HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-248-90 ""�'"' TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
DN: ABSEC.GPA REPORT File # !z) •Je /
Res. #
By-Law #
METING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: July 23, 1990
REPORT #: -p-Q-249-90 FILE #: 2 6_ n—
CT' APPLICATION TO AMEND DURHAM REGIONAL PLAN
ABSEC PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT INC. (FORMERLY 667433 ONTARIO
LIMITED)
PART LOTS 13/14, CONCESSION 3, DARLINGTON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-248-90 be received;
2 . THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of
Newcastle recommends that Official Plan Amendment Application
File 86-52/D submitted by Absec Property Development Inc. to
permit the development of a 37 lot estate residential
development in Part Lots 13 and 14, Concession 3, former
Township of Darlington, be denied; and
3 . THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to the Region
of Durham and the applicant.
1. APPLICATION INFORMATION
1. 1 Applicant: Absec Property Development Inc .
(formerly 667433 Ontario Limited)
1.2 O.P.A. : From mineral aggregate resource extraction
(Area #57) in the major open space system
to permit a 37 lot estate residential
development.
1. 3 Area: 30 . 3 hectares (74 . 8 acres)
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 2
2. LOCATION
2 . 1 Legal Description: Part Lots 13 and 14, Concession 3, former
Township of Darlington
2 .2 Relative Location: North of Concession Road 3, south of
Concession 4, west of Middle Road and east
of Regional Road 57 .
3. BACKGROUND
3 . 1 Notification of Application Date: On July 17, 1986, the Town
of Newcastle was advised by the Region of
Durham of an Official Plan Amendment
application submitted by 667433 Ontario
Limited.
3.2 Previous G.P.A. Referral: On November 17, 1986, G.P.A.
resolved (Resolution #GPA-1036-86) that
Report PD-280-86 be tabled to allow
discussion between the applicant's
Engineer, Staff and Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority and to allow a
further review of the proposal.
3 . 3 Ownership Change: Between February 1989 and May 1989 Mr.
Robert Craig, representing 667433 Ontario
Limited, sold the land parcel to Mr.
Pramad Kumar of Absec Property Development
Inc.
4. LAND USES
4 . 1 Existing Uses: Vacant, abandoned gravel pit.
4 .2 Surrounding Uses: East: Bowmanville Country Club
West: Estate Residential
South: Scrub forest/residential
North: Scrub forest/residential
599 49
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 3
5. OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
5 . 1 Durham Region Official Plan
5 . 1. 1 The site continues to be designated as Mineral Aggregate
Resource Extraction Area #51 although the Ministry of
Natural Resources cancelled the pit licence on August 19,
1986 . It would appear that this designation is now
obsolete, however, the designation has not been deleted
from the plan because of the impending Official Plan
Amendment, which is the subject of this report.
5 . 1.2 The site is within the Region's Major Open Space System.
A limited number of estate-residential subdivisions on
large lots may be permitted as an exception to the
"General Agricultural" and "Major Open Space" policies
by amendment to the Durham Region Official Plan. The
limits to the numbers of such estate-residential
subdivisions shall be established by their scale and
location, their financial implications for the Region
and their effect on the Region's transportation
facilities and utilities .
6. PUBLIC RESPONSE
6 . 1 On November 17, 1986 one delegation appeared before the
General Purpose and Administration Committee (ie. Irwin A.
Hamilton, Barrister, 43 Ontario Street, Bowmanville) as one
of the four principals associated with 667433 Ontario Limited.
Mr. Hamilton stressed that the lake within the property will
"give tremendous year-round enjoyment, skating in winter and
fishing in the summer" .
Mr. Hamilton also noted that the gravel track around the lake
will become a jogging track. Mr. Hamilton also stated that
the lots will be serviced by wells and septic tanks and that
no added services will be required and also, the
environmentally sensitive areas will suffer no adverse affects
as the company's engineers can address all of C.L.O.C.A. 's
59 :,) 0
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 4
concerns . Mr. Hamilton concluded with a request for support
for this proposal. (Later the property was sold by 667433
Ontario Limited to Mr. Pramad Kumar of Absec Property
Development Inc . )
7. AGENCY COMMENTS
7 . 1 In accordance with Departmental procedure, the application was
circulated to various agencies and departments for their
review and comment. The following agencies/departments
offered no objection to this application:
Town of Newcastle Building Department
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
Public School Board
Separate School Board
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Ministry of Natural Resources
As well, the Town of Newcastle Community Services Department
has no objection as long as the municipality takes cash-in-
lieu of 5% parkland dedication.
The Durham Region Department of Health Services has no
objection provided the applicant submits a revised site plan
that is to be registered on title of all the newly created
lots .
7 .2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Department stressed that
the owner(s) shall meet standard department requirements, bear
all costs for work on Middle Road caused by the development,
contribute to the costs of reconstructing Middle Road, provide
street lights for Middle Road and the development, and if the
lake is to be used for recreation then road drainage into it
is not permitted.
7 .3 On March 9 , 1988, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
raised several concerns which have yet to be answered:
50 `I
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 5
- the lake on site is 2 . 6 hectares but the original
assimilative capacity model was applied to much larger
lakes, ie: larger than 100 ha.
- water quality has yet to be assessed in light of the
freezeover factor.
- the dissolved oxygen supply has yet to be assessed in
light of the increased phosphorus uptake.
- It is not clear how the desired phosphorus loss rate to
bottom sediments will be achieved.
- in the previous assimilative capacity report, surface
runoff and groundwater contributions were calculated on
the assumption that the contributing areas would remain
in their existing states but, this assumption is
doubtful.
Another C.L.O.C.A. concern which has never been answered is
that regarding the site's lake and the matter of its
maintenance, future residents would not necessarily be able
to monitor or correct water quality problems .
7 .4 The Ministry of the Environment was concerned that a
substantial portion of the site was used for the disposal of
construction waste. Therefore, the Ministry objected to the
application, at that time and until the completion of an
impact study of the waste on the site. That study was
completed and submitted as part of the Groundwater Analysis
Report of June 1988. Although the Ministry has responded with
further comments, these have yet to be addressed.
8 . SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL REPORTS
8. 1 Landscape Analysis
Mr. Robert Craig, the earlier landowner, submitted a
landscape, soil and hydrogeologic analysis report in July
1986, which noted that:
the site was largely devoid of vegetation due to
extraction activities;
599 51
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 6
the existing lake be retained;
a stormwater retention pond be created;
the two water bodies be used for recreation; and
the water bodies be owned in common by the residents
who will be responsible for liability and
maintenance.
8 .2 Lake's Assimilative Capacity
The same landowner submitted an assimilative capacity analysis
report for the lake in February 1987 to C.L.O.C.A. and it
stated:
the 1987 water quality was good;
a worst-case scenario for phosphorus loading may
fall marginally below M.O.E. acceptability
standards; and
a noticeable phosphorus enrichment may appear in
about twenty (20) years, diminishing swimming
opportunities and aesthetic features.
8 .3 Lake's Assimilative Capacity Update
The above report ( 8.2) was updated by a letter report in
October 1987 and it said:
the phosphorus loading model has been adjusted
to accommodate the revised site plan;
the worst-case scenario indicates the impact will
be marginal; and
it can be monitored and reduced with several
supplementary measures.
8 .4 Hydrology Analysis
The same landowner submitted another report in October 1987
discussing several matters, including surface water, site plan
redesign and ownership/maintenance of the lake.
999 r� `!�
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 7
Regarding surface water, it was proposed that no development
occur within the floodplain. The site's major drainage
feature consists of a watercourse that enters the property
from the northeast corner and flows southwest into the lake.
Under low-flow conditions the water in the lake drains through
the ground water regime but with intense storm incidents the
lake will overflow to the surface water regime. It was
proposed that a dyke contain the lake and that it be graded
to provide a controlled overflow at the west end of the lake
so that runoff will follow an engineered floodway to the
site's southeast corner to meet the upper end of a natural
watercourse flowing into Bowmanville Creek. This floodway
conforms to C.L.O.C.A. policies . The road drainage system
will collect drainage from most of the subdivision lots area
and move it to southeast corner of the site bypassing the
lake.
The redesigned site plan incorporated the deletion of five
lots along the north side of the lake and the related access
road (which extended east to Middle Road) .
Regarding ownership of and responsibility for the lake and its
shoreline, it was proposed that the shore lands be conveyed
to a private Ontario corporation run by shareholders who would
be the owners of the subdivision lots .
8.5 Groundwater Analysis
The final report commissioned by Mr. Robert Craig was a
groundwater report, prepared in June 1988. This report stated
that the west margin of the site was overlain by a veneer of
fill, as deep as 3 . 3 m. However, most of the fill was clean
sand and gravel. Imported fill, consisting of earthfill with
some construction rubble, was in the southwest portion of the
fill area. The imported fill has not affected water quality.
Melted "plow snow" and agricultural land drainage increased
phosphorus and nitrates levels in the soil. However, each lot
599
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 8
would be serviced with an individual drilled well that would
penetrate the surf icial granular material to tap water bearing
zones in the deeper overburden. The deep wells would ensure
adequate future potable water supplies .
9. STAFF COMMENTS
9 . 1 The General Purpose and Administration Committee tabled the
first report associated with this official plan amendment
application on Monday, November 17, 1986 . This report,
attached hereto as Appendix A, was tabled to allow discussion
between the applicant's Engineer, Staff and C.L.O.C.A. and to
allow a further review of the proposal.
9 .2 After the ownership of the property changed, Staff contacted
the new owner, notifying him of a meeting for the O.P.A. 86-
52/D application, scheduled for June 1, 1989, to determine the
new owner's intentions with respect to the application.
The above meeting was held with Pramad and Lucy Kumar
(representing Absec Property Development Inc . ) and Sarj
Matharu (a consultant to the above mentioned company) .
Mr. Matharu stated that they needed time to respond to the
technical aspects of the application's more problematic areas
of concern.
On August 16, 1989, Staff wrote Mr. Pramad Kumar, stating that
the Department had not received an indication as to whether
Absec would be revising the site plan for the Official Plan
Amendment application (OPA 86-521/D) . There has been no
response to this letter and Staff notes the property is
presently for sale.
9 . 3 Staff decided to prepare a Staff Report with respect to this
application. The previously mentioned first report (PD-280-
86) on this application recommended that the application be
599 � `�
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 9
denied. Staff has reviewed the first report again and,
recommends that the application again be denied. The concerns
which prompted the previous application denial are in many
cases still valid. These concerns are:
C.L.O.C.A. has a concern that potential groundwater
recharge during dry periods when combined with tile
field leachate, may contribute to water quality
degradation.
C.L.O.C.A. has a concern that "lake management"
strategy will leave management of the lake and shore
to homeowners who might not notice water quality
problems, or if they did see them, could not
effectively mitigate them. Furthermore, this
ownership/management strategy has never been
developed in detail .
Staff are concerned that the application would
establish a new area of non-rural development and
consequently increase the development pressures on
adjacent properties .
Staff are also concerned that development of this
site for estate residential purposes would be
detrimental to the planning of future development
for the north part of Bowmanville if and when the
Bowmanville Urban Area is extended to the north to
encompass the site.
9 .4 Since the preparation of the above report, Staff have further
reviewed estate residential development trends in the Town of
Newcastle. A research report (PD-61-89) notes several
disturbing developments:
73% of all rural building permits issued for new
residential units from 1984 to 1988 (inclusive) are
for rural areas outside hamlets;
64% of all lots in Plans of Subdivision registered
from 1984 to 1988 (inclusive) are estate residential
rather than hamlet residential;
599 'D6
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 10
in late 1988/early 1989 there were 193 registered,
draft approved or proposed estate residential lots
north of the Bowmanville Urban Area and, the Durham
Regional Official Plan notes that generally hamlets
shall not grow beyond a total of 150 units and
furthermore, there are no designated Hamlets in the
area north of Bowmanville Urban Area.
Estate residential land use is an exceptions use, according
to Section 10.3. 1. 3 of the Durham Regional Official Plan:
"A limited number of estate-residential subdivisions on
large lots may be permitted by amendment to this Plan.
The limits to the numbers of such estate-residential
subdivisions shall be established by their scale and
location, their financial implications for the Region
and their effect on the Region's transportation
facilities and utilities . "
The Durham Regional Official Plan emphasizes the protection
and development of agricultural and aggregate mineral
resources . PD-6-89 research report cites three Plan goals
that have this emphasis:
i) the protection of high potential mineral aggregate
resources from incompatible land uses;
ii) the protection and encouragement of agriculture by
establishing permanent agricultural reserves; and
iii) the protection of unique attributes of the Region's
landscape including the Oak Ridges Moraine, the
waterfronts, conservation areas, valleylands,
marshes and other natural environments and
recreational resources .
The same research report goes on to state the emphasis towards
hamlets in rural residential development in the following
terms:
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 11
"With these goals in mind it is the intention of the plan
that new residential development be encouraged to develop
within the Hamlets and Urban Areas designated within the
plan. "
The application proposes development with a contrary emphasis .
9 .5 All applications to amend the Durham Region Official Plan to
allow for estate-residential development are to be considered
on their merits and subject to several considerations, which
are listed in Section 10. 3 .2 . 1 of the Durham Region Official
Plan.
Since the development proposal associated with this
application would privatize the site's lake and the shoreline
around it, it is possible that the development proposal could
contravene Consideration b) in Section 10.3 .2 . 1 which is as
follows:
"The proposal preserves visual and physical public access to
significant scenic vistas and physical landforms; "
Since the development proposal may have an impact on the
site's lake and on a tributary of Bowmanville Creek, it is
very possible that the development proposal could contravene
Consideration f) in Section 10 . 3.2 . 1 which is as follows:
"the proposal does not create undue adverse effects on lands
identified by Regional Council, the Ministry of Natural
Resources or the Ministry of the Environment as
environmentally sensitive areas; "
It would appear that this estate residential proposal does not
meet two of the considerations listed.
10. CONCLUSIONS
10. 1 In conclusion, Staff sees no reason to revoke the earlier
recommendation of denial but instead, wishes to reaffirm the
denial position.
599 C� 8
REPORT NO. : PD-248-90 PAGE 12
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Franklin Wu, M.C.I .P. Lawrence Kotseff
Director of Planning Chief A i istrative
and Development Officer
RR*FW*df
*Attach
16 July 1990
Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's
decision:
Pramad Kumar Robert Craig
Absec Property Development Inc. R. R. #5
483 King Street East, Bowmanville, Ont. L1C 3K6
Newcastle, Ontario. LOA 1HO
Walter H. Gibson, P. Eng.
Walter H. Gibson and Associates Ltd.
P.O. Box 148
Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K9
D.G. Biddle and Associates
Consulting Engineers and Architects
96 King Street East
Oshawa, Ontario.
Ronald F. Worboy
Barrister and Solicitor
P.O. Box 21,
153 Simcoe Street South
Oshawa, Ontario. L1H 7K8
Barbara Kennedy
587 Digny Avenue, Apt.5
Oshawa, Ontario. L1G 1W7
Hamilton & Associates
Mr. Irwin Hamilton
Barristers and Solicitors,
P.O. Box 39,
1 Division Street,
Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K8
Henry Kortekaas and Associates
82 Sherwood Road East
Village of Pickering
Ajax, Ontario. L7V 2B4
9 �? �) C
11111111 SUBJECT SITE
IT 16 15 14 13 12 it
Zei
A.I •� x
A
1 W
♦ M W �OOU.
KEY MAP
TOWN of NEWCASTLE . Formerly Township of Darlington
509
f �