Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-161-79CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D. N. Smith , M.C.I.P., Director HAMPTON, ONTARIO LOB 1.10 TEL. (416) 263-2231 REPORT TO PLANNING AND DEVELOPEMNT COMMITTEE MEETING OF Sept. 17, 1979. REPORT NO.: P— 161-79 SUBJECT: Paramount Development Corporation request for reconsideration of Council Resolution # 525-79 BACKGROUND: Mrs. C. Gravely, on behalf of Paramount Developments Ltd. appeared before the Planning and Development Committee on August 23, 1979 requesting that the Town reconsider its position in respect of the Regional Official Plan designation on their property. The attached correspondence was forwarded to the Town by the solicitors for Paramount Developments Ltd. with reference to the development of their clients' lands and proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment 20. COMMENT: At the meeting of August 23, 1979 Planning Staff noted that the Ontario Municipal Board had recently considered Paramount's objection to the Regional Official Plan and that no decision had - 2 - been made in respect of the subject referral. It was noted that the original referral request included all of Paramount's lands north of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the former Village, identified as R62 on the attached map. At the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing Paramount indicated that they were interested in the redesignation of a portion of their entire holdings. As stated at the Planning and Development Committee Meeting of August 23, 1979 staff feel that it is not appropriate for the Town to consider the request for reconsideration as this matter remains before the Municipal Board. RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT the Planning and Development Committee take no further action in respect of the request for reconsideration of Council Resolution C-525-79• DNS/cc encls Respectfully submitted, D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P., Director of Planning. vt v Cq) JARMS 8LOTT FEAR PERNO Barristers Solicitors R. E.Jarvis A. S. Blott, Q. C, B. W. Feje'r N.J. Pepino P. J. Devine K. Fukuda Counsel: rPL J.Spence Stewart, Q.C.GDELIVERED NG DEPARTMENT Chairman and Members of 0Tv �� EVICASTL2 Planning Committee Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L9C 3A6 Dear Sirs: Telephone (416) 484-1771 V/ Suite 400 Canada Square 2200 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M4S 2C6 Please refer to file no. 50/076 August 21st, 1979 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No.20 to the Official Plan of the Regional Mun'i'cipality of Durham We act on behalf of Highland Park Developments, who own approximately 250 acres at the northern boundary of the small urban area of Newcastle (described as R62 at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing now underway). As you are no doubt aware, an application for an Official Plan Amendment was filed with the Region and the Municipality some time ago, and it is the present desire of our clients to receive the support of the Town of Newcastle and the Region for a designation which would permit the future development of the southerly 144 acres of its holdings. These 144 acres represent that portion of our clients' lands which were included in the boundary of the former Village of Newcastle. As a landowner in the Newcastle Village area, our clients have instructed us to register most strenuously our objections to proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 20 and the land use designations contained therein. As well, we must raise with your Committee concern as to the propriety of the Town of Newcastle or the Regional Municipality of Durham dealing with Official Plan Amendment No. 20 at the present time, since the northern portion of the area covered by proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 20, known as the Selby property, is Referral Area R64, and is to be considered by the Ontario Municipal Board at the hearings now under way. JARVIS, BLOT T, FEAR, PEPINO — 2 — August 21, 1979 - 50/076 Chairman and Members of Planning Committee The basis of the objection to Official Plan Amendment No. 20 is that it would result in a totally inappropriate urban structure: it is the position of our client, and one which, to date, we understood the Region supported, that the Urban Area Boundary for development of the small urban area of Newcastle should not be extended south of the elevated CNR rail line. Any proposal for harbour related recreation facilities we would support, since this would not require the extension of the urban area boundary, nor would it represent development of an urban nature. The first reason for submitting that Official Plan Amendment No. 20 is inappropriate is that issue raised in the Regional Staff Report itself. It is clear from the type and scale of development.proposed, that both the "hole -in -the -wall" at the Mill Street underpass, and the Toronto Street grade level crossing would require major improvements to provide safe and easy access to these lands. Given present knowledge of the grant structure of the various levels of government for such improvements, it is clear that the Town of Newcastle would be responsible for the cost of these improvements, which our consultants have estimated are approximately $6 Million at present prices. Without certain information as to the timing of these improvements and their financial viability, it is our submission that the entire question of development south of the railway line is premature. In addition, proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 20 indicates land use designations for not only residential develop- ment, but also industrial. It is clear that the residential and industrial traffic would be mixed on both the Mill Street and Toronto Street access routes, and, we would submit, conflict would be inevitable. A second reason which we submit militates against any extension of the urban structure of the Newcastle Village area south of the railway line is founded in the method by which these lands must be serviced. As you are no doubt aware, the Design Area for the recently installed sewage treatment plant was premised on all lands north of the 401, to the former Village boundary, the bulk of which can be simply serviced to the sewage treatment plant by gravity. On the other hand, our consultants advise that the majority of the lands included in the area of proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 20 would require pumping of sanitary sewage JARVIS, BLOTT, FEAR, PEPINO - 3 - August 21, 1979 50/076 Chairman and Members of Planning Committee to the sewage treatment plant, since the grade is either equi- valent to that of the plant, or, in fact, below it. We'would submit that it is clear the sewage treatment plant was not designed or intended to encompass development of these lands. With regard to storm drainage, the Report prepared by Regional Planning Staff identifies concerns raised by the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources. We are aware of the fact those agencies have been consulted, but the Report does not identify any specific recommendations they might have with regard to the impact of development on the Wilmot Creek, the marsh at the mouth of the Wilmot Creek, and possible shoreline erosion. Items which, we submit, should be of concern, but which are not dealt with specifically in the Report, are the questions of increased runoff from urbanization and destruction of woodlots, which in turn could lead to siltation of these environmentally sensitive areas, together with an increase in water temperature, an increase in bank erosion, and an increase in the amount of debris found in these streams. A third reason in :support of our submission that urbanization south of the CNR line is inappropriate, deals with the policies of both the Town of Newcastle and the Region to attempt, wherever possible, to ensure social services to future and existing residents are provided in the most appropriate and economical fashion. It is our submission that proposed development in the Official Plan Amendment No. 20 area would in no way act to reinforce the central business district, and, through provision of commercial services in the southerly area, could, in fact, compete with the central business district, to its detriment. In addition, it is clear that any development south of the CNR would require bussing of school children, which is both costly, and, possibly, dangerous to the children. As well development south of the CNR would never be sufficient to sup- port the creation of a new school within walking distance of school children in that area, while, by dispersing development, would obviate any possibility of a new "walk to" school within the Village itself. We note with concern that the Regional Report on proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 20 contains no comments from school boards that might be affected. A further negative impact from dispersal of develop- ment south of the CNR, in contrast with consolidation of resi- dential development north of the 401, would be that, again, the JARVIS, BLOTT, FEJER, PEPINO - 4 - August 21, 1979 50/076 Chairman and Members of Planning Committee future population would be significantly physically removed from public services such as the library, health services, etc. As well, without an inefficient and costly extension to -the public transit system, they could not be served. We would also advise that we are aware of a rumour that the 1,500 persons proposed in the residential designations of proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 20 would be.senior citizens: if this is, in fact, the case, although it would certianly remove our concern about schools, it would only heighten our concerns above -noted with regard to provision of social and health services. In this regard, we would request your Committee consider requiring specific comments from responsible Ministries such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. In addition to its distance from the existing community of Newcastle, and any services to future inhabitants, we would note the Regional Report's comments with regard to climatic conditions in the area, so close to the Lake. In our respectful submission, if alternate locations are available, they should be chosen over one such as this, with admitted potential for high energy usage, high cost insulation requirements, and potential discomfort to inhabitants. As well, we note there has been no discussion in the Report of the possible effect on future inhabi- tants of the proximity of residential development to a 600 kv. Hydro line, when alternate locations are available. We would also submit that in addition to possible traffic conflict between residential and industrial uses, from a land use conflict point of view, the prevailing winds in the area (from the northwest) raise environmental concerns. Finally, we would submit that the development proposed by Official Plan Amendment No. 20 represents a misuse of land. A great deal of the land admittedly is some of the best agricultural land in the area due to soil type and climatic advantages. Moreover, the Federal Harbour, in our submission, constitutes.an attribute of regional significance. In this regard, the Report does not make it clear as to whether the proposed harbour facilities will be a major regional recreation facility (which could thereby detri- mentally affect any residential development in close proximity), or merely a private recreational facility to service the surrounding development. This latter course, we would submit, represents a misuse of an area which to date, the Region has designated as being of regional significance, as evidenced by the Official Plan provisions applying to the previous designation of major open space and "waterfront area". It is clear that those policies envision the major use of land so designated for recreational purposes. JARVIS, BLOTT, FEAR, PEPINO - 5 - August 21, 1979 50/076 Chairman and Members of Planning Committee In summary, therefore, it would be our submission that Official Plan Amendment No. 20 is not only inappropriate, but also premature, particularly until the condition precedent of safe and efficient transportation access is established as to cost, timing and efficacy. For all.these reasons, we would submit that the Town of Newcastle recommend to the Regional Municipality of Durham that Official Plan Amendment not be approved and that the provisions of the Official Plan as originally proposed by the Region be reaffirmed as to land use, with a further study to be done on the Harbour Area with an eye to establishing a plan for its purely recreational development. Your very truly, I N. Jane Pepino NJP:vs c.c. Mr. D. Smith Director of Planning Town of Newcastle < (q) JARVIS B LOTT FEAR Barristers Solicitors Rr E.Jarvis A. S. Blott, Q. C. B. W. Fejer N. J. Pepino P. J. Devine K. Fukuda Counsel: J. Spence Stewart, Q.C. DRLT_VRRRD PEPINO Mayor and Members of Council Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LlC 3A6 4 1941'5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'OWN OF NEWCASTLE Dear Mayor and Members of Council: Telephone (416) 484-1771 11 ('�) Suite 400 Canada Square P-200 Yonge Street Toronto, Ontario M4S 2C6 Please refer to file no. 50/076 August 24th, 1979 Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 20 to the Region of Durham Official Plan We act on behalf of Highland Park Developments, and on behalf of that landowner in the small urban area of Newcastle, a brief was filed for consideration of Planning Committee at its public meeting scheduled for August 23rd, 1979. For your infor- mation, a copy of that brief is attached. Although no oral submissions were made by the writer on the brief at the hearing, we must advise Council of our strong concern that little or no discussion was held with regard to any of the factual matters raised in our brief, or any of the concerns discussed therein. In addition, we did not witness any discussion of a report prepared by your Planning Commissioner for consideration of Planning Committee, and members of the public did not receive copies of that Report. We would reiterate to Council the submission contained in our brief to. Planning Committee that certain planning issues must be addressed by the Town prior to any decision being made on an Official Plan Amendment which would permit an urban struc- ture and population allocation for the small urban area of Newcastle which would exist for the life of the Regional Official JARVIS, $LOTT, FEAR, PEPINb - 2 - August 24, 1979 50/076 Mayor and Members of Council Town of Newcastle Plan; or approximately 30 years. Specifically, we raise the issue of the approval of any land uses south of the CNR, as being divisive, and not supportive of the existing core of the Village of Newcastle. We would further point out that this was the evidence of Dr. M. Michael, the Planning Director for the Region, at the Municipal Board hearing looking into the Urban Area Boundary, Population Allocation and Land Use Designations proposed by the Regional Official Plan. We would also point out that the Town's Planning Director, Mr. Donald Smith, gave evidence before the Board which supported the Region's position in this regard, in May of this year. We support the resolution of Planning Committee that the Town request the Region to defer any consideration of Official Plan Amendment No. 20 until the Town can forward more detailed recommendations, since any action by the Town supporting, or not clearly objecting to, Official Plan Amendment No. 20 and its approval by the Region would, in our respectful submission, have the effect.of fixing the area in which any type of urbaniza- tion may take place for the lifetime of the Regional Plan, asa result of the concurrent allocation of sewage treatment capacity by the'Region, as defined by the Region. The effect of the Region's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 20 would be that all growth for the lifetime of the Regional Plan would be committed and, even if that growth were not taken up within those areas so designated, it could not be allocated to any other areas. It is for this reason, that we support the Planning Committee's recommendation that the matter should be subject to much further study since, if the Town is to be the master of its own destiny not only in the Village of Newcastle, but also through- out other areas of the Town, it should fully canvass all implica- tions of merely acceding to an Official Plan Amendment proposed by the Region. It our further submission that the Town should make no commitment of all future growth to a particular area such as proposed by Official Plan Amendment No. 20 on the basis of the scant documents before'it. Rather, such a step should be subject to the most careful scrutiny and the most extensive evidence. In closing, we would point out that although Planning Committee's meeting was advertised as a public hearing, should Council not support the Planning Committee resolution and provide time for further study, including comments on the brief filed at IARVIS, BLOTT, FEAR, PEPINO - 3 - August 24, 1979 50/076 Mayor and Members of Council Town of Newcastle that meeting, but.rather merely forward the matter on to the Region, it is unclear whether the intention of the provisions of The Planning Act have been met. We, therefore, respectfully request Council's adoption of the recommendation by Planning Committee that the Region be asked to defer the matter, and that the Town be given the opportunity to further study the impact of this Amendment on its future.