Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-21-80 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF February 18, 1980. REPORT NO: P-21-80 SUBJECT: Correspondence Received from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority regarding Draft Approval of Subdivision Plan 18T-75362 (Burketon Hills) BACKGROUND: The attached correspondence received from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority requests that the Authority's concerns in respect of the draft approval of the above mentioned subdivision plan be forwarded to the Planning and Development Committee for infor- mation and consideration. The Conservation Authority staff indicates in the attached correspondence that they are not satisfied with the draft plan as re- commended by the Town of Newcastle and approved by the Ministry of Housing on January 23, 1980. Conservation Authority staff indicates in correspondence dated January 10, 1980 to the Ministry of Housing that the road pattern in the subdivision plan should be revised to accommodate their concerns. Authority staff feels that their proposed conditions of draft plan approval will not "materially affect" the proposed plan as approved. Authority staff also indicates the approval of the draft plan is not consistent with their comments on the Burketon Hills Hamlet Develop- ment Plan. ,r� I v- ��� 2 - COMMENT: Newcastle staff have reviewed the Conservation Authority's comments and the proposed road layout changes with Authority staff, representatives of the Ministry of Housing and with the developer's consultants. Newcastle staff have indicated to the Authority and the Ministry that the proposed road layout revisions are not satis- factory. On the basis of Town's comments to the Ministry, the proposed subdivision plan was draft approved. In respect of the Burketon Hills Hamlet Development Plan, it should be noted that the Burketon Hills Plan has not been amended to incorporate policies in respect of wildlife habitat in Burketon. Staff have proceeded with the recommendation of approval of the Burketon Hills subdivision plan on the basis that the Authority's concerns could be accommodated through the review of individual development proposals. In view of the Authority's position in respect of the Burketon Hills subdivision plan, staff feels that it would be appropriate for the Authority to prepare new conditions of draft plan approval that, at least, in part would address their concerns. Staff suggest that such new conditions be forwarded to the Ministry of Housing by the Authority with a request that such conditions be incorporated into the current con- ditions of draft plan approval. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council that the following resolution be adopted: "The Town of Newcastle hereby requests the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority to review their 3 - comments on the Burketon Hill's subdivision plan 18T-75362 and hereby suggests that the Authority request the Ministry of Housing to revise the con- ditions of draft plan approval to incorporate whatever conditions the Authority may deem applicable to the subdivision plan, provided that such conditions do not alter the road layout as approved by the Town of Newcastle and the Ministry of Housing." Respectfully submitted, DNS:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P. February 4, 1980 Director of Planning A K I_- 0 ..A Q 0 PION t' CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 1650 DUNDAS STREET EAST, WHITBY,ONTARIO. UN 2K8 (416)579-0411 REF NO. 18T-75362 January 11 , 1980. Mr. J . M. McIlroy, Clerk, Corporation of the Town of Newcastle , 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario, LIC 3A6 Dear Sir: Subject : Draft Plan of Subdivision, Burketon Station Attached is a copy of correspondence recently forwarded to the Ministry of Housing by Mr . W. Fry of this office, pertaining to the referenced draft plan of subdivision . The correspondence is, I believe, self- explanatory, and serves to set out the Authority' s position and concerns as they relate to the Town-approved plan. Normally, a municipally-approved plan has reasonably addressed concerns and comments provided by the Authority through plan revision. Differences in views of a plan' s acceptability brought about by varying jurisdictions , responsibilities and concerns can usually be resolved in this way and by compromise and application of conditions of draft plan approval . In regard to this plan, we believe proper evaluation of our input was not made,partly due to problems in circulation. Consequently, the Ministry of Housing is now preparing to grant approval to a draft plan which we do not support. We have indicated to the Ministry, that if the plan is to be approved as originally 5uhmitted, we do not believe that our imposition of conditions would materially infILIC11CC the impact of development on this Site , and therefore we would not desire the application of conditions on our behalf. Because of our concern for the site, disapproval of portions of the present plan, and departure from normal commenting and approval procedures it was - -- - - -- T.� (THIHAI IAKP nNTAltin CnNSHIVATION AUTNonITY d, M. Mcllroy - 2 - January 11 , 1980 9` h deemed prudent to bring this matter to the Town' s attention. In this regard, we would recommend that this item be forwarded to the Planning and Development Committee for their information and consideration. Respectfully submitted, f - Robert W. Messervey , Conservation Services Supervisor. RWM/klt cc Chairman, Planning and Development Committee, Town of Newcastle �AR1_ o 1 +? 0. � p gTION P� s CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 1650 DUNDAS STREET EAST, WHITBY,ONTARIO. L1N 2K8 (416)579-0411 REF NO. 1 87-75 362 r January 10, 1979. l x Ministry of Housing, Plans Administration Division , Subdivisions Branch, t 56 Wellesley Street West , 8th Floor , s oron o, Untarics, MY 20 °I Attention: Mr. J. Richmond Dear Sir: l Subject : Town of Newcastle a Parts of Lots 18 and 19, Concession 10, .Former Township of Darlington Owner: i3urketon Hi 1 ls_D�ly lob nu:nt This is further to our meeting of 29 October- 1979 and recent telephone conversations regarding this proposed plan of subdivision. 3 At the October meeting it was decided by you that a revised draft plan would be prepared for the site according to the recommendations of the Authority, those being a replacement of Street D in the north-west quadrant of the site with two cul •-de.-sacs and the relocating of Street A to the east a distance of about 400 feet at the point of intersection with the tenth concession road . The first revision was requested in order to minimize the extent of road cut through an area of regenerating red and sugar maple , hemlock, white pine, red oak and black cherry. This area provides excellent wildlife cover and food clue to the diversity of vecrctation present and mixed age composition. The second change was requested to avoid the routing of a roadway through a stand of white pine (40 feet in height ) , but to utilize instead , an area of less significant Scots and jack pine . A revir,ed Man incorporating these I changes was prepared by Marshall Qckl in Monaghan Limi ted and met wi lh thei r approval with respect to increasing the biological stability of the site over that provided in the original plan. Safe sight Iines were also provided .,t the new point of intersection of nuct A and the tenth concession road. We concurred with the new proposal and were prepared to support the plan rat- draft approval . Of p n.ular note is that while the revisions requested by the Authori ly min ' 10 CKLCnt Of signi f inNnt. forest areas which would rf ,�d, t��-{x�nad i_,; Ir„ drying wrroc tr, of Sun and grind and/or subjer.Led be c l i ns 1 (�.: t r ry ,eQr CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO CONSERVATION AUTHORITY t11 n l ,try Of Ilout, l n(r Janu;r r'y 10, 1980 At t.ent i of) M 1'. J . Richmond Page t Since the comprehensive guidelines for the Oak Ridges Moraine mentioned in section 12. 3 . 7 of the regional official plan have not been prepared, and since the Development Plan for the Hamlet of 13111-keton Station wo s not for-• warded to the Authority for comment until after the adoption of the plan of subdivision by Ioca1 council , we did not feel that the requested road redesigns represented excessive demands given the amenities of the site and given out- Jack of input in the preparation of the development plan. On 21 November 1979, we were informed by way of a copy of a letter addressed to his. S. Taylor by the Town of Newcastle that the plan previously adopLed by the Town "remains satisfactory". No mention was made of the revised plan: presumably the concerns relating to the suggested cul -de-sacs with respect to difficult access and the provision of safe eight lines were responsible for Lhe rejection of our ri'CC7111I11Cndal: ions . We find such a position difficult to substan- tiate since the 110W sight lines mct wi Lh the approval of the engineering c'epar't- ment of Marshall Macklin Monaghan t_ imited , and the plan approved by local council already contains two cul -dc-sacs %•,hick are farther" from major thoroughfares than the tt,,o cul --de.-sacs Lhat we suggested in the not-Lh-west portion of Lhe site . The decision by the Ministry of Housing to approve the draft plan originally r,rl pt-od her 1'1-10 Tm-.m of Newcastle IS yCry disturbing to the Authority since we feel that the revised plan prepared ,rccc>rding to out- recommendations has not been given proper consideration. It should also be noted Lhat Suh',ccrluc'nt to our receipt of the adopted development plan , we for%,,arded several suggested ar-endmenzs on the plan to the Town pertaining to the preservation of specific areas and wildlife habitat . The Authority and the Region of Durham were notified by the Town 01 October 1979 that the municipality �:,ould have no difficulty in arr,ending the development plan to incorporate our concerns relating to the management of wildlife habitat in Burkcton Station. The approval of the original draft plan ' thus appears to conflict with the intent of the revised development plan since the subdivision layout is totally lacking in Authority input from a wildli e habitat perspective. If Llre. draft plan is approved as originally submitted, We do not wish to have. conditions of drai'L approval included on our behalf since we do not feel , under such a circumstance , thrit we could materially influence the impact of development on the natural environment. In complete contrast to the difficulties we have experienced in dealing wiLh this plan of subdivision is the site of 18"1 -76063 , also in Burketon Station. Here, the Authority has received the utmost co-operat=ion 17 rom the developer and his consultant in p -eparinc, a lot and road layout which maximizes the retention of wildlife habitat while a cc anmodatin.1 development . In our opinion, the. approval of 18T-75362 represents an unsatisfactory co--mence- ment of development. on Lhe Oak Ridges. 1501-aine . Yours very truly, William Fry, Rcsourcc; Planar r. WF/I:l t -- —J�- cc Dr. M. Michael , Commissioner of Planning, Regi.onaI Municipality of Durham )A.- n C.„t r1, Plnrininn Dirr-rtor . Town of NewcastIc 'HaniPton The Site i de"', i ,rii,� � Roc�.;,;r:n,�n�)c�1 At')I'horiIy for-c�st_'' In the 196/1 C . L. 0,C.A. �l�;crvr�Cir:�n ftrt�n�r;. p� l,l,,, r, rl f, ; III„ Oi,r ; rio I)cpnrlritrnl cif Energy and Resource”.