The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD-80-88 DN: 80-88 UNFINISHED ��G) BUSINESS TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File c6 6 'D C Res.A& By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: TUESDAY, April 5, 1988 REPORT #: _pD_80_88 FILE #: OPA 87-095 D, 18T-87094, DEV 88-8 SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING & SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS APPLICANT: JAMES AND SANDRA HENDRY PART LOT 25, B.F.C., FORMER TWP. OF CLARKE FILES: OPA 87-095/D, 18T-87094 AND DEV 88-8 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-80-88 be received; and 2. THAT the applications to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan, propose a draft Plan of Subdivision and amend Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, being the Town of Newcastle's Comprehensive Zoning By-law, submitted by James and Sandra Hendry, to permit Twenty-nine (29) Estate Residential lots on a 17.5 hectare parcel of land, be denied; and 3. THAT the Region of Durham and all interested parties attached hereto, be advised of Council's recommendations. BACKGROUND: On January 4, 1988, the Town of Newcastle Planning Department was advised by the Region of Durham of applications for approval of an Official Plan Amendment and proposed Plan of Subdivision, submitted by James and Sandra Hendry. The subject applications proposed to create twenty-nine (29) Estate Residential lots on a y . . .2 i REPORT N0. : PD-80-88 PAGE 3 _______________________________________________________________________________ I7.5 hectare (4].24 acre) parcel of land in Pact Lot 25' Broken Front Concession, former 9oxvoobip of Clarke. Those applications were subsequently followed on January 20, 1988' with an application for an amendment to the Newcastle Comprehensive zoning By-law 84-63, as amended. Staff would note for Committee's information that, pursuant to Council's resolution on July 36, 1982 and the requirements of the PIaoulug Act' the appropriate oigunge acknowledging the application was installed on the subject lands, and aozcooudiug property owners were advised of the proposal. The subject property is presently designated oMo 'mc 0geo Sgooen subject to Section 12.3.3 of the Durham Regional official Plan and zoned "Agricultural (&)o in the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive Zoning By-law. The laud is presently ( used agriculturally for an apple orchard. COMMENTS: To date comments remain outstanding from three (3) of the circulated agencies. The following is a summary of comments received as response to the three (3) applications noted: Town of Newcastle Public Works Department Public Works Staff have reviewed the applications and object to the proposal in principle. The review has identified problems with minimum stopping distances / at both proposed intersections and Lots 12, 13, 23, 24' 38 6 29; as well the applicant will be required to submit a Storm Drainage Report, addressing bow drainage from the internal road will be disposed. Works Staff have also identified "reserves", road v/ideuingo and sight triangles that will be required and dedicated to the Town as part of the proposal. As well the developer will be required to bear the costs (I00%) of any works on Lakeshore Road and Riley Road which are necessitated as a zeaoIt of this development, as well as contributions to the coot of reconstructing Lakeshore Road and Riley Road. Town of Newcastle Fire Department / The Newcastle Fire Department has noted an objection to this proposal. The development proposes twenty-nine (39) residential units which results in a population increase of approximately 87 Dezouna. The Fire Department with its four (4) full-time firefighters do not believe they will be able to maintain the existing level of emergency service, considering all of the development that is taking place throughout the Municipality. / REPORT 00. : PD-80-88 PAGE 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___ 9on*u of Newcastle Fire Department (Coot"d) It was further noted that, should the development proceed, no building permits should be issued until various sections of the Building Code and the Ontario Fire Code have been complied with. Ganaraska Region i Authority Authority Staff have reviewed the applications and Environmental Analysis Report prepared by B. Koctebaao and Associates dated Octobezr, 1987 and are generally in support of the mitigation mmaoOzea proposed. Therefore, Authority Staff would have no objection subject to: a barrier being erected along the ooctbmzu boundary lots prior to grading and filling taking place, and a surface drainage and erosion control plan being approved prior to the commencement of any grading or construction on site. Durham Regional Health Department Staff of the Health Services Department have reviewed the applications and support the proposal in principle. However, their investigations have indicated that drilled wells are not suitable and that there is an extremely high pero rate (clay soils) on the proposed site. Therefore' Health's approval is subject to the extension of municipal water from the west and deletion of Lots 4 through to II. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Ministry Staff reviewed the proposal and determined the soils in the area have an agricultural rating of 800 class l and 20% Class 4 with topography limitations. The actual site being relatively level is primarily Class I for agricultural purposes. The surrounding land ooeo are agricultural on three (3) sides with the exception of the south (rural residential) . A barn on the lands to the east is idle and in poor condition, but does have the capability to house livestock. The /8ioinuon separation distance required to comply with the ' &AziooIturaI Code of Practice is 714 feet. The onLoal distance is approximately 435 feet (from the barn to the subject property) . Based on the information presented above, Ministry Staff onuuot support said proposal. Section 3.12 of the Foodlaud Guidelines indicates that Estate | Residential development abuuId only be considered on lands of low agricultural | � capability and well removed from agricultural activity. The proposal does not comply with the Guidelines, as the lands are Class l agricultural soil presently ' utilized in an intensive and specialized agriculture and the site is not well i removed from adjacent agricultural uses. i / Ministry of Natural Resources ! Staff of this Ministry have also indicated an objection to the said proposal, | based on the rationale of Ministry of Agriculture and Food Staff. . . .4 | | | | ! � � \ REPORT N0. : PD-80-88 PAGE 4 _______________________________________________ Ontario Hydro Ontario Hydro has a low voltage overhead transmission line along Lakeshore Road adjacent to the subject property which may require relocation to accommodate the proposed road. Staff have no objection, however, require the developer to bear any onnto associated with relocation or revision to Ontario Hydro facilities. The following agencies have indicated no objection to the subject proposal: - Town of Newcastle Building Department - Northumberland and Newcastle Public School Board - Peterbncnogb-Victozia-Nnrtbombeclaud and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate 8obooI Board - Canadian National Railway The applicant has submitted an Environmental Analysis in support of the proposed | Estate Residential development. The Begmct indicates that the top soil is silty with moderate organic content and the subsoil is primarily silt, silty sand and clayey silt. The groundwater levels ranged from 2.9 m to 3.4 m below grade and stabilized fairly aInwIy over several days, reflecting Imv relative permeability. The Report states, "existing wells in the area have reported mixed oocoeao in terms of quantity and quality. However, several wells in immediate proximity to the site appear to yield abundant water supplies for domestic use". Three (3) test wells were attempted on the proposed site, one reaching a depth of 55 metres, however, they all yielded insufficient water supplies. thus, four (4) drilled wells have been completed on the development site, with only one well being productive. ' The Report concluded that the water bearing granular zones at the site are sporadic and highly localized and construction of further drilled wells will likely have mixed success. It further noted that adequate water supplies are locally being obtained from bored wells that average at least IOm in depth. Shallow bored wells of 3m to 5m in depth and drilled wells that penetrate to bedrock have generally encountered objectionable water quality. However, future bored wells need to be lined to at least 6m below grade for protection from possible shallow sources of groundwater contamination. In terms of Waste Disposal the report noted that because the groundwater levels generally 0000c below a depth of 2.5 m there abooId be no constraint from iugrooud leaching beds. The Report does note that Lots 4 to 11 are underlain by REPORT NO. : PD-80-88 PAGE 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- clay and considered unsuitable for inground leaching beds, due to the very low absorption rate. The Report further notes competent soils for purposes of foundation and pavement support were generally encountered within 0.6 metres of existing grade. However, the Report did caution the manner in which excavation and soil preparation was to be carried out. The Report also identified potential erosion constraints during construction and suggested that all major earth grading and road construction take place during the drier part of the year. Planning Staff note that several letters of objection and petitions were received from residents of the area in opposition to the said proposals. The following is a summary of the concerns which were put forth: - poor visibility at the proposed intersection location on Lakeshore Road, there is an incline to the east and a hedge on the existing MacDonald property; - Riley Road has the second proposed access, however two (2) level railway crossings and a narrow underpass would have to be negotiated; - Lakeshore Road would have to be widened, although this is possible near the development, "the beach head" a narrow and winding road would be difficult or impossible; - In the spring of 1987, the shoulder of Lakeshore Road collapsed into Lake Ontario less than 500 feet from the proposed development; - the bluffs immediately south of the development are 60 to 100 feet high and present substantial danger to children and a liability to present property owners along the bluffs; - no drainage plan for the subdivision has been available for review. A drainage plan should be accompanied by an Impact Study, which estimates the effect of the increased run-off due to the proposed development; - clarity as to whether the development is to proceed on drilled wells, bored wells, or extension of municipal water is needed; - the negative effect of municipal water, is that water supply will be unbridled and therefore, septic effluent seepage will be greater; - water from the regular water table scarce (obtained from drilled wells) , this development may force existing residents to abandon drilled wells for lack of water or quality and install bored wells. Bored wells however, tend to collect run-off seepage water; 6 REPORT NO. : PD-80-88 PAGE 6 1(0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - residences using bored wells south of the proposed development are in the natural downhill drainage pattern of septic seepage; - the proposed development will ruin present aesthetics of this property; - no provision for parkland. STAFF COMMENTS: As previously noted, the subject proposal is in Part Lot 25, B.F.C. , former Township of Clarke. The property is on the north side of Lakeshore Road east of the Newcastle Urban boundaries. Staff note the main access to the Bond Head area and adjacent lands is via Mill Street and by crossing the C.N.R. underpass. This crossing is deficient given the number of existing residents in this southern locale and especially in consideration of proposed residential developments. Planning Staff have therefore calculated a per lot levy for all new development south of the C.N.R. tracks, which would contribute to the construction of a safe railway underpass. Therefore, should this proposal be approved, the applicant would be requested to contribute, per proposed lot, to the construction of a new underpass. The applicant's Official Plan Amendment requests a redesignation to allow Estate Residential development. The Durham Regional official Plan's policies on Estate Residential (Section 10.3.2.1) outlines criteria by which estate residential developments are to be evaluated. In general terms, these criteria require that the proposed development be located in a scenic, well-vegetated area of rolling topography; that it not be located on lands having high capability for agriculture; that it not restrict the use of adjacent properties for agriculture; that it not create undue adverse effects on lands identified as being environmentally sensitive; that it does not require the undue expansion or extension of services; that it not result in significant alteration to landscape contours, watercourses or vegetation; and that it complies with the Agricultural Code of Practice. The Regional official Plan further states an application to amend the Official Plan and an application for approval of Plan of Subdivision shall be accompanied by, among other things: 7 REPORT NO. : PD-80-88 PAGE 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ A preliminary analysis of the soil and groundwater conditions of the site indicating satisfactory conditions for private servicing; and A detailed engineering report confirming an adequate supply of potable water, and adequate soil and water table conditions on each lot satisfactory for the effective operation of a private waste disposal system. In addition, Section 10.3.2.5 requires individual lots within an Estate Residential development be serviced with a private drilled well and a private waste disposal system. In reviewing the three (3) applications and supporting material submitted by the applicant, in conjunction with comments received from the circulated agencies and official Plan policies, Staff note several concerns with the subject proposal. As previously noted, in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food comments, the proposal does not comply with the Food Land Guidelines. It would also appear not to comply with criteria listed in Section 10.3.2.1 as the soils are primarily Class I and the site is presently used in an intensive specialized agriculture, further the site is not well removed from adjacent agricultural uses. The Ministry Staff have calculated a minimum separation distance of 714 feet (217 metres) from the barn on the adjacent property to the east. This setback would affect lots 26 to 29. The Town's Zoning By-law, Section 3.19(c) requires a 300 m (1000 feet) setback from agricultural uses. Using the Town's required setback Lots 13 to 16 and 24 to 29 inclusive, would have to be eliminated. In reviewing the servicing aspect of the subject proposal, Staff notes both the Engineer's Report and the Health Unit expressed concerns with the proposed septic systems in Lots 4 to 11. Due to clay found in the area of these proposed lots, private septic systems are not considered feasible by the Health Department and these lots (4 to 11) are requested to be eliminated. Further servicing concerns deal with water for the proposed twenty-nine (29) lots, the application was submitted, circulated and reviewed based on private water and drilled wells. The field work carried out by Gibson and Associates and summarized in the Geotechnical Report indicated that three (3) test wells were drilled on the subject site, one to a depth of 55m, however, all were abandoned due to insufficient water supply. The Report goes on to conclude the 8 ( h/ REPORT N0. : PD-80-88 PAGE 8 � _______________________________________________________________________________ development should proceed with bored wells. The investigation and report support the Health Department's comments, which state the site in unsuitable for drilled wells, and support can only be given should municipal water be extended to the site. Planning Staff note that the Official Plan policies specifically require Estate Residential developments to be serviced by "drilled wells". Furthermore, Staff cannot support Health's suggestion of extending municipal water, as this would be in contradiction of Regional official Plan policies of undue expansion or extension. Staff note the three (3) agencies which did not submit comments, offered the following verbal considerations: Regional Public Works have no objection, as no Regional Road or service is being affected; Newcastle Community Services Staff have requested a five percent (5%) cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication be required; and the Ministry of the Environment require a Hydrologist Report, addressing a possible nitrate problem. Ministry Staff further noted no waste site or industry was located in the area, however, note m 000ueco due to the agricultural operation in the vicinity and implications on the Code of Practice. Based upon the above-noted information, Staff are not satisfied that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Servicing the proposed subdivision has many constraints, and it appears not to comply to Official Plan policies. The present road design presents problems in terms of proposed intersections, sight distances and minimum stopping distances, a storm drainage report is still required for the said proposal. Given all the constraints and oounecua raised, Staff are not in u position to support the application for official Plan amendment' subsequently the application for Plan of Subdivision and amendment to the Zoning By-law, as amended cannot be supported. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation Committee _/ -&ds, M.C.I.P.-________ / 7 � _`-____- ___-______ � . Qd� ��wr Kntaeff /eDireotnz of Planning Chief d�oistrative officer CP*TT8*jip CC: See Attached List *Attach. March 23, 1988 /y~� BB9OIT 00. : DD-80-88 D&Q8 9 '~ _______________________________________________________________________________ DC; James and Sandra Hendry 0C: Patricia ManDouoelI D.D. #3 BooItoo Street General Delivery NEWCASTLE, Ontario NEWCASTLE, Ontario LOA 188 L0& lB0 Hamilton 6 8elletoutaioe Strike & Strike P.O. Box 39 Barristers & Solicitors l Division Street P.O. Box 7 80WM&KVILLB' Ontario 38 King Street West LlC 3D8 80WM&NVZLLB, Ontario LlC 3K8 Gregory 6 Sally Ward D.R. #3 M. Fleury NEWCASTLE, Ontario R.R. #3 L0& IB8 NEWCASTLE, Ontario LUJ\ IB0 0voc Phan 6 Shirley Nguyen 1816 Fairbauk Road David 6 Lynn Harrison PICKEBZ0Q, Ontario R.R. #3 LlV 1T3 Lakeshore Road NEWCASTLE, Ontario LOA I88 Mr. Douglas Crook B.R. #3 NEWCASTLE, Ontario LOA l80 Jens & Jan GcuvIev D.B. #3 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L07\ I8O Donualou Gunn 31 Elgin Avenue TORONTO, Ontario M5B lG5 Vern 6 Donna Jasper 3677 Lakeshore Road R.R. #3 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L07\ l8U Sandi & Ken McDonald D.B. #3 NEWCASTLE, Ontario L0& I80 --------------- TOWN CD/C- F-I F-I /* ,�-> �..�«x.G.wT- i / ',ate �. / �i y� I L�j Tl. ,X1, 'x\ Cj;i