Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-151-81 k, t � a CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P., Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1 JO TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1981. REPORT NO.: P-151-81 SUBJECT: Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. That Report P-151-81 be received; and 2. That Staff be authorized to hold two (2) public meetings to present the revised draft Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan to the public. Tentative meeting arrangements are as follows: j Time: 8:00 p.m. i Place: Newcastle Village Hall Auditorium Dates: October 21, 1981 i 0 October 28, 1981 BACKGROUND: In September of 1980, Staff Report P-141-80 was received for information. (See resolutions #PD 287-80, C-80-1202.) This Report d.l stated, in effect, that the draft Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan d 2 - i had been placed in circulation and that staff would prepare a further report once circulation was complete. The following is a summary of the comments received. Staff response (if any) to the comments received follows the summary of each agency comment. No comments or objections related to the Newcastle Village Plan were received from the following: - Newcastle Public Works Department - Township of Scugog - Newcastle Town Clerk - Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission - Newcastle Community Services Department - Township of Hope - Newcastle Chief Building Official - Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board - City of Oshawa - Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education - Ministry 'of Agriculture and Food - Ministry of Transportation & Communications C P Rail - Comments of September 30, 1980 For the most part, CP Rail has no objections to the Town of Newcastle District Plan, Part I or the Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan. However, certain components of the land use structure plan require comment, in particular the lands comprising Newcastle Village and the Town of Bowmanville. It is the opinion of the Railway Company that vacant land adjacent to our existing right- of-way should be reserved for industrial development. This is a type of use more compatible with our operations and prudent planning supports this preference. Should there be any proposed development adjacent to our right- of-way in the future, our Company requests that we be consulted further in order that certain conditions be imposed to ensure the safety and comfort of the adjoining residents and to mitigate as much as possible the inherent adverse environmental factors. CP Rail has 'recently noted a marked increase in the number of industries expressing a desire for plant locations serviced by rail. This can be attributed in part, to a growing conviction 3 - by industry that the railway's more efficient use of energy will be reflected in the cost of transporting goods by rail vis-a-vis other transportation modes. Accordingly, there likely will be increases in train length, number of trains and physical plants necessary to accommodate these increases. Due to the potential effects of future railway operation in terms of noise and disturbances, etc. , we further emphasize the necessity for us to be consulted in the event of any future development. Staff Responded October 23rd, with the following: Further to your letter of September 30, 1980, please be advised that the land use designations delineated by the Land Use Structure Plan, conform to the approved designations contrained within the Durham Regional Official Plan. With respect to your desire to be consulted further should there be any proposed development adjacent to your right-of-way, I would note that it is our standard practice to circulate all proposals to affected agencies and to incorporate, wherever possible, all conditions intended to ensure the safety and comfort of adjoining uses through mitigation of adverse impacts. C N Rail - Comments of October 7, 1981 In general, we have no objections to the Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan. Our only area of concern is that portion of Neighbourhood 3A which is adjacent to our Toronto-Montreal mainline corridor. In order to ensure as satisfactory a living environment as possible at this location, we feel that section 3.3.1.2 (VIII) on page 30 of the District Plan should be modified to include vibration as a possible source of irritation to resi- dents and that appropriate background studies be required with regard to vibration. We would also point out that the Ministry of the Environment at this time does not have a working model covering the impact of vibration on adjacent residential structures and the Railway does not feel that the Ministry guidelines on noise take into account the unique characteristics of a railway operation, that is, the high intensity single event occurrences such as the pass- age of railroad locomotives. In view of the foregoing it may be that even though the Ministry of the Environment's noise recommendations are implemented, a satisfactory living environ- ment may not be achieved. Staff Responded October 23rd with the following: . Further to your letter of October 7, 1980, providing comments in respect of the above noted document, please be advised that staff shall recommend a revision to Section 3.3.1.2 (viii) to include vibration as a potential irritant to adjacent residents and to require appropriate background studies to examine the impacts of vibrations and recommend mitigating measures. j i - 4 - Region of Durham Planning Department The primary concern raised by Durham Regional Planning Staff in discussions with Town Planning Staff related to the definition of "predominant use areas" within the Central Area of the Village. In response to this concern, staff have revised the Plan to contain specific policies and specific "predominant use areas" within the Main Central Area. Schedule lA has been added to the Plan to illustrate the definition of predominant use areas. Newcastle fire Chief - Comments of December 23, 1980 Proposals for future development for the Newcastle Village Small Urban Area are well defined and are acceptable to the fire department. In general the location of the existing fire station can accommodate the proposed areas of development. I would note the following comments. 1) Industrial area northeast section is in proximity of the fire station. 2) Industrial area south of 401 highway is acceptable to existing fire station response time. 3) Population increase and future development requires fire department upgrading and personnel. Recommended staff 1 full. time firefighter for every 1,000 population. 4) Adequate water supply for fire protection in all indus- trial areas (piped system) . 5) Transportation Net Work (a) Acceptable in general with designated improved inter- sections. (b) Access to highway 115 and 35 of double lane highway with median barrier? Interchange. (c) Arterial road type A C.P.R. railway bridge=highway #2 (improvement required) . 6) Restrict building height to 65 feet. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority - Comments of October- 6_,_.1980 a. Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan The Newcastle Village Plan is a very comprehensive document and generally covers the Authority's concerns with regard to flood prone areas and environmentally sensitive areas. However, we would recommend that the area outlined in red on the enclosed map be identified as hazard lands since it does not form part of the flood plain for Graham Creek. - 5 - The Conservation Authority completed the Newcastle Greenbelt Study in 1978 which was then presented to the Town. Although the Newcastle Village Plan does include some aspects of this study, other aspects are not included. To assist the Authority in their planning program it would be helpful to know what role the greenbelt proposal will have in helping to achieve the goals of the plan, specifically with regard to the hazard land and major open space systems. Staff Responded October 23rd with the following: Thank you for your letter of October 6, 1980, offering comments in respect of the above noted plans and in response to the concerns raised, I provide the following explanation. a During the course of preparing the Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan, the Authority's Newcastle Greenbelt Study was re- viewed. As you may appreciate, the limits of the study area extend beyond the boundaries of the Urban Area and consequently some aspects of the Greenbelt Study may not have been addressed. However, it is our staff opinion that the land use designations and policies contained within the Urban Area Plan, read in con- junction with the District Plan respect the intent of the Green- belt Study; and would note that Schedule 1 "Land Use" will be revised to correctly delineate and protect the hazard lands identified 'by the attachment to your letter. It would be helpful, however, if you could specify those aspects of the Study which you do not feel have been adequately addressed. Staff have not, to the date of this report, received any additional direction from the Conservation Authority. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources - Comments of September 22, 1980 SUBJECT: Newcastle District Plan (Part 1) Newcastle Village Plan (Part 2) The draft plans have been reviewed and we have relatively few comments on them. They seem to conform to the Durham Official Plan, and reflect a concern for environmental and resource issues which we support. Village Plan, Schedule l: Regarding the mapping in Schedule 1, there should be an indi- cation of hazardland on the portion of Graham Creek which meanders into the residential area between Highways 401 and 2. Any valley land this. far downstream on the creek would be sus- ceptible to flooding. Village Plan, Section 2.3.2 (ii) (a) : We agree with the Wilmot Creek as part of the Major Open Space System, but are confused with the policy of the plan to this creek. Accordingly Schedule 1, no part of the Wilmot i i - 6 - Creek is in the area covered by the village plan. We wonder why there is a reference to it in the text. Our comments are based on the premise that the downstream portions of the Wilmot Creek is covered by the District Plan, and not by the Village Plan. This creek is a very important concern from a fisheries, recreation, and hazard- land point of view. Staff Responded October 23rd, with the following,.: Further to your letter of September 22, 1980, offering comments in respect of the above noted Plans, I offer the following response to the concerns raised. Urban Area Plan - Schedule 1 - This Schedule will be revised to correctly delineate the extent of the residential area deleting those hazard lands susceptible to flooding. Urban Area Plan Section 2.3.2 (ii) a - Reference to the Wilmot Creek will be deleted since, as you correctly state, this creek is covered by the District Plan. Ontario Hydro - Comments of December 17, 1980 We note that Section 2.2.3.8 of the District Plan requires "a site specific study" prior to the approval of developments proposed for environmentally sensitive areas. We are concerned that this requirement could result in a duplication of approvals for undertakings subject to the Environmental Assessment Act. Proposals subject to this Act would address the factors iden- tified in Section 2.2. 3.8 i) through v) as part of the assessment. Therefore, to overcome this potential problem of duplication, we request the addition of the following sentence at the end of Section 2.2.3.8: "Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, this study shall not be required for any undertaking which has been authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975." Similarly, in Section 2.4.2 (ii) of the Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan, an Environmental Impact Analysis is required for developments to be situated within environmentally sensitive areas. Again, to avoid duplication of approvals we request the following sentence at the end of this Subsection: "Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, this study shall not be required for any undertaking which has been authorized pursuant to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975. " Staff have incorporated the suggested change into the text of the draft Urban Area Plan. I 7 - Ontario Ministry of Housing - Comment of March 5, 1981 As you requested in your September 4, 1980 letter, the. draft Newcastle District Plan and the draft Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan have been reviewed. It is our understanding that the Town of Newcastle is utilizing the Part I - Part II approach for its District Plan, Part I to form the basis of the District Plan by providing general policies applicable to the entire town and more specific policies for the rural areas within the town; and Part II to contain specific policies for the de- velopment of the urban areas of Bowmanville, Courtice and Newcastle Village. As well, Part III of the District Plan shall consist of development plans for the various hamlets within the town, these development plans not requiring reg- ional or provincial approval. Both Parts I and II will require regional and provincial approval. This approach is consistent with the Provincial District Plan Guidelines submitted to the area municipalities by this ministry in 1979. You should be aware that this ministry has recently taken a position of requiring secondary or development plans to be submitted to the Ministry of DHousing for approval as official plan amendments to the istrict Plan under section 17 of The Planning Act. Again, your approach would appear to be consistent with this policy. However, it should be noted that the proposed tertiary plans for the Newcastle District Plan (i.e. your Part III plans for the hamlets) should not deal with any changes in or determination of land use, as this should be done through an amendment to your District Plan. COMMENT: As the preceeding summary suggests, staff have had little diffi- culty dealing with the few concerns that were raised during circulation of the Newcastle Village Plan. Given this favourable response, staff now feel that the Plan should be presented for public comment. Two tentative public meeting dates have been arranged: Time: 8:00 P.M. Place: Newcastle Village Hall Auditorium Dates: October 21, 1981 October 28, 1981. Respectfully submitted, FA:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P. August 11, 1981 Director of Planning