Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-136-04 ... " ~- Cl~-!l1gron REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, November 1, 2004 Report #: PSD-136-04 File #: PLN 2.4.2.4 t0~ ~tpfl'Zf3:2'u<f By-law #: Subject: MUNICIPALITY OF PORT HOPE OFFICIAL PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-136-04 be received; 2. THAT Report PSD-136-04 be adopted as the Municipality of Clarington's comments on the Municipality of Port Hope Official Plan (working draft, dated September 14, 2004); and 3. THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Municipality of Port Hope. Submitted by: David . Crome, MCIP, R.P.P. Director of Planning Services Reviewed by: (/) ~~~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer HB/FLlDJC/df 22 October 2004 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET. BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 b:i6 "- . , REPORT NO.: PSD-136-04 PAGE 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Municipality of Port Hope was incorporated on January 1, 2001. It is the result of the amalgamation of the former Town of Port Hope and the former Township of Hope. 1.2 Due to the amalgamation, the Municipality inherited two separate planning approaches. In April 2003 the Municipality of Port Hope undertook an Official Plan Review, Update and Consolidation by issuing a Policy Direction Report which Staff commented on. 1.3 The Planning Advisory Committee of the Municipality of Port Hope has issued a working draft of their Official Plan and requested comments prior to presentation of the document to Port Hope Council scheduled for later this year. 2.0 COMMENTS 2.1 Staff have received and reviewed the working draft of the Municipality of Port Hope Official Plan. The working draft is clear and comprehensive and addresses a number of concerns that we had previously brought to the attention of the planning staff in Port Hope. While we have some comments, specific to the inter-relationship of the two municipalities, the Planning Advisory Committee is to be commended for the vision that is set out in the document. 2.2 Wesleyville Employment Area is located in close proximity to the Municipality of Clarington's eastern boundary. The eastern portion of Clarington is predominantly rural in nature and it is anticipated to remain this way for some time. Development of the employment area at Wesleyville, although planned for many years, will have an impact. Careful consideration of the transportation impacts and induced pressure for other forms of development will have to be carefully planned so as to preserve the rural structure of that portion of Clarington. 2.3 The proposals for Tucker Creek have been deleted from this working draft of the Official Plan. Clarington is very pleased to see that our comments regarding the impacts on servicing, transportation and change to the predominantly rural and agricultural eastern portion of Clarington have been taken into consideration in this most recent draft. The precedent that the Tucker Creek proposal would have set for new uses and future expansions, including the creation of a new settlement area supporting residential, commercial, office and recreational uses was unacceptable to the Municipality of Clarington as set out in our reports (PSD-063-03 and PSD-079-04). 2.4 We have concerns with Schedule D -Transportation as it does not show any future trail connections, it would be reassuring to have indicated the Oak Ridges Moraine Trail and Waterfront Trail at least conceptually to ensure that the future inter-connections between the municipalities are there when the trails are being developed. Given the removal of the Tucker Creek development and that Wesleyville will be serviced from the 401 and Wesleyville Road we see no need for the future collector shown from Townline 037 , REPORT NO.: PSD-136-04 PAGE 3 to Wesleyville Road; futher we would have concerns that this future collector could impact the transportation patterns in this portion of Clarington. 2.5 In Section C under the general principles outlined, it is troublesome that there is no provision (even conceptually) for wildlife corridors. From the Second Marsh in Oshawa, through Clarington and into the Municipality of Port Hope we have a rare opportunity of being able to promote a near shore wildlife corridor that does not exist anywhere else along Lake Ontario. Consideration should be given to adding an objective that promotes wildlife corridors both along the lake and back up the valley systems to the Ganaraska Forest and Oak Ridges Moraine. 2.6 In the General Provisions under the Natural Heritage Section we are suggesting that a policy regarding the need to undertake multi-stakeholder watershed planning studies in order to protect the integrity of ecological and hydrological functions be added. In this regard, the inter-relationship between the headwaters of creeks and rivers that cross from Port Hope into Clarington and vice versa will have reciprocal policies in the Official Plans. In addition, this provides for the overall planning of how storm water management will function when the drainage of an area will flow to the other municipality. This will provide for consultation regarding contiguous natural features, as well. 2.7. The draft Official Plan document permits alteration to the limits of the Aggregate Reserve Area without the need for an amendment to the Official Plan. Identification of, or deletion of, Aggregate Reserve Area requires studies to support the change and any revision could have potential impacts on future land uses. As such, it is suggested that changes to the limits of an Aggregate Reserve Area be undertaken by amendment. 2.8 It is suggested that upon closure of a licenced operation or a revoked licence that the Municipality of Port Hope revisit the drafted Official Plan policies requiring that an application be submitted to rezone the lands without the need for an Official Plan Amendment. If the Municipality deletes the overlay designation without an amendment to the Plan and then amend the Zoning By-law to delete aggregate extraction this would remove the onus from the landowner to submit an amendment application. 2.9 Review of development applications and the supporting documentation to permit a new or expanded Extraction Area can consume a lot of municipal resources. Also, there may be technical studies submitted that either the Municipality or the Conservation Authority do not have the technical expertise or resources to review. It is suggested that the Municipality consider inclusion of policies that identify what studies would be required to be submitted in support of an application to permit or expand an aggregate extraction area and policies that would provide the Municipality with the opportunity to peer review these studies at the expense of the proponent. 3.0 CONCLUSIONS 3.1 The Municipality of Port Hope is to be commended for the work completed to date. We appreciate the opportunity to comment during the Official Plan review process. 638 . . ~ " REPORT NO.: PSD-136-04 PAGE 4 List of interested parties to be advised of Council's decision: Planning Advisory Committee Municipality of Port Hope 56 Queen Street P.O. Box 117 Port Hope, ON L 1A 3V9 639