
Section 2.3.17 of the Durham Region Official Plan requires that an environmental
impact study be prepared under the direction of the Region. This has been
conducted and is discussed under the comments section of this report.
i
6.2 Town of Newcastle Official Plan
The Official Plan of the former Town of Newcastle has designated most of the
neighbourhood as "Residential Area"with an indication of"Hazard Lands". The valley
520
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 6
lands associated with Black Creek are designated "Major Open Space System with
Hazard Lands". The population target has been set at 1900 persons and a
Neighbourhood Park and an Elementary School are indicated. There is also a
proposed transportation network which comprises of two collector roads with access
onto Courtice Road, Nash Road and Hancock Road. Greater than 50% of the 3C
neighbourhood north of Nash Road is identified as an Environmentally Sensitive Area.
6.3 Clarington Official Plan
A staff Recommended Clarington Official Plan was released on November 7, 1995
Within the Recommended Official Plan this area is designated "Urban Residential"
with large portions of"Environmental Protection Areas". The Environmental Protection
Areas correspond to the more significant wooded areas and the lands associated
with the Black Creek tributaries Sites have been selected for Medium density
residential developments, Neighbourhood Parks, a Public and a Secondary
Elementary school and a Neighbourhood Commercial location, along with the
alignment of two collector roads.
The conformity of the three applications with the Recommended Official Plan is
discussed in the comments section of this report.
7. AGENCY COMMENTS
71 Official Plan Amendment
7.1.1 The revised application was circulated to obtain comments from other departments
and agencies. Comments on the application are still outstanding from most
agencies. Canada Post Corporation and Bell Canada have responded and have
indicated that they have no objection to the application as filed.
7.2 Plans of Subdivision and Related Rezoning
7.2.1 The revised applications were circulated to obtain comments from other departments
and agencies. ...7
521
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 7
7.2.2 The Region of Durham Health Department has yet to comment on the north
application but offered no objection to the revised south application.
7.23 The Region of Durham Works Department, in commenting on the north application,
indicated that they will require a 15 metre easement running north and south through
the area for a future Trunk Sanitary Sewer. They acknowledge that the proposed
temporary access, emergency access and right-of-way widening are satisfactory but
that the emergency access must be designed to permit the use of emergency
vehicles only. A 1350 metre extension of sub-trunk sewers from Nash Road will be
required and a 800 metre extension of municipal water from 30 metres north of Nash
along Courtice Road.
The Department considers the north plan of subdivision to be premature indicating
that the subdivision is non-sequential with respect to Regional sanitary sewer and
water services. They have no objection to further processing of the revised
application.
Comments on the south plan of subdivision state that it is possible to extend water
and sanitary services to the proposed development. Lots 116 to 121 are to be put j
on hold until lands to the east are developed. In addition, as Nash Road is being
considered as a future Type "B"Arterial road, the Department requests a 3.048 metre
widening to obtain the minimum right-of-way width.
The Department has no objection to further processing of the proposed revised plan
of subdivision. j
7.2 4 The Municipality of Clarington Fire Department, in commenting on the north
subdivision, state that they are currently able to maintain fire protection services
based on the existing developed area. Additional fire-fighting staff would be required
with an increase in population. ...8
522
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 8
7.2.5 The Northumberland-Clarington Board of Education has submitted revised comments
stating that they require the school site be totally contained within the subdivision that
proceeds first, as central to the community as possible.
7.2.6 Canada Post Corporation and Bell Canada have no objection to the plans of
subdivision but indicate conditions related to their required facilities.
7.2.7 Comments are still outstanding from the following departments and agencies:
• Ministry of Natural Resources
• Ministry of Transportation
• Ministry of the Environment
• Regional Planning Department
• Clarington Public Works Department
• Clarington Community Services Department
• Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
• Ontario Hydro
• Separate School Board
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
8.1 As of the writing of this report the following verbal and written enquiries have been
received by staff:
• three residents have made verbal enquiries questioning the proposed change
to the Hazard Land area at the southeast corner of Courtice and Nash, their
I
concerns being the possibility of developing the site for residential or
commercial use, and the removal of tree cover
I
• one resident has made an inquiry into the "Minor Open Space" designation
on the west side of Courtice Road, south of Nash Road, their concern being
that the creek not be developed or altered by the development of
Neighbourhood 3C
I
523
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 9
• one resident was particularly concerned with the north subdivision, listing such
items as its prematurity in regards to the municipality's 10 year capital works
program, the consequences of and a commitment to increase density, their
preference for sequential development, the environmental sensitivity of the
entire neighbourhood, potential "rewarding" of the clear-cutting of the
applicant's lands with higher density development being permitted, the impact
on well water, restoring water quality and quantity, and requirements to
connect to municipal services
• one resident was opposed to the increase in target population and the
allocation of a neighbourhood commercial area, was concerned about the
impact on the environmental sensitivity, the repercussions for their well water
and who would be accountable for its restoration, and how will the
watercourses remaining in the clearcut areas be protected
• several residents presented a number of questions including the impact on the
use and upgrading of Hancock Road, how this will affect taxes and property
values, how the increase in population density will also affect
property values, how the water table, ecology and wildlife of the area will be
affected, the implications on their well water and who is responsible for
restoring any well water degradation, if they will be compensated for any
decrease in their property value, if they will be required to connect to
municipal services and who pays the cost, and how the proposed
development will impact the existing school facilities
• another resident reviewed past staff reports on the original applications, past
environmental studies of the area, the Draft Official Plan and the applicant's
recent submission raising a number of concerns which included biases which
may have been presented in the 1994 Environmental Impact Study of north
10
524
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 10
Courtice, the necessity of a watershed/subwatershed plan versus a Master
Drainage Plan for plans of subdivision, potential contamination of existing well
water, maintaining Hancock Road as a dead end road, and the Hancock
neighbourhood not being in the 10 year Capital Works Forecast
8.2 All submissions are included in this report and Attachment No. 5 depicts the property
locations of those submitting written responses.
9 CONSULTANTS REPORTS
9.1 At the time of submitting the original applications for official plan amendment and the
south subdivision, the applicant submitted 5 reports including a municipal servicing
report, hydrogeologic report and environmental assessment It is staff's
understanding that these reports are being revised to incorporate the changes and
include the north subdivision. Upon receipt of the reports, and upon receipt of all
out-standing department/agency comments, staff will be reporting back to Council
on the consultants' findings.
10. STAFF COMMENTS
10.1 The existing official plan assigned a low population allocation to Neighbourhood 3C
in light of the environmental constraints in the area Of the 1900 persons the
Neighbourhood Development Plan assigned a target population of 900 persons for
the area south of Nash Road and 1000 for the area north of Nash Road. The
applicant proposes to increase the population for the lands north of Nash Road from
1000 to 2700, for a total neighbourhood population of 3600 persons. The population
targets, in the existing Plan reflected the intent to exclude certain lands from
developing and build at lower densities in order to preserve open space areas which
would, in turn, allow the natural habitat to be preserved and maintain the baseflow
to the creek tributaries.
525
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 11
10.2 The revised applications incorporate most of the land uses patterns and road network
contained in the Draft Official Plan which have also been carried forward into the
Recommended Official Plan. The main discrepancy is the density of development
proposed by the applicant. A comparison of the population and housing units
proposed by the applicant versus the Recommended Official Plan is as follows:
Hancock Neighbourhood (3C) North of Nash Road
Applicants Proposal Recommended Official Plan
Population 2700 2100
Housing Units 783* 700*
Average Household Size 3.45 3.0
* Excludes apartments-in-houses and garden suites
10.3 In 1994, an "Environmental Impact Study of the Courtice Major Urban Area" was
prepared by Ecological Services for Planning Limited for the Region of Durham. The
applicant was one of the developers which contributed to the funding of the study
Attachment No. 7 identifies the neighbourhood as containing Environmental Units E1,
E2 and E3, F2 and F3. The E1 Environmental Unit is identified as a "High Sensitivity"
area which possesses a diverse composition of ground flora consisting of many
native plant species, has high water table conditions and is significant for ground
water recharge. The E1 Unit is located in the north east corner of the neighbourhood
and has been allocated a Green Space designation in the revised Official Plan
Amendment application.
10.4 The E2 Environmental Unit is located just south west of the E1 Unit and also has a
"High Sensitivity" ranking. It too is noted for its high water table and potential
recharge area, but it has the addition of a tributary and regionally rare plant species
The proposed official plan amendment preserves the tributary as Green Space but
allots residential use to the remainder of the lands within E2 ranking.
i
...12
526
REPORT NO PD-126-95 PAGE 12
10.5 The F2, F3 and E3 Environmental Units have been given a ranking of "Moderate
Sensitivity". Moderate Sensitivity areas are considered to possess moderate
sensitivity to impacts from development. The Report states that the change in
sensitivity ranking was the result of the lands being "previously disturbed by complete
removal of vegetation or selective timber harvesting". All three Units are noted for
their potential as recharge areas. The E3 contains a tributary and immature woodlot,
and both F2 and F3 are listed with old fields. The F2, however, is the only one of the
three with a high water table.
10.6 In regards to the plans of subdivision, both applications are largely within the F2
Environmental Unit. The north subdivision contains F2 only and approximately one
third of the south subdivision is F2. The Environmental Impact Study listed
recommended considerations for the review of development proposals. In
addressing the F2 Moderate Sensitivity Unit the recommendations were to consider
the protection of natural forested areas, buffers and forested corridors and practicing
the Study's suggested mitigation strategy, which included such measures as follows.
• minimizing the impermeable cover;
• encouraging the infiltration of run-off;
• avoiding the installation of buried services and basements below the water
table;
• timing of sediment removal to preserve surface water quality; and
• erecting fences at the rear of lot lines to limit access points to natural areas.
10.7 The Study concludes that the F2 Environmental Units are still important "for species
utilizing less mature habitat and it would be preferable to maintain sections of them j
when considering development proposals". Although there are portions of parks in
i
both subdivisions the majority of the land areas are allotted for residential use.
Development of this intensity may have a detrimental impact on the sites'
environmental sensitivity. Because of the high water table conditions identified in the
527
i
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 13
F2 area and the recommendation of the Environmental Impact Study to minimize
impermeable cover, the density should be reduced and special construction
techniques implemented in the north subdivision and the northern part of the south
subdivision. The applicant will need to address the matter of impacts and the
mitigation measures identified in Section 10.6 of this Report in updating the
environmental and hydrogeological studies.
10.8 Natural Features Map C1 of the Recommended Plan depicts the neighbourhood to
have three tableland woodlots. Section 4 7.2 recognizes these features as major
components of the natural environment which should be protected, managed and
enhanced Two of these woodlots have been incorporated as Environmental
Protection Areas in the Recommended Official Plan and included by the applicant in
the revised application. The unidentified third is located midway between Nash Road
and the top of the urban area boundary, with frontage onto Hancock Road. The
Recommended Official Plan does not identify this area as environmental protected
as it does not contain a tributary and is isolated from the larger wooded areas. It is
noted, however, that the Racansky family has requested that this woodlot, partially
located on their lands, be preserved and connected to other woodlots.
10.9 Hancock Neighbourhood (3C) contains the only remaining undeveloped tributary of
the Black Creek within the Courtice Urban Area. These lands would be affected by
the Watershed Study for the Black and Farewell Creeks. There is the opportunity to
incorporate the results of this study prior to the development of these lands. It is
noted that a multi-stakeholder steering committee has recently been established to
prepare a Request for Proposal for this project Staff will be reporting on this matter
in the near future.
10.10 In regards to the specific plans of subdivision, Section 5 3.6 of the Recommended
Official Plan states that any residential development will be reviewed having regard
...14
528
REPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 14
for, among other things, the sequential development of neighbourhoods and the
prevention of "leap-frogging" of vacant lands. This matter will need to be addressed
in further review of the plans of subdivision.
11. CONCLUSION
11.1 The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements for the Public Meeting under
the Planning Act as well as to provide the status of the application. As various
department/agency comments are still pending this application should be referred
back to staff for further processing and the preparation of a subsequent report.
Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P., W. H. Stockwell
Director of Planning Chief Administrative
and Development Officer
IL*DC*FW*cc
Attachment # 1 - Official Plan Amendment
Attachment # 2 - North Subdivision
Attachment # 3 - South Subdivision
Attachment # 4 - Key Map
Attachment # 5 - Public Submissions Map
Attachment # 6 - Environmental Impact Assessment
Attachment # 7 - Written Public Submissions
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision•
WDM Consultants Tom & Lynn Howe
20 Clematis Road 3339 Courtice Road,
Willowdale, Ont M2J 4X2 Courtice, Ont L1 E 21-7
Stan & Libby Racansky Udo & Heather Stevens
3200 Hancock Road, 3166 Hancock Road,
Courtice, Ont. L1 E 2M1 Courtice, Ont. L1 E 2M1
529
DEPORT NO. PD-126-95 PAGE 15
Don & Glenda Richards
3172 Hancock Road,
Courtice, Ont. L1 E 2M1
Mandy Scarr
3180 Hancock Road,
Courtice, Ont. L1 E 2M1
Pam Callus
3452 Courtice Road,
Courtice, Ont. L1 E 21-6
Ivan Perun
5325 Enfield Road, R. R. 1
Hampton, Ont. LOB 1 JO
Paul and Dorothy Turk
2832 Courtice Road
Courtice, Ontario L1 E 21VI6
Ron Sheradon
3700 Hancock Road,
Courtice, Ont. L1 E 2M1
Cristina Rose
3212 Hancock Road North
Courtice, Ont. L1 E 2M1
Wilson Reid
3191 Courtice Road
Courtice, Ontario L1 E 21-18
Sarah Hevistock
856 Hortop
Oshawa, Ont. L1 G 4P1
B. Maclsaac
1834 Nash Road
Courtice, Ont. L1 E 21VI2
David Burnham
39 McClellan Dr.
Courtice, Ont. L1 E 1Z9
530
Attachment No,
URBAN AREA BOUNDARY
^a r l�4vat,5'• i;•v.��-. / 111 11
ADD MINOR OPEN SPACE
ADD COLLECTOR
ROAD
Z ; a:
p
ADJUST COLLECTOR
a .�,:<s _` ROAD LOCATION
ADJUST ALIGNMENT
OF COLLECTOR ROAD `;'' ADJUST SCHOOL
LOCATION
ADJUST PARK
a N LOCATION
CC
,` ~«. I0
Ja£Y.„f Esc fl6'a a' a 3 V fYesY�?ti 2
ADJUST LOCATION ^S mob, s ; y% �' Population "� '' °y'. " 'z ADD MINOR OPEN SPACE
OF MINOR OPEN SPACf� >,tt 3 s o o £ i
& HAZARD LAND
0, £> r�' x''i'�o�^•,< `dh "
I NA3#i ROAD
ADJUST POPULATION
ADD SCHOOL FROM 1900 TO 3600
LOCATION
ADD MINOR OPEN SPACE
LEGEND
RESIDENTIAL AREA L�TRANSPORTATION
[=J NETWORK
HAZARD LANDS a INTERSECTON IMPROVE- EXHIBIT "A” TO AMENDMENT #
�..�? MENT REQUIRED
aNEIGHBOURHOOD PARK F�URBAN AREA BOUNDARY
a PROPOSED NEIGHBOURHOOD TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE FORMER
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOUNDARY TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
MINOR OPEN SPACE
SCHEDULE 6 - 1 COURTICE MAJOR URBAN AREA
531
ISM
f,�
Item
I",M IN i"m
A;N
1�
Attachment No.3
1 .{� MA
w
S S a t R R R S 1? p 0 S t 94 iLOO�r4 ANA—U=
M. R.dfwfd fYyu 4MO M f
Rom," omo
! •STfA T A R[fDORML• 1ppf w RAAfIwIM Mwrw4 r 0210
Ff1w O.v.Yfw M ... 0200
^�-..w 7~C7
RAM W Sd*d Rwrw ... 1 410
SLMM t" 1� OM w Pak ... OAW
E L4 M f[lO1V[
L♦wr1,wl ...r r OAZO
7 ♦L♦011 N1M�f[N611♦fllT rr r
L4 w M.♦4 raw OAw
♦ " Ws-Y MII OAM""Wv A ._. r OAW
cft nee" 2"0
♦t l .7♦ • �+ I y T0f4L lam M t
\\ .a i �/,� 24M"W 2f.70
20M RAw 02"
p T011L 2f00 M t
y .f4.
UMT COUNT
Ifo 14f21 R qw -A 4
Mai w I I' ., ^I` _ _d , MM tW41>nf 'C• ft
am M 1 1 �.. f♦1{2f.61 fArAM1.tAN •S' 12
T0IAL 127 Wilk
` . .• i _
a WALA7/AY •M• Z I i 1'�' �..r.
I 1111--���--" _ c rw ti r..r•"r
1 .121, t f!• Q ( I 3 QSjG�
l •
11• 1S. .1201 V
'1 •fe.
�/ _ •u I 'fe. .u71 I J i { I O' — -�+--�Y�'•I�i-aE
»• }_ - +
•121 'p0. r"—'� tl..ftT fMf710flS llfi[D
T e t
3 GG• — I�OrlYiwrrr.ter.�m..rn r.•....
r
.y, r.wm.Amfau®
fLOQ 12f
r1 1 �
° a
1 •41 �� � I °*��4;%s� �
Pit I
I C / 1ST-92014 REV.
n Ep tUt01A f5 ne I J ► T F LYT 27 CON
5 27//^�` 0 fTEIRD NO E34
Y TO NOHIP
m� 1 \ OIOfAI MUNICIPALITY
533
Attachment No.4
LOT 30 LOT 29 LOT 28 LOT 27
0
. I �
C z
ry w
U
O
h-TI T I h' L
, U �
U
. . z
Q
NAS H IJJ R O
cV
Z
O
(n
w
U
Z
O
U
0 OPA 92- N/007
18T-92014, DEV.92-033
® 18T-94027, DEV.94-067
534
Attachment No.5
LOT 30 LOT 29 LOT 28 LOT 27 D
0
CALLUS
z
O
V)
w
U
z
O
I
Of RACANSKY
SCARR
RICHARDS
STEVENS
DANIELLS
NASH RO °Q
TURK N
� z
O
Y U)
Ld
U �
O U
U z
Z o
Y
ter-,
® RESIDENTS WITH WRITTEN ��� Cp
SUBMISSIONS °
535
;rte...`•+.. .�� _
Study Area
Northern Boundary of the
PesBt>stp ROq Coutttce MaJorUrban Area
SENSMVITyRANKNG
® Very high
mgh
Moderate
� Low
Ett..9 urban area
Draft aPProved development
applications
- -- — 18T-94027
01N &M200 app
ENVIRONMENTAI. STUD
or the COURTICE UR$gNgAREA Y
-" Regional M¢
mcipabry of Durham
a 18T-92014 '
ENVIRONMENTAL
NK 1 NO 2 nsa \ UNITS AND A
Q SENSMVITy
Block i RANKING .�.J
HWYNO2 .ee.F D'kocroerR,sst rtcoouR+K.owC A
-•, "'"`GOON
&4c1 wpou
N �� rsewm Na
O?
oeApx.,d MaPNG 11
� Z
0
Attachment No.7A
zQ
G�
cc . MR 9/?Z-NT Wally
537
7B
FOR ISABELLE; PLANNING DEPT
RE, COURTICE HEIGHTS DEVEL OPNIENT
DEV 94-067 REPORT 't PD-29-95
THIS APPLICATION FOR REZ(-)NIi4G IN THIS AREA IS ONE THAT M-IY WIFE
AND I HAVE SERIOUS CONCFRNS ABOUT FOR A NI TMBER OF REASONS
INCLUDING.
r) PREMIATURE COMMETMIFNT TO REZONING DI_+E TO A LACK
OF SERVICES
u) PREMATI THE CONEVRTMVLENT TO A HIGHER THAN
RECOkL\'IENDED DENSITY
iii) DEGRADATION OF LAND U-11MER APPLICANTS CONTROL
iv) LACK OF IMPACT ASSESSA-LENT ON EXISTING HOMES
LACK OF SERVICES
FROM THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO US. SERVICING TO THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT WOULD COM/IE EITHER ACROSS TOE ADELAIDE ST
COLLECTOR OR FROM HASH RD IN EITHER CASE THE SERVICES
INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT MTHIN THE CURRENT t0 YEAR CAPITOL
WORKS PLAN FOR THIS DES ELOPI PENT TO PROCEED, ASSUMING
APPRON/AL, WOULD MEAN THAT THE N40ST DIS`T'ANT PARCEL OF THE
COURTICE URBAN AREA WOULD REQUIRE SERVICING AHEAD OF THE
CENTRAL AND CORE DEVELOPMENT AREAS THIS WOULD SEEM A MIS-
ALLOCATION OF SCARCE CAPITOL RESOURCES,
DENSITY-
MUCH OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL AS WELL AS SOUTH AND EAST IS
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AND CONTAINS AREAS WHERE
GROUNDWATER LEVELS WOULD REQUIRE PARTICULAR ATTENTION IT IN
THEIR WISDOM, COUNCIL. MAINTAnNND A CORF. OUTWARD DEVELOPMlENT
OF SERVICES, TI TEN THIS DEVELOPM%IE NT COULD NOT PROCEED FOR SOME
TIME. ON THE BASIS THAT ACTUAL DEVFL OPMF_.NT WOULD LIKEL Y BE
MORE THAN t5 YEARS AWAY, A CO',\FvIT\IEN7 AT THIS TEUE TO
INCREASE THE DENSI INFOR 'l MS Df,,VELc_ MME?v I PARCEI SLI CIS "IO �_ls
VERY EARLY AND UNNECESSARY
ONCE THE NORMAL., AND LOGIC J DF,v*ELOP'vlEN. T HAS C( I\Il-IFN('ED
FROM NASH ROAD NORTHN\,ARDS, A�,E BELIEA E THAT OUR M-IU-NICLPALI"TY
WOULD BE IN A MiUCH BETIER POSITION TO ASSESS THE ,APPROPRIATE
DEVELOPMENT DENSITY IN THE SUBJECT PARCEL. WE STRONGLY
BELIEVE THAT APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES AT THIS TIME IS
UNREASONABLE AND WOULD PUT A ',\US-PLACED PLANNING CONSTRAINT
IN THE WHOLE COURTICE , HANCOCK AREA
DEGRADATION OF LAND UWDER THE APPLICANTS CONTROL.
538
i
WE WERE SURPRISED UPON READING THE REPORTS OF PD-22-93 AND PD-
29-95 THAT THE APPLICANTS PARCEL OF LAND HAD BECOME " LESS
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE" THIS APPEARS TO BE DLTE SOLELY TO
THE CLEARING OF THE LAND ALTHOCTGH PURELY A SUPPOSITION AN
OUR PART, IT SEEMS THAT APPROVAL OF THE HIGHER DEVELOPMEN`I'
DENSITIES ARE MORE LIKELY NOW THAT THE PARCEL IS LESS
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE APPROVAL OF THAT DEVELOPMENT
WOULD IN OUR MINDS BE REWARDING THE DELIBERATE DEGRADING OF
THE PROPERTY PERHAPS OUR SUSPICIONS ARE WRONG AND THIS CLEAR
CUTTING WAS COINCIDEN rAL
IMPACT ON EXISTING HOMES
OUR HOME IS LOCATED SOUTH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EAST
SIDE OF COURTICE RD AS THE WELLS IN THE AREA ARE SHALLOW DUE
TO THE HIGH WATER TABLE, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT DEVELOPMENT
WILL RV PAIR EITHER THE QUANTITY OR QUALITY OF OUR WATER AS THE
CHARGES FOR BOTH CONSTRUCTING OF AND CONNECTING TO
MUNICIPAL SERVICES ARE SUBSTANTIAL, THIS IS A SERIOUS CONCERN.
WE WOULD APPRECIATE ANY FURTHER REPORTS REGARDING THE
OUTCOME OF THIS APPLICATION. IF APPROVAL IS GIVEN, WE WOULD
ALSO APPRECIATE INFORMATION REGARDING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE DEVELOPER( OR MUNICIPALITY) FOR ANY IlvI'ACT ON OUR WATER
SUPPLY
REGARDS,
TOM AND LYNN HO WE
3339 COURTICE RD
COURTICE, ONT
LIE 21-7 436-2828 j
539
7C
3452 Courtice Road -
Courtice, Ontario
L1 E 2L6
NOV 6 1995
Tuesday, November 7, 1995
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mayor D. Hamre and Members of Council
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1 C 3A6
Dear Mayor and Councillors
RE: applications submitted by Courtice Heights Developments to be discussed at a
Public Meeting, Monday, November 20, 1995
1. Files: OPA 92-N/007
The applicant is proposing an increase in target population to 3600 for
neighbourhood 3C. We are opposed to this increase due to the environmental
sensitivity of this area. The environmental/hazard areas are extensive, more so
than in other areas in Courtice where development is intensive. We will not know
the effect upon storm drainage, well damage and stream damage for any
development in the area, let alone development of the density proposed by
Courtice Heights Developments. If development does indeed influence water
quality in existing wells and streams in a negative way, who will be accountable?
Development should proceed in this part of the community slowly and with
caution.
We also object to the placement of a commercial site in this neighbourhood.
Commercial sites are limited in all other areas of Courtice to Highway 2 except
for Courtice West along Townline Road South. It is our understanding that
commercial sites are to be located in "medium density at the periphery of
development" This site is adjacent to low density housing which is already in
existence and such a placement is an unacceptable intrusion into the
development and lifestyle which is already present, not to mention the possible
negative impact on property values. There are homeowners and long-time
Courtice residents living in this area so to assume that this placement is on the
edge of development is incorrect. The placement puts a commercial zone right
page 2 .
540
page 2
in the middle of our neighbourhood as we presently know it In addition, signage
at Highway 2 and Courtice Road indicates the future site of a commercial plaza
on the southeast corner This commercial site is surely adequate for the needs
of the future 3C neighbourhood
2. Files. DEV 92-033; 18T-92014
Though we are not opposed to development per se, we have objection to
development by developers who are not considerate of the environmental impact
of development. In conluction with the local community, responsible developers
will forsee problems and compromise their own needs with regard to
environmental sensitivities and local interest In the Northwest corner of
proposed neighbourhood 3CII, there is hazard land which is designated
Environmentally Protected. This area drains into a creek on the west side of
Courtice Road It is our understanding that "alteration to the natural state of
watercourses is discouraged" and "proposals to alter a section of a watercourse
must maintain or improve its ecological state". Given that this developer has
already demonstrated disregard for environmental sensitivity by clearcutting in
hazard land, how will watercourses that exist presently be protected? We don't
think that we can count on this developer to be sensitive to the environment. Can
we count on the Town of Clarington?
3. Files: Dev 94-067; 18T 94027
Our general comments for item #2 above are applicable to this proposed
amendment. We have seen a variety of different maps which are conflicting
regarding exactly where the Environmental/Hazard areas extend here. Given the
extent of lands designated as such (E/H) throughout and surrounding the area
requested for amended zoning, we feel that development should proceed slowly
and with caution.
We have been residents of Courtice for 17 years For all of this time, we knew that
development would come. We call on you now to be judicious in your evaluation of
responsible development, particularly in areas with environmental sensitivity because
there will be no turning back once the damage is done
T rne
cc Planning Department
541
TEL i10 C,2 +c 1u Plc . 001 F
�J 7D
J�
Mick & Melanie Daniels
3142 Hancock Plead North
Courtice, ON LIE 2MI
October 30, 1995
Municipality of Claringtan
40 Temperance Street
Bowman,ville, ON LIC 34N6
Attention City Council;
Re: Clerk' s File; D09 ,OPA.92-N/007
D14 .DgV.02-0 03
D14.])EV.94-067
D12 . IST-9201.4
b12. 18T-94027
We would like to see this matter delayed to a Later date, and an
evening council meeting so that we have the needed time to prepare
documentation in writing about our concerns and have the necessary
time to contact our neighbours. The fact that a Monday morning
meeting has been chosen certainly wi.l.l affect the number of
residence able to respond in person. Was this an out an out
attempt to just push this through without any organized opposition?
We have numerous reservations regarding the applications under the
rl-allijisxy act mg outlined in your letter, We wish to have thaOO
issuas addressed:
1 , Official Plan Amendment
Applicant: Courtice Heights Developments
Files: OPA 92-N/007
Hancock Road North is a dead end street. Will this proposed
neighbourhood enter. & or exit from Hancock Road, making it a major
thoroughfare, thus affecting the property value of our property.
How will this affect our takes ? Will we be paying for road
improvements 7
Increasing the target population for Neighbourhood 3C from 1800 to
3800, may )jot affect our properties immediately but will obvi.ov,03 y
in the future do s¢. A higher population density will obviously
bring down the value of our properties.
2) Zoning by-Law Amendment
Plan of Subdivision
,A,ppplicant: Courtice Heights Developments
Files: bev 94-067, 18x94027
542
i
Page 2
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Eowmanville, ON 1.,1C 3A6
Rick & Melanie Daniels
3142 Hancock Road North
Courtice, ON LIE 2M1
Have environmental studies been done to establish how changing the
Environmental Protection will affect the water tables and the
ecology in this area.
If water tables are affected by this development and our walls are
contaminated or the supply is affected, will the developer or the
city be responsible for the hook up fees to city water. If for
example city water is not an option for us, will the city or the
developers pay to restore our well to our current level of quality
and quantity.
This proposed development includes multiple living units, and
obviously will have an affect on traffic and property value. If
the proposed housing was for estate lots, the value would obviously
go up - however, the proposal of townhouses will obviously
adversely affect our property value. Will we be compensated for
this ?
How will this impact the schools in the area ?
Yours truly,
Rick & Melanie Daniels
c.c- to Mary Novak
Larry Hannah
543
w�..Y�.,l.l❑ C h.,9� �"""c.-�,.y/`v....-C+-v./\�� Cb �,... �i r`'L�-J�...�U"�.h t4 �� �.4,.e... .�,�'�/a
✓�v-try-�'-ftu
w
c .
544
7F
c()-QA (!iY-, "DI CIO'
j IQ.0,)
1�/Y
'w
az
,_�1y} ,,��.�l'C:X�.,«l:�,J �.�� f`� �' G•C:7.P,�'�'l{7 .�!'L.l.�,�'•,r.`���''�C� �.,.� :t�
(,JL.� V .C� \! 4'X1! •••� 4���^�L.�L_�•" L�r�J � (�
545
Iq e.7
Coo f of
AIR c or,
Z)4)
/./E err )
546
11 1 o 7 G
OW
r1N�i lf3��ii PF,DEARINGfON 344 A9iv /e A°o
PLANNING DEPAR FMENT
r
/�
r-
547
7H
To Mayor and Members of Council
Nov. 3, 1995
Re: Comments on Official Plan Amendment
File # OPA 92-N?007
Zoning By-law Amendment
Plan of Subdivision
File # DEV 92-033; 18 T-92014
Zoning By-law Amendment
Plan of Subdivision
File # DEV 94-067, 18T-94027
Madam Mayor and Members of Council:
Re#PD-36-95 We trust that you are going to live up to your statement on
pg. 7:
4. Conclusions
4. 1 "Where the principle of the development has been established
(Neighbourhood 3a, 3b, 3c), development applications can be
appropriately reviewed. "
If you truly mean this , then there should not be any problem
to review all three applications in a truly environmental
manner with an ECOSYSTEM APPROACH through WATERSHED /
Subwatershed Study done on Farewell / Black Creeks instead of
Master Drainage Plan as planned for 3c.
EIS, 1994 on Courtice North done by Ecological Services Planning Ltd.
partly financially supported by the applicant is not going to
give us the true picture of the studied area because the same
firm using only the abbreviation ECOPLAN was working for him
and other developers of Courtice North.
We need to measure up these findings with a planned
independent study which would consider the preservation and
integrity of the ecosystem.
In this case the dilemma with D 6 Re 39 would be solved; we
have already reached an agreement with R1 in regard of this
matter.
Also, if the planned watershed study tapes place, if its
recommendations are followed it w711 fulfil DOP statements:
OOP, 1994 A. Part 77 - Strategic directions (pg. 9):
4. Environment and Resource Management
4.2 Objectives
4.2. 4: "To preserve and protect the Lake Iroquois Shoreline for its
forest and wildlife habitat and its locally significant
functions of groundwater recharge".
5/4 (8
4.3 General Policies
4.3.2 "Council recognizes the NEED TO PROTECT OUR GROUNDWATER
RESOURCES AS THEY ARE A VITAL COMPONENT OF THE ECOSYSTEM AND
PROVIDE A SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE
RESIDENTS".
OP Submissions { B. Recommendation 3-1:
"That the OP require the preparation of watershed/subwatershed
plans rather than Master Drainage Plan prior to the approval
of plans for subdivision. . . "
would be endorsed by you also. I t would satisfy us and the
other 300 water we l l users in this water basin.
Other reasons why the watershed/subwatershed study 1s needed
here are:
EIS, 1994 Conclusions and Recommendations (pg. 77)
6. The geology of the Study Area are not known in sufficient
6. 1 detail. . . Naturally high water tables will help to maintain
base flows. . . "
"Percentage reductions in groundwater recharge could approach
the percentage of area covered by impermeable surfaces"
(pg.62).
In 3c case:
How much permeable land out of the 200 ha area will be left
here with planned if 450013600 persons is the expected
population?
ECOPLAN & Another unanswered question since 1992 ( by Manson)
EIS, 1994 According to Gibson in both, Preliminary Environmental
Assessment, 1992 (p. 42) and EIS by Ecological services for
Planning (pg 16):
. . lowering of water table to be 0.5 m. . . " ( around 3c
development , not mentioning higher drop inside of this
perimeter) which means for Hancock, Nash and Courtice Rd.
residents no water in our wells during summer months.
EIS & ECOPLAN Environmental Sens7tiv7ty- ECOPLAN was included in EIS for
Environmental Sens7t7V7ty Ranking (pg.56)
EVENTHOUGH
Re#PD-23-93 "MNR has deemed the project to be "premature" based
7.8 on the lack of a suitable environmental impact assessment.
Preliminary Environmental Overview Assessment will not
substitute for EIS" (pg. 7, 8).
Re#PD-23-93 SPECIAL POLICY AREA ? (applicant contributed to EIS with his
insufficient study and Special Policy Area disappeared.
8.8. 1 "MNR, CLOCA, the Region consider the work insufficient (pg. 8).
.L
549
1 Re#PD-23-93
J 6. 2 "The Environmental Sensitivity Areas have been ident7fied to
ensure the preservation, conservation. . . of its valuable
ecological functions" (pg.4).
Re#PD-23-93 "Plans have been prepared for all of Courtice North
6. 4 Neighbourhoods with the exception of the northerly portion of
Courtice North Neighbourhood 30" (p9.5).
EIS, 1994 The Environmental sensitivity mailing is no longer valid for
much of the Study Area since the features (i.e. forest) by
which larger tracks of land were assigned high sensitivity
rankings no longer exist" (pg. 7).
EIS, 1994 COMPARE with MAP No.3 and MAP No. 11 contradicting the above!
Development
Concept, 1995
3. 3 ". . .Gibson estimates that reduced recharge to deeper
groundwater regimes, which were reported to have no meaningful
contribution to baseflow on Black Creek, could approach 40 X
(pg. 16).
Report #
PD-22-93
8. 5 Gibson:
. . .seepage zones are widely spaced throughout the
�.� neighbourhood . . . draininage must be applied. . . "
Gartner Lee On the other side Environmental Mapping Project states:
.. These springs (seepages) are focal points
of groundwater discharge. If tampered with a disturbance to
the natura l groundwater system may be created downstream" (pg.
11).
Final Draft, 1994
6. 1 ". . . the baseflows. . . are supported by groundwater seepages . . . "
( See attachment # 4 - EIA of 3c- seepages from Hancock east
woods, north-west woods are not protected in the recent plan
(p9. 77).
Re#PD 22-93
8. 5 Gibson:
". . . 3c is located on Granby soi l (after Brigton 's, the most
permeable soil). . . the development may contribute pollution
(pg. 1i)- to our groundwater for wells.
Gartner Lee
3. 1. 3. 1 ". . .groundwater is vu7nerable to contamination. . . " (pg. 28)
Re#PD- 22-93
9. 2 ". . .3c is environmetally fragile. . . ;. . . has unconfined
aquifer. . . numerous feeders. . . " (p9. 2).
For an unconfined aquifer essentially all the land overlying
the aquifer acts as a recharge area (whole water basin, from
Tooley Rd. to Maple Grove).
3
550
Re#PD-22-93
Schedule 6-2 ESA in 3c is greater than 50 X . . . " (pg. 6).
8.4 Sernas:
. . .modified house construction is needed. . . "
This summer the levels of both lots in F shape site, due to
grading and top soil removal", was lowered down 30-40 cm;
seepage is visible at marked place, ever since.
Housing should not be permitted here, since construction will
require digging therefore some seepages may be cut off or
disturbed.
Re#PD-23-93
6 . . . 1991 Reg. Plan states that "ESA and Hazard lands are
important for their ecological function" (pg. 4).
EIS, 1994 & Therefore, seepage zones running through F shape should be
protected and reforested
Re#PD-29-95
6. 4 ". . , reforestation. . . "(pg.5) and F shape should be modified to
I shape ommiting northern sensitive parts containing seepage
zones and lowered sites.
Dev. Concept 1995
constraints for development:
tributary
existing residential on large lots (pg.9)
5.3 extensive wooded areas (pg. 3)
4 scattered woodlands along Hancock Road (p9.2)
and Macourtice Tributary
Each of the above woodlands is over 4 ha and deemed to be
significant (score 17 on the OP scale of significance).
Compare Sensitivity ranking- Map # 11 in Manson's report and
Map # 3 in Final Draft
Both are done by Ecological Services, Oct. 1993. Which is
true?
E1, F1, E2, E3 are underc lass 7fied wooded wetlands associated
with unusual vegetation characteristics particular only to
rach/wet woods=wet lands; water stays above surface until early
summer and it is always moist (even in dry season). Long list
of flora, photographs and specimens can be provided. Our
identification was confirmed by biologist John Foster (Durham
Wetlands and Watershed), James hamstra (Gartner Lee), & George
Scott (Second Marh Defence) who was recommended to us by the
Royal Ontario Museum.
EIS, 1994
3. 5. 4 "Court ice Road Woods". . . ECOPLAN (Manson). . . "consist of
immature woods. . . " (pg. 45)'
EIS, 1994
4.32 "The removal of vegetation in the Courtice Woods would result
in the removal of three species considered rare. . . " (pg. 65)
y
551
EIS, 1994 In contradiction
4. 3 ". . . the development would not remove any significant
vegetation. . . (pg. 56).
DOP Hanson's comments:
" , about 40 acres are forested. . . ". This is false
statement; aerial photography from 1994 shows forest cover is
about 60 acres.
"Outdated Gartner Lee Mapping Project" as Manson calls 7t, is
still valid here (enclosed are F5, F8).
These wood lots should be protected for their significance and
continuity with a buffer around them.
Compare with Report # PD 22-93, Section 3.
L shape site parcel along Court i ce Rd, should also be modified
according to the above by Manson's constraints ( See exhibit
6-1).
Dev. Concept, 1995
5.2 Drainage:
CORRECTION! (pg. 3) The Macourtice Tributary doesn't flow into
a storm sewer on Courtice Rd. ; it crosses Court7ce Rd. far
< above this sewer and cuts diagonally through 3b.
What 's more, we do not agree that it should be diverted into
a proposed water quality pond or storm detention facility on
the Macourtice property. This is the last unmanipulated
tributary which together with seepage zones and underground
springs at 3c, contributes baseflow and cold stream
designation of Black Creek.
Macourtice drains the whole of 3c.
6.2 Modification (pg. 11) should be disregarded because of the
proponent 's misleading information on the actual facts on
Macourtice Tributary, which, according to him, is already
boxed in and cold stream designation is no longer valid.
Only one positive point in Manson's new amendment is that he
gave up deleting of this tributary.
But st7I1, as has been the case in the past, whenever each so
called insignificant tributary to these cold stream creeks is
moved, m7t7gated or in any way, altered, the cumulative impact
will be drastic. Each tributary is essential to the survival
of these creeks. There is no truly 7ns7gn7ficant cold-water
contributer.
DOP On Manson's comments (pg 2):
Not only 3c neighbourhood but people 77V7ng on this common
water basin from Maple Grove to Too ley Rd. and from Taunton to
Hwy # 2 do not desire municipal water. We are being forced to
connect. Our water is excellent and sufficient. With drainage
our water table would cease.
S
552
The population has to be lowered to be compatible to this land
use inspite of the fact that the living area here was
established years ago. Manson 's desired density doesn't comply
With the Provincial Statement for lands which are the
groundwater recharge and part of a major aquifer.
$ 2 million cost for stormwater management for 3c will
eventually be paid for by the residents and what's more we are
disgusted by the following statement, by a non-resident:
". . . the cost wi 71 be carried by deve topers unt i I such t ime as
THE FRAGMENTED PROPERTIES ARE CONSOLIDATED AND DEVELOPED.
We do not desire to move away from here and therefore we have
to be considered in future plan. By the way, our properties
form a solid encirclement around both parcels owned by
Courtice Heights.
Schedule 6-4 Figure C and/or Section 5, 5. 1 Modification (pg 11):
We don't agree with suggested collector road leading to
Hancock Rd. Hancock Rd. is a Dead End road. Hancock Road and
Maple Grove Road are the only two Dead End roads between
Farewell and Bowmanville Creek (see Official Plan Map 2.4).
Having afeeder road to Hancock from the proposed plan would be
a detriment to this. Major Open Space between these two creeks
is an ideal place for still present wildlife and secondly,
this road would lead directly through our private properties.
We have never asked our town for anything like improving the
road, lights etc. . We wish to keep this road as it is -Dead
End road with prominent Lake Iroquois bluff at its end. This
is the only bluff which is untouched with its visible groves
and marks by the glacial lake which should be preserved for
future generations to learn about local geology and history.
DOP
26. 6 "
. . . Council will ensure the policies and land use. . .
. . . review . . . limit . . . .
a. Top soil removal
b. Preservation of trees. . " (pg. 96).
Re#PD 29-95
8.2 "Hancc:k is not included in the 10 gear capital works
forecast" (pg. 9).
De✓. Concept, 1995
1. 6: "
. . .development of the Hancock Rd. has already started with
the construction of the Macourtice subdivision", which
happened without our kwowledge or input.
This time, we were contacted and we cio not support planned
continuation of this kind of development.
6
553
EIS, 1994 HYDROLOGY IMPACTS
4. 3. 1 ". . .a l l proposed development except 18T-92014 (3C) have the
potential to Interfere with groundwater
discharge to these creeks" (pg. 66 to 67).
In contradiction with
Gartner-Lee
3. 1.3 Neighbourhood 3C: ". . . this shallow water table zone Is the
source for major tributary which drains the area and
discharges to Black Creek. Flood plane lands are a flood prone
and groundwater discharge occurs within them (pg. 28-29). See
Attachment a4.
Our conclusions: It would be unfair to us the residents and taxpayers who have
lived here for 20, 30 years that these lands even though
designated (purchased for "cow pasture price") in 1976 as
living, would be developed without any regards to their
environmental sensltivlty.
Because the development requires dewatering, thus lowering the
grounwater and Influencing our wells, modification to
development design should be considered.
Therefore, no rezon ing shou]d be a l lowed unt i l the independent
watershed /subwatershed study would be completed to protect
our water resources and indicate future densities.
None of the residents of Hancock neighbourhood was contacted
on zoning change in 1992 from environmentally sensitive and
hazard land to agricultural.
This time we should be respected and listened to.
WATER MANAGEMENT - ECOSYSTEM APPROACH (MNR, MOEE)
2. 4 "It Is wrong to assume that the adverse effects of huran
activity can always Ce eliminated or rendered ecologically
insignificant throught mitigation, regardless of how costly
the measure or how good intention. Such measures canrot
replace good planning- better and earlier environmental
considerations in land use JeC7S7ons (pg. 22).
SUMMARY "Municipalities have the legislative authority and poiitical
responsibility to undertake comprehensive land use planning
which considers ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (pg. iv).
EIS, 1994 CONCLUSIONS: "The ge.�logy and hydrology of the area are NOT
6, 6. 1 KNOWN IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL TO ALLOW ACCURATE PREDICTIONS OF
IMPACTS RESULTING FROM DEVELOPMENT".
6. 6 SUMMARY: "The environmental sensitive areas. . . have been
degraded due to past develcpment practices. . . " (pg. 80).
PLEASE, DO NOT LET THIS CONTINUE1
Racansky Family, 3200 Hancock Rd. , Courtice, ant. , LIE 2M1
Cc Dep7` i9�t. : /sa.64LJ S, /-I c/ost/_`e, (3yi)
554
I
W241H
September 25 , 13315 Friends of Lne Farewell
MUNUPALP OF MARINGTON 3200 Hancock Ra .
To LO�lih�? / �Ldi�IC�I�I� W F�ARTM�NT 9�-ou r t i ce ,On t .
� I L 1 E 2 M 1
Mr D ..come
StraL . Plan . Branch , manager
Bowmanvi1le
Dear Mr . Crome,
Comments on Submissions -egara i ng C 1 a;i -)gton tOff 7 c i a, Plan Pei-,ew.
Section 3 . 2 Watershed P,ann1 .9 .
Recommendation 3 . 1 :
We fully agree with the - dea of ravlrg sub-watershed plans rather
than the now out-datea Master Drainage Plans prior to aporoving
plans .
Recommendation 3 . 2 :
This should be modified to ' ) include Black Creek as well ,
2 , should be a requirement for an-y o l ans ( whether appro-ea or not) ,
since until construction actually negirs there is still time to
prevent i rrepai rabl e damage . This aamage -s often very costly as we
are now seeing in the Halminen aevelopmer.t (which was approves py
agencies ) at Whitevale at the Farewell Valley . It is costing abcut
$ 77 000 to repair the eroded banks and secure people ' s residences.
Halminen ' s other site, it 3B at Oourtice Rd. and Hwy #2 , -is in
known Flood Risk Area and within a Flood Plain (see map- M , 130
contour & Map 21 ) , where the poss, bie water flow may be 37;,0 cubic
feet per second (as per Dlilon LLd , pg . 12-11 and 12-12 ) , . . . " most
of the area and intermediate aaui =er ( here it is exposed to the
top ) which discharges into Black :,reek and contributes basef 1 ow. . . "
tEcological Services for Planrin,? , pg . 19 , 3 . 3 . 1 . 2) . And uriike
according to Mr. Manson , the Macoirtice runs diagona` ly
ti-iru this area, and not thru the s-orm sewer on the east siae of
Courtice Rd . , and thus is area should be protected with the
Hazard land designation as a so in Eccicgical Services for
Planning , pg . 19 , 3 . 3 . 1 . 21 . For t�- ese reasons , Je\ielopment shouia
riot occur here at all . Fcr tea;sty reasons , for the protectior of
Black Creel. and Macourtice Tributary , aeveloomenz SHC1JLD NOT CCCUR
HERE AT ALL' Learn from wr-tITEV ;LE EXPERIEN--E . It is still not too
late .
We do not feel there is ;ustificat ,on for pishing fcr aeveicomenL
in Courts ce north . Many res:dents nere k 300 r value their wei 1 water
ard do not wish to be connec.ed L:; municipal water.
!-owever , residents to the south of rtvii # Ll desperately neea and grant
,,un i c i pa i water , Thus i t wou' d mat-,e more logical p i ann i nc sense to
have de ve 1 onment move in scutnar i y d i rest i un and take .un- c� na 1
water connections with it. This I as oov r ous i y been statea i .i the
desires of many residents. It is Iot on, unjust, out ursouna , to
further develop in the north , ghee the south is shown to '1--e tre
,acre logical direct ;o.i .
555
W241H
Second , serviced industrial lots close to the 401 and railway
should be another priority. The proposed 407 and its link would not
attract more business , but would also destroy several existing
businesses and a heritage homes as well as our natural heritage . It
does not make economic sense to support this project, and we
believe the municipality should return to their former view of not
supporting it. We , as residents cannot understand what it was that
caused council to change its stand on this issue .
We would also like to take this opportunity to comment on 18T-
92014 and i8T-94027 ( Courtice Heights ) being requested to be
referred to the OMB hearing . After Mr . Karson ' s complementary
statements about the Plan , why then is he requesting such major
changes'> We feel this request is unfair, unreasonable and should be
denied, as per report PD-80-95 , section 2 . 5 . 3 , stating that a
request may be denied if it nas unsound planning grounds (these in
question don ' t comply with Provincial , Regional or Municipal
Policies ) .
In closing , we would like to say that we understand you have a
difficult task trying to work within the framework set by Region.
With the plans to downsize Regional Council , we nope that their
responsibility and authority will be modified . After ail , it makes
more sense to have the Region controlling infrasrtructure which is
why Regional government was established. Regional Council should
explore new employment opportunities (ex : technology and
environmental science in all businesses ) ; it shoula also examine
and explore new way of transportation (more roads is not right
answer) . Regional Council should coordinate municipalities rather
than dictate what land should be designated for what purpose . This
is ajob clearly more suited for the municipalities since they are
more in tune with what the residents desire, and are more aware of
what type of environment they are dealing with. And that is what
any level of government is supposed to do, serve the needs and
aesires of its constituents .
Your truly
Libby RacansKy Dim i R 'UT1'Or,4
Enc 1 osu re
AC,i BY
Halminen site-Farewell Valley and creek '
Flood p i a i n- Map-M , Map-21
Newspaper-public opinion ~CO i'S 10
Unconfined aquifer chart
Reg . Chair , G. Herrema MNR, P. Smith
MOEE , S . janusas MMA, V. Doyle
CLOCA, D . Wright MPP, J . O' Toole
I
ob �>rb� o E Group Fe�@Is
•G N Mil (xD R A'E .� EH i O (n
�� o Hwy. 407 Will
2.0
w � q i~9 �w -, Pave Paradise
8 N CD o o a s ;��f The ever encroaching 407 High
X a oQ R �; way will change the face of Clar-
y o n w o^CD p"7 _ ington, with its eight-lane barrier
w E
o,S o,y 5 i w ^� ti w =� y' bisecting the town.
:� �♦.. Lynn Helpard,of the Committee
o o o?0 4 o 4 w y E �, of Concerned Citizens, told coun-
a w e 5 y y ��
E r cillors at a public meeting that the
o " x:r S wise words of Joni Mitchell's 'Big
o `< R `� < g'3 �7 n Yellow Taxi' could become Clar-
�y o w 0 y,- a !' g,o ington residents' lament if the 407
° $w n w b E oc R § a i C7 A goes through.
C :J 8 zn E o w 0 ° o a o "Several times in her lyrics,
'b 0 m n Miss Mitchell repeats this universal
OQ
g o o - g 7 truth: 'You don't know what
o ° �; F d you've got ul its gone, Helpard
w ce 3 g 3 . a , CD g Said.
H �.,e -r w b 41:D c He was among many members
Z, .�ti of the public who commented last
ti � ^ E = S� 0 week on the details of Clarington's
°O a a 0 ' ° proposed Official Plan.
Quiet Parks s o o a� � p Helpard noted shat a recent arti-
cle in the Toronto Star quoted the
" b esiden
In Minority W� ' ~ prt of a large development
C/3 company as saying the 407 is open-
o 4cl:) ing up new regions for home build-
Parks should not be just for :3 n ers.
people who play sports, but 4 w w$ „
� 0 °, r" m He observed: We all know that
also for those who enjoy listen- n. , ,
ing and looking for nature's �� a representatives of the Ministry of
creatures, says a Bowmanviile nb w a Transportation insist they are only
resident. W 0 =o r °'A, �
Little Court resident Evylin ° y " O planning a transportation corridor,
Stroud told Clanngton Coun- o �'v k 0 2 n b but everyone who dreams of mak-
cillors at the Official Plan �' n� $ ..d' O b mg a fast buck is talking about a
meeting, some people aprefer E o =o h major development corridor.
passive parks. o Zo �— J. "Their unified message is clear-
"There is a part of the area o � %� - they're planning to pave pam
population who want to see w x .I .,
less developed
parks. The ° n `V disc, he said.
• P y w o 0'n o� �� cn While council has rejected the
don't want to hear the crack of � � � ^ � o
Minis-
baseball bats, but to see and 3 $ —� route through the town, the Mtnis-
hear birds,"she said try of Transportation will not be
"My husband and I don't go long in asking the council to recon-
to the other parks, but instead sider its stand on the issue, Helpard
enjoy the passive areas,"
�.
Stroud said wamcd
"Not everyone wants a busy
park
Clarington Mayor Diane ' i
Hamre noted that "there is a - Y
change in how parklands are being developed.'
She also stated that with less
money in the governments' t'`
coffers and loss of revenue for
the municipalities, passive
parks will become more abun-
dant as time progresses
V'~ spc��o� Provision }K Speclol Provision W241H
SRec�6f- a L 00-127
routs 1- Nifo f -
1
4 R2
A - moo^ � I_ 1 i
t V�o
speacl WOJ (� r I,.I• o Hahn dheh
Provision
8/L 81-12 ' '~4/^ eo-aT I
1 2 1 i t R G
(Mock 09••• rr --I/!U
ct.2
t) ^ . .� el I11
0
O peal
✓�ALH/•li�jl! i I i f 1 dProvision
����000 C `. ,,,... � ► - I I I 9/1-8i-125
— Key�Mw-
Z, J O /
-- ;to
\
FRRruCL– _ — 2
k > — O f LAHO "' J
H—�r/(/ ,
I D J
6Y LAW I D D
t M i
o
22�
� � 1
—y I
At..rw+cv..
– I
I �v
_coo I -
-T
A UNE r .... A
33418 Special Provision 8/L ....
i il !
LOT 35 LOT 34 LOT 33 LOT 32 J25LOT 31 Lor 3o LOT 29
f �
Y 4 I
SCALE N FEET TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
o
`s -
I.lX1C�ML PLANNING OOr6ULTANTS 00 lT0 KEY MAP 21
uc= #A.+4 80-103 zone cha a to (.12-3 61-�a4 amended by 8/1-82-35 Special
.N. 75-27zcnechased1o0 n9 prnvtd � AA
RETAIN THIS COPY FOR FOLLOW-UP
FE 74 7,7, 1 k J A 16 TI 2 7
L I C 3A6
FROM DEPARTMENT
l
77 DATE
c�
SUBJECI
MESSAGE
0j, rvl),e�
C 6
1>
—16 VA o
c
1,2
L
ZAZI
REPLY FROH
A 10-E or D 5905(250 pkg) D4905(50pkg) DATE