HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-56-80 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 MARCH 31, 1980
REPORT NO.: P-56-80
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Brooks, Lovell, McLellan
File: 75-29/D
BACKGROUND:
On January 28, 1980, Council adopted the recommendations
of staff report P-11-80 (attached) respecting the above noted pro-
posal to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan. Subsequently, on
February 27, 1980 Council adopted further recommendations in respect
of this matter as contained in staff report P-27-80 (also attached) .
Basically, these recommendations endorsed the proposed Official Plan
amendment.
Following on these actions, the applicant submitted a plan
of subdivision for the subject site. During the course of our circulation,
we were advised by the Ministry of Natural Resources that an existing
licenced gravel pit owned by Bethany Sand and Gravel would be utilizing
the forced road adjacent to the proposed subdivision as its primary access
and exit route. This varied from their earlier comments in respect of
the Official Plan Amendment and was based upon an approved site plan for
v
2 —
the pit which was circulated to the Town of Newcastle for comment
on April 24, 1974. At that time, the Town indicated that the pro-
posal conformed to the zoning and official plan requirements. No
comments were provided in respect of the site plans.
COMMENTS:
Recent discussions with the Public Works Department have
indicated that, unless access presently exists to the site from the
forced road, and it appears that it does, an access permit would not
be granted. However, since access appears to exist and since the owners
possess an approved licence and site plan, it would appear that the Town
has little recourse in controlling use of this road.
In that regard, we are concerned about the potential impacts
of truck traffic upon the proposed subdivision. Staff feel that in
light of this new information, that it would be appropriate for the
Town to consider applying conditions to the draft plan of subdivision
in respect of noise abatement, visual buffering, reverse frontages, etc.
at such time as the subject subdivision may be approved by the Town.
RECOMMENDATION:
That this report be received for information.
Respectfully submitted,
TTE:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
March 21, 1980 Director of Planning
Stn .
_„.r- ,
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 JANUARY 21, 1980.
REPORT NO. : P-11-80
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Part of Lots 3 & 4, Con. 4, former Township of
Darlington - Brooks, Lovell, McLellan
File No. : 75-29/D
BACKGROUND:
On August 28, 1979 staff received from Durham Region, a re-
wised application for an Official Plan Amendment, in respect of the
above noted ?ands. The original submission was received in November
1975, dealt with by Committee on November 22, 1976 and given conditional
approval by Council on December 13, 1976.
In January of this year, the Region requested updated comments
from the Town, since the imposed conditions had never been dealt with
and they wished to finalize their processing of the application. In
response to that request, staff report P-29-79 was submitted to Planning
Committee which recommended:
"That it be recommended to the Region of Durham that no further
approvals be given, related to this application to amend the
Official Plan for the former Township of Darlington, File 75-29/D
(Former File O.P.A. 70) pending the Central Lake Ontario Conser-
vation Authority's proposed acquisition of the subject lands. "
2 -
This recomiendation was adopted by Council on March 26, 1979.
Subsequently, the applicants revised their proposal, which had
originally been for five lots ranging in size from 25 to 33 acres, to
a new proposal for 41 lots ranging in size from 1.5 to 4 acres which
i
was the basis of comments received. Staff note that as a result of
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's acquisition of a portion
of the site, the proposal is significantly reduced and we anticipate
receiving a further revision in the near future.
COMMENTS:
The application as submitted to the Region, has been identified
as a "Type A07 application -- application to amend the Durham Regional
Official Plan. The Region has advertised in appropriate newspapers in
order to solicit public input in respect of the revised application. In
addition, they circulated the application to various concerned agencies
for continent.
In accordance with our adopted procedures for processing Official
Plan Applications, staff have circulated the application internally and
the responses are summarized below:
Town of Newcastle Public Works - No objection to the Official Plan Amend-
ment but at the time of subdivision service concerns relative to
items such as access, street patterns, drainage, etc. will have
to be resolved.
Town of Newcastle Fire Department - (1) Water supply for fire protection
- static water supply - centrally located, approximately 20,000
gallons. (2) Access for fire fighting equipment to all areas
and buildings.
Public School Board - No objection, but more school accommodation may
be required in the area.
- 3 -
Separate School Board - No objection.
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority - The site of this pro-
posed official plan amendment has been of prime interest to
this Authority for considerable time. It has been identified
in the 1973 Conservation Planning Study prepared by the Central
Ontario Joint Planning Board as a desirable acquisition from
both a preservation of valleylands and a regional parks point
of view. This latter interest involves the integration of up-
lands into a comprehensive land assembly to prohibit their
patchwork development with the resultant despoiling by intrusion
and proximity of its recognized merits.
This 1973 Conservation Planning Study has been further reen-
forced in the subject area by an Environmental Sensitivity
Mapping Project undertaken jointly by the Regional Planning
Department and the Authority in 1978. Most of the site has
been designated as having the highest level of environmental
sensitivity.
While the proponents for this development have recognized this
sensitivity, they have not, and in fact could not address this
matter to the Authority's satisfaction. Additionally, Regional
Council has now, by Official Plan amendment, taken measures to
prohibit development in those areas identified in the Mapping
Project as having First and Second levels of environmental
sensitivity.
Finally, the Authority has taken steps towards the acquisition
of this site as a substantial component of the Stephen's Gulch
Conservation Area and has had discussions with the owners towards
this end. Therefore should the development proposal fail, the
owners do have other recourse.
In consideration of the above, the Authority must recommend against
the requested Official Plan amendment.
Durham Health Unit - No objection, however, before any certificates of
approval can be issued for private sewage disposal systems, we
will require data as to soil conditions and water table levels,
as determined by our Public Health Inspector on receipt of appli-
cations.
Durham Rcgion<.1 Works Department - In view of the fact that individual
wells and septic tanks are indicated in this submission as being
the mctliod of servicing, and the proposal having no direct access
onto abutting Regional Road #4; we, therefore, have no objection
to further processing of this application.
.'y,•Y
- 4 -
Ministry oC [agriculture and Food f- The Canada Land Inventory classifies
the subject property as 3 m soils. The site is not currently in
production, and is mainly in forest. The surrounding land uses
are agricultural, most notably is the specialty crop - tobacco.
The main areas of agriculture are east and south of this proposal.
As the Official Plan designates the site as Major Open Space and
the site has limited protential for agriculture, we have no objec-
tion at this time.
Ministry of the Environment - Although a detailed assessment of the
proposal has not been carried out, no major concerns have been
expressed as a result of our inspection. The only adjacent land
uses are a tobacco farm and a gravel pit which is located one-half
mile to the west. Our preliminary assessment indicates that no
adverse effects are expected from either of these uses. Hence, we
offer ..o objection to further processing of the application.
Ministry of Natural. Resources - This proposal has been inspected in the
field and discussed with the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority.
The most serious concern is to resolve any adverse impact the
proposal might have on the Conservation Authority's plans for
the Stephen's Gulch Conservation Area which is just southwest of
the site. We would recommend that you consult the Conservation
Authority on the lastest status of their plans, and any negotiations
they have had with the owner.
The southern extremities of this property are believed to consist
of fine grained Iroquois lake plain sediments, primarily sands.
The remainder of the property is underlain by Outwash sands and
gravel . These deposits are not considered to be of primary signi-
ficance, and in light of the classification of mineral deposits
recently discussed with the Durham Region at the O.M.B. , we would
have no objections to this proposal from a site sepcific mineral
aggregate point of view.
However, the Planistics report fails to mention the existence of
three licenced pits immediately west of the site, (NZ Lot 5, Conc. 4,
100 acres; NW part of the N2 of Lot 6, 34 acres; and SE part of
NZ also 34 acres) . A residential development could result in
confli.2ts with these pit operators. The compatibility of the de-
development to these existing pits is crucial to the approval of
this amendment.
We would suggest that the amendment should not be approved unless
it is clearly shown that no serious conflicts will occur.
Finally, we note that the valleylands on the property are hazard-
land, and should not be developed due to potential flooding. The
area is also in the headwaters of the Soper Creek, and would be
severely damaging to the trout fishery if erosion and siltation
were allowed to occur as a result of the development. These con-
cerns could be dealt with at the more detailed stage of layout,
design, and conditions of approval.
Conclusion: We have no basic objection to the principle of
development over the long term. However, particularly in
view o[ the possible conflict with the Conservation Area,
and Lhe existing licenced pits; we feel the proposal is
premature at the present time.
Our review of comments received, as a result of the circulation,
reveals that the major concerns relative to this proposal are in res-
pect of the site's environmental sensitivity and possible conflicts
with existing licensed gravel pits located to the west. As indicated
in the conservation authority's comments, negotiations were at that
time underway in an effort to purchase the subject site. In that res-
pect, we have been advised verbally by Mr. Bill Campbell, on November
22, 1979, that the authority has reached an agreement with the applicants
for the purchase of that portion of the site located within Lot 4, Con-
cession 4. Mr. Campbell by letter of November 22, 1979 also indicated
that he would have no objection to the balance of the site being developed
for estate residential purposes. We note that this action by Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority alleviates to a great extent, those
concerns raised in respect of environmental sensitivity and potential
conflicts wits: licenced gravel pits, since only the extreme easterly
portion of the site is available for development. As noted, the licenced
pits are west of the subject property and we do not anticipate any major
impacts upon '=he site due to noise, dust or truck traffic.
We have also been advised by the applicants' consultant that a
revised plan will be forwarded in the near future. In that respect, we
have advised the consultants that the revised plan should reflect a
minimum lot size of 0.8 hectares. This requirement is consistent with
w
6
approved Regional Policies which define "Estate Residential" as
large lot residential development. Inasmuch as we are recommending
that residential lots within hamlets be a minimum of 0.5 hectares, we
feel that esi:ate residential should be 0.8 ha in area, in order to
encourage a variation between lot types. We note that the Town has
consistently requested a 0.8 ha minimum for estate residential develop-
ment with the exception of areas served by municipal water. However,
staff is prepared to consider lots of less than 0.8 ha in area, pro-
vided that detailed engineering reports indicate that soil and water
conditions, or. site, are adequate to support lesser lot areas.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the foregoing information and our review of documents
submitted in support of this proposal, we have no objection to a revision
which limits the proposal to that portion of the site located in Lot 3,
Concession IV. We also note that in accordance with the provisions of
proposed Amendment 19 to the Durham Regional Official Plan, an environ-
mental analysis of the site would be required prior to development occurring.
In addition, the applicant is required to submit details of site develop-
ment and engineering prior to draft approval and in accordance with
Sections 10.3.2.3 and 10.3.2.4 of the Regional Official Plan.
In respect of the required environmental analysis, we are suggest-
ing that it be carried out by the applicants at their expense, according
to terms of reference prepared by the municipality and by a consultant
chosen by the Town in consultation with the Central Lake Ontario Conser-
vation Authority and the Region. This approach is considered by staff
- 7 -
to be consistent-with the provisions of Regional Official Plan Amend-
ment 19 which requires the municipality to "conduct" the required
environmental study.
RECOMMENDATIONS.
That the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council
the following:
1) That this report be received; and that
2) The Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle
would have no objection to a designation for "estate resi-
dential" development for that portion of the subject lands
located within Lot 3, Concession IV, former Township of
Darlington, and identified as Official Plan Amendment Appli-
cation 75-29/D; and that
3) Staff be authorized to prepare draft terms of reference, in
co-operation with Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
and Durham Region, for an environmental analysis. Said terms
of reference to form the basis for all situations where an
environmental analysis may be required pursuant to proposed
Amendment 19 to the Durham Regional Official Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
TTE:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
November 22, 1979
January 10, 1980 - Revised
MAP A -(
TAUNTON ROAD
U d
Z
c 0
J �
Q V)
W
V
Z
O
U
Q
Q O
cc
m
w
l
1 I ce0\ R
i 1 w I w
aZ
1 �o
I o
I I J I J
IQ
0 LOT 5 o LOT 4 LOT 3 LOT 2
1 II
�► HIGH
H j ENVIRONMENTAL
L..__. SENSITIVITY SOURCE; GARTNER LEE
MEDIUM MAPPING PROJECT
i M ENVIRONMENTAL
L_—.J SENSITIVITY
ElAREA OF PROPOSED 0 250 500M
C.L.O.C.A.
ACQUISITION 200 100
11129185 SUBJECT LANDS
n,ts.[�glP7 aro
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-27-80 ,
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment - Part Lot 3,
Concession IV, former Township of Darlington,
Brooks, Lovell, McLellan
File: 75-29/D
BACKGROUND:
On January 25, 1980, staff received the attached, revised
Official Plan Amendment application for the above noted property.
The subject revisions were addressed by staff report P-11-80, which
was dealt with by Committee at its meeting of January 21, 1980.
However, we Note that the matter of the maximum number of permitted
lots was not addressed. Inasmuch as an Official Plan Amendment for
Estate Residential developmentf shall indicate the maximum number of
lots to be permitted, it would be appropriate for the Committee to address
this matter at this time.
COMMENTS:
The revised amendment application proposes 15 lots with an
average size of 0.66 ha, and 1 lot approximately 3. 7 ha in size. Staff
report P-11-80 suggested that although we have consistently requested a
- 3 -
reserves the right to reduce that figure if necessitated
by the required detailed engineering reports or environ-
mental analysis.
Respectfully submitted,
*Al�k
TTE:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
February 8, 1980 Director of Planning
75"29/D
DURHAM '
January 22, 1979
L
Ivurpality
:2
p!( Durham J ,
Planning Mr. J. M . Mc'I 1 roy
Department
Clerk
Box 423 Town of Newcastle
105 Consumers Dr.
w1l;tby• Ontario 40 Temperance Street
(4 161 -77313 I3o%vmanvi.11e, Ontario
lc1G1 GG8-77at
L1C 3A6
un, m. n WCttnEL. nt.CJ.P. Dear Mr . Mc I 1 roy:
Convnetsronar of f`tarnrnfl .
Revised Application Submitted by
Mr. D. McLellan to Amend the Durham
Regional Official Plan
Part Lots 3 and 4 , Concession IV
former Township of Darlington,
Town of Newcastle
File 75-29/D ( Former File O p A #70
We have received the above-noted revised Official Plan
Amendment Application and are forwarding several copies
of same to you in order to obtain your Council ' s
recommendation.
If You require any further information or have any
questiolis regarding this matter, please do not hesitate
to colztact this Department .
Yours vicery truly,
,1
L Kots.-ff, M. C . I .P . r ,jrtt:.t
Manager t
Strategic Planning Branch
I
LF C:
Attachments
cc: Don Smith , Planning Director
Towr: of Newcastle
N I b EPARTMEN 11 JRHAMI OFFICIAL PLAN A ENR ENT APPLICATION P� .
OFFICE USE �= " .T-, , �`- _ _ _.
FfLE NUMBER ., 75=.� �I�� ( V�sro7J 2) --- .r
DISTRICT PLANNING AREA- NEuJCAs7Zr=
FORMER PLANNING AREA: Z',42LIK)G1"U .�
>J -COPIcSTo A
N I6 f,?r" M
r
seaara �lassrr+,cT
®iRM PL1Pt GhM Y 1_Sl�l�ER S.t—i z PLAN QLOCA4
DETAILS
�oaQ,o, Plr�
TQX7 as as
-,ota.cmaat+ates �cxewce rezr -
CHECKED BY: G�a����. Lys.E _ p��Nr�ING Fue . . . . �.
P. NAME OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS5— P
TELEPHONE
2. APPLICANT'S INTEREST IN LAND .:,,�, /��/:�,-,� ��r,�'/� .�r i t� l o t t
3-NAME OF REGISTERED OWNER
4- NAME OF AGENT (IF AID`'}
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE _ >0
5.MATTERS RELATED TO THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO :
NAME
ADDRESS - C112�j'`
TELEPHONE 7,�';F_
G.LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: —,
AREA MUNICIPALITY
FORMER LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
DESCRIPTION (LOT, CONCESSION)
<. DIMENSIONS OF SUBJEC T: PROPERTY
FRONTAGE j I� AVERAGE WIDTH �
AVERAGE DEPT Hw ACREAGE
6-EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION (FILL IN APPROPRIATE SECTIONS)
DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN
DISTRICT PLAN
J
EXISTING LOCAL OFFICIAL PLAN
9. PROPOS90 LAND USE DE—SlIGNATION (FILL IN APPROPRIATE SECTIONS)
t_..<3
DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN
DISTRICT PLAN — 7--,'7 ,:;7—
EXISTING LOCAL OFFICIAL PLAN!
I0. PRESENT USE
I I .PROPOSED*USE
4'2.PURFOSE' OF AMENDMENT
_ '� / t
~PROPOS.,PD `METHOD 0,-,,SERVICING •
TYPE OF'SEWr: E DISPOSAL S 7
TYPE -OF WATER SUPPLY !
14.13 THE APPLICANT WILLING TO ENTER INTO A SITE PLAN AGREEMENT
ES ❑NO
15.-IF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1S PROPOSED,SPECIFY:
NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
NUMBER OF SEMI–DETACHED UNITS --
NUMBER OF MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS —
OVERALL GROSS DENSITY
OPEN SPACE (ACRES)
OTHER USES I
16.IF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED ,SPECIFY:
GROSS RETAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE
FLOOR SPACE (SQUARE FEET)
ITIF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED,SPECIFY:
USABLE FLOOR SPACE (SPACE FEET)
L POTENTIAL EMPLOYMENT CREATED
18- IF SUBDIVISION OR REZONING APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, SPECIFY
DETAILS AND FILE NUMBER(S):
i
I •
'9- OTHER INFORMATION APPLICABLE TO PROPOSAL:
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true statement and I also her
agree to reimourse the Regional Municipality of Durham for any costs which
may be incurred 1-fore the Ontario Municipal Board arising as a
approval of this a result of
2nlicl ion
SIGNATUBE DATE
_ - �v
hISTRUCTIONS:
PLEASE COMPLETE THE APPLICATION FORM IN FULL A,ND SUBM T �ET�iER WITH
THE FOLLOWING:
a) 25 copies of a survey of the property prepared by a registered Ontario Land
Surveyor indicating topographical contours and other natural and artificial
features such as buildings, railways, highways, pipelines,' watercourses,
dxaihagq, ditches, swamps and wooded areas within or adjacent to the subject
lane, aPP1iC&nt/0 n0r's total holdings.
b) '25. tc5Pies of any doct ient.ation that may be required as part of the amendment
aPV1'Cat!0n in accordance with the provisions of the Durham Regional Official
C) A non-refundable application fee of $500.00 (in cheque or money order) made
Payable to the Co<,;oration of the Regional Municipality of Durham
To: Co=, issioner of Planning
•R-egiom a; nunicipanty o° Durham,
105 :.onsumers Drive,
�_. whi`y, Ontario. LIN IC4
The applicant :hAr ) r w°z — --- __
Ui � upon te^ ^st at a later date, . to subrt a d
nf43ratinn �vit ;°j'=.. to the -sgolic n additional
Ministry of g�w �✓` �/ / �t, yCt
UIT Natural
{
Resources
Ontario
Your file:
.March 5, 1980
Our file: MIN 9-0-621
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle 1
Planning and Development Department
Hampton, Ontario
LOB 1J0
Attention: T.T. Edwards r� ,�n_°:
Long Range Planner `6 �•.,a
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Licenced Pit of Bethany Sand and Gravel Ltd.
on Lot 5, Conc. 4, former Township of Darlington;
and proposed Estate Residential Subdivision
on Pt. Lots 3 & 4, Conc. 4, former Township of
Darlington
This is further to our telephone conversation (Billings-Edwards)
yesterday and your recent correspondence regarding the above.
According to our records, Bethany's site plans were circulated
to the Town of Newcastle on April 24, 1974 for review and comment
on zoning. In a letter dated May 10, 1974, the Town Clerk advised
this office that the site plans were submitted to'Council on
May 6, 1974 and referred to Planning Advisory Committee. On
June 6, 1974, the Town Clerk forwarded to this office a copy of
the Planning Director's report on all of the pit and quarry site
plans that had been circulated to Newcastle for their review.
This report, which was approved by Newcastle's Planning Advisory
Committee and Council, indicated that the Bethany site plans
conformed to the zoning by-law and the Approved Official Plan.
The report did not contain any comments dealing specifically with
information contained in the site plans.
In our telephone conversation, you indicated that you were unable
to locate Newcastle's copy of the Bethany site plans. For your
reference, we are providing you a photocopy of Sheet 2 of this
site plan detailing the plan of operations. The notes contained
on Sheet 2 are self-explanatory.
Bethany Sand and Gravel Ltd. are of the opinion that access is
available to the forced road, While the necessity of any access
permit is a matter between the company and the Town of Newcastle,
it was certainly our impression based on the report received in
1974, that the Town did not object to the use of the forced road
for access to the pit. The operation of the pit as shown on
Page 2 /
March 5, 1980
Town of Newcastle
Sheet 2 has the advantage of not requiring a new crossing of
the creek in the lowland area of the property. As this is a
headwater area, it would be preferable to avoid a new crossing
if possible.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please feel
free to contact us.
Yours truly,
/I C.R. Gray
_�.,,_,District Manager, Lindsay District
322 Kent Street West
Lindsay, Ontario
K9V 4T7
1-705-324-6121
M.D. Billings
encl.
C.C. LAN-5-OP-1190
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND D EVE LOPMENTDEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTAR 10 LOB 1JO TEL. (416)263-2231
February 14th, 1980
Mr. C.R. Gray
District Manager, Lindsay District
Ministry of Natural Resources
322 Kent Street West
Lindsay, Ontario
K9V 4T7
Dear Sir:
Re: Part Lot 3, Concession 4, former Township
of Darlington; Brooks, Lovell and McLellan
Our File: 75-291D and SA-1-1-3
Your File: LAN-5-OP-1190
Further to your letter of February 7th, 1980, in respect of
the above referenced subject, we are somewhat concerned by your
comments in respect of access to the licenced gravel pit owned
by Bethany Sand and Gravel.
In your previous commnents of November 8th, 1979, in respect
of the Official Plan Amendment application, the specifics of access
were not mentioned. We, therefore, assumed, based upon your
description of the site that access would be by way of Regional
Road 4 (Taunton Road) . We assume that access routes were considered
during your Ministry's review of the licence application and note
that discussions with the Town's Public Works Department have indicated
that, unless Bethany Sand and Gravel presently have access to the
forced road, it is unlikely that an access permit would be granted
given the present status and condition of said road.
2/
Ministry of Natural Resources - 2 - February 14th, 1980
I would, therefore, appreciate it if you would elaborate
upon or provide further details of access to and from the
Bethany lands, as specified by their licence, since this will
have a signi[Icant bearing upon the Town's decision to support
the estate residential development proposed for Part of Lot 3,
Concession 4, Former Township of Darlington.
Yours truly,
7'� .mA
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Long Range' Planner
TTE:lf
X Resources
Ontario
F,
l`?
Your file:
February 7, 1960 FEE �� ���� Our tile: LAN-5-OP-1190 /
PLAIR111+G DEPARTMENT 41
TXNN N HE"MCAS 11'4
Mr. D.N. Smith
Director
Planning & Development
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
Hampton, Ontario
LOB 1J0
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Part Lot 3, Concession 4, former Twp. of Darlington;
Brooks, Lovell and McLellan
With reference to this revised proposed subdivision, this office will
have no objections provided that the northerly lot boundaries are
brought back to the top of the bank, as is shown on the accompanying
map. North of this boundary, zoning should be for "Open Space". In
this way, we can be assured that devegetation and erosion of the
slope will be minimized, and, siltation of the Soper Creek tributary,
a sensitive trout stream, can be limited. Any development on the
steep slopes would also subject the buildings, as well as the stream,
to the threat of severe erosion. The valley is designated as hazard-
land in the Durham Official Plan.
It should also be brought to the attention of the landowners that in
addition to the existing pits in the area, Bethany Sand and Gravel is
licenced to extract from the northern two thirds of lot 5 in
concession 4. Preliminary plans show that should extraction occur,
weigh scales will be erected at the southern end of the property.
Access for the gravel trucks will be along the forced road which also
runs along the southern boundary of this proposed subdivision. This
may not be aesthetically pleasing to prospective home owners.
Finally, the property owners should be reminded that damning or
disturbance of the creek are prohibited without prior approval in writing
from the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to comment on this revised proposal.
Yours very truly,
�-
C.R. Gray
District Manager, Lindsay District
322 Kent Street West
Lindsay, Ontario K9V 4T7
1-705-324-6121
D.Shaver/SG
Encl.
C.C. L. Yoi-.seff, Regional Municipality of Durham
Ontario Conservation Authority