HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-126-82 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAMPTON, ONTARIO LOB 1 JO TEL. (416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
MEETING OF JULY 26, 1982
REPORT NO. : PD-126-82
SUBJECT: PROPOSED POLICY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF
VALLEY LAND LIMITS - CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the
following:
1 . That Report PD-126-82 be received; and
2. That Council endorse staff's comments to the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority on
the proposed Policy for the Determination of
Valleyland Limits; and
3. That the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority be advised of Council 's endorsement.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS:
On May 25th, 1982, the Town of Newcastle received a request
from C.L.O.C.A to review its proposed Policy for the
Determination of Valleyland limits. Since comments were due
by June 3rd, 1982, Town staff did not have an opportunity to
present the proposed policy to Council to obtain its
position.
ti`f
f ,
�J
Report No: PD-126-82 . . ./2
As such, staff forwarded their comments to C.L.O.C.A. , with
the caveat that they only represented the position of
Planning Department staff and that a Report on the proposed
policy would be brought to Town Council at a later date.
This Report seeks Council 's position on the proposed
Valleyland Policy.
Because valleyland areas are inherently hazardous and
perform important ecological , hydrological , recreational and
habitat functions, C.L.O.C.A. has endeavoured to restrict
development on land within and abutting valleyland areas.
C.L.O.C.A. 's current approach has been to establish a
development setback for each specific case based upon the
specific characteristics of the site in question. However,
there are a number of problems with this informal approach,
one of them being that the lack of specific criteria for
defining the setbacks makes the setback the subject of
negotiation for each individual case and therefore difficult
to apply with any consistency.
The proposed valleyland policy attempts to resolve these
problems by defining and formally adopting specific rules
and procedures for determining setback distances. The
following are staff's comments to C.L.O.C.A. on the proposed
policy:
1 . In general , Town staff is in favour of establishing a
definite development setback, since it would give the
Conservation Authority greater leverage when
negotiating with developers. Such a policy would also
place the onus on the developer seeking a relaxation of
the setback to prove that his proposed development is
safe and environmentally compatible.
Report No: PD-126-82 . . ./3
We do have some concern regarding the issue of
excluding valley lands from new lots in rural areas.
As with the Abbott and Marchant land (subdivision
number 18T-77067) in Tyrone, the Municipality is not
prepared to accept and maintain large blocks of valley
lands. However, if the Conservation Authority is
considering adopting a policy of acquiring and
maintaining such lands, Town staff have no objections.
Further to this point, we do concur that in urban
areas, new lots should be kept well out of valley
land.
2. More specifically, we are concerned with the wording of
some of the provisions of the actual policy.
a) By definition, "no appreciable valley slope"
(referred to in point 1 ) would be a "valley slope
. . . flatter than 2H:1V" (referred to in point 3) ,
yet different setbacks are laid out in each point.
It would seem that a clarification of intent of
point 1 is therefore required.
b) In point 5, it is not clear whether "relevant
significant feature" would include the ecological
and hydrological function of the relevant stream
system. Since this point provides for a relaxation
of setback, the features and functions which should
not be threatened by development within the
fill line should be more specifically defined.
It is requested that Council endorse staff's comments to the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority on the proposed
Policy for the Determination of Valleyland limits, and that
C.L.O.C.A. be so advised.
Respect ubi-i tted,
T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
JAS*TTE*mjc
July 9, 1982
�� s
{ � 0_ "s4�'
O
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
1650 DUNDAS STREET EAST, WHITBY,ONTARIO. UN 2K8 (416)579-0411
REF NO.
�I
May 17, 1982.
Mr. T. Edwards, Director of Planning,
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle, ,
Planning & Development Department,
Municipal Building,
Hampton, Ontario,
LOB lJO
Subject: Proposed C.L.O.C.A. Policy For The
Determination of Valleyland Limits
At its meeting of May 4th, 1982, the Authority's Executive Committee `q
passed the following resolution: x
"THAT the proposed Policy For Determination of Valleyland
Limits be circulated to all participating municipalities
for comment and report back to the Executive Committee."
Consequently, I am circulating copies of the above-mentioned policy
and the associated staff report for your review and comment. Please
note that the policy has been revised slightly since the Executive
meeting to clearly distinguish between lot line limits and fill and
construction line locations. Staff felt that this change was required
to further clarify the policy.
Please forward any comments you may choose to make by June 3rd, 1982
so that they may be considered in conjunction with the
j policy at our
next Executive Committee meeting.
Should you require further information, please contact the undersigned.
Yours very truly,
Christopher L. Conti , £,
t i
CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
DATE: February 25, 1982,
FILE:
MEMO TO: Executive Committee h.-
,r
FROM: Chris Conti, Conservation Services Supervisor
'
p
SUBJECT: Policy for the Determination of Vflleyland Limits
Introduction
( I
Valleyland areas are inherently hazardous from a flooding and erosion
perspective. At the same time, they contain fish and wildlife habitat,
they are often areas of aesthetic value, they provide recreational and
open space areas, and are often important for the ecological and hydro-
logical functioning of the streams which course through them. For these '=:
reasons, restrictions have been placed upon the development of valleylands
by various agencies .{
t:
Over the years an approach has evolved for the way in which Authority staff
deal with development applications which include or abut upon vaileyland
areas. This approach has endeavoured to maintain the limit of developable
land at a certain distance (determined for each specific case) set back
from the fill line. The amount of setback depends upon the steepness and
stability of the valley walls, the ecological characteristics of the site,
and other site specific characteristics. There have been some problems 4-d
with this approach as follows:
1. The fill line on our floodline mapping indicates only an arbitrary
setback from the floodline. It does not always coincide with the
top of bank and it does not always allow for enough of a setback
in areas of steep or unstable valley slopes.
2. There are no specific criteria for defining the setback. Sometimes
the distance is determined by the location of the fill line, sometimes
by the location of the top of bank, and at other times by additional `
factors, .a
3. Because our approach has been somewhat informal, it is more difficult to
apply with the setback being always a subject of negotiation for each
individual case.
Discussion
t !
Other authorities (notably M.T.R.C.A.) are attempting to resolve these
problems by defining specific rules and procedures for determining setback
distances and formally adopting these procedures as policy through reso-
lution by the Authority. The essential elements of the M.T.R.C.A. policy
are as follows:
1. The fill line in areas where there is not an a i°
ppreciable slope to the
valley walls shall be set 10 metres back from the Regional Storm
floodline,
2. Where the valley walls are slopes at a rate of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical
m!
or steeper, a 2:1 slope is projected on the area and the fill line• is
defined as 10 metres back from the top of the projected slope,
3. In areas where the valley walls have a flatter-slope than 2;1,
the fill line is set 10 metres back of the top of bank.
These features should be adopted as the procedure for staff to use in
determining the fill lines. As floodline maps are revised in the future,
these guidelines should be used in mapping the fill line.
LA Kg
P O +!
2 -
In order that additional elements be accounted for in determining the setback
I
imits, the following statement should also be included as part of the policy:
In valleyland areas of significant ecological, geological , hydrological ,
aesthetic or historic value, or in areas which are significant for the
ecological or hydrological functioning of a stream system, development
shall be set back a sufficient distance to protect these features. ,,
The only exceptions to the policy would be where a proponent can support with
appropriate studies acceptable to the Authority, that valleyland areas inside
of the defined fill limit can be devel opcA without threat to the stability of the
embankment or proposed structures, and without threat to the relevant significant
feature where one exists.
The adoption of a policy with the features described above should help to ensure
a consistent and defensible approach for defining the setback limits for develop-
ment in valley land areas.
1
Sul
• 2
_ 9LL�•
s
f
4
rrY
POLICY FOR DETERMINATION OF VALLEYLAND LIMITS
WHEREAS the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority recognizes the significance
of valleylands because of the hazards inherent in the use of these areas and
s
because of their natural, aesthetic and historical value;
AND WHEREAS development encroaching upon valleylands can place people and property 6
in a hazardous situation, can aggravate slope instability, and can disturb the
important natural, aesthetic or historical features of the area;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT it is the policy of the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority that fill
and construction lines and lot line limits be deter-
mined in the following manner:
1. Where there is no appreciable valley slope the fill
line shall be set back 10 metres from the regional yf{
storm floodline and lot lines shall not extend
i
beyond the floodline;
2. Where the valley slope is 2H:IV :r steeper, the fill
line shall be determined by projecting a 2H:iV slope
on the valley embankment and taking an additional
10 metres setback from the top of the projected slope,
and lot lines shall not extend beyond the limit of the
projected slope;
3. Where the valley slope is flatter than 2H:IV, the fill
line shall be 10 metres back from the top of bank, and
lot lines shall not extend beyond the top of bank;
4. Where an area of ecological , geological , aesthetic or
historical significance exists adjacent to the limit of
the fill line as defined by fl , 2, or 3 (above), or where
the adjacent area is significant for maintaining the
hydrological or ecological function of the stream system,
the fill line and lot lines may be defined at the limit
of this area of significance;
5. Where a proponent can support with appropriate studies,
i
acceptable to the Authority, that valleyland areas inside
of the fill limit can be developed without threat to the
stability of the embankment or the proposed structure, or
without threat to the relevant significant feature where
one exists, then applications may be approved and the fill
line and lot lines defined according to the results of
4.
these studies.
D ;
New lot l i m i t
AND CONSTRUCTION LIMIT
X10 metre setback from floodline
Flatter than 2: 1 slope
2; 1 slope,/or steeper
•i 1N
J,
�- __
OAC
,�,�' � / ��f!� / `� ����, � ����� tea• '-� � C � � ❑ - � '" --�.
j ,• :SIG ,r..oa � 38 /� �� �jj-ii�l` �� 1
/i P 11
.e ..�—.. -.,,
V
7j `�� .�. t. sue.1
b'�
I _
. r
1 '
i
CROSS SECTION ,A E--°
PROPOSED
I •
! FILL LIMIT
` EXISTING FILL LIMIT
' 1
NG FILL 1-
f 1-t-2>1 SLOPE LIMIT AND
275 REGIONAL STORM FLOODLINE i PROPOSED LOT
aED FILL LIMIT
LIMIT
I
PROPOSED LOT LIMIT
G1
i
,
f I
CROSS SECTION A F-60'�
PROPOSED
FILL LIMIT
151
' EXISTING FILL LIMIT
EXISTING FILL '
LIMIT i---2:1 SLOPE LIMIT AND
2751 REGIONAL STORM FLOODLINE ! PROPOSED LOT
PROPOSED FILL LIMIT
LIMIT
PROPOSED LOT LIMIT
• s
_ -
CROSS SECTION B
25'
25' •
f---! PROPOSED FILL
LIMIT
EXISTING FILL LIMIT
AND PROPOSED LOT
EXISTING
FILL LIMIT 375 ' REGIONAL STORM FLOODLINE LIMIT
PROPOSED LOT
LIMIT
PROPOSED FILL
LIMIT
4 r.
�� - AREAS -W'HERE-PROPOSEV OLI CY WILL APPLY
-
! i TOWNSHIPI - _I OF SCUGOG I v !
t 1
�S 31 7A 76 ),'.^0 to ,9 ,; IS ItM14�-'---- " 3-•. )_7 I �-
r---
W.
. ,.. •, n 7Y )5 '^l. » 77 71 CO �e� .) 11 •7 17 n a P ! e s
IL
Ix
a �nw 11I I !
i I TOWNi.+
3 vlj I l I
VII:
�vn I I Ennl..wen 3 i I I xl -
1'
w I I �.eO..�oP,.
S h AWA I I
In Pte
IOA / I
TBI
' f NEW
C .S T L E
T N i
Jl� OF j ii
I p � II I I �1 I S1rPMn'r•:!.}: ,:::::. N
<.tX.• .l In � o I r j t<, ��' i\ ,Y� f I I I ` I wl<n V .��_.•Y_
_ I � i � 1 l i n y •• F-'-
I
x F i
I �u I � I �• I I � I �' I �j I t e I _ � ,
z _ �
I � �; � i :ice l� " � �I ! � � i ( . ,. L I I It
' x HWY.I
C
Mer M1 •'EeM4our � Wno 1 _ _ _ _— _. \ _ -
`�wi.i J :}'?::::.. ►on •..rX r+oi+!",ciA"i. i /.~ I I 7` A10 10r
::0• u
•'.• .°Ion 1'MA- I ,
t , old Pelnt
_ x i ►olnt � Y