HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-34-86 r
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
Y p REPORT File # /31
Res. #
By-Law #
METING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: February 17, 1986
REPORT #: PD-34-86 FILE #: 85-37/D/PdB and DEV 85-24
SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION AND OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
PYTHBOW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
PART LOTS 12 and 13, BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION, BOWMANVILLE
OUR FILES: OPA 85-37/D/NB and DEV 85-24
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-34-86 be received; and
2. THAT Official Plan Amendment application 85-37/D/NB be denied and the Region of
Durham so advised: and
3. That Rezoning application DEV 85-24 be denied; and
4. THAT the applicant be advised of Council ' s action.
BACKGROUND:
On August 7, 1985 the Town received an application for rezoning submitted by Pythbow
Developments Limited. The prerequisite application for Official Plan Amendment was
received on August 19, 1985. The site, subject of these applications, is located at the
south-west corner of the intersection of Baseline Road and Regional Road No. 57 in
Bowmanville (Attachment No. 1) . The subject applications propose the development of a
shopping mall with a total Gross Leaseable Area of 182,283 sq.ft. (16,934m2) .
The subject lands are currently designated "Special Purpose Commercial" by the Durham
Regional and Newcastle Official Plans. The site is zoned "C5 - Special Purpose
Commercial " .
� l
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 2
In accordance with departmental procedures the application was circulated to
a number of agencies for comments which are summarized below.
Town of Newcastle Public Works - No objection in principle subject to:
1) entering into a development agreement
2) all works constructed to Town standards
3) dedication of a 10 ft. road widening
4) closure and conveyance of unopened road allowance
5) conveyance of any necessary easements
6) financial contributions for reconstruction of Baseline Road including
illumination, sidewalks, road widenings.
Town of Newcastle Fire Department - No objection
Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission - No objection
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
The site plan circulated is significantly different from that which the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority had previously approved.
Although it is apparent that a cut and fill proposal will be utilized, it
cannot be determined by examining the plan whether the same cut and fill
system will be used which maintained flood storage as was previously
approved by the Authority.
Therefore, although the Authority is not, in principle, opposed to the
development, they would like to review and approve the most recent plans and
details to ensure their concerns are still recognized. Accordingly, they
have asked that the Town not approve the rezoning until this has been done.
Ministry of Environment - No comment
Ministry of Agriculture and Food - No objections
. . .3
1 � Ca�
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 3
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
Additional lands will be required to improve the interchange. Prior to
permit approval , a site and drainage plan should be provided for review by
the District Building Inspector. Building setback required is 13.7 metres
(45 feet) from the future property line.
Ministry of Natural Resources - No objection
Region of Durham Public Works
Full municipal services are available. For the purposes of constructing a
future sanitary trunk sewer a 6 metre wide easement is required.
COMMENTS:
The subject application is identical to a proposal , submitted by Pythbow,
for this site in 1983. That proposal was denied by the Town' s Council of
the day and following approval , by the Region of Durham, was referred to the
Ontario Municipal Board by the Town, the Bowmanville Mall and the
Bowmanville B. I.A.
An Ontario Municipal Board hearing was commenced on that application on
November 19, 1984 and concluded on December 5, 1984. Extensive evidence was
presented at that hearing and the Hearing Chairman, Mr. W.H.J. Tompson, who
is a senior Vice-Chairman with the Ontario Municipal Board, delivered his
decision on February 11, 1985. A copy of the decision is included as
Attachment No. 2. The decision of the Board was to deny the subject
application citing a number of reasons, most of which can be related back to
the intent of the approved Official Plans. Staff have not attempted to
summarize the reasons for this decision, however, based on the evidence, the
Board member denied the application based upon planning grounds and the fact
that there would be an undue economic impact upon Bowmanville's existing
commercial facilities.
In support of the current application, Pythbow submitted a letter dated
August 2, 1985 (Attachment No. 3) . This letter suggested that approval
. . .4
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 4
should be granted based on certain "new facts". Staff feel it is
appropriate to respond to these "facts" and our comments are identified in
accordance with the numbered "facts" contained in said letter.
1) It is suggested that the local A & P store has a problem and needs to
expand to be competitive. The Pythbow site is offered as a solution.
Staff are aware of the A & P store's situation and have been advised
that they are, in fact, attempting a land assembly in order to expand
their present facilities. Staff are currently reviewing an informal
proposal by A & P, however, no conclusions have yet been reached. It
should be noted that evidence submitted to the Ontario Municipal Board
indicated that Bowmanville was "over-stored with supermarkets and that
if a new such store on the site was developed, (Pythbow site) it would
do so at the expense of other such stores in other locations".
Staff cannot accept Pythbow' s suggestion that A & P will close their
doors if an alternate site is not provided. Particularly in view of
our ongoing discussions with A & P.
2) It is suggested that the sale of homes and lots in the Bowmanville
area are booming. Staff would suggest that while building activity
has increased in the Bowmanville area, the resultant increase in
housing stock has an insignificant impact, if any, upon the facts as
they existed when the previous proposal was considered by the Ontario
Municipal Board. Staff are optimistic that significant building
activity will occur in 1986, but note that this activity will be in
the Mearns/Highway No. 2 area north of the Bowmanville Mall .
3) It is suggested that the consultant for the Bowmanville Mall stated
their location could not attract a Junior Department store. This was
not the case. In fact, the consultant' s remarks can be found in the
sixth paragraph on Page 25 of the Ontario Municipal Board decision.
. . .5
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 5
"Mr. Stamm was of the opinion that a population of 45,000 persons in
the trade area would be necessary to support a Junior Department store
of 50,000 to 55,000 square feet, and that the insufficient population
and limited market growth were insufficient to support a shopping
centre on the site". The site in question being the Pythbow site.
Pythbow further suggests that they be granted a rezoning and a two
year limit be placed upon them similar to that granted to the
Bowmanville Mall . Once rezoned, it is very difficult to change the
zoning, particularly, where the zoning complies with the Official
Plan. Therefore, except for temporary use by-laws, time limits are
not incorporated in zoning by-laws. No such arrangement was granted
to the Bowmanville Mall , although the development agreement does state
that approval of the plans and drawings will lapse after two years
should construction not proceed. This is a standard clause which
provides the Town with an opportunity to request revisions to plans
and drawings if deemed appropriate. This clause of the agreement in
no way affects the zoning approval or the text of our agreement.
4) It is suggested that by denying Pythbow's previous application, two
major commercial developments were lost. These being Zellers and
McDonalds. In the case of Zellers, their present location at Townline
Road and Highway No. 2 is one which serves a trade area which includes
Courtice and part of Oshawa. A Zellers store at the Pythbow site
would not attract shoppers from that area and based upon evidence
presented at the Ontario Municipal Board without a base population of
45,000 persons, the Pythbow site is not viable for this type of
centre. Construction of the Zellers store at Townline commenced in
January of 1984 indicating that a decision and commitment to locate
would have been made some time prior. The previous application was
submitted in October, 1983 and Staff are of the opinion that the
Town' s denial had little to do with Zellers' decision which could be
supported on the basis of market information as a logical decision.
. . .6
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Pa tV ��
ge 6 t )
McDonalds' , on the other hand, could have located on the Pythbow site
regardless of whether or not the mall proposal was approved.
Discussions with McDonalds personnel identified a number of sites
under consideration in the Bowmanville and Courtice areas. Staff were
under the impression that a total of two sites were being sought and
that the timing of each was dependant upon market. The choice to
locate at Kingsway Village was dictated by the lack of municipal
services along Highway No. 2 in Courtice and the existing market in
that area. Further population growth is required in the Bowmanville
trade area for a second McDonalds.
5) It is suggested that a market study, prepared by Bunn and Denny, for
the B. I.A. , verified the need for a Junior Department store and that,
if Phase III of the Mall was not completed soon, there would be a need
for the Py thbow Mall now. Staff are of the opinion that the Bunn and
Denny Report is not a valid market study. It did, however, survey
public opinion and desires and identified changes required relative to
the Bowmanville B. I .A. The authors, while not recognized market
analysts, concluded that a mall will be needed after the year 2000,
but if a Junior Department store is not built at the Bowmanville Mall
and existing merchants do not realign to respond to consumer demands,
a mall such as Py thbows' could become a necessity much sooner. Staff
feel that this study dealt with "wants" of the public as opposed to
substantiated market need as addressed by the most recent analysis
produced by Stamm Economic Research.
The Bowmanville Mall has, to my knowledge, never admitted they are
unable to get a Junior Department store, only that the market does not
yet exist to support it on the scale proposed.
Py thbow' s conclusions being that "changing situations require a
re-evaluation of the assumptions originally made" . Staff do not feel there
has been any change in the facts as they existed when this proposal was last
considered. In instances such as this, it has been found that in the
absence of changed circumstances, such as a change in planning documents,
market or any other contributing factors, and in the absence of a petition
. . .7
V V""
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 7 �--'
to cabinet (permitted at that time) or a review of the Ontario Municipal
Board decision pursuant to the provisions of statutes, an application of
this nature may be deemed an "abuse of process" .
On September 26, 1985 Staff received correspondence from Pythbow confirming
the extent of the approval being sought and outlining a possible compromise
should the Town be unwilling to approve the larger proposal (Attachment
No. 4) . This letter requested planning comments on each of the components
of the proposal as follows: the department store, the food store and the
retail stores. In response, Staff rely upon the evidence submitted to and
accepted by the Ontario Municipal Board. This evidence indicated that the
existing coirmerci.al development in Bowmanville would suffer an undue
economic impact if the proposal proceeded. The most recent market analysis
suggests a trade area population of 45,000 persons is required in order to
support such a facility. This has not been achieved, however, a Junior
Department store can be physically accommodated at and has been approved for
the Bowmanville Mall . Market evidence indicates Bowmanville is
"over-stored" with supermarkets, however, A & P are investigating ways and
means of expanding and retaining their location in the downtown. New
population growth in the trade area is still minimal and highway traffic
spill-off was deemed to be of little consequence to the success of a centre
at the Pythbow site given other choices in the Durham Region. We must
reiterate that, in our opinion, there has been no change in circumstances
since the proposal was last considered by the Ontario Municipal Board.
The letter also proposed a compromise should Council not wish to approve the
requested 182,283 square feet. If the compromise, a 75,000 square foot
development, were considered it would not include a Junior Department store.
This has always been a key component and argument for such a mall . This
proposal , if accepted, would only perpetuate the uncertainty with respect to
the Town's intentions vis-a-vis the Bowmanville downtown.
Staff are of the opinion that, in the absence of any change in facts, to
substantiate a change in the Staff position, we must recommend denial of the
. . .8
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 8
subject applications.
On January 13, 1986 Council resolved to provide further direction to Staff
in respect of this application.
Resolution #C-49-86
"BE IT RESOLVED THAT Staff, as part of their consideration of and report
on the Py thbow application, specify the extent and nature of any
amendments required to the Regional or Newcastle Official Plans should
Council be inclined to recommend approval of said application; and
THAT staff specifically address ways and means of mitigating any
potential impacts that might arise from such approval ."
In response to this direction, it is necessary for Staff to review the
objectives of the Regional and Newcastle Official Plans which form the basis
for current policy.
Within the Regional Plan two key goals are identified by Sections 8.2.1.1
and 8.2.1.2. The first of these sections expresses an intent to develop
"Central Areas" as "central focal points of activity" . The implication here
is that such "Central Areas" should be central to the population base they
are intended to serve. This is reinforced by Section 8.2.3.5 of the
Regional Plan.
Section 8.2.1.2 expresses an intent to ensure integration of shopping
functions with other traditional central area functions as expressed by
Section 8.2.2.1 which outlines the general nature of uses permitted in
Central Areas.
In addition, the Regional Plan establishes guidelines for the development of
Central Areas and, in particular, defines floor space ceilings for
designated areas. In considering the designation of new central areas it is
clearly stated, by Section 8.2.3.3, that "the viability of any Central Area
proposal should not be based upon the assumption that surrounding central
areas shall experience an undue economic decline" . (underlining added)
Regard must, therefore, be had for the other commercial allocations within
the plan with the implied necessity of ensuring market viability. In actual
. . .9
00
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 9
fact, within the framework of the Official Plan there are no market
restrictions placed on development if located within a designated central
area. Therefore, in the absence of market evidence to justify expansion of
commercial allocations, approval of a proposal , such as Pythbow, would
require a reallocation of the commercial floor space presently designated in
the Official Plan. It is Staff' s opinion, therefore, that consideration of
the Pythbow proposal requires a reassessment of basic goals and objectives
of the Regional Plan.
Similarly, since the Town's Official Plan must conform to the Regional
Official Plan, any adjustment to Regional policies would require reciprocal
adjustments to Town policies. In addition, the Council must re-evaluate its
priorities related to the Bowmanville Main Central Area and expressed by
Sections 2.5.2 and 2.10.2 of the Bowmanville Plan.
Based on the foregoing comments, Staff are of the opinion that it would be
necessary to amend both the Durham Regional and Newcastle Official Plans to
redefine the central area concept, reallocate commercial floor space, and to
specify criteria and guidelines for locating commercial centres outside of
designated central areas.
In terms of specific impacts upon the Newcastle Official Plan, Staff feel
that in the absence of increased ceilings on commercial floor space,
existing allocations would have to be revised. Bearing in mind the location
of the Pythbow proposal , the most obvious adjustment would be the deletion
of the Local Central Area designation on Highway No. 2 west of Regional Road
No. 57. Similarly, floor space allocations for the Main Central Area and
another local central area, designated on Liberty Street North, would have
to be reduced.
The most obvious impact of approving such a proposal would be related to
future expansion plans of the Bowmanville Mall . If a Junior Department
store were constructed on the Pythbow site, it is Staff's opinion that there
would be insufficient market to warrant such a facility at Bowmanville Mall .
. . .10
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 10
This leaves the Mall site open for alternative development proposals,
however, it is Staff' s opinion that only a limited number of alternatives
exist, which would maintain the viability of the existing mall , without
intervention.
Another consideration, in approving the Pythbow proposal , would be the need
for designating additional land for Special Purpose Commercial uses in order
to offset the loss of this prime site.
Based on the foregoing comments, Council should carefully consider the
impact of its actions and plan mitigating actions as suggested above. In
order to do so, various scenarios for development of the Main Central Area
should be developed in order to ensure the basic intent of the Official Plan
relative to the dominant role and vitality of the Main Central Area is
maintained. To do otherwise would be poor planning. The preparation of a
development plan for the Main Central Area has been initiated by Staff in
accordance with the requirements of Section 2.5.2(i )a) of the Bowmanville
Plan. The only remaining exercise is refinement of land use scenarios and
this will be dictated, to a large extent, by Council ' s decision in respect
of the subject application as well as other factors such as the Town's Arena
Feasibility Study, the Administrative Facility Study, the Culture and
Recreation Master Plan, the Fire Protection Services Study, the Town's
Capital Budget and input from the Bowmanville B. I .A.
In the absence of Council direction to prepare such amendments, there is no
basis for any Staff recommendation other than denial of the applications.
As indicated earlier in this report reconsideration, of a previously
considered application, should not be entertained unless there is new
evidence or changed circumstances such as new Official Plan policies.
. . .11
REPORT NO. : PD-34-86 Page 11
It is therefore respectfully recommended that the application be denied
failing which appropriate direction to Staff is required.
Respectfull itted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P.
Director of Planning
TTE*j i p
*Attach.
Janauary 20, 1986
Applicant: Mr. L .M. Nuspl
Pythbow Developments Limited
48 St. Clair Avenue West
Suite 700
TORONTO, Ontario
L4V 2Z2
McMillan, Binch
Barristers & Solicitors
P.O. Box 38, South Tower
Royal Bank Plaza
TORONTO, Ontario
M5J 2J7
ATTENTION: Mr. Roger Elliott
Mr. G. Webster, Chairman
Bowmanville B.I .A.
c/o Rickaby` s
27 King Street West
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 1R2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO
REPORT PD-34-86
v SUBJECT SITE
LOT 14 LOT 13 LOT 12
P
CuMyTMl�4 ��
IOSCOy�[ dl.
O
� , y
Mt (H)MI-3 (H)R1
1
(H)CS ( C7-1 ( ZO
EP l(n co
r•"' Z
ova
•.•.• EP o
A
11 &
EP
C7-2
LL
(H)c7-2 H/\
z
W
Y
E �
I� M3-1
'
KEY MAP o so ao zoo soots
��
ATTACHMENT NO. 2 TO — CQ�
REPORT PD-34-86 `'�� �tR R fr' F 1
r ,
APR I 1 1985 re!
1t.
1 y
�' ✓- J u�
Ontario CLEI�i lj:,l','itil l�C�l
Ontario Municipal Board 0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063 n
\ �t1 OE
IN THE MATTER OF Section 51 of The Planning
Act (R.S.O. 1980, c. 379)
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a reference to this Board
by the Honourable Claude F. Bennett, -
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
on a request by Roger Elliott on behalf of
L.D.C.M. Investments Limited and Barmond
Builder Limited and a request by the
Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Newcastle for consideration of proposed
Amendment Number 71 to the Official Plan
for the Regional Municipality of Durham,
Minister's File No. 18-OP-0010-71
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a reference to this Board
by the Honourable Claude F. Bennett,
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
on a request by Roger Elliott on behalf of
L.O.C.M. Investments Limited and Barmond
Builder Limited and a request by the
Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Newcastle for consideration of proposed
Amendment Number 1 to the Official Plan for
the Bowmanville Urban Area, Minister's File
No. 18-OP-0188-001
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF Section 34(11) of The
Planning Act 1983
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to this Board by
Pythbow Developments Limited for an order
directing an amendment to 8y-law 2111 of
the Town of Newcastle (formerly the
Township of Darlington) to change from
Special Purpose Commercial to Shopping
Centre Commercial the permitted use of
lands comprising part of Lots 12 and 13,
Broken Front Concession, in the Town of
Newcastle, being 15.5 Ha (38.2A) in area
and situate between Highway 401 and
Baseline Road and Waverly . Road and
Bowmanville Creek, to permit the
establishment of a shopping centre on the
said lands
AMENDING DECISION OF THE BOARD delivered by W.H.J. THOMPSON
The style of cause for Amendment Number i to the Official Plan for the
Bowmanville Urban Area, Board File Number 0 840059, has been inadvertently
omitted from the decision of the Board dated the llth day of February, 1985.
- 2 - 0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
The style of cause is hereby amended to read as follows;
IN THE MATTER OF Section 51 of The Planning
Act (R.S.O. 1980, c. 379)
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a reference to this Board
by the Honourable Claude F. Bennett,
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
on a request by Roger Elliott on behalf of
L.D.C.M. Investments Limited and Barmond
Builder Limited and a request by the
Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Newcastle for consideration of proposed
Amendment Number 71 to the Official Plan
for the Regional Municipality of Durham,
Minister's File No. 18-OP-0010-71
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF a reference to this Board
by the Honourable Claude F. Bennett,
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
on a request by Roger Elliott on behalf of
L.D.C.M. Investments Limited and Barmond
Builder Limited and a request by the
Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Newcastle for consideration of proposed
Amendment Number 1 to .the•-Official P1.an-.for.
the Bowmanville Urban Area, Minister's File
No. 18-OP-0188-001
• and -
IN THE MATTER OF Section 34(11) of The
Planning Act 1983
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to this Board by
Pythbow Developments Limited for an order
directing an amendment to Bar-law 2111 of
the Town of Newcastle (formerly the
Township of Darlington) to change from
Special Purpose Commercial to Shopping
Centre Commercial the permitted use of
lands comprising part of Lots 12 and 13,
Broken Front Concession, in the Town of
Newcastle, being 15.5 Ha (38.2A) in area
and situate between Highway 401 and
Baseline Road and Waverly Road and
Bowmanville Creek, to permit the
establishment of a shopping centre on the
said lands
DATED at TORONTO this 9th day of April, 1985.
t
W.F.J. TROMP N
VILE-CHAI N
C.
S1�
FEB i 3 1985
STF . S'rI �rrrmar��°
Ontario
Ontario Municipal Board 0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
IN THE NATTER OF Section 51 of The Planning
Act (R.S.O. 1980, c. 379)
- and -
IN THE NATTER OF a reference to this Board
by the Honourable Claude F. Bennett,
liinister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
on a request by Roger Elliott on behalf of
L.D.C.M. Investments Limited and Barmond
Builder Limited and a request by the
Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Newcastle for consideration of proposed
Amendment Number 71 to the Official Plan
for the Regional Municipality of Durham,
Minister's File No. 18-OP-0010-71
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF Section 34(11) of The
Planning Act 1983 '-
- and -
IN THE MATTER OF an appeal to this Board by
Pythbow Developments Limited for an order
directing an amendment to By-law 2111 of
the Town of Newcastle (formerly the
Township of Darlington) to change from
Special Purpose Commercial to Shopping
Centre Commercial the permitted use of
lands comprising part of Lots 12 and 13,
Broken Front Concession, in the Town of
Newcastle, being 15.5 Ha (38.2A) in area
and situate between Highway 401 and
Baseline Road and Waverly Road and
Bowmianvi11e Creek, to permit the
establishment of a shopping centre on the
said lands
COUNSEL :
R.O. Kallio - for the Regional Municipality
of Durham
J.B. Goldenberg and
Evelyn Brown - for Pythbow Developments Limited
D.J. Sims, Q.C. - for the Town of Newcastle
A.A.H. Strike, Q.C. and
Ronald Strike - for Bowmanville Business Centre
Roger Elliott and - for L.D.C.M. Investments Limited
J. St. Clair and Barmond Builders Limited
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
- 2 -
DECISION OF THE BOARD delivered by W.H.J. THOMPSON
Ontario Municipal Board File 0 840058 contains the reference to this
Board by the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for
consideration of proposed Amendment Number 71 to the Official Plan of the
Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Area. This Plan will hereafter be
referred to as the "Regional Plan".
Ontario Municipal Board File 0 840059 contains the reference to this
Board by the said Minister for consideration of proposed Amendment Number 1
to the Official Plan of the Bowmanville Major Urban Area. This plan will
hereafter be referred to as the "local Plan".
The provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 379 as amended'
apply to the above references.
Ontario Municipal Board File Z 840063 applies to the appeal to this
Board by Pythbow Developments limited for an order directing an amendment to
By-law 2111 of the Town of Newcastle to change from Special Purpose
Commercial to Shopping Centre Commercial the permitted use of certain lands
to be identified hereafter. The provisions of The Planning Act, 1983 apply
to this appeal.
As evidence relating to one of these matters would apply to the other
two, it was agreed by counsel that the two references and the appeal should
be heard together and this was done.
The two references had their origin in an Official Plan amendment
application to the Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department
(Exhibit 13).
This application related to a parcel of land said to have an area of
approximately 38.2 acres with a frontage slightly in excess of 2,000 feet on
the south side of Baseline Road in the Town of Newcastle. The application
requested a shopping centre use in order to permit the development of a
shopping centre (in phases as market dictates) in accordance with Section
8.2.2.1 of the Regional Plan.
`J v 0 840058 a>
0 840059
Z 840063
- 3 -
To this end, a request for a Community Central Area designation in the
Regional Plan and a General Commercial designation in the Local Plan was
requested.
The application which was dated July 14, 1981 also contained the
information that the total gross retail floor space was to be 179,721 square
feet, which included a total mall area of 15,330 square feet.
The appeal herein originated in an application (Exhibit 85) for an
amendment to the Town of Newcastle zoning by-law. This application which
includes a statutory declaration declared October 13, 1983, is said to apply
to a parcel of land containing some 34 acres and having a frontage slightly
in excess of 2,000 feet on the south side of the Baseline Road, The request
for rezoning is to permit a Shopping Centre Commercial use.
The location of this parcel of land is identified on Exhibits 61 and
62,
Paragraph number 8 of Exhibit 85 states that all development is to be
to the west of an unopened road allowance, which separates this parcel of
land into two portions. The unopened road allowance runs southerly from
Baseline Road to the south limit of the parcel.
Although the land referred to in Exhibits 13 and 85 is in excess of 30
acres, it became clear during the hearing that the proposed shopping centre
would only occupy that part of the larger parcel lying to the west of the
west limit of the said unopened road allowance and this smaller portion
constitutes about 16 acres. It is this 16-acre parcel with which the
decision will deal and it will be identified hereafter as the "site".
The Regional Plan was filed as Exhibit 5 and the Local Plan as Exhibit
6,
Official Plan Amendment Number 71 (Exhibit 3) was adopted by the Durham
Regional Council on February 29, 1984 as By-law 29-84.
i
0 840058 /
0 840059
2 840063
- 4 -
The purpose of Official Plan Amendment Number 71 is to permit 160,000
square feet of retail and personal service uses on the site. In order to
accomplish this, Official Plan Amendment 71 deletes Section 8.3.2.3 of the
Regional Plan and substitutes it with a new provision.
Section 8.3.2.3 of the Regional Plan reads as follows:
"Regional Council, in co-operation with the Town of Newcastle,
shall investigate the location of a community central area within
the special purpose commercial area located at Waverly Road and
Baseline Road in the Town of Newcastle".
The replacement clause reads:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Plan to the
contrary, 160,000 square feet of retail and personal service uses
may be permitted within the special purpose commercial area
situated south of Baseline Road and east of Waverly Road in the
Bowmanville major urban area".
Official Plan Amendment Number 1 (Exhibit 4) was adopted by the
Regional Council on February 29, 1984 by By-law 30-84.
The purpose of this amendment is similar to that of Official Plan
Amendment Number 71.
It is intended to implement this purpose by adding to the Local Plan
Section 2.6.20)(c) the words:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Plan to the
contrary, 160,000 square feet of retail and personal service uses
may be permitted within the special purpose commercial area
situated south of Baseline Road and east of Waverly Road subject
to the necessary agreements being entered into with the Town of
Newcastle".
As the Board has already indicated the application for the Official
Plan amendments related to a parcel of land in excess of 30 acres, but for
the reason aforesaid the Board will deal with the two references as applying
only to the site.
Exhibit 18 is the proposed by-law which the Board is urged to direct
the Council of the Town of Newcastle to enact to permit the said shopping
centre on the site.
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
The site, as has been indicated, consists of some 16 acres of vacant
land. In fact the larger parcel of land already referred to is also vacant.
The site is identified on a site plan filed as Exhibit 11 herein and
outlined in red.
According to Exhibit 11 the proposed shopping centre development is to
consist of two phases, the first composed of a food store of some 35,000
square feet, a department store of some 52,600 feet, retail stores of 42,700
feet and a free-standing restaurant building of 5,000 square feet, totalling
135,183 square feet of gross leasable area. The total building area is
intended to be, according to Exhibit 11, 152,183 square feet after including
some 17,000 square feet of mall and common areas.
Municipal services are available for the intended development on the
site.
The site is situated slightly to the east of Waverly Road which
provides motor vehicle connection with Provincial Highway 401, a controlled
access Highway, which latter Highway forms the south boundary of the site or
very close thereto. This means, .of course, that any development on the site
would have excellent exposure to a motorist travelling on Highway 401.
The Regional Plan designates the site as "Special Purpose Commercial".
Mr. MacNaughton a planner who testified on behalf of Pythbow
Developments limited (hereafter called Pythbow) stated that this designation
allows for some types of specific commercial uses of a highway nature, which
uses require large space. His curriculum vitae is entered as Exhibit 7.
Schedule (A) of the Regional Plan sets out the geographic limit of the
Bowmanville major urban area. The area is clearly set out on Exhibit 62
herein.
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
- 6 -
This urban area consists of the former Town of Bowmanville, plus
fringes of former townships abutting the former town. The bulk of the
population of the urban area is contributed to by the former town.
A portion of this urban area is called the "main central area" and is
identified on Exhibits 12, 58 and 62. This smaller area consists mainly of
a linear retail commercial and highway commercial development along Highway
Number 2, which is the main street of the old Town of Bowmanville and
extends from Scugog Street easterly to Mearn's Street. Commencing at
Scugog Street and running easterly along King Street, the first four blocks
are what might be called the historic downtown core of the former Town of
Bowmanville; the next four of five blocks are said to be in transition from
residential to commercial, in that there is presently a mix of each use; and
finally, the balance of the main central area consists of what was called
the Bowmanville Mall (hereinafter called the "Mall") and several other
commercial uses, some situate on large parcels of land,
The local Plan which was approved as recently as April 7, 1983
designates the bulk of the site as "Special Purpose Commercial" and a small
sliver at the east end thereof as "Major Open Space".
By-law 2111 of the Town of Newcastle, as approved, zones the site
Agricultural.
By-law 84-63 (Exhibit 15) was enacted by the local council on September
10, 1984 and it amends By-law 2111, insofar as the site is concerned, by
rezoning the site to (H)C-5 (Special Purpose Commercial) and Environmental
Protection (EP).
As Sy-law 84-63 was enacted pursuant to the provisions of The Planning
Act, 1983 it has not yet come into effect because there had been some
appeals to this Board in regard to same. Therefore at the time of this
hearing the approved zoning is Agriculture with anticipated zoning as
aforesaid when the matter of the appeals have been dealt with,
0 840058 6 1
0 540059 LLL,,,fff///���
Z 840063
- 7 -
The introduction to the Local Plan, although not part of the Plan
itself, indicates the purpose of same. Section 1.1 of the introduction
states, in part, that the Durham Regional Official Plan establishes the
general framework to guide growth and development in the Region of Durham,
The purpose of this Official Plan for the Bowmanville urban area is to
define more detailed policies related to future development within the
limits of the Bowmanville major urban area. (underlining added)
The Board has already made reference to the Bowmanville main central
area. This area is outlined in red on Exhibit 60, as it is designated by
the Local Plan and in red on Exhibit 12 as designated by the Regional Plan,
Section 8.2 of the Regional Plan provides for the Bowmanville main central
area with a maximum gross retail and personal service floor space of 500,000
square feet. The Regional goals relating to central areas are set out in
Sections 8.2.1.1 and Section 8.2.1.2 as follows:
"Section 8.2.1.1 - To develop Central Areas in each urban area as
central focal points of activity, interest and identity for
residents through the provision of the fullest range or urban
functions and amenities in the Region.
(underlining added)
Section 8.2.1.2 - To restore the historic integration of the
shopping function with the other traditional Central Area
functions such as housing, employment, recreation, social and
cultural activities".
The provisions of the Local Plan relating to central areas are set out
in Section 2.5 thereof.
Section 2.5.1 indicates the objectives for central areas as follows: -•--•-•
"Section 2.5.1(1) - To develop focal points of activity, interest
and identity for community, e uc-3 aEionai', cultural, social,
institutional, recreational and commercial uses,
(underlining added)
(ii) To ensure the provision of commercial facilities to
accommodate the needs of the Bowmanville Major Urban Area and the
Town of Newcastle as a whole".
Section 2.5.2 outlines the policies relating to central areas.
Section 2.5.2(1) thereof relates to the main central area and clause
(a) thereof reads as follows:
0 840058
0 840059 _
Z 840063
- 8 -
"The Bowmanville Main Central Area as defined on Schedule 1 shall
serve as the main focal point- of economic and social activities
within the Town providing: a full integrated array of shopping;
personal and business services; offices; residential; social,
cultural and recreational activities. The Council of the Town of
Newcastle shall encourage the development and redevelopment of the
Main Central Area in accordance with this provision".
(underlining added)
Section 2.10 of the Local Plan relates to servicing and staging.
Section 2.10.2(v)(a) reads as follows:
"The Council of the Town of Newcastle shall consider the
development and/or redevelopment of the Bowmanville Main Central
Area and residential neighbourhoods adjacent to the Main Central
Area or existing residential areas as a priority in the
development of the Bowmanville Major Urban Area:--Tfis shall be
accomplished through such means as the approval of development
proposals, the provision of public works and the provision of
community facilities".
(underlining added)
Clause (c) thereof reads as follows:
"The timing and phasing of development within the various
neighbourhoods will be determined through the consideration of
plans of subdivision, and the negotiation of development
agreements and will be based upon the logical use and extension of
services, reinforcing the Main Central Area, and other applicable
policies of this Uftici al Plan".
(underlining added)
Mr. Bacon, whose curriculum vitae was filed as Exhibit 98, is a
planning consultant of many years experience, also having familiarity with
planning in the Bowmanville area for quite some period of time. Mr. Bacon
testified as a witness called on behalf of the owners of the Mall .
Mr. Bacon referred to Section 4(c) of the introduction to the Regional
Plan. Although the introduction does not form part of the Regional Plan it
sets out, inter alia, the purpose of the Regional Plan and Section 4.(c)
reads as follows:
"To provide guidelines to Regional Council and the councils of
area municipa i ies in the preparation of future amendments to
this Plan, district plans, zoning by-laws and other development
control measures".
(underlining added)
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
_ g _
This witness stated that the thrust of the foregoing purpose statement
together with certain other provisions of the Regional and Local Plans
indicated that the thrust of both Official Plans is to direct main
commercial development to the core or the main central area of Bowmanville.
He made reference to Section 2,10,2(v)(a) of the Local Plan (recited
aforesaid) and stated that this provision gave priority to the main central
area and to residential neighbourhoods. He stated that a similar provision
did not appear in the Regional Official Plan.
The site is not located within the main central area and hence the
provisions of the Local Plan relating to the main central area do not apply
to the site.
tor. Bacon also testified that a proposed shopping centre on the site
does not advance the policy set out aforesaid in Section 2,5,2(i)(a)
(recited aforesaid) which policy is to encourage commercial development in
the main central area. From a planning point of view, he said, it is
considered desirable to maintain the central business district as the
highest order location for commercial facilities. The commercial business
district referred to relates to the downtown commercial core outlined
aforesaid.
Section 16 of the Regional Plan deals with implementation.
Section 16,4 relates to district plans.
Section 16.4,1 states that area municipalities, in this case the Town
of Newcastle, having been designated by Regional Council as district
planning areas are authorized to prepare district plans as specified in
Section 16,4.2 of the Regional Plan.
Section 16.4.2 states, in part, that in the preparation of district
plans, the Council of the respective area municipality shall have regard for
the detailed pattern of land uses. (underlining added)
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
10 -
This section also makes reference to "to the degree of detail required
by the Council of the area municipality to accommodate decision making of
local concern as may be determined by existing physical, social and economic
conditions". (underlining added)
Mr. MacNaughton who testified on behalf of Pythbow referred to Section
5.1 of the Regional Plan relating to the role and responsibilities of the
Region.
Section 5.1.1 states, in part, that the Durham Regional Official Plan
establishes a framework to guide the Region's growth and development and
that it is the intent of Regional Council that the Regional Official Plan
provide general guidelines for the preparation of detailed planning
documents by the area municipalities. (underlining added)
He also referred to Section 5.2.2 of the Regional Plan relating to
District Plans which again refers to District Plans containing more detailed
policies.
Mr. Edwards, the Planning Director for the Town of Newcastle, testified
that in Durham Region there was a two-tier planning structure - the Regional
planning provisions related to matters of Regional concern and the local or
area municipality's responsibility relating to local concerns and zoning
by-laws. The quoted provisions of both Official Plans set out in this
decision confirm this opinion.
Mr. Bacon referred to Section 3.2.4 of the Regional Official Plan which
states that Regional Council shall strengthen the economic viability of all
central areas as described in Section 8.2 and to encourage the
beautification improvement and/or redevelopment of the Region's main central
areas. It was his opinion that the development of a shopping centre on the
site was contrary to this policy.
0 840058
0 840059 v
Z 840063
- 11
He also referred to Section 3.3,2(iii) of the Regional Official Plan
which refers to Regional Council encouraging the private sector within the
Region to develop in the central areas. It was also Mr. Bacon's opinion
that the proposed shopping centre on the site was contrary to this policy of
the Regional Plan,
This witness also referred to Section 7.2,3(b) of the Regional Official
Plan which states that major urban areas shall consist of several components
set out in 7,2.3 of which clause (b) is one component, that being "central
areas" are to be centrally located and form the main focal points and areas
of community activity. Mr. Bacon stated that the site was not centrally
located, an opinion with which the Board agrees, as perusal of Exhibit 62
indicating the location of the site at the extreme south end of the
Bowmanville urban area will reveal.
Mr. Edwards referred to Section 8.2.2.1 of the Regional Official Plan
which sets out the four classifications of central areas as follows: main
cental area, sub-central area, community central area and local central
area. The main central areas are intended primarily to serve the population
of the area municipality within which they are located and are allotted the
largest maximum gross retail and personal service floor space permitted.
The size of the other central areas are correspondingly smaller in scope and
at the bottom is the local central area which is intended to serve the day-
to-day needs of the residents of surrounding residential areas, and
generally shall not exceed a total of 60,000 square feet of gross retail and
personal service floor space,
Mr. Bacon testified that approval of Official Plan Amendment Number 71
and Official Plan Amendment Number 1 would, in effect, permit commercial
development on the site to be equivalent to that in a community central area
as set out in Section 8,2.2.1(c) of the Regional Official Plan. By virtue
of Section 8,2.2.11 of that Plan, the maximum gross retail and personal
service floor space which could be utilized is 150,000 square feet and this
is to be a general guideline.
0 840058 ( a>
0 840059
Z 840063
- 12 -
He also said that this approach by Regional Council of adopting a
"notwithstanding clause" to amend the Official Plan not only has the result
of setting up a community central area without saying so, but the Offical
Plan Amendment 71 and Official Plan Amendnent 1 could negate any other
policy in the Regional Official Plan as it affects the site. This was also
the opinion of Mr. MacNaughton.
There is no provision in the Local Plan for a community central area,
that Plan only containing provisions relating to main central areas and
local central areas.
Mr. Edwards referred to part of the policy relating to main central
areas as set out in Section 8.2.2.1(a) of the Regional Official Plan where,
in part, it is stated that main central areas shall be planned and developed
as the main concentrations of activities within area municipalities,
providing a full integrated array of shopping, personal and business
service, office, institutional, community, recreational and residential
uses. He stated that a shopping centre development on the site does not
fulfill this goal, but such development in the main central area of
Bow,ianville would.
He also referred to one goal relating to central areas as set out in
Section 8.2.1.2 of the Regional Official Plan, that being to restore the
historic integration of the shopping function with other traditional central
area functions such as housing, employment, recreation, social and cultural
activities. Mr. Edwards stated that a shopping centre, on the site, did not
fulfill this goal but that a shopping centre in the main central area would.
Mr. Bacon referred to a portion of Section 8.2.2.8 of the Regional
Official Plan which states that central areas shall not have retail and
personal service components of a size as to preclude the development of -
other central areas of appropriate scale as provided for in this Plan. As
it was his opinion that the effect of Official Plan Amendment Number 71 and
0 840058
0 840059 ^�
Z 840063
- 13 -
Official Plan Amendment Number 1 was to permit such a development then these
two amendments were contrary to this policy and also that of Section
8.2.2.9(b) which permitted a maximum gross retail and service floor space in
the Bowmanville main central area.
He referred to the provisions of Section 8.2.3.5 of the Regional
Official Plan stating that any new central area shall be developed as a
focal point of its surrounding residential area, and that in this case there
was no surrounding residential area.
Mr. MacNaughton testified that the only existing residences which were
close to the site lie to the north and northwest thereof. Southerly, lies a
quarry, easterly, vacant lands and westerly, commercial and agricultural
zones. As the Board has indicated earlier, the south limit of the site
abuts or is close to the north limit of Provincial Highway Number 401. It
therefore can clearly be seen that residential development does not surround
the site.
Mr. MacNaughton was of the opinion that "surrounding" means "all
around" and not ,just "abutting". He also stated that Section 8.2.3.5
applies to any new central area.
The use of the "notwithstanding clause" approach to the Official Plan
Amendments indicates another weakness in adopting this course of action. On
the face of it, Section 8.2.3.5 would not apply to the site as it is not a
new central area, but the effect of the two amendments is to permit a
development comparable to a new central area, that is a community central
area.
Exhibit 39 is a certified true copy of the report to the Regional
Planning Committee of the Commissioner of Planning for the Region dated
March 23, 1982 and stated to be Report Number 82-48.
Report 82-48 is based upon an application by Pythbow to designate the
site and other lands for a community central area designation in the
Regional Plan and the Local Plan.
0 840058 U.Ca
0 840059
Z 840063
- 14 -
A recommendation of the Commissioner is that the application be denied,
and that Amendment Number 71 to the Regional Official Plan be approved as
indicated in Appendix i to this Report, that the necessary by-law be passed
and that the Amendment be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing for approval.
The recommendation is that Section 8.3,2.3 (set out aforesaid) of the
Regional Official Plan be deleted as the study envisaged by that Section has
been carried out and the planning staff conclude that a community central
area is not required for the Bowmanville major urban area.
Report 82-48 sets out some background material as follows:
"2.1 - The site was subject to a previous Official Plan Amendment
requested by Western Auto Parts (Oshawa) Limited to permit
development of a shopping centre (File 74-11/D/NB). This Official
Plan Amendment application was denied by Regional Council on
January 24, 1979.
2.2 - The site was also subject to a previous referral of the
Durham Regional Official Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board
(Referral #56, OMB File R:78114), Following withdrawal of the
landowners objection, the designation of the site was approved by
the Minister of Housing as Special Purpose Commercial in the
Durham Regional Official Plan on October 1, 1979.
2.3 - The subject site is designated Special Purpose Commercial in
the Durham Regional Official Plan. In accordance with Section
8.3,2.1, Special Purpose Commercial Areas serve those specialized
needs of the residents on an occasional basis with services and
facilities which consume larger parcels of land and require
exposure to traffic such as and similar in kind to automotive
sales and services, drive-in restaurants, motels, hotels, lumber
yards, furniture and major appliance sales.
2.4 - Section 8.3,2.3 of the Durham Regional Official Plan
requires Regional Council in co-operation with the Town of
Newcastle to investigate the location of a Community Central Area
within the Special Purpose Commercial Area located at Waverly Road
and Baseline Road in the Town of Newcastle. In this regard, the
review of the Official Plan Amendment requested by Pythbow
Developments Limited fulfills the requirements of the Durham
Regional Official Plan
This report also has a series of comments, those which are relevant for
the purpose of this decision are set out hereafter:
"5.2 - The Durham Regional Official Plan permits the development
of the Bowmanville Main Central Area up to 500,000 square feet of
retail and personal service floor space. The Main Central Area
contains approximately 200,000 square feet of existing retail and
personal service floor space. In addition, the Council of the
Town of Newcastle has approved a proposal for the expansion of the
e xisting Bowmanville Mall located within the Main Central Area to
include a junior department store (55,200 square feet) and other
retail and personal service uses (10,350 square feet). Such
0 840058 2�0
0 840059
Z 840063
- 15 -
development is consistent with anticipated growth patterns of the
Bowmanville Urban Area, and is supportive of the Town's objectives
to encourage the development and revitalization of the Bowmanville
Main Central Area,
5,3 - The development as proposed by Pythbow Developments Limited
is of a scale that would jeopardize the intent of the Durhan
Official Plan and Council of the Town of Newcastle to encourage
the redevelopment and revitalization of the Bowmanville Main
Central Area, in this regard, the proposed commercial development
would have the effect of intercepting retail and personal service
sales required to support the development of the Main Central Area
as the focal point of the Bowmanville Major Urban Area.
5,4 - It is noted that the commercial development proposed by
Pythbow Developments Limited does not serve as a focal point of
the community and does not implement the intent of the Central
Areas as defined in Sections 8,2.1.1 and 8,2.1.2 of the Durham
Regional Official Plan. Therefore, the proposal is not in keeping
with the intent of the Official Plan,
5.7 - Within the Bowmanville Urban Area, certain areas are needed
for Special Purpose Commercial uses requiring larger sites,
access, and exposure to main roads. Such uses are not suitably
located in Central Areas. The area subject to the Amendment
application by Pythbow Developments Limited represents the only
area within the Bowmanville Major Urban Area designated Special
Purpose Commercial in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Since
the subject site is ideally located to fulfill this important
function for the Bowmanville Urban Area, it would be prudent and
in the public interest to retain this area for Special Purpose
Commercial type uses that are not in direct competition with
Central Area type of retail and personal service uses. Therefore,
it is concluded that the existing Special Purpose Commercial
designation and its permitted uses is a more appropriate
designation for the subject lands. In this connection, it is
noted that the Bowmanville Urban Area Plan recommended to Regional
Council by the Council of the Town of Newcastle on December 14,
1981, designates the subject lands 'Special Purpose Commercial',"
Mr, Bacon stated that he agreed with these comments and so does
the Board.
Exhibit 40 is a certified true copy of what is stated to be an
addendum to said Report Number 82-48.
Addendum Number 2 to said report is entered as Exhibit 41 and
addendum number 3 to said report is entered as Exhibit 42. Exhibit 43
is a certified true copy of addendum number 4 to the said report, dated
February 21, 1984.
The end result of the various addendums to the Commissioner's
report 82-48 is that the Regional Council adopted the Official Plan
Amendments before the Board at this hearing.
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
- 16 -
Notwithstanding the fact that the Regional Commissioner of
Planning recommended that the Official Plan Amendment applications be
denied, the Regional Council adopted Official Plan Amendment Number 1
and Official Plan Amendment Number 71. At no time did the Regional
Planning Commissioner alter his recommendation of denial.
Mr. MacNaughton stated that Official Plan Amendment Number 71 was
the result of the investigation carried out in accordance with said
Section 8.3.2.3 following the application for the Official Plan
Amendment received by Regional Council (Exhibit 13).
If this is so then, following that investigation, Regional Council
did not determine a location of a community central area within the
special purpose commercial area located at Waverly Road and Baseline
Road in the Town of Newcastle, because it did not adopt an amendment to
redesignate the site from special purpose commercial area to community
central area as envisaged by said Section 8.3.2.3. What the Regional
Council finally determined is that it did not designate the site as a
community central area, but adopted an amendment to both Official Plans
which would permit the type of development set out in the said Official
Plan Amendments but still did not alter the existing approved
designation of the site.
The Board can only conclude therefore that it is the opinion of
Regional Council that the site is not appropriate to be designated as a
community central area and, therefore, the purpose of said Section
8.3.2.3 has been fulfilled and is of no further use. This was the
recommendation of the Regional Planning Commissioner as set out in his
report (Exhibit 39).
Section 8.3.2.1 of the Regional Official Plan reads as follows:
"Special Purpose Commercial Areas as designated on Map 'A'
shall serve those specialized needs of the residents on an
occasional basis with services and facilities which consume
larger parcels of land and require exposure to traffic such as
and similar in kind to automotive sales and services, drive-in
restaurants, motels, hotels, lumber yards, furniture and major
appliance sales. Such activities shall be encouraged to
consolidate in nodes in accordance with good design principles
with specific emphasis on common internal traffic circulation
and that access to arterial roads be only by service or
collector roads, wherever possible".
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
- 17 -
Mr. MacNaughton stated that both Official Plan Amendment Number 71
and Official Plan Amendment Number 1 implement the provisions of said
Section 8.3.2.1.
It was the evidence of the other planners that the services and
facilities referred to in a special purpose commercial area are not
those which are to be found in the community central area and that,
accordingly, the two Official Plan Amendments herein could not
implement said Section 8.3.2.1. The Board agrees.
It was Mr. Bacon's opinion that the present designation of the
site being special purpose commercial, in both the Regional and Local
Official Plans, was still an appropriate designation.
The uses permitted in the Local Plan in regard to special purpose
commercial areas is similar to those in the Regional Official Plan.
At this point in the decision something must be said of present
population and projected population for the Town and the Bowmanville
major urban area.
Apparently the present population of the Town, which consists of
some 225 square miles in area, is about 32,000 persons.
Mr. Edwards stated that the present population of the Bowmanville
major urban area (which roughly corresponds to the forner Town of
Bowmanville) is just under 13,000 persons. The former Village of
Newcastle, the communities of Courtice and Orono have about 2,000
persons each and the balance is distributed throughout 13 hamlets and
the rural areas of the Town.
Mr, Edwards testified that during the years 1974 to 1977 there was
considerable building activity in the Bowmanville major urban area, but
from 1978 to the present time not much activity,
�f
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
- 18 -
Exhibit 71 substantiates the aforesaid evidence of Mr. Edwards and
it also indicates that the Town of Newcastle population in 1979 (which
was its high point) was 32,163, whereas in 1983 the population declined
to 31,812 persons.
Mr. Joseph (more about him later) testified that there was very
little population growth in his trade area (which was the Town of
Newcastle) and that there was an actual decrease in the trade area
population during the years 1981 to 1984.
Mr. Stamm (more about him later) testified that in his trade area
the population was fairly static with minor growth in urban areas and a
decline in rural areas.
The Board is of the opinion that the rate of growth of population
in the Town of Newcastle might optimistically be said to be stable,
although realistically it is in decline. No evidence was adduced at
the hearing to indicate any change in the growth population pattern of
the Town in the near future.
Exhibit 53 is a photostatic copy of a letter dated December 6,
1982 from Mr. Edwards in his capacity as Director of Planning for the
Town of Newcastle to the Commissioner of Planning of the Region.
This letter refers, in part, to approved lots on draft plans of
subdivision. The letter states that 66 percent of these approved lots
are in the Courtice area, and more will be said about the propable
shopping location of residents of Courtice.
Evidence at the hearing indicated that the bulk of lots on draft
approved plans of subdivision within the Bowmanville major urban area
are in the northeasterly part of that area, and are situate much closer
to the mall than to the site.
_ � l
0:840058
0 840059
Z 840063
- 19 -
Before leaving the planning aspect of the hearing, it would be
appropriate to refer to the conclusions of the three planning
witnesses.
Mr. Edwards stated that the proposal for such a shopping centre
was not consistent with the principles of good planning and that he
opposed the development of a shopping centre on the site, and that he
still had concerns notwithstanding Mr. Joseph's updated study (more on
this later).
Mr. Edwards stated that when he said a need is present for a
junior department store, he had in mind a facility of some 55,000
square feet similar to a K-Mart, Zeller or Woolworths store. He stated
that this need would be satisfied by the third phase of the mall which
had approval of a site plan for this phase, but such approval has
lapsed after one extension which had been granted due to the fact that
no building permit had been issued.
Mr. Bacon was of the opinion that the two Official Plan Amendments
involved in this hearing did not consitute good planning, were not in
the public interest and were contrary to the policies of the Regional
Official Plan and the Local Official Plan.
Mr. 14acNaughton testified that he had no objection of a planning
nature to approval of the two references before the Board. He stated
that he would oppose approval of the references if undue economic
impact were to affect the Bowmanville commercial core. He said, of
course, determining undue economic impact was not a planning matter.
He also stated that if a department store were built on the mall
site there would be no need for such a store on the site herein, and by
this he meant a junior department store. Yet he also said that there
is a potential for two junior department stores in the Town and that if
both were built there would be an adverse affect on the downtown core,
from a planning point of view.
r
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
-
20 -
No evidence of a planning nature, in fact no evidence at all vies
presented by the Regional llunicipality in support of its two
applications for approval of Official Plan Awendment Number 1 and
Official Plan Amendment Hunter 71.
Both the local planning department and the area Council oppose t:ie
three natters herein.
Henry Joseph, who testified on behalf of PythJow, is a
professional engineer of this Province, havinn a degree in civil
engineering and a tiaster's Degree of business adoinistration ir.
marketing and finance, lie is also t real estate
His curriculum vitae was filed as ,. hibit 44 Wd MOM i;, W.
that the coi.lpany of which he is PresiSnt an fJtV.--° is a rccI .�
consulting and brokerage conpcny proviliq developnent plann•in_ bi
real estate brokerage services to corporate and yovcrn. ant clients.
The company's activities i;?c1J�e Ii.L. ;Is i!?!' C: :li.,Y,li. �;
municipal processing; raar::ot stuCi:is; tarsi ili: st.,.i^s; r;:al cs�
acquisitions and eivesnitvros; co,.,,er:i;l leasing i.i salts, T. iS
witness, accorCinr to ME zinsialn. vi t: hs: `1CC consilerc lc
e:.,erience in :nsvltin . niss in t:i.
5•?G''?ln� c9ntres
His �i 1'... . .. �� :';tC. 1: .�, fil^'! as „Xhl:)it 45. „,.
Wtaj version of . ,is st , WK ;o>:e... c•r ITS ws filed as 15i.,it
ac.
The c=chMcn es set out in the Stll(.W is essentially that therc
is .6'r%c: for a junior de;)LMent store, non-department store
espr wn, stor^ typc werchandis°_ elements r.nC, a new; super.zr%ct. it
is his conclusion that provided these new facilities are developer on
t?e site that there will be no undue econo.;ic i;Tact upon t:ie existing
corr1ercial outlets in the Oo'.,^anville major urr�a;? area.
T
0 840058
0 840059
2 840063
- 21 -
Mr. Joseph's trade area, which served as the basis for his market
study, includes the whole of the Town of Newcastle, which, according to
Section 1 of Table 4 of Exhibit 46, is to have a population in excess
of 36,000 in the year 1986.
He further testified that the determination of population growth
was important and that his conclusion that there would be no undue
economic decline would apply only if the population increased as in his
study. During cross-examination of this witness by Mr. Sims, a
photostatic copy of Report Number 84-203 dated November 13, 1984 by the
Regional Planning Commissioner was entered as Exhibit 51 .
Exhibit 51 is a report on population forecast and this document
indicates that the projected population for the Town of Newcastle, in
the year 1986, was 32,435. It will be noted that Mr. Joseph's market
study was based on a population that year of in excess of 36,000
persons.
In re-examination by Counsel for Pythbow, a revised Table 9 of
Exhibit 46 was entered as Exhibit 54 in an attempt to- show what
difference the lesser population would make to the original
calculations of Mr. Joseph. The result was a slight reduction in the
area of the proposed facility.
Incidentally, Exhibit 51 indicates that the increase in population
of the Town of Newcastle from the year 1981 of 32,230 persons, is only
expected to be 33,155 persons in the year 2011. This is an increase of
less than 1,000 persons in a 30-year period and indicates that the
expected increase in population for the Town of Newcastle is
practically non-existent.
In regard to the expected increase in population within the
Bowmanville major urban area, this witness stated that most of the
draft approved residential lots are located north of Number 2 Highway
and are the most advanced in the planning process. These lots have as
easy access to the mall as to the site.
1lJ a�
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
-
22 -
Mr. Joseph included the most westerly portion of the Town of
Newcastle in his trade area. In that area of the Township lies the
Hamlet of Courtice with a population of some 2,000 persons, and which
the evidence revealed is an area of expected population growth.
Courtice lies almost immediately next to the easterly limit of the City
of Oshawa with its great number of commercial outlets, which the Board
will refer to later in this decision.
At the northwest corner of the intersection of Highway Number 2
and the Townline Road, in the City of Oshawa, is situate a shopping
centre of about the size proposed on the site. This shopping centre
contains a Zellers store, a large supermarket and various ancillary
commercial retail outlets.
The Townline Road is the boundary between the Town of Newcastle
and the City of Oshaw. Number 2 Provincial Highway runs generally on
an east/west access and the Hamlet of Courtice is situated in and
around the intersection of Number 2 Highway and a north/south Regional
Road, which provides a clover-leaf about a mile or two south of
Courtice to the controlled access Highway 401.
It was Mr. Joseph's opinion that residents of the Courtice area
and other parts of the western portion of the Town of Newcastle would
do their shopping in the Bovmanville major urban area, rather than the
City of Oshawa.
Prior to the commencement of one of the day's sittings of this
hearing, the Board, as an experiment, drove from the intersection of
Regional Highway 34 and Highway Number 2 (which might be said to be the
core of the Courtice area) westerly along Number 2 Highway to the
shopping centre referred to aforesaid at Townline Road and Highway
Number 2 and, the travel time was two minutes at the permitted speed
limit,
0 840058
0 840059
2 840063
23
The Board then drove easterly, along Number 2 Highway, from the
said main intersection at Courtice to the main intersection of the
historic downtown core of Bowmanville at the permitted speed limit and
the travel time was seven minutes.
Mr. Edwards stated, in answer to a question, that if he lives in
Courtice he would shop at the shopping centre located at the
intersection of Highway Number 2 and the Townline Road rather than
driving the further distance to Bowmanville itself. This, to the
Board, seems logical and it is doubtful that the inclusion of the
Courtice area, in a trade area, for Mr. Joseph's study is realistic.
In fact Fir. Joseph stated that in determining the extent of his
trade area, one aspect to be taken into consideration is related to
travel and that involves distance and time.
Mr. Joseph also testified that there was only the market for one
junior department store in the Bowmanville major urban area and it is
fundamental to his study that Phase 3 of the mall (the junior
department store) not go ahead. His study was not based on Phase 3
going to completion.
He also stated that the mall had access to his trade area.
Mr. Joseph further testified that the proposed development on the
site would not be integrated with the cultural, residential,
recreational and employment activities as required by the Regional
Of£ical Plan and to which the evidence of the planning witnesses who
have testified at this hearing has referred.
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
-
24 -
Garry Stamm testified on behalf of Mr. Elliott's client.
His curriculum vitae is filed as Exhibit 87 and indicates that 14r.
Stamm has an Honours Bachelor of Arts Degree in economics and a Master
of Arts Degree in economics. Exhibit 87 also indicates that Mr. Stamn
has considerable experience, inter alia, in population and employment
studies and retail market analysis.
His market study herein was filed as Exhibit 88 and Exhibit 89 is
an interim market study of an elementary nature dated about July 1982.
Exhibit 88 is dated November 1984.
Mr. Stamm's conclusion, with respect to the department store, is
that the department store market would not absorb the proposed
department store at anywhere near an adequate level of sales and that
not only is the market not large enough but the location of the trade
area adjacent to, and a short distance from, numerous concentrations of
major and promotional department stores prevents the possibility of
redirection of sufficient department store sales to the site.
The numerous concentrations of major and promotional department
stores to which Mr. Stain refers are located mainly in the neighbouring
City of Oshawa.
The Oshawa shopping centre of some 1,000,000 square feet contains,
inter alia, three major department stores, Eatons, Sears and Hudson's
Say Company. This shopping centre is located about 1 minute's drive
north of Provincial Highway 401 with ready access from a clover-leaf to
the street having access to this centre.
Knob Hill farms Terminal, which is stated to be the largest food
store in the world, is also situated only about one minute's drive from
Highway 401 with another clover-leaf adjacent thereto. In addition,
there are a number of shopping centres in the City and area of various
sizes.
r
0 840058
0 840059
2 840063
-
25 -
The Bowmanville urban area lies about 9 miles to the east of the
City of Oshawa and with the presence of Provincial Highway 401 there is
easy and convenient access for residents of the urban area to these
commercial establishments in Oshawa.
Bearing this in mind, Mr. Stamm's trade area for the site included
the Town of Newcastle, save and except the westerly portion thereof
which included the Hamlet of Courtice and land lying westerly of the
Solina Road. This exclusion from the trade area is logical and the
Board accepts the trade area of Mr. Stamm over that of Mr. Joseph.
The population of this excluded area was said to be about 4,700
persons and of course the population in Mr. Stamm's trade area is that
much less than the population of Mr. Joseph's trade area.
Mr. Stamm was also of the opinion that the market in the trade
area was currently over-stored with supermarkets, and that if a new
such store on the site was developed it would do so at the expense of
other such stores in other locations.
The final conclusion of Mr. Stama is that should a shopping centre
be built on the site, not only it but the existing facilities in the
former Town of Bowmanville would all suffer.
Mr. Stamm was of the opinion that a population of 45,000 persons
in the trade area would be necessary to support a junior department
store of 50,000 to 55,000 square feet, and that the insufficient
population and limited market growth were insufficient to support a
shopping centre on the site.
It is not necessary to go into great detail relating to the market
analyses of Messrs. Joseph and Stamm or for the Board to state that it
has not been satisfied that there would be no undue economic impact on
the existing commercial facilities in the Bowmanville major urban area,
should a shopping centre as envisaged be developed on the site. Indeed
if the Board found it necessary to make a decision in regard to this
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
26 -
issue, it would be inclined to find that there would be such impact.
However, for the purpose of this decision, it is not necessary to make
such a determination. The Board can make a decision herein on planning
grounds alone.
Nine persons, unrepresented by Counsel, testified in support of
the two references and the appeal, four of whom were involved in the
real estate industry in the area.
One of these witnesses, who lived in the area of Uxbridge, Ontario
some distance from the Town of Newcastle, was the Chairman of the
Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham.
This witness stated that the Regional Council had no other
qualified planning recommendations regarding approval of the proposal
herein at the time it adopted Official Plan Amendment Number 71 and
Official Plan Amendment Number 1, other than the report of the Regional
Planning Commissioner (Report 82-42) as set out herein before.
This witness also testified that he would not recommend anything
that would have an adverse economic effect on the downtown core of
Bowrianvi 11 e.
Three persons unrepresented by legal Counsel testified in
opposition to the proposal.
Jerry Sprackman was a witness called on behalf of Pythbow. This
witness is President of Landawn Shopping Centres Limited, which company
purchases land, develops shopping centres and leases them, generally in
smaller communities in Ontario.
This witness, who is also a real estate broker, stated that his
company did not own the site herein but would develop a shopping centre
on it should the Official Plan Amendments be approved and the appeal
allowed.
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
-
27 -
He stated that his company had developed about 40 such centres and
are building 10 more.
This witness was of the opinion that no junior department store
would ever be located in the mall due to its location, but was of the
opinion that the site was a more suitable location for such a use.
Traveller's on Highway 401 were needed to support the junior department
store.
He also testified that the development of his shopping centres in
the past had no subsequent undue economic impact on the downtown core
of the various small municipalities in which these centres were
located. However only one of such centres, that being in Collingwood,
consisting of 140,000 square feet more or less was of a size which
could be comparable to the 160,000 square-foot proposed development on
the site.
In referring to Section 8.3.2.3 of the Regional Official Plan, the
witness stated that this was a compromise between what he wished, that
is the shopping centre use on the site, and the existing approved
agricultural designation.
George Webster, a downtown Bowmanville businessman and Chairman of
the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area, (sometimes referred to as
the Bowmanville Business Centre) testified as a witness for Mr. Strike.
The boundary of the business improvement area is outlined in blue
on Exhibit 60. Mr. Webster stated that the association consisted of
105 members; 70 in the retail trade and 35 in personal service.
He outlined that the group had been engaged in improving and
revitalizing the downtown core of the former Town of Bowmanville and
that decorative street lighting, street reconstruction, creating of
parking lots, amongst other things, were done to this end.
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
28
It was the opinion of his group that due to the lack of growth in
population in the area, a shopping centre on the site would be
premature and the impact on the existing commercial outlets would be
quite severe.
It was his opinion that the day-to-day needs of the local
inhabitants were well taken care of by existing merchants.
He stated that there was an interplay between facilities on the
mall and those in the downtown core in that it was a good walking
distance (about 4 or 5 blocks) but this would not be so in regard to
the shopping centre on the site, which is not geographically as well
situated as the mall is to the downtown core.
Hr. Webster testified that some $360,000 had been spent by the
Business Improvement Area Group on downtown improvements in the past
seven years, in an attempt to revitalize, reinvigorate and reinforce
the downtown core component in accordance with the provisions of the
Regional and local Official Plans.
Based on the evidence, the Board will not approve Official Plan
Amendment Number 71 as referred to it but will modify Official Plan 71
by deleting the provisions of Section 8.3.2,3 of the Regional Official
Plan and substituting therefore the word "deleted".
The Board makes this determination due to the fact that the
requirement of the investigation regarding the location of a community
central area, within the special purpose commercial area located at
Waverly Road and Baseline Road, in the Town of Newcastle, has been
completed and the determination of Regional Council is that there shall
not be such a community central area located on the site, and therefore
the purpose of said Section 8.3.2.3 has been fulfilled.
Based on the evidence, the Board will not approve Official Plan
Amendment Number 1,
r'
0 840058
0 840059
Z 840063
-
29 -
As the proposed by-law, which is the subject of the appeal herein,
will not therefore conform to either Official Plan, the appeal will be
dismissed.
DATED at TORONTO this 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1985
W.H.J. THOHIPSON,
VICE-CHAIRMAfd
ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TO R01)
REPORT PD-34-86
PYTHBOW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITEL
48 St. Clair Avenue West
Suite 700
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 2Z2
August 2, 1985
Mr. T. T. Edwards
Director of Planning
R15Town of Newcastle ,
a
Dear Mr. Edwards: �G 75
I
Re: Application for Rezoning L
I Gi imhlc"�� f �
Part of Lots 12 & 13 , B. F. Concession idl�tG
Town of Newcastle
Waverley & Baseline Road
As you know, approximately 15 acres of our land was rezoned to
C5 Special Purpose Commercial earlier this year.
While this change was a step in the right direction, the uses
specified do not allow retail users such as junior department
stores, supermarkets , and the like. Stores such as these must
be allowed to come to Bowmanville if your Council wants to
stem the tide of shoppers who go outside of Bowmanville,
estimated at over 50% of shopping dollars.
We are applying for rezoning of our property to shopping
centre retail uses , and would ask the Planning Department to
give consideration to the following new facts:
1 . Your local A & P store is a problem. It needs to expand
to be competitive. We understand that A & P have tried to
acquire homes adjacent to their store and have asked that
the town consider closing the street behind it, to
facilitate an expansion. Our site is the solution for
this problem. A & P have submitted a number of letters to
the town and the region over the years , indicating their
desire to locate a modern large facility on our site once
zoning is granted.
Would this not be preferable to the A & P closing their
small downtown store as Dominion did a while back?
2. The sale of homes and lots in the Bowmanville area is
booming. The population in the area is growing, and
retailers are doing just fine.
Growth is here, and no not a figment of some consultants
best guess .
3 . The Bowmanville Mall opposed our last rezoning request as
you know. Interestingly, at the O.M.B. hearing, their
marketing consultant stated their location could not
attract a junior department store, the very basis on which
their phase III property was granted rezoning.
1UC��
Mr. T. T. Edwards
August 2, 1985
Page 2
Our site was supported by Zellers. Their site has never
been able to produce one piece of documented support.
Since the Bowmanville Mall has admitted and shown that
they cannot perform, even with zoning, and we have shown
our site can attract the type of users the town says it
wants, would it not make sense to give us rezoning for a
two year period similar to the Bowmanville Mall Phase III ,
to allow us to demonstrate what we can do?
4. The last five years have been a costly period, both for us
and the Town of Bowmanville, as we have both watched
opportunities slip by, Zeller' s and A & P wanted to locate
on our site to serve the Bowmanville market area, as well
as capture new business from the Highway 401 traffic.
When our site didn't get rezoned, Zeller' s agreed to open
a new store at the Town Line in Oshawa. This serves part
of your local market. Who was the loser?
McDonald' s Restaurants also visited Bowmanville, and spoke
to yourself, the Town Planner. Our site was not zoned
yet. They chose to pass up your downtown area and locate
at the Town Line in Oshawa to serve part of the market.
These are just two examples of actual decisions . They
happened. Their decisions were:
i ) Downtown Bowmanville is not an appropriate location
for reasons of land availability, parking, traffic
going by, etc.
ii) The site of interest, the Pythbow land is not zoned.
We can only wait for so long or a competitor will step
in, because the market is there.
iii)Alternatively, we can locate in Oshawa as close to
Bowmanville as possible, get some of the market there,
and some of Bowmanville as well.
These retailers made their choice. Bowmanville lost out
on their tax revenues and their jobs. How many more
retailers, jobs, and tax revenues is the Town willing to
lose out on? Would the rezoning of our site not be an
appropriate alternative, faced with the actual decisions
made by retailers?
5. Some members of the Downtown Business Association opposed
our rezoning at the O.M.B. hearing as you know. In the
fall of 1983 , their own market study, prepared by Bunn &
Denny, verified that a junior department store was needed,
and that if Phase III of the Bowmanville Mall was not
completed soon, there would be a need for the Pythbow mall
now.
The Bowmanville Mall people admitted they cannot get a
Junior department store at the O.M.B. hearing. By virtue
of their own study, the Downtown Business Association
should now support Pythbow Developments and recommend that
we be allowed to proceed at once.
Mr. T. T. Edwards
August 2, 1985
Page 3
Changing situations require a re-evaluation of the assumptions
originally made to arrive at conclusions. A number of the
assumptions and facts used to arrive at the previous decisions
have changed as itemized above.
We would ask that the Planning Department give new
consideration to rezoning of our property in light of the fact
that Phase III of Bowmanville Mall has admitted they cannot
bring a junior department store to your Town of Bowmanville
and in light of the obvious need to provide more retail
services to the people of Bowmanville.
Yours very truly,
L. M. Nuspl, C.A.
LMN: jdeb
Encs.
PYTHBOW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
48 St. Clair Avenue West
Suite 700
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 2Z2
December 7, 1984
Town of Newcastle
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
Attention: Members of Council
Re : Waverley and Baseline Roads
The Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the rezoning
application of the above property was lengthy, expensive, and
I believe informative to all parties concerned.
The hearing disclosed a major change in the position of the
Bowmanville Mall. We believe this warrants that the Town of
Newcastle reconsider our request for rezoning in light of this
new evidence.
The Town of Newcastle has consistently held these two
positions:
1. Their market studies indicate there is a need for a
junior department store in the Bowmanville area.
2. The Town Council is on record as being fully in
support of obtaining such a junior department store.
In 1979, the Town of Newcastle chose to grant rezoning of the
third phase of the Bowmanville Mall. Mr. Edwards, your
planner, confirmed at the hearing that this was done
specifically to accomodate the need for a junior department
store. Now, in 1984, the Bowmanville Mall states at the
O.M. B. hearing that the market is not large enough for them to
attract a junior department store.
I stress the "for them" . Whether you have supported us or
voted against our site, you will recall this has been our
position all along. We have stated time and again that the
Bowmanville Mall is the wrong site for a junior department
store.
Na)
-2_
In our discussions with the department stores, they have
pointed out two positive features of our site which increase
their market potential for sales volume.
1. Our site is plainly visible from the highway. It will
draw traffic going by, be it from other smaller
centres which use the 401 highway, or from general
highway traffic such as the Toronto cottage traffic.
You will note that St. Mary' s Cement took the time
and trouble to speak in opposition to our development,
simply because they felt that a lot of highway traffic
could pull off at the Waverly intersection once they
saw our shopping facility.
2. The main traffic route that residents of Bowmanville
now use to shop outside of town or to go to work is
the 401 highway. Only our location offers retailers
the maximum opportunity of cutting down this traffic
by:
a) giving these shoppers , about to leave , a second
chance to reconsider the trip by a visual
reminder.
b) reminding them visually of local alternatives .
c) to workers going to or from Oshawa this site is as
handy and convenient as . any in Oshawa.
This centre has a much larger market base to draw on than the
Bowmanville Mall site. And remember, for every trip to our
junior department store rather than Oshawa, it will mean other
goods will also not be bought in Oshawa. Some of these will
be bought—in our centre, but some will not be available there ,
so next preference will be to buy from stores located in the
downtown core.
In our view, a mall at our location would have a much smaller
impact on existing downtown merchants than an expansion of the
Bowmanville Mall.
The recent market evidence submitted by the Bowmanville Mall
is in direct opposition to the stated objective of the Town of
Newcastle.
1 U�)
4
-3-
In light of this major change, we will be re-submitting our
application to rezone our site .
We felt it advisable to inform you, to allow you ample time to
consider this new development.
Yours truly,
t'� h,
L. M. Nuspl , C.A.
LMN:jdeb
4. That the appearance of some of the stores Fall B u I 1 e t) n
should be improved to enhance the look
1983 of the
:e:::....-,. ": •,;. .�v� • . r{C. .RlidCP �: •- "
e downtown area.
oc'cr„< 5. That because no stores exist to serve the
Superrnarkut t,,:-es Sriou!r; Pt,,,gf: III of :r,, consumer between the ages of 12 and 14, 11 SCUGOG
fioVvmanv, ie rA31I protect be comp!eti:-: this results in a large outflow of people
including a department Store the i'ytnt?ov: to the Oshawa area.
Development protect would result in a 51% Ics: 6. That parking facilities should be well
in Department Store Type Merchandise sales. publicized and easily accessible to the
13.7% loss in ODSTM sales and 38.9% decline downtown shopper. SILVER
in Supermarket sales. Previous studies v.hich 7. That more stores in the Other Food BOWMANVILLE
have been done also indicate that the establish- category, such as convenience and IMPROVEMENT
ment of peripheral malls can be detrimental to specialty food stores, are needed In BUSINESS AREA
both the growth and to the prosperity of the Bowmanville.
downtown cores in small cities. In fact, a study 8. That although the new proposed mall
ryas done in 1979 comparing the existing will have too great an Impact on the
acilities in Bowmanville with. the forecasted existing businesses In the downtown area TEMPERANCE
services needed. at this time, such a mall will be needed
after the year 2000. However, if Phase III
In conclusion, the analysis indicates that if the of the Bowmanville Mall to include a
roposed new mall is built at this time, there will department store is not completed soon,
riot be enough of a population to support the and if the downtown stores do not realign
Department Store Type Merchandise. Other their merchandise to suit more people in DIVISION
Department Store Type Merchandise or the area, such a mall as the one proposed
Supermarket stores. However, there is need for by the Pythbow Developments could
more Other Food Stores in the area. become a necessity much sooner.
r
GEORGE
The Bowmanville Business Centre publishes a
Suggestions quarterly bulletin. Unsolicited material is
:� welcome and should be addressed to P.O. Box
?65. Bowmanville L1C 31-1. The purpose of the
management Board is to revitalize the
1. That Phase III of the Bowmanville Mall downtown business area through promotion,
development be completed as soon as beautification, development, etc. The following
possible in order to capture the DSTM are members to contact:
dollars available in the Newcastle area. Chairman George Webster
2. That the downtown core realign their Sect'y-Treas.- Jack Lander
ODSTM because the merchandise carried Parking Chairman- Al Strike
is too specialized or outdated. Promotion Chairman- Ted Denny
3. That store hours become unanymous in - ---- = _
the downtown core area in order to em Public Relations Chairman- Art Hooper 0 r-
phasize the unified nature of the business Landscaping Chairman- Len Koenderman
centre concept,and to accommodate one-
shopping. Conrrrunications Chm.- Doug Abernethy BOWMAN YILLE
g Council Representative- Garnet Rickard
,
Business Manager- Garth Gilpin BUSINESS CENTRE ��..
_I
-analyzed the srioc)p,ng e�i?�'n7. „ -1<
TheBunn and tiiiltr-tns of tl,�,e �r ;,gyp r:g It,(,
Study, initiatives were taken by tt�e H( or,i 0 terms of the types of stores wnZe
Denny Study--What Management to secure funding from lhr Unta,-o income was spent
Government to permit lne ernployment r,l V.r' Per capita incomes and expenditures
individuals to produce sucn a study to autvfrnr.,r.>
separated into the categories of Depart
Did It Show??? the effects of the proposed Pythbow Mall yp
Bowmanville's downtown core. This study Wi3 Store T e Merchandise (DSTM). c
to be developed along scientific lines, using the Supermarket Store Type Merchandise (OD�
proper sample size• in terms of the population. Supermarket expenditures; and An an i lys
and including computer assisted analysis o! the Other Types of Food (s was is aade.
Background accumulated data. A graduate from the consumer shopping habits was also made.
Marketing Program at Durham College who had As a result• the report contained the a
In 1981, an organtzatior-- named Pythbow experience in market research was hired along
Developments Limited identtf-ed a section of with a university student in Honours English impact that the Pythbow Mall Develop,
would have on the downtown sector and t
land on the Base Line Roao as the site where (to organize and prepare the final document).
they proposed to build a s!,r:f.ping mall. In businesses that could be adversely atfecer
subsequent months, the organization produced this development at this time.
a market impact study which proported to show
that the merchants in the downtown of In August, when the report was cornpleled -
Bowmanville would experience 'only a 14% and it numbered over 90 pages, it was pre,;ewcd
decline in sales,' and that such a reduction was to the Board of Management. Results
tolerable.' With the Region's support, and
against the better judgement of the local town In preparing the report, the researchers-
council and the Bowmanvwr: Business Centre. -studied the population trends, trade arras
this project moved fotwa:ed :.,-th considerable presently available, and the general econ- An analysis of the accumulated data %N
speed to the point where ifn aure,ement between omic base of the area, seem to suggest that only after the populattc
the Regional Council and Pythbow Develop- -developed a comprehensive survoy and the area has matched the forecasted tie
ments Limited was read 'or sionature in May. about the year 2000,will a mall of this size tr
1983 After being signed it :.ire rrpected that the used it with over 400 people locations and at different times of f diff the Jay.erent location be needed. If the mall is
constru
agreement would result in an Ontario Municipal -reviewed the merchandise lines it-, the before this occurs, there will be too many r
Board hearing. In the event of 'its happening, it outlets, in conjunction with the population
was decided that any presentation by the downtown core as to price and quality the area. The main draw for this mall will-
Dowmanville Business ;emir, should include -evaluated the present availability cl firs- from Bowmanville area. with the balance
our own market impact study. used store capacity in the Bowmanvttte drawn from the rest of the municipahit
area. Newcastle. Courtice residents will continu,
-reviewed other surveys of a similar ncaiure be drawn to retail outlets in Oshawa eve
which had been done previously. the proposed mall is built.
Market Impact -compared the job potential of the propcce•d
development against the loss of jobs in the ! The impact that the proposed mall would r
downtown core and the Bowmanvil!o on the downtown section of Bowmanvtll,
Study and, expected to be a substantial 20% loss O
Department Store Merchandise (ODSM) --
In anticipation of ;he need f,r a Market Impact is. merchandise normally carried b>
C_�
Lu
Cad
ZELLERS INC.
MONTEAL, QUEBEC JUNE 08, 1982
T E L E G R A M
Mr. Garnet B. Rickard
Mayor - Town of New Castle
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Attn: Mr. Garnet B. Rickard, Mayor
ZELLERS INC. EXPRESSES AGAIN CONTINUED INTEREST AND SUPPORT FOR THE NEW
SHOPPING CENTRE DEVELOPMENT ZONING AT HWY 401 AND BASE LINE ROAD IN
BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO. THE PROPOSED RETAIL FACILITIES ARE TO INCLUDE A
NEW ZELLER'S STORE OF APPROXIMATELY 65,000 SQ. FT. A FOOD STORE AND
20 TO 25 ANCILLARY MALL TENANTS IN AN ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTRE, FULLY
AIR CONDITIONED AND REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. THE ,PROJECTED MALL TENANTS
OF A LOCAL, REGIONAL AND VATIONAL MIX SHALL INCLUDE THOSE CUSTOMARY FOUND
IN SIMILIAR TYPE OF CENTRES RE: SHOES, LADIES FASHIONS, MEN'S WEAR, JEWLERS,
RESTAURANTS, DRUG STORE, SMOKE SHOP, CHILDREN'S WEAR, TEXTILE AND FABRIC,
FLORIST, BANK, HAIRSTYLING, CANDY SHOP, BOOK STORE, AND OTHER REQUIRED
TYPES TO PROVIDE REQUIRED FACILITIES TO POPULATION IN THE TOWN AND AREA IS
AGAIN RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED.
LETTER TO FOLLOW.
SIGNED, - -
J.N. DUQUETTE
DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE
ZELLERS, INC.
i
1'Itr I;tet :\ti.intit 1' c (•.t illim1% ul Cenoea l.ii: :tt!d_,/(,J
7
Canadian Headquaiters
— + u 5559 nundas Sttr•t•t Nest, lshnl:toa,,,Ontario M911 1[0
4'6.239-7171
Mailing Addiess
11.0. Box 68 Station 'A'
Tuionto. Ontario M5N 1A6
June 8, 1982
Mr. Gary Herrema,
Chairman,
Regional Municipality of Durham,
605 Rossland Road East,
Whitby, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Herrema:
Re: Proposed Shopping Centre - Baseline b Waverly,
Bowmanville, Ontario
A&P has operated a store at 185 King Street East in Bowmanville since
1963. Because of the constraints due to the size of the store we are
unable to offer the shopping public the type of variety of merchandise,
etc. that todays. consumer expects. Therefore, over the last four and
one-half years, we have been negotiating with Mr. Sprackman to locate
a 30,000-35,000 square foot food store in his proposed shopping centre
at the above address. During this period of time we have completed
market studies and customer surveys that have confirmed our opinion
that the trade area could support another food store of this size.
Should the zoning be granted for a shopping centre, we would enter into
final negotiations with Mr. Sprackman to locate a 30,000-35,000 square
foot modern supermarket .in -this shopping centre.
Should you require any further information from us, feel free to eontact
myself or Mr. J. Reynolds at this office.
Yours very truly,
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC
COMPANY OF AN::A, LI ED
C. W. Fraleigh
Vice President and
Director of Real Estate
cc - Mr. J. Sprackman
ATTACHMENT NO. 4 TO +t( l
REPORT PD-34-86 �"�J
PYTHBOW DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
48 St . Clair Avenue West
Suite 700
Toronto, Ontario
M4V 2z2
September 24, 1985
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
Planning and Development Department I -�
Hampton, Ontario
LOB 1J0 ' .•
Attention: Mr. T. T. Edwards j S`P 1u�5
Director of Planning
Dear Mr . Edwards: II
Re : Durham Mall
Waverley and Baseline
Bowmanville, Ontario
Further to the meeting held at Mayor Rickard' s office on
September 19, 1985, I wish to reconfirm that our application
is as submitted for a 200, 000 sq. ft. shopping centre .
The purpose of the meeting was to determine Mayor Rickard ' s
response to that application, or alternatively a smaller
75,000 sq. ft. mall if the 200,000 sq. ft. mall with the
department store was not acceptable .
Based on the comments expressed at this meeting, we could ask
the Planning Department to deal with the application for
200,000 sq. ft. and express their comments and recommendations
including the following areas :
a) The 200,000 sq. ft. plan as submitted .
Please note we are seeking approval for 135, 183 sq. ft .
phase I (excluding mall) with the balance coming as a
later expansion.
It would be appropriate for planning to comment on each of
the three major components as broken out on the site plan
i) Department store - 52, 628 sq. ft . phase I to expand to
72, 628 sq. ft. phase II.
Is this objectionable or not? Is there a market need?
ii) Food store - 34,855 sq. ft. phase I expanding to
44, 855 sq. ft . by phase II .
I
You have confirmed that A & P is looking for an
alternative site in Bowmanville .
luC��
Mr . T. T. Edwards
September 24, 1985
Page 2
iii) Retail Stores
- 42, 700 sq. ft . phase I expanding to 59 , 800 sq . ft .
phase II .
- 5, 000 sq: ft . free standing highway restaurant .
Your comments on this area would be of the greatest
interest , based on previous discussions in light of
- market studies to date
- new growth of population now under way through new
housing
- highway traffic spilloff available at this site
only.
- added business resulting from the attraction of
the department store. What size of auxilliary uses
would you recommend?
We feel 42, 700 sq. ft . can be accomodated in light
of these factors, a year from now. We could
consider a lower number.
b) The 75,000 sq. ft . site plan should be considered and
commented on as a compromise alternative , on the
assumption that Council may wish to turn down the
135,000 sq. ft . phase I larger development, or compare the
two alternatives .
As discussed at the meeting with yourself, Mayor Rickard
and Marie Hubbard, this plan would not be our wish, but a
compromise we would live with :
Breakdown of space on the approximately 8 acres would be
as follows :
Phase I Phase II
Food Store 34,855 44,855
Retail Stores 30 ,145 30 ,145
65 ,000 75 ,000
For our purposes right now, we would leave the location as
presently shown on the plan. The stores shown on the C5
land would have to be C5 users . Canadian Tire as the
example brought up, could be the anchor .on the C5 land in
place of the Department Store .
If this reduced version turns out to be the choice of
Council , we would obviously have to come back to planning
at a later stage to request approval of a different layout
of the stores on the site if that is required. That, as
I 'm sure you will agree, is not of prime concern.
Mr . T. T. Edwards
September 24, 1985
Page 3
I trust that this letter sets out more clearly, and in much
greater detail, the nature of our 200,000 sq. ft. shopping
plaza application , and our suggested compromise for
consideration of the Town Council, if the application is not
considered appropriate.
I would be more than pleased to meet with you and elaborate on
any of the items if they are unclear. I can be reached at
365-1600 during office hours .
Yours truly,
4-�t
L. M. Nuspl , C.A.
LMN/jdeb
cc Mayor Garnet Rickard
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
Councillor Marie Hubbard
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
Dr . M. Michael
The Regional Municipality of Durham
I
'L•�ji
I
.trn Ni .•e••vb
nft•n•I, �� mv'(euae,..) •tQr � d .-•w_-•,—.n.r�w.�•..—..__I .rr,r r.•. ._w
I.Ijo" VOW
• �•--- - _ -_ .. __ .. - Yt• � ' ��_ _.ter__ •-«._�`•-�- -
t M •Y` \ t o 1 � 1 1 \
`� \ :`.:ae•!! •"f'GrtiC1C!ON ...__. _.._ sefss* i \ \ •q' 1 t /I •d
�� ` _CV/0.!•�t vr.•ra n-.n,•n nca ��:� �It.."'.• T a innnw �i,
I
W7 Cr.. r..0 ur.. aaa mr:za /ro_
L IC-:%a: ,lm I. Am 1•I[• „.L•iT ►I Y? -- / \ 1 .1 -
.•.[lG..^.1Y:A! i/a• V:1 ,tw ,Gt1 .a �;Y�j"t � / _.•' A I` i I 1 �' !�
t .G.••.�•. e.:r mat
ID:n:...A %,W ttx 0.,m t:1e ve.,
wu.c4_A, .•nV 4- A.w ntn ttrt Stso t,oc a`e,tn =I •t't. ,<�_ "t: 1 ; , I
fVMW✓N 7t'Xlh*F/tWLSS rMsM>:•070 CARS
Nld Had, .wY•(nt.wt-.) `I � . I 11't*(I ,\.tJ 1 � .i
` 1
I lY?1 A'XW R"n YPM'L.•. ` IT' .A } ^,j_•JKa� �j.�f` / / I 1 % 4
/cw a_.Oe w f\.r a rcn ari 7 '• I Ft_ �'�/ rT / 7 / ?II 1 \ i
MV 1•.V w M.CYa,t YN MJOMw.a j Y Y \ ( 1 \ •1
ki
eat n+ot trTi n•tf.sta•av-aor �'''� 'a t �' .. \ � \
taa+avav taar w,vxr..st.s �� : [ �
faM•j.NW'CI,Af/Irw:+IWW a [ ) \
(w:srir mw w s,.Iwnw,a+Im sww) k ;
LI i' '(
u:eP tcroast.q nff 1
nearea sr.•rn�u s.atowN cawtao i •\ M ._� �`T,i"3kk°JJYJYCME i f� ! i i
.WJD'01111Vt'u.i 1 aaNbTa4N +y. '�+T�f�' / / / Y - •____
7,30.+'NNNiLL.,',1
``. (4t,N"NCr w
ay \ `�\ TYNYIJ N�O+MNinl,1")1/\\ / r /I / /, / '•9
' ,-'-__�_____j._ •: a t' •+.l' 1 1/ / )`/~bF4t yin•)
�T N ��• j t IW.if•Y110I11111 .i A.•TailW...,
C ^ ,I ; •'
NQ
Mµ.ereMt^ 1 •Wt. SN 11l-
� / ...• !'NSSE Z � -�inK I .:Vii' M j 'J
_ ls-szs-•-- _ n...... cw.i IrrtM� j .I S
_ __ _ tx,�Ey �___, '"� : ..•w(�',l DURHAM MALL
nvwrm � . .• •• .= '.
I-7 nmae.wuwe uNCa �/G �a: '.f�»' y. 'f'ROPO5E0 SHOPPING CCNTRE
aoevoa rxt Mr NMGtItP orw••:N`«w S'A'C.eYTH80W kELCdPMENTS LIMITED \`���
l� Erraslardcvt 3ewrca..rsnra�nc.(�atr+Ertcrmrur.cr_eorrvnnvtue) ....
..NV ttYR1lMIAW