Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-30-78 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE 263.2231 - HAMPTON, ONTARIO, LOB 1JO TO: Chairman and Members of the REPORT 110. P-30-78 Planning and Development Committee DATE: April 4, 1978 SUBJECT: Report on PZIt1ISTRY OF TRANSlORTATIOTd AND c011-RZ1ICATIOITS POLICY FOII CONSENT APPLICATIONS ON PROVINCIAL I1IG1R,1AYS I . BackpTound On February 9, 1978, the Town of Newcastle received a letter from the Plinister of Transportation and Communications setting out provincial Policy with regard to the severance of land fronting on Provincial highways. The policy divides the Provincial highway system into 5 classes for the purpose of land access control as follows: Class, I - Freeways and Expressways (fully controlled acceso - 400 series; multi-lane divided) Class II - Staged Expressways and freeways (modified controlled. access - existing major highway being upgraded to expreoswa standards; future multi-lane divided or undivided Class . III - Special Controlled Access Highways (similar to Class II but traffic volumes do not warrant freei-mays desipm; future multi-lane divided or undivided) C1a.Jss IV - Major 11ighways (important Provincial li�,hways which carry primarily through traffic movements, 2 and 4 lane undivided) Class V - Minor Highways (balance of the Provincial. Itii.ohz,rays � system; predominantly 2 lane undivided). For each Class of hi.ghi-ray, different policies are set out for the type of access permitted, and there are two coloured maps accompanying the Hinister's I I I - 2 - letter which set out the classification of each section of provincial highway in the system. 2. Effect on Newcastle The following table illustrates how this affects ;provincial h:i ghvm.ys in the Tavm of 11eweastl e. Class Sections in Newcastle T ,e of Access .permitted. I lbry.401 - Oshaira to - no direct land access is permitted hope Totrmship - public road entrancos may be considered. II 111ry.115 - Enterprise Jct.to - direct access for uses(or vacant ovmer- Manvers Toi=hip ships) in existence at time of C.A.H. designation. - no additional direct land access for new ownerships - public road entrances may be considered - some temporary direct access may be per- mitted conditional upon ultimate removal III Huy-35 & 115 - Hwy.401 to - direct access for uses (or vacant oimer- Enterprise Jet. ships) in existence at time of C.A.H. designation - entrances for new ot-merships will gener- ally only be considered for very laxge holdings or within reduced speed zone - public road entrances will be considered. IV Hwy. 35 - Enterprise Jet. to - direct access for existing uses (or vacant Manvers Toimship ownerships created prior to subdivision control) may remain said may be eligible for conversion to service another type of use entrances for new owmerships will genera.111 only be considered for total, holdings havlU in excess of 10001 of hiuhimy frontage or within a, reduced speed zone; or where exis' Ling (not"field.") entrances axe available; or for one inter-family farm related sever ance; or where local road access is avail- able - public road entrances will be considered.. V MIy. 2 - Oshawa to - direct access in accordance with local lan Hope Toimship use decision will be permitted provided geometries and safetnf standard are satisfactory. i r - 3 -- 3• Regional Policy The Region of Durham Official Plan (as proposed to Januax-j18, 1978) contains different policies for access to Provincial Highways and therefore for severances fronting on Provincial highways. The region's Official Plan does not recognize Provincial highways as a separate category of road, but claosi_fies all major roads into three categories regardless of jurisdiction, ie o I{'remra fs T!ype A Arterial Roads, and Type B Arterial Roads. The following table illustrates how this affects provincial highways in the To-m of Newcastle. class Sections in Newcastle 1 �f Access Yermi.ttcd I Betray Mu-401 - Oshawa to - no access xzcept at i nterchan v Hope Townohi.p with other road: Type A H17.115 - Enterprise Jet. - 2 access points per side Axterial to Mmivers Tomship per mile L-1 rural areas and 111,ry. 35 - Tibaterprise Jet. - 1 access per 600 feet in to Manvers Townehip urban areas (e.ncept where impractical and cannot. be Iltry.35 Co 115 - Hwy-401 to implemented precisely) Enterprise Jet. Hwj.2 - I-Iaple Grove to Hope Toemshi.p. Type B Hirt'. 2 - Oshmm to - 6 access points per side per mile Maple Grove in rural areas azzd - 1 access per 2.50 feet in w-eban areas (except whore impractical and cannot be implemented precisely). 1�. Concern 4Te have reviewed the Minister's letter and. the provisions of the ie,_;ional Official flan regarding; access to Provincial highw,-Vi s. tTe have no objections to the Ilini.stwi l s policy, but we note that it differs subr3-'Uaa'i-'Vial.l-,- from that contained in the Regional Official flan. Both policies perr.dt severances fronting on Provincial highways in different ciretunstanees, althouuh r,.?onerally 4 the policies of the Regional Official Plszi are more -restrictive than the Provincial policies since most sections, of the arterial road system already have more than the -permitted number of access points. Most people who desire to sever their property ilAtially approach the local Planning Depextment rather than either the Region or the Mxiiatry of Transporta- tion and Communications, therefore it is important that im hnow which policy takes precedence in case of conflict. 5. Recommendation It is recommended that the 11inister of Transportation anal. Co=-nications be requested to advise whether or not his letter of Februaxy 1, 19789 is intended to take precedence over the Region of Durham Official Pl,;lmg and. if so, in the interest of public understanding, that it be recommended. that -the Region of Durham Official Plan be amended to reflect Provincial policy. Respectfully submitted, ,ate L A_ George F. Howden, Tows Planner. 4 f2) Ontario i Office of the Ministry of 416/965-2101 Ferguson Block Minister Transportation and Queen's Park February lst, 1978. Communications Toronto Ontario Jt Councils, Planning Boards, Land Division Committees and o i Committees of Adjustment. Re: Consent Applications on Provincial Higtwd'y °�`�� z 'f-,rLe° Dear Sir or Madam: As you are probably aware, proposed severances along Provincial highways involve access considerations which fall within the jurisdiction of this Ministry. I have felt for some time now that our position regarding access to these proposed severances should be clearly outlined to you and I would like to take this opportunity to do so at this time. On August 1st, 1975, Ontario Regulation 419/75 established this Ministry as a mandatory referral for all severance applications affecting Provincial highways and extended the time for replying from a 10 day to a 14 day period. Also, a new form for all consent applications became standard, ensuring that all pertinent details of the applications would be available to all agencies. Due to this revised procedure, the Committees should have all the inform- ation necessary to make a responsible decision on each severance application. This Ministry has for some time been reviewing its policies per- taining to the protection of highway corridors and, in this connection has recently adopted new policy guidelines to deal specifically with severance applications. The Ministry's main object is to protect the primary Provincial highway system, allowing new points of access to severed parcels only in cases where the highway will clearly not be adversely affected. In the case of less important highways, the Ministry's requirements for control are not so stringent. In these cases the Ministry will generally abide by the local committee's decision and issue any necessary entrance permits provided geometric design standards can be met to satisfy safety requirements. However, the committees should be aware, in these instances, that continual approvals for severance with direct highway access will contribute to the deterioration of the highway's service level and resultant speed reductions and hazards to through traffic movements. It will � ,� 6 remain the responsibility of the Ministry's Regional Offices to � .•� �� apply the policy guidelines to the specific requests. h ,P� Iy ` I .2 i 2 - The attached set of maps, which will be subject to periodic up- dating, group the Provincial highway system into 5 classes for the purpose of land access control: Class I - Freeways and Expressways (fully controlled access - 400 series; multi-lane divided) Class II - Staged Expressways and Freeways (modified controlled access - existing major highway being upgraded to expressway standards; future multi-lane divided or undivided) Class III - Special Controlled Access Highways (similar to Class II but traffic volumes do not warrant freeway design; future multi-lane divided or undivided) Class IV - Major Highways (important Provincial Highways which carry primarily through traffic movements, 2 and 4 lane undivided) Class V - Minor Highways (balance of the Provincial highway system; predominantly 2 lane undivided) . In all cases, Ministry access standards relating to geometric and safety considerations as well as the viability of certain important highways must be met. In the case of Classes I & II, no new direct access would be granted. In Class II, a new proposed public road entrance may be an alternative to refusal of access but we recognize that a plan of subdivision would be required for the creation of a road in most instances. Class III (Special Controlled Access) are very important highways on which limited direct access can be granted. These roads are or will be designated as Controlled Access Highways. It is anticipated that public road access will be permitted at appropriate locations and some direct access may be permitted within a settled area (eg: hamlet in a reduced speed zone) or for properties with extensive frontages on highways where traffic volumes are lower. Some highways in this category would allow one residential or farm entrance to each owner- ship where its ownership was established prior to the Controlled Access Highway designation. New access to proposed land severances may also be permitted for the separation of whole township lots when several lots are under the same ownership. Highways in Class IV (the Major Highways) can tolerate some direct land access but their prime function is to serve the through traffic movements. M.T.C. will only permit access to new ownerships on this type of highway PROVIDED all Ministry geometric and safety consider- ations can be met and PROVIDED one of the following conditions can also be met: . . .3 - 3 - 1) An owner has a minimum frontage of 1,000 feet so that, following severance, an average minimum spacing of one entrance per 500 feet of highway frontage will be achieved. In certain instances, where the ownership has a minimum frontage in excess of 2,000 feet, access to more than one severance may be agreeable. Where approval is recommended on the basis of satisfactory spacing of entrances, a letter acknowledging these restrictions will be obtained from the owner, prior to approval of the entrance permit. (NOTE: This does not mean that each holding must have a minimum of 500 feet of frontage, or that the entrances must be 500 feet apart.) 2) Where the parcels can obtain any new points of access from an existing local road (not from a private right-of-way or shared entrance to the highway) restriction of access to the local road will be recommended as a condition of any approval of the severance. (NOTE: This approach will be used even if the owner has over 1,000 feet of frontage as in 1 above, or if it is a farm related severance, as in 3 below.) 3) Where a farmer is conveying a small lot to a member of his family, who will also be actively employed on the farm. Usually this type of situation would also fit the 1,000 foot frontage criteria as we would not object to one severance of this type from each farm size holding. M.T.C. will not become involved in determining which severances fall into this category as the Ministry of Housing's policy on inter-family and farm retirement severances has not been adopted in exactly the same form by all municipalities in their Official Plans and Interim Land Severance Policy Guidelines. Our comments will outline our transportation planning concerns, but indicate that, if this meets the local municipality's criteria for an inter-family or farm related severance, this Ministry would issue the necessary permits for one severance of this type from this ownership. 4) The section of highway is built-up to the point that it will probably be by-passed in the not-too-distant future (ie. speed limit is less than 80 kilometers per hour due to the amount of existing development) and no other means of access is available. The proposed parcel should not, however, extend the built-up section or increase the hazards which may be associated with entrances on a heavily travelled section of a major highway. (For example, an additional commercial entrance within a strip commercial section could prove hazardous, if the existing accident rate exceeds the Provincial average.) 5) Both the proposed and retained parcels contain existing buildings and entrances constructed under M.T.C. permits or prior to our permit control. I - 4 - Class V, Minor Highways, can perform both the land access function as well as serving through traffic movements. In addition to the exemptions, as outlined under Class IV, Major Highways, M.T.C. will take a more lenient approach on Class V highways and agree to abide by the committee's decision and issue necessary entrance permits unless Ministry geometric and safety considerations cannot be achieved. All replies will give transportation comments and recommendations to the committee and point out where additional direct entrances will contribute to the deterioration of the highway and resultant speed reductions. In all cases, whenever an alternative to a negative recommendation can be offered, it will be suggested to the committee. Such an alternative could be the submission of a plan of subdivision with an internal road system and no direct driveway access to the highway. Another alternative might be to recommend, in the case of corner lots, that the proposed parcel be re-located onto a local road. Mutual entrances, or service roads abutting and parallel to the high- way will only be suggested as a last resort, where the Land Division Committee feels the severance should be granted. In these instances, increased setbacks may be required to provide for future service roads. We would like to caution the committees that the authority for the issuance of entrance permits to Provincial highways lies solely with the Minister of Transportation and Communications. If a committee approves an application against this Ministry's recommendations, permits may be refused and the newly created parcel will be land- locked. This places the owner in an awkward situation as he cannot appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, because the Board has no jurisdiction over this Ministry's permits. We would, therefore, hope that all access problems are resolved prior to any approvals on Provincial highways. We hope, by this letter, to provide Councils, Planning Boards and Committees with a better understanding of our Ministry's concerns regarding access to development adjacent to the Provincial highway system. If your municipality shares these concerns, we trust they will be reflected in your planning documents and decisions on land severance applications. With kindest regards, I remain, Yours sincere f ?nister.ow, I HIGHWAY CLASSIFICATION FOR LAND SEVERANCES AND RELATED ENTRANCES DESIGN CLASS CHARACTERISTICS FUNCTION TYPE OF ACCESS PERMITTED I -opposing lanes of traffic -carries large volumes of -no direct land access is permitted (Freeways & are separated by a median through traffic under free -public road entrances may be considered* Expressways) -no direct land access is flow conditions permitted (Colour Code -fully controlled access Green) highways II -2 or 4 lane staged -carries substantial -direct access for uses (or vacant ownerships) in existe expressway/freeway volumes of through traffic at time of C.A.H. designation (Staged Express- -ultimate design same as -provides some land access -no additional direct land access for new ownerships ways & Freeways) Class I -all land access will -public road entrances may be considered* -modified controlled access ultimately be removed or -some temporary direct access may be permitted condition. (Colour Code highways relocated onto local roads upon ultimate removal Blue) III -future multi-lane divided or -carries through traffic -direct access for uses (or vacant ownerships) in existei undivided -limited direct land access at time of C.A.H. designation (Special -similar to Class II but -entrances for new ownershi s will Controlled Access) volumes do not warrant P generally only be con; er'ed* for very large holdings or within reduced speed zc freeway design (Colour Code -public road entrances will be considered* Purple) IV -2 or 4 lanes undivided -carries through traffic -direct access for existing uses (or vacant ownerships ci (Major) -some direct land access prior to subdivision control) may remain and may be eli€ (Colour Code -for conversion to service another type of use entrances for new ownerships will generally only be con; Red) for total holdings having in excess of 1000' of highway age or within a reduced speed zone; or where existing (r "field") entrances are available; or for one inter-famil related severance; or where local road access is availal - ublic road entrances will be considered* V -2 or 4 lanes undivided -equal split between carry- -direct access in accordance with local land use decisior (Minor) ing through traffic and will be permitted provided geometrics and safety standaz providing land access are satisfactory Colour Code Yellow) # IN ALL CASES, SAFETY AND GEOMETRIC STANDARDS MUST BE MET REGARDLESS WHETHER APPROVAL IS INDICATED BY THESE GUIDELINES. -J A M E S LAKE SALMERTOWN W i ell B A 1' O o5 HI 105 �� �% 9e p s q 609 �Sioux� i I 59p 659 OOKOUT / en a KE A ✓�KEEWATIN� � •U —v Cj 2 601 I�,1 - 9 9 O •>� RYDENI o _ ipq 60 dlv „ SCALE OF 8 a 615 a ` p RAINY e a0 all 19 eft flIVEfl el] ell SMOOTH ATIKOKAN al0 ll OCK FADS dal ORT`•— \ FRANCES �� 11p a0 �I s)v\ I II did L 1` OCHflAN 5]1 63l r t�C �� IRO UO�S�ALLS ) �� -• )� 1 NSONVILLE J r � ( ), 610 5I6 LJ V 101 5» i✓ S.PORCUPINE Sn TIMMINS 10l S,U KIRKLAND I NORANDA se LAKE iAIflcEER A ROUYN� 650 VIRGINIATOWN 66 l 56 IIl ' ell e ' ENGLEMART 6 ddl Sd9 d)I Sd0 S6 11 dt NEW LISKEAq 11 551 A�LEYSURY aB LT el L 5d 114 TEMAGAMI LEGEND 1 CLASS TYPE OF HIGHWAY �LEVACK ill aFALCONORI E _ 15 s5�\ I FREEWAY / EXPRES CaLPIR U BUR S1v .ALPS EON l O 11 RTH 1' BAY II STAGED FREEWAY / SPANOLA ]nn]x MgTTAWgII NASSEY cn lspl III SPECIAL CONTROLLE_., Slp j p CAL NDER " eo 5J DZ MAJOR tlT`E V MINOR CU ANT Sll �f7 August 1977 ��