HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-49-83 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL.(416)263.2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
MEETING OF MARCH 7, 1983
REPORT NO. : PD-49-83
SUBJECT: OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE NEWCASTLE VILLAGE
MINOR URBAN AREA - PART OF THE DISTRICT
PLANNING AREA FOR THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
FILE : OP-2.3
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the
following:
1 . That Report PD-49-83 be received; and
2. That the modifications to the Official Plan for
the Newcastle Village Minor Urban Area , as
proposed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, be endorsed subject to the
revisions outlined by this Staff Report
PD-49-83; and
3. That a copy of Staff Report PD-49-83 be
forwarded to the Regional Municipality of
Durham and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing for their information.
Report No: PD-49-83 . ../2
BACKGROUND:
On February 25th, 1983, staff received a copy of
correspondence addressed to Dr. M. Michael , Commissioner of
Planning, Region of Durham, from the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing outlining suggested modifications to the
Official Plan for the Newcastle Village Minor Urban Area. A
* copy of this letter is attached, and as indicated, requires
a response in the form of a Resolution of Council .
COMMENTS:
For the sake of convenience, staff's comments will refer
directly to the Sections identified within the Ministry
correspondence.
A. Section 2.1 - Residential
a) Section 2.1 .2(ii )c) - Permitted Uses
This comment is the same as the comment made with
respect to the Bowmanville Official Plan. The
change in wording reflects the terminology of the
Durham Regional Official Plan, and the intent of
this Plan, and we would have no objection to this
modification.
i
b) Section 2.1 .2(ii )d) - Convenience Commercial
This comment makes reference to an apparent error in
the cross-referencing contained within the Plan.
The correct cross-reference should read "Section
2.6.2(i )"
c) Section 2.1.2(iv)a) - Residential Densities
This comment indicates that a definition of low and
medium density is required. Staff's review of our
files indicates that the original draft Plan
identified a maximum density, and that somewhere in
the course of processing, a portion of a sentence
was deleted resulting in this apparent deficiency.
i
Report No: PD-49-83 . . ./3
Section 2.1.2(iv)a) should read as follows:
"The density of residential development within -the
i
Newcastle Village Small Urban Area shall be
generally restricted to low and medium density, with
an overall average density not to exceed fourteen
(14) units per net residential hectare."
d) Section 2.1.2(iv)b) - Residential Densities
This comment is the same as comments made in respect
of the Bowmanville Official Plan and, as in that
instance, we would suggest that the present Section
be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following new Section 2.1.2(iv)b) :
"The density ranges defined within any development
proposal shall be reviewed with the Regional
Municipality of Durham in order to ensure that the
development of particular blocks of lands respects
the ability of the Regional Municipality to provide
full municipal services with sufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed development, while at the
same time ensuring that the development potential of
other vacant parcels or blocks of land is not
reduced to a point where development in accordance
with the provisions and designations of this Plan
would be precluded."
B. Section 2.1 .3 - Implementation
a) This comment is generally the same as a comment made
with respect to the Bowmanville Plan, and points to
an apparent conflict in wording and suggests a
change from the strict requirement of "shall " , as
presently contained in the Plan, to the more
flexible "shall generally". Staff have no objection
to this modification.
I
b) As with the Bowmanville Plan , these comments speak
to other potential sources of noise and vibration
and the need for appropriate buffers. Staff have
reviewed the suggested wording and have no objection
to this proposed modification.
-iv v
i
Report No: PD-49-83 . . ./4
C. Section 2.3.3 - Parkland and Open Space
a) Again, the comment contained herein is identical to
comments made with respect to the Bowmanville Plan,
pointing to the fact that the alternative parkland
dedication requirements of the Planning Act cannot
be used unless the Official Plan contains specific
policies related to such conveyances. Staff note
that such policies have not been included in the
Plan and pending finalization of the Culture and
Recreation Master Plan, further amendments could be
considered.
b) The modification suggested here is again the same as
one proposed for the Bowmanville Plan, and staff
would have no objections thereto.
D. Section 2.4 - Environment
a) This comment suggests the need for further
clarification of the intent of Section 2.4.2(iv). As
with the Bowmanville Plan, we would suggest the
addition of the following sentence to the end of
Section 2.4.2(iv) :
"Upon conclusion of such reassessment, an amendment
to this Plan may be required to change the land use
designation to one which more appropriately respects
the particular environmental sensitivity of the
lands in question."
b) Again these comments relate to similar concerns
expressed in the review of the Bowmanville Plan. We
would again recommend the same modification:
"In this regard, only buildings and structures
necessary for flood or erosion control and public
works will be permitted within those areas subject
to flooding under Regional Storm conditions as
defined by the engineered lines established by the
C a e Conservation Authority."
I
IV
Report No: PD-49-83 . . ./5
c) Lake Ontario Shoreline
This comment relates to Section 2.4.2(v)b) , which
makes reference to the identification of Hazard
Lands and the conservation authority with whom
consultation will take place. Inasmuch as the
Ministry of Natural Resources is responsible for
Hazard Land mapping for the Lake Ontario shoreline,
reference to that agency should be added to this
Section. We would have no objection to this
modification.
E. Section 2.5 - Central Areas
a) Mixed Commercial -Residential
This comment requests clarification of the intent of
Section 2.5.2(i )e)iii ) . The intent of this Section
is to permit retail commercial uses, office uses and
residential uses without requiring that a
residential building contain a retail or office
component. We would suggest that this Section be
modified as follows:
i
"iii ) Mixed Commercial -Residential
The predominant uses permitted within the Mixed
Commercial-Residential designation shall be retail ,
office, and mixed used commercial -residential
buildings. Notwithstanding this, residential
buildings without a retail or office component may
be permitted provided that the residential building
approaches the maximum allowable floor space index
and the conceptual design maintains the character of
the central area."
b) Market Analysis
This comment requests changes in references to the
words "market analysis" to ensure consistency
throughout the Plan and with the 8owmanville Urban
Area Plan. This Section should be reworded as
follows:
Report No: PD-49-83 . ../6
"2.5.3(iii ) Prior to passing an implementing Restricted
Area (Zoning) By-law, Council may require that a
retail analysis be carried out at the expense of the
applicant to justify the need for a proposed
commercial development and to identify the effects
of the proposed development upon existing commercial
development and central areas designated on Schedule
1 to this Plan.
2.6.3(ii ) Prior to passing an implementing Restricted
Area (Zoning) By-law, Council may require that a
retail analysis be carried out at the expense of the
applicant to justify the need for a proposed
commerical development and to identify the effects
upon existing commecial development, including
central areas designated on Schedule 1 to this Plan.
In the case of convenience commercial facilities, a
retail analysis may not be required by Council ."
F. Section 2.9 - Servicing and Staging
a) Storm Water Management
This modification requests the addition of the
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority as a
consulted agency for the preparation of storm water
management plans. Staff have no objection to this
modification to Section 2.9.2(iv), which should be
revised as follows :
"2.9.2(iv) Council shall require that the development or
redevelopment of land incorporate effective storm
water management techniques to provide for a well
defined system of storm water and surface drainage,
and to minimize short and long term environmental
impacts. Such management techniques may be further
detailed in the appropriate development plans in
consultation with the Ganaraska and Region
Conservation Authority and may include appropriate
controls on the rate and quality of storm run-off
for minimizing siltation during all phases of
planning and construction of new development in
order to minimize or off-set any impacts upon
receiving water courses."
i
i
I
(J)
Report No: PD-49-83 „/7
G. Section 2.10 - Historic Conservation
a) Reference Changes
This comment is similar to comments made in respect
of the Bowmanville Urban Area Plan and speaks to the
need to change references to various Ministries and
Acts. Staff have no objection to this
clarification.
b) LACAC By-laws
This comment reflects a request by the Ministry of
Citizenship and Culture for a rewording of Section
2.10.2(ii ) to clearly describe the requirements of
LACAC By-laws. This modification is acceptable to
staff as proposed.
c) Zoning Incentives and Density Transfers
This comment is the same as comments made with
respect to the Bowmanville Urban Area Plan and we
would recommend the same modification be made, that
being the addition of the words "within -the same
neighbourhood" following the words "density
transfer" in Section 2.10(iii )d).
I. Section 3.5 - Development Agreements
This comment reflects a similar concern expressed with
respect to the Bowmanville Urban Area Plan. We would
therefore suggest that the words "architectural
treatment" contained within Section 3.5.3 be deleted and
replaced with the following: "massing and conceptual
I
design consistent with the predominant character of the
surrounding neighbourhood".
i
C
Report No: PD-49-83 . . ./8
J. Schedule I
This comment reflects two requested modifications to
Schedule I, the Land Use Structure Plan, as follows :
a) Graham Creek
The addition of further Hazard Land designation on
lands located within the vicinity of the Graham
Creek, north of Highway 2, south of the C.P.R. line.
Staff have no objection to this modification.
b) Crown Land
The comment of the Ministry of Natural Resources
identified a Crown Land lot which provides public
access to -the Wilmot Creek in the vicinity of
Toronto Street, north of the C.N.R. line. This land
is presently designated "Industrial " and the
Ministry of Natural Resources suggested the site be
redesignated to "Major Open Space". Staff would
have no objection to this modification.
Based on -the foregoing, staff are recommending that Council
endorse the Ministry's proposed modifications, subject to
the qualifications contained herein, and that copies of this
Staff Report be forwarded to the Region and the Ministry for
their information.
Respec ull fitted,
T. T. Edwards, M.C. I.P.
Director of Planning
A_
E*mjc
March 1 , 1983
Ministry of 416/966.6418 66 Wellesley street West
Municipal Affairs 8th Floor
and Housing Toronto,Ontario x
g M7A 2K4
Ontario
1983 02 25
4k
Dr. M. Michael
Commissioner of Planning
Regional Municipality of DurhamI
P.O. Box 623
605 Rossland Road East =Y
Whitby, Ontario
L1N 6A3
Subject: Proposed Official Plan for the
Village of Newcastle Small Urban
Area, part of the Town of Newcastle
District Planning Area.
File No. 18-OP-0194
SAY?
Dear Dr. Michael:
i
We have completed our review of this official plan.
Attached are our comments and suggested modifications .
We would appreciate receiving the councils ' responses
to the modifications as soon as possible.
With the copy of this letter being sent to the
Town of Newcastle Planning Department, we are =1
enclosing a copy of the former Ministry of Culture
and Recreation publication "Guidelines on the Man-
Made Heritage Component of Environmental Assessments" .
This document was submitted by the Ministry of E
Citizenship and Culture for the town ' s consideration
should it wish to include such matters in required
Environmental Impact Analysis.
o rs truly,
J
P. Newton
J
enior Planner
IS
� Plans Administration Branch
FEB 25 ]983
Attach.
' PLANNING DEPARTMENT
cc: Town of Newcastle - P1. Dept:
Town of Newcastle - Clerk
Town of Newcastle District Official Plan
for the Newcastle Village Small Urban Area
A. Section 2. 1 - Residential
a) Section 2. 1. 2 (ii) c) - Permitted Uses e
We note that "senior citizens housing" is listed as
a type of community use permitted in residential
areas. Such housing is usually considered as a
residential use and does not require specific
reference in residential policies. However,
unlike the regional official plan policies, no
reference has been made to "nursing homes" and
"homes for the aged" which are in fact located
in "Residential" designations.
If it is the intent to permit nursing homes and
homes for the aged, "senior citizen housing" should
be changed to "nursing homes and homes for the aged" .
:a
b) Section 2. 1. 2 (ii)d) - Convenience Commercial
This policy refers to section 2. 6. 1 of the plan.
It appears that the reference should be to either
section 2. 6 or 2. 6. 2 (i) and 2. 6. 3.
Please advise if this is in fact a typographical
error.
c) Section 2. 1 . 2 (iv) a) - Residential Densities
The plan does not define low and medium density
ranges. Such a statement should be included.
d) Section 2. 1. 2 (iv)b) - Residential Densities
This section states that proposals will be reviewed
by appropriate authorities with respect to the
carrying capacity of the lands.
This statement appears vague. What authorities will
be reviewing the proposal and what components will
be evaluated to determine carrying capacity? If
the statement intends to implement a process more -`
detailed than normal planning review, the additional
requirements should be clearly stated.
B. Section 2. 1 . 3 - Implementation
a) Subsection (i) states that development shall be
by means of plans of subdivision, while subsection '
(iv) refers to permitted infilling. These statements
appear to conflict. Possibly subsection (i) should
state that development "shall generally" be by plans
2 - rl
b) Subsection (vi) requires noise and vibration
attenuation measures be undertaken for development
adjacent to railway lines.
There are also other noise sources which may require
that adjacent development include attenuation measures,
such as major roads and highways.
The following is a sample of a broader "buffering" a
policy which includes noise attenuation requirements
for your consideration. If a similar policy is to
be included here in the residential policies, it
should be repeated with necessary modifications for
other land uses as well.
We suggest the following two sections be added:
(vii) "Appropriate buffers shall be required to
separate residential uses from non-.residential
uses for the purposes of reducing or eliminating
conflicts such as noise, emissions and view.
Buffering may be achieved through the use of �w
setback, berms walls, fences, plantings,
intervening land uses, or a combination of these
measures. Buffering requirements shall be
determined for relevant development applications
by the town, in consultation with the Ministry
of the Environment and other affected public
agencies, at which time consideration shall be
given to the specific residential uses proposed, j
the nature and type of uses to be protected and
the extent of the conflict.
(viii) In addition, appropriate noise control measures
may be necessary design considerations for all
lands in proximity to major roads and highways.
i
All development applications for such lands
shall be accompanied by plans showing the
siting of dwellings, building and structure
designs, and noise control features. "
C. Section 2. 3. 3 - Parkland and Open Space
a) subsection (i) a) refers to conveyance and/or acquisition
of parkland under the Planning Act. Please note that ='t
the alternate requirements under section 41 (3) of the a{f
Planning Act (1 ha per 300 dwelling units) cannot be - j
used unless the official plan contains specific policies
related to such conveyances. Policies are usually based
on a Parks and Recreation study and define where and
how the conveyances are determined. These lands are
intended to meet local neighbourhood parkland needs.
For further information, see this ministry' s publication {
"Parkland Dedication: A Guideline on Section 35b of
the Planning Act" , July 1981.
3 - =
f=
b) Subsection (iii) sets out the town' s Cash-in-Lieu
requirements. These requirements differ from those
in section 50 (5) and (9) of the new Planning Act.
We suggest that "upon draft approval" be changed
to "the day before the day of draft approval" .
D. Section 2 . 4 - Environment
a
a) Environmental Impact Analysis Section 2 . 4 . 2 (iv)
outlines the alternative review of Land uses after
the Environmental Impact Analysis has been completed.
The section could be interpreted to mean that an
official plan amendment for an alternate use would
not be required. We suggest that a rewording be ;t
considered to indicate that, if necessary, the
alternative would be subject to an official plan
amendment.
b) Hazard Lands Section 2. 4. 2 (v) sets out the Hazard
Lands policy. The "Hazard Lands" areas identified on
the land use schedule generally correspond to the
floodplain lands of the local watercourses. These
lands are those subject to flooding under regional
storm conditions and are defined by engineered lines. =t
Development in these areas should be restricted
to buildings and structures necessary for flood and
erosion control. Any other proposals must be
considered under the policies and procedures
established by the province and contained in the
recent publication "Flood Plain Criteria - A
Policy Statement of the Government of Ontario on N
Planning for Flood Plain Lands" (September. 1982) . '`~
We, therefore, suggest that the following sentence
be added to section 2. 4 . 2 (v) a) :
"In this regard, only buildings and structures
necessary for flood or erosion control will €
i
be permitted within those areas subject to 1
flooding under regional storm conditions as
defined by the engineered lines established
by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority" .
f �
Section 2. 4 . 3 (1) would therefore only be applicable ,
to Hazard Lands other than those within the regional
storm limits (ie. steep slopes, unstable soils, etc) . i;a
0 c) Lake Ontario Shoreline
Section 2. 4 . 2 (v)b) refers to the identification of
"Hazard Lands" to be undertaken in consultation with
the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. The
Ministry of Natural Resources advises that it is
responsible for hazard land mapping for the Lake
Ontario Shoreline (100 year erosion limit) and asks
to be included as a consulted agency. �.'`
4
They suggest the second sentence of section
2 . 4 . 2 (v)b) be modified to read:
"the extent and exact location of such
Hazard Lands shall be identified in the
restricted area (zoning) by-law (s) in
accordance with detailed floodline, soil,
contour mapping and Lake Ontario Shoreline
hazard land mapping in consultation with the
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and
the Ministry of Natural Resources. "
E. Section 2 . 5 - Central Areas
a) Mixed Commercial-Residential
Section 2. 5. 2 (i) e) iii) appears to only permit
fni
separate residential uses not associated with a
retail or office component. Was this the intent
of the policy?
b) Market Analysis
Section 2. 5. 3 (i.ii) , and Section 2. 6 . 3 (ii) , refer
to "market analysis" . If an alternate reference
is to be included in the Bowmanville Urban Area
Plan, we suggest it also be used in this plan to
avoid confusion.
F. Section 2. 9 - Servicing and Staging
a) Stormwater Mana ement
g
The Ministry of Natural Resources suggests that
the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority be
referred to as a consulted agency for the
preparation of stormwater management plans.
A references should be included in section
2. 9 . 2 (iv) .
Section 2. 10 �- Historic Conservation
G. Se
a) Reference Changes
I,
The Ministry of Citizenship and Culture suggests
the following changes to its name and legislation '
references : `�'
. Section 2. 10 . 2 (1) : delete "1974" , following
"The Ontario Heritage Act" ;
Section 2. 10. 2 (i) c) :
a -i
Change "Ministry of Culture and Recreation"
to "Ministry of Citizenship and Culture" ;
Section 2. 10. 2 (iii) c) :
Change "through the Ontario Heritage
Foundation Act and the National Monument
Act" to "under provincial and federal
programs" .
The changes to the legislation references will ensure
the plan does not become outdated if the legislation . `
is changed.
c b) LACAC By-Laws
The Ministry of Citizenship and Culture suggests
a rewording of Section 2. 10. 2 (ii) to clearly
describe the requirements of LACAC bylaws.
The- by-law should stipulate the important features
of a property that make it significant. Only if the
owner proposes to alter these features does he
require council authorization. We suggest that the
phrase " . . . of any features identified in the by-law
be inserted after the words "additions or
demolition" in the second sentence.
c) Zoning Incentives and Density Transfers
Subsection (iii) d) lists zoning incentives and
density transfers as means of encouraging preservation.
Council may wish to consider including general
guidelines for the use of these incentives. For
example , density transfers might only be considered
within a maximum distance of the subject site or
within the same neighbourhood.
H. Section 2 . 11 - Energy Conservation
i
Attached are comments from the Ministry of Energy for
your information and consideration.
Although we support the inclusion of policies addressing
energy conservation through land use planning, the I
methods go beyond design and technology. Council may
wish to consider a more comprehensive review of the
official plan policies following the study by the region
and/or the town.
I. Section 3. 5 - Development Agreements
With respect to site plan control agreements, we note
that section 40 (4 ) of the Planning Act, R.S. O. 1980, and
the new Planning Act specifically exclude "architectural
detail" . To avoid confusion in terms, "architectural
treatment" in section 3. 5. 3 might be replaced with
It and conceptual design" .
fi`u
6
J. Schedule I
The Ministry of Natural Resources has requested two
modifications to Schedule I :
a) Graham Creek
The lands outlined in red on the attached schedule ±'
are shown as hazard lands on O.L. I. mapping. These
should be designated "Hazard Lands" .
b) Crown "Land
A Crown Land lot providing public access to Wilmot
Creek, shown in green on the attached schedule, is
designated "Industrial" . The Ministry suggests
that this site be designated "Major Open Space" .
r
r
i
� r
;Z M1I
I
j
A�
t
I
i
t
s
bt.
,s
w
• j �r
r-.•
NEWCASTLE
e\\g VILLAGE
• r p�'�,� Lf,_)D -Cvt -LEGEND
'�M UaU.�D5 IL t_
locals URBAN AREA BOUNDARY
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
�,e•�{, .. . �,�+"1, a ! •I
• �� a t': i:'•:
•• z, r � MAIN CENTRAL AREA
<
•�°,. C
INDUSTRIAL AREAS
HWY. Ne 2 ' ;1ti;:j:<; •v v; ....y ..i' c. 'ti
°6C ....�...•n1:►•h� MAJOR OPEN SPACE
N !cam ® WATERFRONT RELATED
MAJOR OPEN SPACE
,i HA$ARD LANDS
Y
f�'')Ii• � U� � �.�...
NEIGHBOUR-4000 BOUNDARY
r.®.®r�,.� ®raj.•.• � ti ��;i
( 1
COMMUNITY FARK
o,0") ® NEIGHBOURHOOD PARK
AW
.,:�\ ���\�����\•�.�\\���.���•}; � °'ca �' UTILITY '
lit
MARINA
r �
211"
��� a; �1 �1},,. ,(1 j 1 :n�•• �/ RECREATIOtiAL NODE
h ? 1 ^rri11 !U OT TOURIST ACTIVITY NODE 'I
JUNIOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS =<
100 .•� V PUBLIC
.....
SEPARATE
s
T
� R M
TRANSPORTATION
4ART ONTARIO -'(Rood neiwoft is qefterotized
aye canodula 3 for deloile)
I
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE v �
b1oaaTw wT Of ►tmml,4•NS DEVELDOUW
NEWCASTLE VILLAGE
SMALL URBAN AREA 1
LAND USE STRUCTURE PLAN
SCHEDULE 1
AUG 11 P® H.
,m„ uAQCh Y9.noe2 � ,�
;l
30 3
Energy
Ontario Ontario
Ministry �V Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
of WA 2137
Energy Telex-06217880
- 0959
December 10 , 1982
®w
MEMORANDUM TO: L. Tennant
Planner
Plans Administration Branch
Central and Southwest
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing
FROM: Chris Gates
Energy Planning Analyst
Energy Conservation
..y
SUBJECT: File No. 18-OP-0194
Official Plan for the Newcastle
Village Small Urban Area
I have reviewed the above noted official plan and
would like to offer the following comments :
The Ministry of Energy encourages all municipalities
to consider energy conservation in the planning and
development of their communities. In official
planning documents , a minimum requirement should be
the identification of a goal statement, a set of
measurable objectives, and development policies which
indicate how, when and where energy concerns are to be E
implemented in the planning process.
The goal statement establishes energy, at various
scales of municipal planning, as an area of legitimate
municipal concern. In this regard the Newcastle
Village Small Urban Area Official Plan provides a
statement, in the form of a objective, which
accomplishes this. However, the intent of the O.P„
in terms of how it proposes to operationalize this
concern for energy in the substantive policy areas of
the plan, such as residential, transportation,
servicing and staging, remains obscure.
I-X�qlp�
2
An alternative approach for the residential sector
would be to utilize the Neighbourhood Development Plan
documents (Policy 2. 1.2.c) as the vehicle for
articulating energy efficient site design criteria.
Further, the development plan for the Main Central
Area should give consideration to the appropriate
urban design standards to ensure energy efficient aX
development.
The plan has taken a positive step by identifying the
Main Central Area as the principal focus for economic
and social activity within the village. This policy,
in addition to fulfilling several urban structure
objectives involving servicing and economic
development, also promises to reduce energy
consumption in the transportation sector, . as it
centralized a number of goods and services in one
area, thus potentially reducing the number and length
of various trips.
In a rural municipality such as Newcastle, where
greater trip distances are often involved, this can
result in significant energy savings both on a per
capita basis and to the municipality providing various
services such as police and fire protection, garbage
collection, snow plowing, and school bussing, all of
which consume transportation energy.
I would endorse the plans encouragement of home
occupation uses in residential areas. This has
obvious space heating and transportation energy
implications. In a related area the plan would be
improved by encouraging residential conversions from
single family to multiple family units in existing
areas . obviously, this should only be permitted in
those areas where servicing infrastructure will
accommodate it, and where such conversions would not
negatively affect the residential character of the
neighbourhoods involved.
Two final areas of comments are minor ones relating to
the definition of automobile service stations and to
provisions for Ontario Hydro facilities.
With regard to the former I would suggest a wording
change to the definition of automobile service
stations . In its present form, the definition does
not explicitly permit the retailing of diesel, propane
or compressed natural gas fuels. In order to make the
definition more inclusive I would remove the word
"gasoline" in the definition and replace it with the
phrase "automotive fuels" .
rg
3
Regarding provisions for hydro electric facilities,
Ontario Hydro has prepared a standard official plan
policy statement concerning its operations and mandate
within municipal boundaries. The statement in essence
provides that such facilities as transmission lines,
transformer stations, and distributing stations shall
be permitted uses in any land use designation without
the requirement of . an official plan amendment,
provided that the facility or development satisfies
the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act.
I am assuming Mr. Peter Oehm, Senior Planner with
Ontario Hydro' s Land Use and Environmental Planning
Department at 592-3950 has provided you with the most
up-to-date version of the Ontario Hydro statement.
If you have any comments or questions regarding this
memorandum, I would be pleased to discuss them with
you.
Yours truly,
Chris Gates, MCIP
Energy Planning Analyst
Energy Conservation
0"W1
ii