HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-195-81 L
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON, ONTARIO 1-0131,10 TEL. (416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
OF DECEMBER 7, 1981.
REPORT NO. : PD-195-81
Subject: Official Plan of the
Newcastle Village Small Urban Area.
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that:
1. This report be received by the Committee; and
2. That the attached Official Plan of the Newcastle
Village Small Urban Area - Part of the District Planning
Area of the Town of Newcastle be approved; and
3. That the Region of Durham be requested to approve and
submit the above noted Official Plan of the Newcastle
Village Small Urban Area to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing for approval as soon as possible; and
4. That Report P-166-81 (copy attached) which relates to a
Subdivision proposal by Danarus Management Ltd. and
Report P-167-81 (copy attached) which relates to a
subdivision proposal by Wilswar Enterprises Ltd. be
lifted from the table and dealt with at this time.
Background and Comments on Submissions Received:
In accordance with the recommendations contained in Report
P-151-81, the Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan was presented to the
public at two meetings held October 21st. and October 28th. , 1981.
Following the presentation of the Plan at these meetings, many of `
Report No. PD-195=81
Page 2
those in attendance asked questions and discussed various aspects
of the Plan with staff.
Staff have, since the public meetings, received four (4)
written submissions related to the Village Plan. Copies of the
submissions are attached to this report and the following is a
summary of our staff response.
Submission By:
Newcastle Village B.I.A.; Newcastle Village and District Chamber of
Commerce.
The comments and suggestions received have been reproduced and
each is followed by staff comments;
"(A) The Commercial-Residential designation of the south
side of King Street Last, should be extended to include
the present Lumber Yard."
The area designated for Commercial development within the Main
Central Area is based on an analysis of the land area required to provide
for the maximum Commercial space permitted by the Regional Plan. The
suggested extension to include the lumber yard on the south side of
King Street would not be in conformity with the Regional "Commercial
Floor Space Guidelines". In addition, the lumber yard is an Industrial
type use and would not be a permitted use within the Tommercial-
Residential Predominant Use Area."
"(B) The proposed Residential Development Area south of #2
Highway and north of Sunset Blvd. , should be given further
consideration regarding the additional traffic that would
result in the Sunset Blvd. Area Subdivision. Problems such
as costs for upgrading the roads, installing curbs and
sidewalks for an example, would become a necessity. For
a further example, you must consider the use of the Sunset
Blvd. Subdivision streets by the school children. People
going to the 401 Highway or the Industrial area south of
the said highway and other areas north and south of the
highway, would use this route. This would be a highly
unsatisfactory situation. "
Report No. PD-195-81
Page 3
The Draft approved "Romney Mead" subdivision located north of the
developed Sunset Blvd. area does not provide for direct access onto
Sunset Blvd.
Staff believe that the majority of trips generated in the proposed
development area, west of Foster Creek, will be northerly oriented to
Highway #2 and from there east and west. It is reasonable to assume
that without direct access to Sunset Blvd.. and the 401, the most
attractive route would be north on Ruddel Road to Highway # 2 rather
than to back-track by going south to Sunset Blvd. and then East to the
Mill Street interchange.
"(C) Following our remarks in (B) above, it is our opinion
that it is absolutely necessary for the Development Area
west of Foster Creek to be joined to the present area on
the east side of Foster Creek by road and pedestrian
access. The suggested connecting area is in the vicinity
of the present west boundary of Edward Street. This can
and must be done. It will prevent a repeat of the
detachment of Waverley area in Bowmanville and Orono
Estate Subdivision in Orono - which occurred in years
gone by - and will:
(1) Make the west area a definite unit of the village
proper.
(2) Give proper access and exit from the core of the
village, Post Office, shopping etc.
(3) Reduce to a great degree the impact on Sunset
Blvd. subdivision area.
We have some suggestions on how the access could be
constructed. The recent construction on the 3rd. line over
• larger creek indicates that estimates for the cost of such
• link given to us might be exaggerated. "
Staff do not believe that another crossing of the Foster Creek
is necessary to ensure a logical development and transportation pattern
within the village. Staff feel that pedestrian and bicycle pathways
across the creek valley could provide safe and efficient passage for
school children and other residents. The construction of a connecting
link across the creek to,.'.Edward Street would require the construction
Report No. PD-195-81
Page 4
of a bridge and major reconstruction of Edward Street between the
creek and Mill Street. Such an undertaking would undoubtedly have a
serious negative impact on the character of this Residential Area.
"(D) The problem at the hill area on #2 Highway in the west
portion of the village, must be given close consideration
as far as bringing in new connections to # 2 Highway from
either north of south developments. It is a very danger-
ous area for traffic both from the point of where any
additional connections would be made and also bearing in
mind that at certain seasons of the year - in the time
area of approximately 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. - the sun is so
situated that it is impossible for traffic going west up
the hill, to see anything. There have been accidents
due to this factor."
This portion of Highway # 2 is scheduled for reconstruction
in the near future. This matter will be considered at that time.
"(E) In the east area it is our opinion that access and exit
by way of George Street East should be available for
Orchardview Heights subdivision and also the proposed
new development to the north of Orchardview Development.
Also these two developments should be connected by road-
way. It is our opinion that Andrew Street should also
be connected to the proposed new development north of
Orchardview Heights. Pedestrian footpath, also a require-
ment from the east area to come in and out of the area
to and from King Street East in the vicinity of the park."
The most recent subdivision proposal for those lands north of
the Community Park in the east end of the village includes a connection
to Orchard Heights and Andrew Street. Staff are recommending that a
connection also be made to George Street. Staff agree that development
within this area should be connected to the Park via pedestrian linkages
and footpaths.
"(F) Lot frontages and sizes to be adjusted in order that where
full services are available, a frontage of a minimum of
45 feet or less, could be utilized, with say a lot size
of 5,000 - 5,500 square feet minimum. In a new subdivision
there would have to be a proper mix of this size of
property with larger properties."
Report No. : PD-195-81
Page 5
The Plan does not preclude the possibility of developing some
areas on relatively small lots, as suggested. However, the overall
average density permitted must be respected.
"(C) Consider the possibility of a minor number of semi-
detached houses and townhouses in appropriate areas."
It is the intent of the Plan to encourage higher density
residential development within the Main Central Area.
"(H) Development to be encouraged - whether small, medium or
large. We have some suggestions in regard to this matter
which should be discussed with us.
This is a matter essentially beyond the scope of Official Plan
Policies.
"(I) The area south of Highway 401 and east of Urban Area
Boundary - east side of the village - the former
easterly boundary of the Village of Newcastle, should not
be ommited from the Plans. This area has for many years -
and rightly so - been a part of the Newcastle Village
Plan and should be included now. There are factors in
this area that should be discussed with us."
The lands referred to could only be considered part of the Urban
Area by Amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan. If piped services
are considered, one must bear in mind that any extensions to the Urban
Area boundary would be at the expense of those areas already designated
unless major new services provided. Total Sewage Treatment Plant Capacity
has, essentally already been allocated to those areas presently designated
for development within the Current Urban Area Boundaries.
"(J) A pedestrian walkway should be made from the east end of
the most southerly development just north of Sunset Blvd.
to connect with Robert Street (Sunset Blvd.) .
-The draft approved "Romney Mead" subdivision provides a potential
link for the development of such a walkway.
i
Report No. PD-195-81
Submission by: Gertrude E. Gray
Page 6
Mrs. Gray is an Edward Street resident who has expressed
concern over the possible use of Edward Street as a connecting link
to development lands West of Foster Creek. As outlined in our
earlier comments,staff are essentially in agreement with Mrs.
Gray and believe that the construction of a bridge and the
reconstruction of Edward Street are unnecessary and would have
a serious impact on this long established residential area. Staff
believe that in planning for expansion of older settlement areas,
great care must be taken to preserve the features that are so much
a part of the community's character. Removal of trees and road
reconstruction to current urban standards would not be considered
sensitive to the historic character of the village.
Submission by: Sam L. Cureatz - M.P.P.
Mr. Sam Cureatz seemed primarily concerned with future
development in the Bond Head area. In order to put the matter
of Urban Area Boundaries in perspective, staff responded to
Mr. Cureatz��submission by attempting to explain how the proposed
plan related to the approved Durham Regional Official Plan. A
copy of our response, dated November 4, 1981, is attached to
this report.
Submission by:
Mr. W. S. Lover.
Mr. Lover has made several references to what appear to
be earlier planning studies and draft documents that were
prepared prior to Regional Plan approval. However, it is
apparent that his real concern seems related to the Permanent
Agricultural designation that the Durham Regional Plan has
placed on much of the Bond Head area - which was formerly
within the Village of Newcastle. As outlined in our earlier
comments, the Urban Area Plan for the Newcastle Village Small
Urban Area only provides designations and policies for those
lands within the Urban Area boundaries. Inclusion of the Bond
Head area would require an amendment to the Durham Regional
Official Plan.
Comments on the Approval Process
As outlined in report PD-193-81 dealing with the Bowmanville
Urban Area Plan, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the
Region of Durham are now prepared to consider the approval of the Urban
Area Plans as "Official Plans for Part of the District Planning Area of
the Town of Newcastle", rather than as "Part of the District Plan for
Report No: : PD-195-81
Page 7
the Town of Newcastle". What this means, in terms of the Newcastle
Village Plan, is that it can be processed and approved without being
preceded by the approval of an overall District Plan. As such, the
Official Plan of the Newcastle Village Small Urban Area has been
revised to reflect this change in processing philosophy. These suggested
changes an&2a:)br1ef,axplanation of each, have been outlined in Appendix
1.
Respectfully',gubmitted,
4 �
T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. ,
FA:cc Deputy Director of Planning.
y:
I
ii55$
v;
/,2
APPENDIX I
SECTION NO. NATURE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE
1.2 a.A�eference to the Part I District Plan has been
deleted
1.3 a reference to the Part I District Plan has been
deleted.
1.3.2 the word "roads" has been replaced with "the Trans-
portation Network".
2. 1.2 (i) (c) a reference to the Part I District Plan has been
deleted.
2. 1.2(iii) (a) a reference to the Part I District Plan has been
deleted.
2.1.2(iii) (b) a reference to the "Ministry of Housing" has been
changed to "Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing."
2. 1.3(ii) in order to be consistent with the Bowmanville Urban
Area Plan, the word "by" in the fifth line..has been
replaced with the words "by or under the direction of"
2. 1.3(iii) a minor wording change has been made to clarify the
intent.
2. 1.3(iv) a reference to the Part I District Plan has been
deleted.
2.3.2. (i) (c) a reference to the Part I District Plan has been
deleted.
2.3.2. (ii);(c) a reference to the Part I District Plan has been
deleted.
2.4.2(ii) in order to be consistent with the Bowmanville Urban
Area Plan, the word "by" in the fourth line has been replaced
with the words "by or under the direction of"!
2.5.3(ii) a reference to the Part I District Plan has been
deleted
2. 7.2(ix) this section has been expanded to include some of the
items previously covered in the Part I District Plan.
2.9.& 2. 10 Sections 2.9 and 2. 10 have been added to provide policy
related to Historic Conservation and Energy Conservation.
These sections were formerly included in the Part I
District Plan.
3.4.2 a reference to the Part I District Plan has been deleted
in the introductory section as well as in part (vii)
i
Appendix I
Page 2
3.6 a minor wording change has been made to clarify the
intent of the section.
Schedule 1 Schedule I has been amenended by deleting the Public
School Site in Neighbourhood 2A and by making a small
adjustment to the Open Space Boundary adjacent to
Neighbourhood 1 A.
Schedule 4 Schedule 4 has been amended by adding the ('Possible
Transit Service" alignment as per the Durham Regional
Official Plan.
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.LP.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1J0 TEL. (416)263 2231
REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPt-fl-X1' (,O�P,l ITT E,I, itLE'TING OF SI:PT]"HIA-IR 28/81.
1U:POlt'l' NO: P-166-81
SUBJECT: Proposed Plan of Subdivision 18'1'-78027
Part of Lot 26 , Concession 11
Town of Newcastle
Wilswar Enterprises Ltd.
Fi 1 e : S-A-3-1 3-1
RBCOPMENDATIONS:
It is respectiul.ly rrconuneocied ( Brit the Plannin); ,Intl Uc vc luI>ment
Conmlttee recommend to Council the l )llowing:-
1) That Report P-166-81 be received; and
2) That the Alinister of %mi ci pal Af fairs and Housing;
ho advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends
draft plan approval of Plrn) 18T-78027, subject to
the following coed i t lolls :-
( i)
That this approval. shulI apply to a draft plan
dated October 20, 19//, prepared by Doiievmi c
Fleischman Co. Ltd. , revised on January 11 ,
1979, and further revised on June 8, 1981-
( ii) ` hat the road allowances included in this
draft plan be dediCatt'd cis public Highways.
( iii) That the streets i.n the plan be named to the
satisfaction of the' k('y'Jonal hlunlcipality of
Durham anal the Town of Newcastle.
( iv) Tliat Block A be c•onvoY,-d to the Town of Newcastle
for park purposes pur:;u:ml to Section 33(i) of
The Plannirn); Act .
- 2 - lteporL P- 16(, HI
(v) That the necessary amendment to Restricted
Area By-law 79-44, as amended, of the Town
of Newcastle shall be a1proved and come into
effect subject to the provisions of Section
35(10) of The 1'lanniny, Act.
' (vi ) That the final plan incorporate a 0, 3 metre
n,;u.rv(. alorr)-, Ibe levclr :e Ironirry"o of lul :;
20-22 Inclusive and lots I and 1:33 abutting
Arthur Street to be dedicated to the Town
of Newcastle.
(vii) That the Owner shall enter into a Subdivision
Agreement with the 'Town of Newcastle to
include, in addition to the Town's usual
requirements, the following provisions:-
That the Owner agrees :
a) Lo submit to We ^li "isLry or Transportation
and Communications a traffic report in
respect of perk hoar Lurni"g volumes; for
Lhe intcrsecLion of Qu proposed road
with Highway 2.
b) to satisfy the requirements of the Ministry
of the Environment in respect of noise
control as speci fi fed below:-
( I) All windows c xposcd to the no i sc source
on lots 48-52 inclusive shall be double
glazed, consisting of 32 ounce glass with a
t
minimum air space of one (1) inch. All
other windows within the units on these lots
i
should be double glazed with 24 ounce glass
having a minimum air space of 1/2 inch.
(2) All units to hP constructed on lots
22-36 and 48-12 inclusive shall be eq"l ped
with aLr conditioning (Note : If air cooled
condenser units are used, they should be
Located in a noihv insensitive area.)
;L C,)C4)
- 3 - Report P- 166-131
(3) A con tinrrous barrier (berm/wall) shall be
constructed along the northerly boundary of
Lhe development and shall extend from the
south-easterly corner of lot 51. The harrier
shall be at least 6 feet in height in relation
to the finished grade of the back yards and
shall have a surface density of 4 lbs./sq. ft.
with no holes or gaps, particularly where it
joins the ground. Further, a covenant shall
be registered on title of the subject lots
obliging Lhc purchasers of these lands to
maintain said barrier In n satisfactory condition
and at their expense.
(4) That the following warning clause be included
within the subdi_vider's agreement which is to
be registered against the title of lots 22-36,
48-52, 63-65 , 101- I16 and lot 139 all inclusivc :-
"Due to the proximity of this developnunt to
major noise sources (C.P.R. and highway 2) and
despite the inclusion of noise control measures
within this development, noise levels may
continue to be of concern occassional ly inter-
fering wLth some activities of the dwel Ling
occupants. "
�.) to prepare a functional storm draLnage report for
the subject lands and all lands within a 305 metre
(1,000 ft. ) radius of the subject lands, to be approved
by the Town and the Ganaraska Conservation Authority.
d) to design and construct all works in accordance with
the Town of Newcastle Design Criteria
e) to acquire and grant to the appropriate authority
free And clear of all encumberances such on or off-site
easements as may be required for utility or drainage
purposes.
\V I kl��/ )
- 4 _ Report P-166--31
F) that. all bards to be dedicated or conveyed to the
municipality for ""y municipal purpose shaLl be
dedicated or conveyed in a form acceptable to the
municLpallly and 1 "rther the Owners steal I grade
and sod all land:; to be conveyed for park purposes
' and shall plant such trees or other vegetative
matter as may he required by the municipaLity in
accordance with N landscape plan to be prepared at
the Owner's expense by a landscape architect and
submitted to the Town for approval.
g) to satisfy a L 1 requirements of the 'Town, financial
and otherwise concerning the provision of roads ,
installation of services, and storm drainage
including a cost sharing agreement for the upgrading
of Arthur Street and Highway 2, .including the
provision of sidewalks wLthin said road alLowances.
h) that the develODMOnt. of the plan will be subject
to architectural control by the Town OF Newcastle.
1) to saLfsfy the -oqui rements of the Canadian Pacific
Railway in re:;-ti of storm draLnnge to unsure that
there 1 no f in,r, ase or charge in the direction of
flow of natural surface drainage which would
adversely affect the railway right-of-way . Any
mod! fi cat ion or ;iddition to the existing drainage
pattern would be the responsibi I ity of the developer.
Any proposed ut i 1 i ties under or overcrossing the
C.P. R. right --of-way must be designed in accordance
with C.P.R. specifications and subject to C.P.R. ,
approvals, agreements and permits.
(viii) That the Owner agroos in writing to satisfy all
requLremeuts, financial and otherwise , of the RegLon
of Durham conve rn i Hn the provision of roads , hvwe rs,
water and other Its gioiial Services.
') - Report P-166-131.
BACKGROUND & COMMENTS:
In June of 1977, the subject application for draft plan approval.
was submitted to the Town. The initial circulation of this proposal
took place in January of 1978. However, as a result of various
constraints and concerns identified by that circulation, further processing;
of the plan was deferred pending; their resolution.
r
In May of this year staff met with the applicants to discuss
the necessary revisions to the draft plan which the applicant has since
complied with. On June 29, 1981, staff received a copy of the revised
plan from the Ministry of (lousing; accomp;nlivd by a rvgticst for the Town';-;
comments.
The subject plan is located within a residential area of the
small urban area of Newcastle Village ;is dc"slg;nated by the Durham Regional
Official Plan, and is situate immediately north and east of Highway 2
and Arthur Street respectively. The applicants are proposing; the
development of this 13.5 ha. (33.4 ac) parcel of land for residential. and
park purposes; the submitted draft plan shows 139 single family
residential lots and a park block of 0. 7 ha. ( 1 . 7 ac. )
The proposal conforms to the Regional. Official Plan and the intent
of the draft Urban Area Plan for Newcastle Village, which is the subject
of a separate staff report under consideration at this time. We note,
however, that while the Urban Area Plan requires preparation of a
neighbourhood development plan prior to draft plan approval., the balance
of this neighbourhood is substantially developed and this plan couLd be
considered as infilling since it occupies the majority of the undeveloped
lands .located within this ne g hbourhood.
The site is zoned "RU - Rural" by Restricted Area By-law 79-44,
as arllended. An amendment to the By-taw would be required in order to
permit the development of the site as proposed by the subject draft plan.
In accordance with the department's procedures this application
was re-circulated to obtain updated continents which are summarized below.
- 0 - Report. l'-100-81
Region of Durham Planning alid_Works Dell;o_Lments
". . . we wish to advise that the subj('rt site is desi};naLed Resi.(lenlial
ill the Durham Re};[ ) uil Ol fic•i ;II I'In11. I(eri dull Lial user; are permi t ted
within this designation.
Sanitary sewer and water supply I ;irili.ties are also available to
the site. However, we wish to draw your attention to the 16 persons
per acre density in the proposed plali. This density exceeds the I.I. p.p.a.
density established by the Regional Sew;we monitoring information for
this area. If this plan is allowed to proceed, it may result in a
reduction of reserve sewage capacity lot- other vacant lands within the
same drainage area.
We understood that the Town is currently in the process of finalizing
the District Plan for Newcastle Village which wi11 be used to assess
the appropriateness of this proposed tiubcl[vision in the near future prior
to the Region making any recommendation to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and housing."
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
" It I!; ;ultiripatrd that road iuyllovc-nien( :; may ie rogililod ;II Ilw
Ili };iway 2 ;111(1 proposed :;tree[ eutraure ( lo(;; O') & 1O4) . Would you advise
the developer Lhat all costs assoc.i.;lted with road improvements at this
location will he at Ills own uxpens(:.
We wil l le(luire LIIe suhmi:;::ion of .i I r;cl I icy report iudic;lt iu}, tho
peak hour turn i n}; vo.l.umes ;It this Inc ;lt i uu.
We then recommend conveyance of ;c '). 3 m. reserve acro::t; the ont [re
highway front'lge of tots 10/1 to 116 , lot :; to 65 ;lad lot 1 )1) as
indicated in shaded purple on the attawlw I plan."
Minio-:try of the I!nvlronnn,nl
"'.Chu changer; in the drat L p i an ha:; i ra I l y re I lect a chin},e ill density
in that some of the lots originally intended for semi-detached dwe [l.ing
un[ls ;u'e now to he developed a:; ;, in},Ic lami ly lot[;.
During our original review of this application (August 4 , 1.978) we
advised that our major c.onccrn pertained to exce:;s noise level;; r(-:;tIItlllg
I roll) Veil [citIar t r,If is moveulenl ou I Ile .ld !,cent. CanadI ;II I 1';lc•i I it I;;II IW"Iy
;is well as Ili},,liway 2. During subsccluent ueetings with the developer's
representatives, noise control mea:;ure:; were Iroposed ;Intl evaluated by
staff of our Noise Pollution. Control Section. A list of the measures
was outlined in correspondence CO yc)ur 01 1ire dated May 28, 1980 (Copy
appended) .
- 7 - I6eiorL P- 10081
I'linkt-Ky o_I _the ISuv[ r.onmenC (Coal i iln d)
The i to,'i's 'Ile IItiorled are now app I i eab I e to drawing No. 1--806 revised
June 8, 1981. As stated previously the itioasures proposed must also
be approved by the Town of Newcastle. If approval is };ranted we
would be in a position to recommend rugistration upon recci.pt of an
executed copy of the subdi.vider's ;agreement which provides for
implementation of the same."
Town of Newcastle Works Department
".l . Lhe Developer enter into .a subdivision a};ruenlent with the
Town. . .
2.
That
the Owners prepare a function storm drainage report for the
complete
area within a 1,000 ft. radius of the development.
3.
That
all works be designed and constructed in accordance with t:he
Town
of Newcastle's Design Criter[a and Standard drawings .
14.
That
al l .lands I-equlred forWidCHin}; 01 abnLtiJlg road 1'1}',alt.- i1-Ways
and
grade separations be deeded free and clear.
S.
That
,iocoss to propel-Ly north of the 1 be imlila liln'd ,;s
long
as possible.
6.
That
al l easements and reserves 1-eq ii red by the 'Town ;Ire },,I%)Iaed
free
and clear of al.l encumburance;;.
Y.
That
Lhe Developer agrees to enLcr .into tile. appropriate CosL sharing
arrangements
to upgrade Arthur Street and Highway 2 to present
dusir,n
standards.
8. That the, developer satisfy the reclui renreraLs of C.1'. bait."
Town of-Newcastle Commurlj_t Sc II vi Cos
"I have reviewed the map on this Subdivision and agree with thu
};eographical Location of Lhe designated
Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Hdncatiorl
"1 have been directed to advise you that thc� Board _is not in a position
to make a recommendation until detailed iufornration is I-eceived regarding
Lhe overal I plan for the 'Town of Newvc;ir;t lo."
(Planning Staff note that subsequenL Lo the above noted comments , Ole
Board of Education reviewed 'and commented upon the draft Urban Area I'l.an
and did not indicate the need for a !;CIWel site within this;
- 8 - Report P-166-81
PeterborotT,h-VI clorla-Northturtherl.tnd ;ut(1 Newcast Io Roiu;tn Cntho11c.
Sol )ar,LLe School Board
"Approval of the Plan Of Subdivision would not adversely affect the plans
of this Board."
Calladi an Pac_i f.i c Rai Way
"l . Adequate steps should be taken by the developer to protect the
future Homeowner from any inconvenience is a result of living adjacent
to a railway. Provision should be made by the developer for installation
of a planted landscaped berm along the boundary of the railway and the
development . . . to abate the noise and buffer the visual effects of
railway operations. Such provisions should be to the satisfaction of the
Ministry of the Environment.
2. Adequate steps should be taken by the developer to situate the lot
and building in an area least exposed to the impact of railway operations.
3. In dwellings exposed to the impact of the railway a construction
standard shall be adopted which considers acoustic insulation as set
out by the Central Mortgage and Housing; Corporation.
4. Due to the proximity of Lots 78 to 89 and LoLS 104 to 109 to the
rail line and the resultant noise and vihrati.on, etc; we require ;r
clause to be inserted in the offer to purchase and deed to the property,
in order to ensure that prospective home owuerti ;u-e aware of the rail
line location.
S. A 6 ft. high chain link fence to hr rortasLructed and nstint;tiued along
the boundary of the Railway and the dcvc-lopment , between Lots 78 to 89
and Lots 104 to 109 by the developer at- his expense. The developer to
include a covenant running with the l;utd in all deeds , obtiging the
purchasers of the land to maintain the fence in a satisfactory condition
at their expowse.
6. The developer must ensure ghat ther(I is no increased or change of
direction in the flow of natural surlace drainage which would adversely
affect the railway right-of-way. Uy nu,di fication or addition to the
existing drainage pattern would be the r,,spotisibility of the developer.
7. Any proposed utilities under or overcrossing our ri};ht-of-wav to
serve the residential development must be designed in accordance with
our specifications , receive our approv;ti ;ind be covered by our standard
at,reentent or permit."
- 9 --
Ot ` � )
Report P-166-81
As a result of our elrculaLlon coucorns were specifically Ident i f ied
in respect of density of the plan and the noise environment of lots adjacent
to the railway. With regard to density staff note that the Region's
calculations which resulted in a density of 16 p.p. a. were based upon an
occupancy factor of 3.8 persons per unit. Town, Staff, on the other hand,
liavo u:;od a lacLor of 3.0 p.p.u. which ;rssunn :; dial in the hold, term if)[-
household size will continue its present decline. Based upon this assumption
it is our staff opinion that the density of this proposal is appropriate for
the long term development of the NewcasLic Vi I lane Small Urban Arun,
With respect to the noise environment, staff have reviewed the proposed
noise abatement measures and agree with them. Appropriate clauses incorporating
Lhese measures wilt be included within the Town's subdivision agreement as a
required condition of draft plan approval .
SLaff tote thaL all other naLLers and concerns iclenLi I led thro"gh
the circulation, as requiring Mention, have also been addressed by staff's
roc•onluvridat fun:;.
Therefore, inasmuch as the proposed p I;iii of subdivision genera 1 Iv complies
with the official Plan of the Regional MunicipM ity of Durham and the draft
Urban Area Plan prosenUy under considerat ion by Council , and there wore no
major objections received through cf rental ion ; stal I would have no oblort-ion
Lo recommending draft plan approval of Lhis Ilan :;object Lo c•onditfons which
incorporate and address the various requircmeriLs and concerns ident.i fled by
c_ommonting agencies as recited above.
Itespon l u I Ly Submitted,
D.N. Smith, M.C. i .P.
Director of Planning
T H;1I
September 18th, 1981.
CORPORA FION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING ANq DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1.10 TEL. (416)263-2231
REPORT PTO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MELTING OF SEPTEMBER 28/81.
REPORT NO: P-167-81
SUBJECT: Application For Subdivision Number 18T-81008
Part of Lot 29, Concession 2, formerly
Village of Newcastle. 'Town of Newcastle.
Danarus Management Ltd. File: S-A-3-13-6
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended:
1) That application for Plan of Subdivision Number IHT-81008 be accepted
as a formal. application; and
2) That the Region of Durham be advised thNL the 'Town of Neweaat le
recommends draft approval of Application for Plan of Subdivision
:Number 18T-81008, subject to the following; conditions :-
(i) That this approval applies to the revised Plan dated
July , 1981, by H. F. Grander Co. Ltd. , O. L.S . , showing 22
single family Lots and 4 blocks ; and
(ii) That the roud allowances included in this draft Plan be
dedicated as public Highway~ ; and
(iii) That the "Road" shown on the Pld" be named to the satisfaction
of the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Town of
Newcastle; and
(iv) That Blocks 24 and 26 be dedicated to the Town of Newcastle
for Parks Purposes and that Block 25 be developed in
conjunction with adjacent .lands to the south.
(v) That the necossary anwndnwnt. to the Restricted Area By- law
of the former Village of Newcastle shall be approved and
come into effect pursuant to Section 35(10) of The PlannLng;
Act.
Report P-- ft,r-3 i
(vl ) That the owner shall Mar into a subdivision aglepum"t
with the Town of Newcastle to Include, in addition to the
usual requirements, the following provisions:
The Owners agrees:-
(a) to submit a storm water management plan for the
r
::I I wlrIrh I" to ie .ipprovad by the t„rnar;mVi
Conservation AuLho r i Ly and Lhe Town of Newcastle.
(b) That the owner agrees in writing to satisfy all
requirvmonLs, financial and otherwise , of Lhu
Region of Durham concerning the provision of
roads, sewers, water and other Regional services.
(c) That the development of the Plan will be subject
to architectural control by the Town of Newcastle.
(d) That, atl. land. Lo he dedicated or conveyed to Lha
municipal.i ty for any municipal- purpose sha L I be
dedicated or conveyed in N form ncceptable to the
nnrnleip;rlity and InIWI , the ownOrr sh" ll rude
and sod all lands Lo be conveyed for park purposes
and steal L plant such I roon or ot-hur vcget-a0ve
matter as may be required in accordance with a
landscape plan prepared nt the (teener':• expense
by a land;ccapo architr•c•t ;nrd ;,uhiulLted to (1w
Town for approval.
(vii ) TIM temporary I urni"g ci rcfan h a provided at the ends; of al I
dead-end .,tree( (..
(viii) Thal We owner provide the 'town of Newcastle wLLh a "Innctional
report." relative to Lhe a I i gnuunl and deve IopuenL of the
propo!wd temporary .ir ,•:: c to Old I:in?, .foir koad and Ilh•,Irway :r.
BACKGUWUN1):
Application for Subdiv[sIon 188-SIMM, was initially received on
February 11th , 1931. Thu appl icat ion wNA M rculaled Lo other Town
Wpartments on February 20, 1931. Following discussions with 'Town and
Regional Planning Staff in Apri I , 1981 , thn owuora revived th • orininal
draft Lo roduce the den„ iLy and altar tho road patLern .
Of
• - ; - Report P-1 61781
The subject application is therrluiv a revised proposed to
develop approximately 20hectarps of land within the Newcastle Urban
Areu. The owner wI"dics Lo v rent e 12 q i " I P famf I loLs.
The lands 'subject to this Lipp i icat:ion are designated "Residential
Areas" in the Durham Regional official flan. The subject area is located
within Neighbourhood 2b of the Draft Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan
(see Aeport P-151-81) and is desi;;t,rtcqNsidential Areas" w shin the
conLexL of Lho Vi 1 lage Ilan.
t:oDtP FWl'!,
Section 2.1.2(iii) (b) of the Newcastle Village Urban Area Plan
states that Neighbourhood Development Plans shall be prepared and
approved by Council prior to the approval of Plan of Subdivision.
Neighbourhood 2b is not presently covered by an approved Neighbourhood
Plan, however, Suction 2. 1 . "1. of the Vi I Iago Plan permit ;; in( i i I inf,
provided it is consistent wiLh Lho intent o) the Urban Area flan. The
proposal at hand could be considered Milling and on that basis would
be in conformity with all applicable of1fcial Plan Policies . In aciciition,
the street design proposed is consistent with preliminary draft concepts
for the Neighbourhood 2b Development flan.
In accordance with Town pruceduivm, the proposal was circulated
to a number of agencies. The comments rovoived are summarized below.
Also, summarized below are comment;, received d"ring the Rogion of Durham's
circulation of the proposal :-
'Gown of Newc_astic Works Department-
"further to the request of the PIanniug G Development Department , the
Following comments are applicable Lo the ;subject Application:
1 . The area north, west and east of LK proposed development
is shown as ' vacant residential ' .
- A proposed street pattern for this hued would be desirable,
with access to the subject lands .
4 Report P-1-67-81
2. The access to the proposed development ( from Old Kingsl-on
Road) requires that a functional report be prepared relative
to the alignment of Old Kingston Road, Highway 2 and the
(proposed) new Subdivision roadway detailed as "Street W ".''
1l.ini_stry of n};ricul_ture and Food
"Staff have considered the subject development proposal in view of the
(Food Land Guidelines, and based on pr(-,;cut Icuowledge , have no
objection to the proposal.
By not objecting we realize this is desinnated for development."
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
"In reply to your March 30th, 198L letter, we have reviewed the above
plan together with the proposed secondary plan and plan of subdivision
on the south side of Highway X12 opposite Old Kingston Road (Given Road) .
The proposed subdivislon, 18T-81008, enters Old Kingston Road at a
location which will not adversely affect our options for improvement
at the intersection of Old Kingston Road and highway A. For example,
this new road could be extended to the Highway, with the easterly
portion of Old Kingston Road being c l mod At Highway V.
The existing entrance location of Old Kingston Road and Highway #2 has
sufficient visibility for a reduced speed location. however, the skew
angle of the intersection limits the visibi I i ty of the cars entering
the highway as outlined in our September 27th, 1979 letter. This problem
can be corrected by realigning Old Kingston Road to meet Highway #2
at a 90o angle. This location at the top of the hill , has better
visibility than the existing .location.
It appears from our plans that existing development on the south side
of highway #2 would prohibit an intersection with Highway #2 directly
opposite the possible realignment of Old Kingston Road. An entrance
directly opposite the present intersection location would lLmi.t the options
for improvement to the skew angle. Thcrelore, we reconmwndvd against the
street entrance on the south side of Highway #2.
Highway #2 tai I 1 be reconstructed within the nexi few years. Possible
inturscction improvements will be co Kidured prior to these works , "
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
"The Fire Department has no objection to the proposed suhdiv.i.sion.
The existing fire station #2, .Newcast Ic is within an acceptable travel
distance 3/4 mile to a residential dirt ri •t .
Municipal water supply is proposed, which would be acceptable providing
a piped water system is designed and installed in accordance with Durham
Region water supply for fire protection . ''
- 0 -
Report. P-I67-HI.
I'cterhorou I-Vic•Loria-Nortlrrnulcria"d ,""I %wu;istIcy ;ic��arrrle ` clluul I;c ;rrcl
"Tire subject application has been reviewed by the Separate School Board.
We noted the provision for twenty-seven (17) single family detached
homes.
An ultimate approval of the application would not adversely affect the
present or future plans; of this ;school L'o,u•d."
I
Newcastle Conmmuni tv Services
"Sta1-1 hove hoer verbal I a(IV issu(I lhrit I h ConumulIi ty Sorvicess Del) ItJImeIIt
recommends that cash-In-lieu of parkland he taken."
Our major concern related to the design of the proposal is identified
in the comments submitted by the Newcastle Works Department. The
temporary access onto Old Kingston Road and Highway 2 if improperly
designed may aggravate an already substandard, undesirable situation.
Although the Ministry of Traus>portal fon,flid Connnunt cat.ions have , In Lhelr
comments , stated that the proposed locution would not adversely affect
thol r opt ious lot 1111provin)" Illy Tilt 'Il 'i i I I1, to- lool that the l ( nn Cnjv;
of Lhe Works, Depcuument. should be addres;sscd through the preparation
of a functional report, which is requirod an a condition of draft plan
approval.
Staff IIAVO reviewed the por;it i"n oi the Newcnsst le Community
Services Department related to pnrkland dedication and feel that hlock;
24 and 26 have IimiLud use for other rx"rl ososc i f not accepted by lhc,
Town. ,%djace"t ownership patterns and topography would preclude a
reasonable development pattern on these l Inds;. in addition , Nlannin},,
Paf f feel that Lhis; location would Provido an ideal opportunity Lo integrate
the future residents with those in the ;ICI jnccnt nursing home.
On the basis; of Lhe foregoing s,t"11 wo" ld have no object-Ion to
recommending draft plan approval or this plan ,subject to appropriate
onditions addressing, the Town's concerns.
RuspccLfully submitted,
D. N. },1111 III , M.C. 1 . 11.
Director of PlannQ,,
FA: 1f
SvpLember 22nd, 1981 .
Ontario Mlnist ry of Lhe nvi rounvy
Report P- 16/-81
"Staff have reviewed the subjucL appl icat ion proposing 27 singte fame-ly
residential units and wish to advise that we have no objection to its
app rova L.
No land use conflicts were observed at: the time of our inspection.
Tlie Ministry of the Pnvironment and the Regional Municipality of Durham
have agreed on a development control program for the Town of Newcastle
whereby the regional municipality assures the installation of water
and sewage services to parallel water siWply and sewage Lrealnuunt
reclui rements. Furl-hur comments on the se rvi c Lng aspect shou Ld therefore
ore
be obtained from the regional municipality ."
Ganaraska Rion Conservation Authori ty
"The above plan has been reviewed and given due consideration.
With regard to matters under the jurisdiction and mandate of this
Conservation Authority, there is no objection to the plan."
Newcastle Hydro Electric Connissiou
"MJ have rev(et.ed Ilse above ggY11c,it i on I�,r subdivision and hav(I H's
objectLons at this time . However, should the plan be approved, we
would appreciate being contacted by the developer in order that we
All establish the proper Inca( inn for elm ric servlroN, "
Northumberland and Newcastle Board of FducaLion
"The Board, at its last: Rog"lor Meet ink, considered the above noted
subdivision proposaL.
1 hove been directed to advise you Urat no objection was raLsed to
the 1)roposaI . "
Ontario Ministry ol Natural. ResUurces
"This plan of subdivision has been reviewed anal we hav(- no objections
to make.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to continent on this proposal . "
Durham Regional health Unit
"The Durham Regional Health Unit offers no objection to this proposal
provided full municipal services are available."
Newcastle & District Chamber of Commerce
Box 243
Newcastle,Ontarlo LOA 1 HO r
i
i
Mr. T. Edwards,
Deputy Director of Planning,
Corporation of Town of Newcastle.
Re: Newcastle Village
Urban Area Plan
Dear Sirs:
November 4, 1981 .
We have attended the recent Public Meetings on the
above subject and first of all wish to congratulate those
who were involved in bringing forth the Plans presented and
the manner in which the presentations were given.
After reviewing the Plans we wish to make the follow-
ing comments and suggestions for consideration:
(A) The Commercial-Residential designation on the south side
of King Street East, should be extended to include the
present Lumber Yard.
(B) The proposed Residential Development Area south of #2
Highway and north of Sunset Blvd. , should be given further
consideration regarding the additional traffic that
would result in the Sunset Blvd. Area Subdivision. Problems
such as costs for upgrading the roads, installing curbs
and sidewalks for an example, would become a necessity.
For a further example, you must consider the use of the
Sunset Blvd. Subdivision streets by the school chilren.
People going to the 401 Highway or the Industrial area
south of the said highway and other areas north and south
of the highway, would use this route. This would be a
highly unsatisfactory situation.
(C) Following our remarks in (B) above, it is our opinion
that it is absolutely necessary for the Development Area
west of Foster Creek to be joined to the present area on
the east side of Foster Creek by road and pedestrian
access. The suggested connecting area is in the vicinity
of the present west boundary of Edward Street. This can
and must be done. It will prevent a repeat of the
detachment of Waverley area in Bowmanville and Orono
Estate Subdivision in Orono - which occurred in years gone
by - and will :
continued. . .
/yr9>
„tom 3
� 1
- 2 -
( 1) Make the west area a definite unit of the village
proper.
(2) Give proper access and exit from the core of the
village, Post Office, shopping etc.
(3) Reduce to a great degree the impact on the Sunset
' Blvd. subdivision area.
We have some suggestions on how the access could be
constructed. The recent construction on the 3rd line over
a larger creek indicates that estimates for the cost of such
give-1 to us might be exa,gerated.
(D) The problem at the hill area on ##2 Highway in the west
portion of the village, must be given close consideration
as far as bringing in new connections to ##2 Highway from
either north of south developments. It is a very danger-
ous area for traffic both from the point of where any
additional connections would be made and also bearing in
mind that at certain seasons of the year - in the time
area of approximately 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. - the sun is so
situated that is is impossible for traffic going west up
the hill , to see anything. There have been accidents
due to this factor.
(E) In the east area it is our opinion that access and exit
by way of George Street. East should be available for
Orchardview Heights subdivision and also the proposed
new development to the north of Orchardview Development .
Also these two developments should be connected by road-
way. It is our opinion that Andrew Street should also
be connected to the proposed new development north of
Orchardview Heights. Pedestrian footpath, also a require-
ment from the east area to come in and out of the area
to and from '<ing Street Rest in " he vicinit
y of the par!c.
(F) Lot frontages and sizes to be adjusted in order that where
full services are available, a frontage of a minimum of
45 feet or less, could be utilized, with say a lot size
of 5,000-5,500 square feet minimu4v,- In a new subdivision
there would have to be a proper mix of this size of
property with larger properties.
(G) Consider the possibility of a minor number of semi-
detached houses and townhouses in appropriate areas .
(H) Development to be encouraged - whether small , medium or
large. We have some suggestions in regard to this matter
which should be discussed with us.
Continued. . .
(1) The area south of Highway 401 and east of Urban Area
Boundary - east side of the village - the the former
easterly boundary of the Village of Newcastle, should not
be ommitted from the Plans. This area has for many years -
and rightly so - been a part of the Newcastle Village
Plan and should be included now. There are factors in
this area that should be discussed with us.
(J) YA pedestrian walkway should be made from the east end of
the most. southerly development just north of Sunset Blvd.
to connect with Robert Street (Sunset Blvd. ).
The Newcastle Village B.I.A. and the Newcastle Village
and District Chamber of Commerce trust that our suggestions
are taken in the constructive manner intended and will receive
your serious and positive consideration.
We await your further advice and a date of meeting to
discuss the various matters we have indicated above.
Newcastle Village B.I.A.
Sincerely,
Newcastle Village and District
Chamber of Commerce
Per: ( - -
32 Edward Street
Newcastle, Ontario
LOA 1H0
October 23 1981
Mr. T. T. Edwards, Deputy Planner
Town of Newcastle
Hampton, Ontario
Dear Mr. Edwa-rds :-
Re: Newcastle Urban Area Plan
F T7
V
� n
Following my attendance at the Public Meeting held in the Newcastle Community
Hall on October 21 1981 , I have no comments relative to the plan as presented.
However, I do wish to reiterate the comments I made following a meeting on
March 19 1979 , in the event that there is pressure to open up Edward Street
across the Foster Creek Valleyland.
A copy of my submission of March 26 1979 is attached for your information.
Yours truly
Gl r tr We E. G ray
99
attar .
0
March 26, 1979
Mr. L. Kristof,
Director of Planning; and Development
Town of Newcastle
Municipal Offices
Hampton, .Ontario.
Dear Sir:- '
Re: Newcastle South/West Quadrant Plan
The following are continents subsequent to the Public Meeting;
held on March 19, 1979, relative to the above mentioned Plan:
Access Road
The valleyland along foster Creels has been envisLoned as a passive
park with benches , walkways and bicycle paths, which would Stretch
from Highway #2 to 401 Highway. Another road, crossing; this valley-
land at any point, would disrupt the entire concept.
The choiae of Edward Street as a crossing has many disadvantages;
the street itself has a 20' , at most, hard top. A street, designed
to carry 2,000 people into the Village, would need to be widened
and upgraded, necessitating the removal of trees. The whole
character of the Village is enhanced by the number of streets, lines(
with trees which have :Mood there for more than 100 yeorq, St. Ceorge's
Anglican Church, which Is considered an Archit pcwraI heritage, has
stood at the corner of Mill and Edward Streets for over 125 years.
No parking is provided for the Church so that when any activities arc
taking place in the Church, or the Parish Hal L, which Is alto used as
a Daycare Centre with traffic coming; and going, dropping, off and
picking; up children from 6:30 a.m. to b P.M. , the airs are parked on
both sides of Edward Street.
Ito parking; lot at thr Arena, which Ihm ii-w; noel wgrvis onto RK"Id
Street, has already created an Increase in trail is on Edward Street,
especially at nights and on Sundays.
As Edward Street in 3 blocks south of Highway UP And only 2 blocks
north of 401 Highway, it would be used as a convenient way of gettlnu,,
2,000 people to Mill Street and thence south to 401 Highway and out
of the Village.
The Pout Office and all commercial areas in this Village are located
on Highway 112. Residents from the proposed subdivisions in the
South/West Quadrant would have more direct vehicular access
- 2 -
to this section by using the access onto Hinhway 2 than by
crossing a road into -the present residential area and going
north. If they wished to walk, walkways across the valleyland
could be provided.
r �
School
The present school In the Village is a Unlur Public 'school and
goes only to Grade 6. All other children above (,rode 6 are
presently bussed to schools at Clarke, Bowmanvil.l.e, Knox Christian
and Roman Catholic Separate Schools.
In conclusion, if it is necessary to provide direct access from
any new residential development into the existing Village, perhaps
this is not the area which should be allowed to develop.
Respectfully submitted
Gertrude E. Gray
32 Edward Street West,
Newcastle, Ontario. "
October Q�-I,4t81•
Mr, David W: dakes, ,A .M.C.T. ,
Town Clar.k, .r,,,
76.Wri-of•' Newcastle,
40 Tempera'iice-Street;,
'--RE: °New ,Proposed Town
Dear°kr-. " Oakes:
RUC }}(�
of Newcastle, Newcastle Area Development Plan
#..,As•--a�Opay.6r, voter_.,and resident of the Town of Newcastle I am
ti ios.t...66ttcerTCld"'about Ahe proposed changes to the Regional Municipality
of Durham's off.id-fa_` 1p'lan discussion paper #3 dated August 1975 -
1RWn.:oewca��i'e; Newcastle Area Alternatives #1 , #2 and #3.
The Official Plan of August 1975 clearly recognizes all of the
"existing development" in the Town of Newcastle Newcastle Area and
services for this area.
The new proposed plan presented to the residents of this Area in
the past two weeks by the Town of Newcastle planning department has
deleted parts of the Durham "existing development" and re-designated
Durham rural land (agricultural ) for development. This suggestion by
the Town of Newcastle's Planning Department is denying longtime residents
in the Newcastle Area of water and sewage disposal . How do you plan
to compensate this area? Additional water and sewage disposal., plants?
Refund of taxes paid to provide services not available to them?
Why should any resident in the Regional Municipality of Durham pay local
taxes when there is no guarantee that services their tax monies paid for
will not be denied them at the whim of local government under pressure
from large developers?
Please do not excuse
sewage plant is on th
development was there
are used extensively
Town paid for land on
sewage disposal plant
Sincerely,
W.S. Lover
P.O. Box 520,
59 Mill Street North,
Newcastle, Ontario
LOA 1HO
this proposed change in the Durham plan with "the
e wrong side of the water course -- (1 ) the exising
when the new sewage plant went in (2) pumping stations
all over Ontario and (3) the favourable price the
the wrong side of the water course for their
site.
c. c. Diane Hamre
Regional Councilor
Sain I_. Cureatz, M.P.P.Office
909 Simcoe Street North
Oshawa, Ontario c. -
L1G 4W1 �'
(416) 571-2084 t X11,',1 AI IV! \:
Queen's Palk Office: Saar L. Cureatz, M.P.P.
Room 195 Durham c=ast
Legislative Building
Queen's Park, Toronto
Ontario M7A 1A2
(416) 965-4186
October 30, 1981
Fred Archibald
Town Planner
Town of Newcastle
40 Temperance St.
Bowmanville, Ont.
L1C 3A6
Dear Fred:
Home Address:
Box 399
Newcastle, Ontario
I OA 1 HO
(416) 9£17-4484
Constituency Office:
34A King Street West
Bowmanville, Ontario
UC 1R3
(416) 623-6663
<�j
�J
v 3981
Sorry I could not make it to the urban
plan meeting but the legislature was in session
and I had to be present. What I could see from
the newspaper is that there is no provision for
future expansion south of the railway and east
of Mill Street. As constituents in this area have
pointed out to me that considering there is now
the main water Line going up Mill Street, and
considering the Region has agreed to extend the
water line along Boulton Street, east of Mill Street,
and considering the Town has approved a 7-lot subdivision
slong Lakeshore Road, I strongly urge you to re-examine
this area of the Village for future development.
Yours sincerely,,
Sam L. Cureatz
Deputy Speaker
u r.yu,red to reply please do so at the below marked address
S.L. %"Aireatg,
Durham L
Box -19)
Ow-ar!.o ttp
WA 1110
War ;;Lri
TUt Urban Aro4 plan
Z%ank yok, for yo4Ar IQL':or (.-)f
,:i.►, 1981 Itt respect of th'a
draft Urban Aa-oa Pla-Y, for Wnw(Aj;tj.4� Vijjjt,-3 !
t1'Q Public ox, October 31st an(j, ) �, jj�-1:1ch -/as pressl4te'd to
,AtIA, 19(iU,
I 110%e, fralff your latter, a coact n, v,a,,,rect of ftatu:m expansion
4JOU911 of Clio -'LL.viv aad QJst ()f' t
';L Y1.4 till-It ragard, the
draft '-Arb-nll anij p1,111 Witj
) t1la j)urjlaw
P1411, an approved by ti"..() 11S,aiator of NOuSitig, As
"-t only those U-ndo wi.thiv, tqu litaite of., the Upiall
urban nreia of 11al,,cantle Vi1,lage. j'11a question ztr(I not
designated ful: futtire devalopmer
nor is it t1jo RafjM,3 i4te ,t by tj-x�7- "".1i)Aoital Of fiel- al P11M
'Ltjox''
at t" i l point in time, to extand
services to lr-Lat area.. In fAct, W)rks Department stat.'f
have avlviald uzjd that, to the Wtit Of theAr ko,owledge, tbare has
been no agieea�nt ulade in respect Of extrindl,)Ie, water along Bolliton
Streat, If You cre, able to providea Of Ouch an agreement
it would b,4 gj�satjy appraciated.
I &ISO UoLe, from your lfatttr, a to the Tovwu's -recently
"Prov"L a 3'"ftla lot subdivision elong Lakajjjora I to nd. 'Liar s Particular P rOPOS41 Is intended
to Pz-Ocaod oil the basis of private
vells and septic tauks, and was approv-c4<j jj)y L11u TQ�la foll..Ow,na
successful a4letWimoi)t to Lhro bur'llam Rtlk'iolAai official vljtt .
* 0 0 /2
S.L. Cureatz, M.P.P.
-2-
November 4, 1981
I trust that this expianation will clarify the situation and
the relationship of the lands in question to the designated Urban
Area of Newcastle Village. However, should yvu have any further
questions or with to discuss this matter further, I would be
pleased to do so.
'Yours truly-,"----?
T.T. Edwards,
Deputy Director of Planning
1"1'E:1 d