HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-115-84 4
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB UO TEL.(416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1984
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84
SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL
PLAN - P. GEARING
PT. LOT 32, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF
DARLINGTON - FILE: 84-1 /D
RECOMMENDATION:
I
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the
following :
1 . That Report PD-115-84 be received ; and
2. That the Region of Durham be advised that, with
respect to Official Plan Amendment Application
84-1/D, the Town of Newcastle has no objection
to the redesignation of that portion of the
site, east of Farewell Creek, for a maximum of
twenty (P ) Estate Residential lots, but that
the Town does not recommend approval of the
proposed redesignation for that portion of the
site west of Farewell Creek.}
i
. . .2
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 2
BACKGROUND:
On January 5, 1984, the Region of Durham advised the Town of
Newcastle, that it had received an application submitted by
Mr. P. Gearing to amend the Durham Region Official Plan to
permit the development of twenty-two (22) Estate Residential
lots on a 16.25 hectare (40.14 acre) parcel of land in Part
Lot 32, Concession 3, former Township of Darlington (see key
* map attached) . The property is currently designated "Major
Open Space" with indications of "Environmental Sensitivity"
and "Hazard Lands".
Approximately 11 .3 hectares (27.9 acres) of the parcel
subject to this application was included in a previous
Official Plan Amendment application submitted by Mr. Gearing
(File: 81 -37/D) . That application, submitted in December,
1981 , originally proposed the creation of twenty-nine (29)
Estate Residential lots on both sides of Tooley's Road.
The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority identified a number of
concerns with the proposal . In particular, it was indicated
that three (3) of the lots on the east side of Tooley's Road
have high water tables and small feasible building areas and
should be eliminated. As well , it was also noted that the
rear lot lines of three (3) other lots east of Tooley's Road
extend into the floodplain of Farewell Creek. A revised
plan was submitted, eliminating the three (3) lots as
requested and modifying the rear lot lines of the other
three (3) lots to coincide with the approximate top of the
bank of Farewell Creek.
. . .3
I
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 3
In a report to the General Purpose and Administration
Committee meeting of March 2.2, 1982, the Planning Department
staff indicated no objection to the redesignation of the
lands west of Tooley's Road, but recommended that the
redesignation of the lands east of Tooley' s Road not be
approved. However, on March 29, 1982, Council adopted a
resolution advising the Region of no objection to the
redesignation of the entire parcel .
Regional Planning Committee, on the recommendation of
i
Regional Planning staff, subsequently adopted a
recommendation that the Official Plan Amendment application
be denied. However, on June 2.3, 1982, Regional Council
adopted the proposed Official Plan Amendment (Amendment No.
83).
In August, 1982, Mr. Gearing submitted an application for
approval of a Plan of Subdivision to the Region and an
application for rezoning to the Town. In response to the
circulation of both applications, the Ministry of Natural
Resources requested that , as a condition of draft approval ,
Lot 28, (see key map) be zoned to prohibit the erection of
buildings or structures. Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority requested the same condition; however, a further
request was made for the same zone designation for Block 29
and that Block 2.8 be dedicated as public lands in addition
to any other municipal parks dedication.
In Staff Report PD-28-83, considered by the General Purpose
and Administration Committee on February 7, 1983, Staff
indicated no major objections to Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority's requests and recommended approval
. ..4
i
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 4
of the draft plan of subdivision. One of the Town ' s
conditions of draft approval was that public ownership of
Block 28 be established through negotiation with the
appropriate authority for erosion protection, flood control
and conservation purposes. In the same report , Staff also
recommended the approval of an amending zoning by-law in
which Blocks 28 & 29 was zoned to prohibit the erection of
buildings or structures.
The Plan of Subdivision was draft approved by the Region on
March 16, 1983, with one of the conditions of approval being
that Blocks 28 & 29 be zoned to prohibit buildings or
structures other than those essential for flood or erosion
control .
As indicated by the key map attached to this report , Blocks
28 & 29 of the previous application are included in the
current Official Plan Amendment application. The current
proposal indicates the creation of two (2) lots in Block 28
and fronting on Tooley' s Road, approximately twelve (12)
lots in Block 29, and the dedication of the valley lands
associated with Farewell Creek as parkland.
SUMMARY OF CIRCULATION COMMENTS
In accordance with departmental procedure, the subject
application was circulated to various departments for
comment. As well , the Region provided copies of the
comments received through their circulation of the
application. A summary of the major comments is provided
below:
i
I
...5
I
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 5
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
March 8, 1984
Authority staff have previously reviewed the site of this
proposed amendment through the previous Official Plan Amend-
ment and Plan of Subdivision applications. In commenting on
the latter two circulations, we indicated the need to
subject Blocks 28 & 29 to a specific provision which would
prohibit any form of development in these areas. This was
deemed necessary in order to protect the environmentally
sensitive conditions which were acknowledged by authority
documentation and recognized by the provisions of the
Regional Official Plan.
In view of our previous comments which culminated in most of
the lands in question being zoned for environmental
protection, we obviously do not favour development in the
wooded areas of the site. Documentation indicates that this
site is part of a major wildlife corridor, with areas of
high water table and ground water recharge. Farewell Creek
which flows through the site is acknowledged as possessing
high quality cold water fishery habitat. The position of
the high water table areas with regard to Farewell Creek,
suggests a flow augmentation function is present. Such
perched water tables are generally regarded as being highly
susceptible to pollution (septic tile fields, spills, etc.) .
We are also concerned for the manner in which the report
submitted with the application makes the assumption that the
subject site is suitable for septic tank construction (not
operation) . This conclusion is presumably based on the
soils investigation carried out for the site of the approved
plan of subdivision which revealed adequate conditions for
development on private services and therefore assumes that
the subject lands are similarly suitable. We cannot agree
with this assumption since our documentation indicates that
the area of the approved subdivision is basically a sand and
gravel area whereas parts of the subject site exhibit high
water table conditions.
Although no lot in the proposed plan extends into the
Farewell Creek valley, it is important to emphasize that the
integrity of such a significant resource cannot be protected
by preserving the valley alone, while permitting mass
interference to occur in adjacent areas which are known to
provide a supportive role.
.. .6
i
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 6
We have not received any indication that the wooded areas
of the subject site can be developed while meeting the
environmental criteria of this authority or that of the
Regional Official Plana The clearing of the site to affect
road, driveway, house and tile field construction, as well
as the greatly increased human presence and dewatering of
the lands will , in our opinion, have a negative affect on
the natural environmental . Based on the foregoing concerns,
we must recommend that the proposed amendment be denied.
April 10, 1984
Authority staff have now had the opportunity to review the
soils investigation submitted with the Official Plan
Amendment application.
Due to the nature of the perched water table on the site, it
is difficult to alter the water table to make the site
suitable for development without adversely affecting the
natural environment conditions which are dependent on it.
It would thus appear that the hydrologic conditions of the
wooded portions of this site would require extensive
alterations in order for development to be accommodated.
These alterations such as regrading, ditching and the
removal of organic soils will greatly lower the perched
water table and effect a corresponding reduction in the
moisture which would be available to site vegetation. It
must be emphasized that in perched ground water conditions
there are times during the dryer phases of the hydrologic
cycle when moisture availability is greatly reduced.
The continued integrity of existing tree cover, and
regenerating forest areas which tap the upper moisture
layer, are dependent upon the stability of the present
hydrologic setting. Clearing for dwellings , driveways and
tile fields, and possible future impacts such as swimming
pools and firewood harvesting would create additional
stresses on forest cover.
After reviewing the referenced soils investigation, our
position is that the report confirms the points which we
have made previously on site hydrology; a perched water
table condition exists on the site which can only be made
suitable for development through regrading and the
construction of drainage swales. These activities would no
doubt have sever impacts on forest cover and habitat
conditions. Based on the foregoing, it appears that from a
hydrology point of view, the site cannot likely be developed
. . .7
i
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 7
while satisfactoriy meeting the requirements of this
authority and the Official Plan Amendment No. 19 pertaining
to environmentally sensitive areas development.
We would indicate however, that we have no objection to lot
creation and the subseqent development of the open area ,
free of forest cover, in the northeast sector of the site.
Ministry of Natural Resources
We have no objections to the proposed subdivision, subject
to the valley lands associated with Farewell Creek being
retained and the hazard lands and environmentally sensitive
designations in the Region of Durham Official Plan.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Durham Regional
Health Unit indicated no objection to the proposed Official
Plan Amendment application.
Staff note that , as of the date of the writing of this
report, two letters of objection to the proposed amendment
have been received. These letters, submitted by two
purchasers of lots in the Plan of Subdivision currently
being developed by Mr. Gearing, objected to the proposed
development of land which they understood to be designated
for open space and parkland.
COMMENT:
The Durham Regional Official Plan establishes a number of
criteria by which Estate Residential proposals are to be
considered. One of the criteria states that the estimated
population yield from the development should not exceed a
density of 5 persons per hectare (2 persons per acre).
Since the area between Farewell Creek and Tooley's Road
(Block 2.8 of previous application) is included in both the
previous and current applications, and due to the proximity
of the two development proposals, Staff feel it would be
appropriate to determine the density of the current
development proposal in conjunction with the density of
approved estate residential development. In that regard ,
the combined densityof the two developments falls within the
requirements of the Official Plan. With respect to the
other criteria established by the Official Plan, the
proposed development would also appear to conform.
. . .8
REPORT NO. : PO-115-84 Page 8
As indicated, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
has expressed great concern regarding the proposed
development of an area which it has identified as being
environmentally sensitive.
The Durham Regional Official Plan designates the entire site
subject to the Official Plan Amendment application, as being
Environmentally Sensitive, with the valley lands associated
with Farewell Creek also being designated Hazard Lands. The
Official Plan states that prior to approving a development
application within an area designated as being
environmentally sensitive, the area municipal Council shall
conduct, in co-operation with the Region and respective
conservation authority, and in consultation with the
proponent, a study to determine the extent that the type or
magnitude of development is compatible with the
environmental conditions, or the measures which must be
undertaken to mitigate any resulting negative environmental
impact. The Town does not have such a study included in its
1984 budget. Accordingly, the proposal would be premature
until such a study was conducted.
By letter dated March 20, 1984, the Town requested the
applicant to prepare a report to fulfill these requirements
of the Durham Regional Official Plan and to directly respond
to the various issues identified by Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority with respect to the environmental
sensitivity of the site. At the request of the
applicant, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
provided a listing of those factors which should be
addressed through an environmental analysis.
A preliminary analysis of the feasibility of the project
relative to environmental concerns was submitted by the
applicant's consultant on April 12, 1984. The consultant
noted that the basic issue of concern is the development of
.. .9
i
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 9
the table land woodlot to the east of Farewell Creek valley
for estate development. The consultant stated that , given
the location and inevitable human pressure on the area, it
may be more appropriate to utilize the table land for estate
development while embarking upon a forest management and
reforestation program to maintain the ecological integrity
of the site. He further stated that a full environmental
assessment was required but that, in his preliminary
opinion, development can suitably exist with the amenities
of the forested lands of the site. This, however, would be
further investigated during the subdivision approval
process.
Staff have reviewed the preliminary environmental assessment
in the context of the concerns identified by the
Conservation Authority. Staff concur with the Conservation
Staff that there are significant environmental features on
the site which require special attention. However, Staff
also feel that Estate Residential development could be
supported on the wooded portions of the site and that it is
perhaps unrealistic to expect the site to remain in a
pristine undeveloped state. Staff furthernote, that the
Durham Region Health Unit has not expressed any concern with
respect to the construction or operation of private sewage
disposal systems on the site.
With respect to the issue of the development of land
identified as being environmental sensitive through the
review of the previous subdivision application, staff note
that one of the conditions of approval imposed by the Region
at the time the plan was draft approved, was that Block 28
and 2.9 be zoned to prohibit buildings and structures other
than those essential for flood or erosion control . This
. . .10
i
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 10
particular condition was imposed at the request of Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. The Town 's conditions
of draft approval for the subdivision did not request that
Blocks 28 & 29 be zoned to prohibit development.
One of the Town's conditions of draft approval however, was
that Block 28 be dedicated through negotiation to the
appropriate authority for erosion protection, flood control
and conservation purposes. Staff note that the present
application proposes the creation of two (2) residential
lots in Block 28 and fronting on Tooley's Road. In keeping
with the Town's requirements for the approval of the
previous plan of subdivision, staff would not be prepared to
recommend approval of these two (2) lots located in Block
28.
Based on the preliminary environmental assessment submitted
by the applicant's consultant, and the fact that the
retention of Block 2.9 east of Farewell Creek in a zone to
prohibit buildings or structures was not one of the Town's
conditions for draft approval of the previous subdivision ,
staff recommend that Council advise the Region of Durham
that the Town has no objections to the redesignation of that
portion of the site east of Farewell Creek to permit a
maximum of twenty (20) estate residential lots. It is also
recommended that the Region be further advised that, should
the Official Plan Amendment application be approved and
proceed to the subdivision approval stage, a more detailed
environmental analysis will be required to determine the
expected impact of the proposed development on the natural
.. .11
REPORT NO. : PD-115-84 Page 11
environment and any mitigative measures required.
Respectfully submitted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
JAS*TTE*jip
*Attach.
May 22, 1984
Applicant: Mr. P. Gearing
P.O. Box 21
R.R. #3
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1 C 3K4
D.G. Biddle and Associates Limited
633 King Street East
OSHAWA, Ontario
Ll H 1 G3
i
KEY MAP
FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
LOT I LOT 1 LOT LOT" I LOT LOT I OT LOT I LOT I LOT I LOT
33 ,� I 31 30 I 9 28 127 I 26 I 25
I I I I I
i I REEK I I I I
I I i I I I I
-- -L---I- - -
I I I I
I I i I I I
1 I I I I I
I I i I I I I i
o I I i I 1 I I I
o I 1 I i
JW o00
_ ~ I I i0: I I I
I I
y J I °� I 1 0 I i
m I i c I ° I I
z I I I = I I I
I w ; I I F I I
I o� I i i UL I I
i
° =~ � HASH I RD. ( I
I I i I I I
i
I I NwY N2 ( 2 I I 'i K
I i I
I
I I i couRm l I I
I I I I i
I I I i 1 I I
1 I I I o I i
i I i i I s I I
I I I ( I
i I I I I
o I I
CURRENT APPLICATION
® BLOCK 28 PREVIOUS APPLICATION
BLOCK 29 PREVIOUS APPLICATION
0 250 500 IOOOm
50 100