HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-72-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE y
t REPORT File # �>, 5' %�
Res. #
--- �¢ �• By-Law #
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, March 17, 1986
REPORT #: PD-72-86 FILE #: 85-30/D, 18T-85018 & DEV 85-19
SURJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN - FILE: 85-30/D
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PLAN OF SUBDIVISION - FILE: 18T-85018
APPLICATION FOR REZONING - FILE: DEV 85-19
591415 ONTARIO LIMITED
PART LOTS 31/32, CONCESSION 4, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-72-86 be received; and
2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle has no objection to
Official Plan Amendment Application 85-30/D submitted by 591415 Ontario Limited and
revised to indicate a maximum of 51 estate residential lots;
3. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle will provide a
recommendation on proposed plan of subdivision 18T-85018, including Conditions of
Draft Approval at such time as the Region has made a decision with respect to
Official Plan Amendment application 85-30/D; and
4 . THAT application for rezoning DEV 85-19, be referred back to Staff pending a
decision by the Region of Durham on Official Plan amendment application 85-30/D;
and
5. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to the applicant.
. . .2
i
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 2
On July 12, 1985, the Town of Newcastle received an application submitted by
591415 Ontario Limited to rezone a 36.13 ha parcel of land in Part Lots 31
* and 32, Concession 4, former Township of Darlington (see key map attached)
to permit the development of 53 estate residential lots. Subsequently, on
July 18, 1985, the Town was advised by the Region of Durham of applications
for Official Plan amendment and subdivision approval submitted by the
applicant for the proposed estate residential development . The applicant
has submitted a Soils Investigation Report and an Environmental Impact
Analysis in support of the subject applications . As well, revised plans of j
subdivision were submitted by the applicant on January 7, 1986 and March 5,
1986 in response to concerns identified by a number of agencies . The most
* recent revised plan, which is indicated on Attachment No. 1 to this Report,
proposes the creation of 51 estate residential lots . The subject lands are
designated "Major Open Space", "General Agriculture", and "Envirionmentally
Sensitive" by the Durham Regional Official Plan and are zoned "Agricultural
(A)" and "Environmental Protection (EP)" by the Town's Comprehensive Zoning
By-law.
The applicant owns a total of 69 hectares in Part Lots 31 and 32,
Concession 4. The subject subdivision occupies 36 .13 hectares. The
applicant is proposing to retain an 8 hectare parcel south of Farewell Creek
adjacent to Pebblestone Road and Trulls Road, and a 22 hectare parcel north
of the proposed subdivision. As well, the applicant has applied to the
Region of Durham Land Division Committee to sever a 2.92 hectare lot
supporting the existing home and related buildings from the larger holdings.
This application, LD 445/85, was considered by the Land Division Committee
on December 16, 1985. The Town, in its comments on the application, noted
that access to the proposed severed lot is currently by means of a travelled
road, Strohl Road, which is maintained by the Town. Within the draft plan
of subdivision, a road allowance is proposed which would connect the severed
lot to the internal road proposed to serve the subdivision. Staff indicated
no objection to the severance application subject to the closure and
conveyance of Strohl Road in accordance with the Town's policies and road
. . .3
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 3
closure procedure. The Land Division Committee approved the application,
with one of the conditions being that the applicant satisfy the requirements
of the Town. Subsequently, it has been determined that Strohl Road was not
in municipal ownership.
I
In accordance with Departmental procedure, the subject official plan
amendment, subdivision and rezoning applications were circulated to various
departments and agencies for comment. The Region of Durham also provided
copies of comments received through their circulation of the official plan
amendment and subdivision applications . The following is a summary of the
major comments received. Staff note that the most recent revision was not
submitted in time to allow for a recirculation of the plan.
Town of Newcastle Public Works Department - August 20, 1986
"The Public Works Department has no objection to the subject applications
provided that:
1 . An 8.23m road widening, a 0.3m reserve and a 18.25m x 6.25m sight
triangle on Pebblestone Road be dedicated to the Town;
2. That a 15.Om x 6.Om sight triangle on Tooley's Road and a 18.25m x
6 .25m sight triangle on Trulls Road be dedicated to the Town;
3. The minimum distance between intersections on Trulls Road is 120
metres; the location of Drive 'A' should be relocated to the south to
provide this separation. Should this not be possible, closure and
conveyance of Strohl Road may be necessary with access from the
existing dwelling obtained from Drive 'A' ;
4. The developer is required to contribute to the cost sharing for the
reconstruction of Pebblestone Road and Tooley's Road to the
satisfaction of the Town;
5. All of the other standard requirements re: Lot Grading, Schedules of
Work, Performance Guarantees , Cost Estimates, etc. should be included
in the Subdivision Agreement."
. . .4
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 4
Town of Newcastle Public Works Department - December 10, 1986
"Further to our comments of August 20, 1985, we have reviewed the
intersection of Drive 'A' and Trulls Road and find that, should this
proposal proceed, this intersection should be reviewed in detail to ensure
that adequate sight distance is available on Trulls Road. If not, the
developer would be required to reconstruct that portion of Trulls Road which
is necessary to obtain the required sight distance."
Town of Newcastle Public Works Department - January 20, 1986
"We have reviewed the revised plan of subdivision and submit the following
comments:
1. We have reviewed the intersection of Drive 'A' and Trulls Road in
greater detail and find that in accordance with the Ministry's
Geometric Design guidelines there does not seem to be sufficient
stopping sight distance available on Trulls Road. Therefore, we are
proposing a relocation of Drive 'A' as shown on the attached plan;
2. The plan of subdivision shows the Strohl Road right-of-way to be closed
and conveyed. At this time this is not the case and the right-of-way
should be shown;
I
3. It is our understanding that access to the existing dwelling to the
north will be provided by means of a private drive connecting to Drive
W . The access is shown on the plan as a future road. The costs of
this private drive is the owner's responsibility;
4. A 0.3 metre reserve is required along the Trull's road frontage of the
subject subdivision."
Town of Newcastle Community Services Department
"The application is outside the urban area and as such we do not require
parkland in this subdivision. We therefore request cash-in-lieu of 5%
parkland dedication."
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
"No objection. Fire protection for this area is provided by Station #4,
located on Trulls Road between Pebblestone Road and Nash Road. Water is
supplied by Fire Department tank trucks and consideration should be given to
the Fire Protection Requirements for Rural Development. "
i
. . .5
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 5
Region of Durham Health Unit - January 16, 1986
"We have reviewed the revised plan and have two concerns regarding the
private sewage disposal systems for the proposed development.
1 . Lots 18,19,20,22,23 and 33 through 40 have insufficient area for sewage
disposal systems due to the Trans Northern Pipeline easement and the
Ontario Hydro easement. This situation could be corrected by
eliminating every other lot backing onto the easements , thereby creating
wider lots with more area for private sewage disposal.
2. Blocks 54 through 70 inclusive, which are to be conveyed to the adjacent
lots, have restricted use. Does this restricted use prevent the sewage
disposal system from being installed within these Blocks above the
floodplain?"
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
(Consolidation of comments contained in letters dated September 23, 1985,
September 25, 1985 and October 3, 1985)
"The site lies primarily in the watershed of Farewell Creek which runs in a
northeast to southwest direction through the property. The creek in this
area is characterized by numerous meanders and some eroding embankments .
Much of the site is open farmland. The valleyland is heavily forested as
are portions of the tableland, particularly in the vicinity of Lots 11 to
16. Some areas, in particular the valleylands, have been designated as
environmentally sensitive in Authority studies and in the Regional Official
Plan due to the forest cover, wildlife habitat characteristics, the fishery
present in the creek, and the hydrogeological function of the general area
in providing a source of baseflow to the creek and serving as an area of
groundwater recharge. Field work conducted by Authority Staff indicate that
the site contains a considerable variety of vegetative types and wildlife.
A provincially rare bird, the Prairie Warbler, was identified in the
forested tableland area, and conditions may be suitable for breeding.
The sensitivity of the site was also to some extent noted in the
environmental impact analysis submitted by the applicant. The contention of
that report is that the proposal will have little impact on wildlife because
habitat will be maintained in the valley area. However, Authority Staff
feel that to protect the sensitivity of the site, both the valleyland area
and a portion of the tableland habitat must be maintained in their natural
state.
It is the Authority's policy in maintaining environmentally sensitive areas
to only allow proposals which will not affect the basic integrity of the
environmental system. Authority staff have no difficulty with the proposed
development for the majority of the site. However, in order to protect
. . .6
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 6
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority - (Cont'd)
sensitive habitat, Lots 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 should be eliminated and made
into one block which should be placed in an "Environmental Protection"
zoning category. Similarly, because of its sensitivity and because of its
hazard land characteristics, all of the valleyland on both sides of the
creek should be placed in an "Environmental Protection" zone. This would
necessitate the creation of a new block on the plan which would encompass
all of Blocks 54 to 70 inclusive and the valleyland to top of bank on the
south and eastern sides of the creek.
The proposal in the plan of subdivision to extend individual lots over the
top of bank into the Farewell Creek valley is not acceptable, even though
uses of the valley area could be restricted. Authority policy has
consistently required that residential lots be terminated at the top of
bank. With individual ownership of the valley area, there will be more
difficulty in controlling incompatible uses of an area which is floodprone
and environmentally sensitive. It is imperative to control activities in
the f loodplain area and to protect the senstivity of the valleylands, and
this task is made easier by ensuring that the valleylands are maintained in
one ownership, and preferably owned by a public body. Consequently,
Authority staff are opposed to the creation of Blocks 54 to 70 inclusive.
I
Staff are also concerned about maintaining the vegetative cover on specific
lots and blocks, about the location of houses on lots abutting the valley
and about ensuring that road and site drainage work will not detrimentally
effect the water table, and thus the baseflow of Farewell Creek.
A revision to the floodplain is necessary at the point where Farewell Creek
crosses under Pebblestone Road. If the plan is revised to incorporate this
change, as well as the requested changes related Lots 12, 13, 14, 16 & 17,
and Blocks 54 to 70, Authority staff will have no objection to the approval
of the proposed subdivision subject to the conditions listed below:
1. The valleyland block and the block containing lots 12 , 13, 14, 16 & 17
shall be zoned to rohibit the construction p t uction of buildings and structures
other than those necessary for flood and erosion control.
2. The owner agrees to have covenants registered on title for the revised
valleyland block, the block comprising lots 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 , and
for lots 10, 11, 15, 20 to 23, 27 to 30, 33 to 35, 39 .
3. The owner agrees that there shall be no filling, grading, construction
or alteration of watercourses on the site without the prior written
approval of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Site plans
showing the proposed location of all houses and other structures,
driveways, septic systems, and areas to be cleared where appropriate,
shall be submitted for all lots prior to the Authority issuing
approvals.
. . .7
I
C�)
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 7
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority - (Cont'd)
4. Prior to the start of any site grading activities, the owner shall
submit details of the proposed roads, proposed methods of site drainage,
and proposed methods of sedimentation control to be used during
construction, all for approval of the Authority. Roads and site
drainage facilities shall be developed in such a way that there is no
detrimental affect on the water table and on the water quality or
hydrological regime of Farewell Creek.
5. Prior to the start of development of lots 30 to 32 inclusive, 37, 38 and
44, a row of staked straw bales and snow fence shall be installed along
the rear limit of these lots to prevent intrusion of construction
equipment and sediment into the Farewell Creek valley.
i
Please ensure that conditions 2 to 5 inclusive are also included in the
subdivision agreement.
Ministry of Natural Resources - August 12, 1985 and September 3, 1985
"Ministry Staff have no objections to the principle of development on the
site. However, we do have concerns which should be addressed prior to the
approval of the plan.
Farewell Creek is a coldwater trout stream and is sensitive to water quality
degradation. The creek flows into the Oshawa Second Marsh, a provincially
significant wetland. This wetland serves as a warmwater spawning area and a
wildlife habitat. Soil erosion and stormwater drainage should be carefully
controlled both during and after construction so as to minimize the
potential reduction of water quality and the loss of fish and wildlife
habitat. We recommend that Blocks 54 to 70 remain designated as Hazard
Land/Environmentally Sensitive Area.
Based on the aforementioned, this Ministry has no objections to the approval
of this subdivision provided that it be subject to the following
conditions:
l
I. The plan of subdivision will be amended to create one open space block
from restrictive use blocks 54 to 70 inclusive. This is necessary in
order to provide a consistent approach to restricting land use in this
sensitive portion of the Farewell Creek valley system.
2. The municipality's zoning by-law will contain provisions which will have
the effect of prohibiting all buildings or structures, other than those
required for flood and erosion control in the open space block created
through the implementation of Condition 1.
. . .8
r
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 8
Ministry of Natural Resources (Cont'd)
3 . Prior to any grading or construction on the site, the owner shall erect
a snow fence or other suitable barrier along the rear of Lots 29 to 35
and Lots 37 to 45 inclusive and the eastern boundary of Lot 53. This
barrier shall remain in place until such time as all grading,
construction and landscaping of the site are completed, and shall be
maintained to prevent the placement of fill or removal of vegetation
within the valleylands of Farewell Creek.
4. Prior to initiating any grading or construction on the site, the owner
shall prepare a stormwater and erosion control plan, which shall be
acceptable to the Ministry of Natural Resources . This plan will show
all proposed surface stormwater drainage works and will describe the
means to minimize soil erosion and the direct discharge of stormwater
flow into Farewell Creek, both during and after construction.
i
The Subdivision Agreement between the owner and the municipality shall
contain the following provisions in wording acceptable to this Ministry:
(a) That the owner agrees to construct and maintain the barrier as required
in Condition 3 above.
(b) That the owner agrees to implement the stormwater and erosion control
plans for the site as reuigred in Condition 4 above.
I
(c) That the owner shall provide certification by a professional engineer
that the works required in Condition 4 above have been completed
satisfactorily.
(d) That no damming, dredging nor other alterations will be carried out on
Farewell Creek without the prior written authorization of the Ministry
of Natural Resources.
Ministry of Natural Resources - February 3, 1986
In our September 3, 1985 letter to the Region of Durham, we raised concerns
about the use of the "restrictive use" blocks (numbers 54 to 70) on the
draft plan of subdivision. Our primary concern is the potential disturbance
to the valley lands of Farewell Creek which may result from landscaping by
private lot owners .
The measures which would be acceptable to this ministry include the
following;
1 . The top of the bank of the Farewell Creek valleylands will be staked, in
consultation with ministry staff.
. . .9
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 9
Ministry of Natural Resources (Cont'd)
2. A permanent fence or other suitable structure will be erected along the
top of the bank. This will create a physical barrier between the
landscaped portion of the lots and the creek valleylands . The
valleylands would be privately owned by abutting lot owners .
3. Site plans for the subdivision will be prepared showing the approximate
location of all buildings and structures, landscaped areas, septic
systems, and the fence lines . The subdivision will be developed
according to these plans ."
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
"Consideration has been given to this proposal in terms of the goals and
objectives of the Ministry and of the criteria and policies outlined in the
Food Land Guidelines .
The uses on the site include a wooded area in conjunction with the creek
bed, vacant lands and an area that is currently used for market garden
crops. The agricultural soil capability of the site is Class 4 with a small
area of Class 3 in the north-west corner. The lands associated with the
creek bed are Class 5 or lower.
In view of the surrounding uses which include a golf course to the west,
estate residential to the south plus some scattered rural residential to the
east, plus the substantial grade separation of the agricultural lands to the
north, we do not object to the proposal."
Ministry of the Environment
"In regard to the proposed development of wells, very little information is
available to this office to assess the adequacy of groundwater supplies . We
would, however, have no objections to draft approval, subject to the
following conditions:
"Prior to final approval and registration, the Ministry of the
Environment shall be satisfied, by a Hydrogeological Report,
that sufficient water of acceptable quality is available to
service the development and that the development will not
adversely affect the quantity and quality of groundwater
supplies
. . .10
III
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 10
Trans-Northern Pipelines Inc.
"Trans-Northern operates and maintains a high pressure refined petroleum
products pipeline located between, and serving Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto
areas . The construction, operation, maintenance and expansion of our system
is regulated by the National Energy Board.
Over the subject property, we operate one 10 inch pipeline located within
our right-of-way under approximately 3 feet of earch cover. On site
verification of the actual location of the pipeline will be necessary if the
proposed plan of subdivision is approved.
Our company has an ongoing inspection and maintenance program that requires
periodic access to the right-of-way. Thus, apart from prohibiting
excavations or structures on the easement, it is important to keep same free
from all obstructions. Crrossings of the pipeline by roads, or above and
below ground services are possible, subject to the authorization of the
National Energy Board."
Two submissions from local residents have been received in regards to the
subject applications. One resident expressed a concern with the location of
the proposed intersection of the subdivision road and Trull's Road. The
i
second resident stated he was concerned with the impact of the proposed
development on the availability of well water and the potential pollution of
wells by the large number of new septic systems. He indicated that he and
other people in the area have had problems with the quality of their well
water.
I
Staff have reviewed the Soils Investigation Report and the Environmental
Impact Analysis submitted in support of the proposed estate residential
development. The Soils Report stated that the availability of ground water
for domestic use was generally assessed from vicinal well records assembled
by the Ministry of the Environment, and that the data does indicate that
there is sufficient ground water for the proposed residential development.
The Report also states that the site is appropriate for ground absorption of
sewage effluent and that the site is suitable for residential development
with no undue difficulties in general subdivision construction.
. . .11
4
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 11
The Environmental Impact Analysis identified the Farewell Creek Valley as
the area of greatest sensitivity and as the only major constraint to
development . The Report states that any environmental impact would be small
scale, short term and mitigatable, and suggests methods by which the
potential impacts could be mitigated. For example, erosion control measures
implemented during construction would alleviate any problems of water
quality degradation and hydraulic modifications associated with stormwater
run-off.
COMMENTS:
The Durham Regional Official Plan establishes a number of criteria by which
estate residential proposals are to be evaluated. Generally, these criteria
are as follows:
- that the proposed development be located in a scenic, well vegetated area
of rolling topography;
- the location of the proposal is not adversely affected by existing or
proposed utilities etc. and hydro transmission lines;
- the proposal is not located on lands having high capability for
agriculture, does not unduly restrict the use of adjacent properties for
agriculture, and complies with the Agriculture Code of Practice;
- the proposal does not create undue adverse effects on environmentally
sensitive areas and does not result in significant alteration to the
landscape contours, watercourses or vegetation;
- the proposal does not require the undue expansion or extension of
municipal services .
. . .12
r
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 12
A review of the proposal and the comments submitted by the circulated
agencies indicated that the development would generally comply with the
foregoing criteria of the Official Plan. The Soils Report submitted by the
applicant would indicate that the site is suitable for estate residential
development. As well, the Environmental Impact Analysis states that any
environmental impact associated with the development would be minor. The
potential population density of the proposal would be less than the maximum
5 persons per hectare guideline as established by the Regional Official
Plan. Indeed, Staff note that no objections to the principle of development
were identified through the circulation of the proposal.
i
Serious concerns were identified by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority which questioned the proposed development of certain
environmentally sensitive portions of the tableland and the extension of
individual lots beyond the top of bank of Farewell Creek. These concerns,
however, will be addressed through the terms of the Town's Subdivision
Agreement.
Staff note that it is also the intent of the Regional Official Plan to
encourage new residential development to establish in designated urban areas
and hamlets, with limited estate residential development being permitted by
amendment to the Official Plan. The Regional Official Plan (Section
10.3.1 .3) states that the limits to the numbers of such estate-residential
subdivisions shall be established by their scale and location, their j
financial implications for the Region and their effect on the region's
transportation facilities and utilities .
i
%= As shown on Table 1 attached to this report, there are currently seven (7)
registered estate residential subdivisions in the Town with a total of 175
lots. One Hundred and Twelve (112) of these lots are vacant. A further six
(6) subdivisions with a total of 83 lots have either been draft approved, or
approved in principle, by the Town. Therefore, there are a total of 195
estate residential lots in the Town available for development within the
short term future.
. . .13
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 13
The subject development application involves the creation of 51 estate
residential lots and, if approved, would increase the supply of estate
residential lots available in the short term to 244, an increase of
approximately 25% over the current supply. In Staff Report PD-172-83 which
was considered by Committee on November 21, 1983, Staff recommended denial
of Official Plan Amendment application 83-30/D to permit the establishment
of a 17 lot estate residential subdivision in Part Lot 15, Concession 3,
Darlington. Staff based its recommendation primarily on the large number of
estate residential lots available in the Town at that time. The Council of
1
the day resolved to refer the application back to Staff for further review
and subsequently approved the application on March 12, 1984. It is Staff's
interpretation of Council's action on Official Plan Amendment application
83-30/1) that the supply of lots was a market consideration and was weighed
accordingly.
Staff refer to the provisions of the Regional Official Plan with respect to
the determination of the limits of the numbers of estate residential
subdivisions. In their review of the subject application, the Region should
give consideration to the number of lots proposed by the application and the
current supply of lots, as well as the other issues identified by the Plan,
including the financial implications of the proposal and its effect on the
Region's utilities. In respect to the latter, a substantial financial
commitment has already been made by the Town and the Region towards the
construction of hard services within the designated urban areas. However,
in terms of the location of estate residential developments, the proximity
of the subject proposal to the Courtice Urban Area would maximize the
use of soft municipal services which would be provided to that urbanizing
area.
. . .14
I
REPORT NO. : PD-72-86 Page 14
In consideration of the above comments, Staff have no objection to proposed
Official Plan Amendment application 85-30/D, revised to indicate a maximum
of fifty-one (51) estate residential lots, provided that Council is
satisfied that the subject proposal complies with the intent of the Regional
Official Plan with respect to limited estate residential development.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Region be advised that the Town will
forward its recommendation on proposed Plan of Subdivision 18T-85018,
including conditions of draft approval at such time as the Region reaches a
decision with respect to the official plan amendment application. It is
also recommended that application for rezoning DEV 85-19 be referred back to
Staff pending said decision by the Region of Durham.
Respect-yl- emitted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
JAS*TTE*jip
*Attach.
March 7, 1986
Applicant: 591415 Ontario Limited
P.O. Box 816, Station "B"
WILLOWDALE, Ontario
M2K 2R1
cc: Mr. M. Armstrong
1000 Beaufort Court j
OSHAWA, Ontario
LIG 7J8
ATTACHMENT 1
AREA OF PROPOSED REZONING
® AREA RETAINED BY APPLICANT
DTI
1 � -
I \ �
0 200 600m
KEY MAP 2.50m 50
ATTACHMENT 2
j Kf
L7l?AFT F=LAN OF SCJBON/S/ON
"TOW/�/LJ/VE ov n.yr of Lcrr� a/0,92,co/v 4,
TOw�./B�I/IO�I� Oq RLINOTON, r.�o..r w vac
ESTATES" TOW// OC- NEWCASTLE
REG/ON.•�L MLJN�JR4L/TY OF pURNAM I(''�
I ;
�,• � R F��T� I•� ' O Hv /1. P P L / C A N T ���) +
'•' �!_-it
xr
.. i - l'p. �. •J j l .
it _.._._- __1 'iH.,_/// t, _ ._. _ `�•C� `= 1J � 1
11�
ATTACHMENT NO. 3 TO J
REPORT PD-72-86
APPROVED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL LOTS - TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
I
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
REGISTERED SUBDIVISIONS LOTS VACANT LOTS
M-748
(Sucee, Burketon) 11 4
M-749
(Rills of Liberty North) 46 32
M-751
(Gearing, Pt.Lts. 32/33, C.4, Darl.) 26 14
M-753, M-765 & M-770
(United Counties, Burketon) 43 35
M-755 & M-763
(VanAndel & Gust, Pt.Lt. 15, C.3, Darl.) 26 8
I
M-758
(Newcastle Shorelines, Pt-Lt- 25, B.F.C. Darl.) 7 5
M-768
(Craig, Pt.Lt. 15, C.3, Darl.) 16 14
SUBTOTAL 175 112
DRAFT APPROVED SUBDIVISION
18T-76071
(Luverme Investments, Pt.Lt.14, C.2, Darl.) 19 19
18T-81023
(Zurba, Pt.Lt.19/20, C.7, Darl.) 22 22
18T-84048
(Gearing, Lt. 32, C.3, Darl.) 10 10 j
18T-85020
(VanAndel & Gust, Pt.Lt.15, C.3, Darl.) 11 11
SUBTOTAL 62 62
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
85-26/D
(Gearing, Pt.Lt.32, C.3, Darl.) 10 10
85-53/D
(Pel, Pt-Lt-15, C.3, Darl.) 11 11
SUBTOTAL 21 21
TOTAL APPROVED ESTATE
RESIDENTIAL LOTS 258
TOTAL VACANT APPROVED
ESTATE RESIDENTIAL LOTS 195