HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-86-80 CORP OI"ATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTH
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH,M.C.I.P., Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL. (A16)263-2231
RI,POR'1' '1'0 'rm,: PkANNLNG AND DI-:VI-:I,01'NFNT t:t)pV-il'1" EE iIGI?'1'1NG OF JUNE 9 , 1930.
REPORT' NO , : P-36-80
SUBJBC1': Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Part Lot 24, Con. 9, former Township of Clarice
Waverly Heights Subdivision (Oshawa) Ltd.
File No. . 76-35 (D) (Revised)
BACKGROUND:
As Indicated by staff report P-182-79 on October .15, 1979,
the above noted proposal was circulated to the town for comment
on September 24 , 1979. The subject application has since been cir-
cu.laLed by '1'uwn and Rcgionml. -staff. The IpplicaLioll wait; ;tlso adver-
Llsed by (11c Region l.n order` to solicit public input .
'I'll" Ik,.1MItt; of Ole ci.rcul;ltion ;trr• summariz(.'d below:
Town of- Newc;t:;L le PUMA ('i s Works
With 1-01-e1"01Ice to your r rlu.'t;L for roounents tllis is to AdViSe
LhaL ( Ilu appl.icaLlon Is arceptahlc to this deparLnu!nL , with the
exception of the proposed inter:;ectiott bcn,,cen lots 1. ;Ind 2'i .
It is anticipated that, once the exact location of the above
intersection leas bt.ten determilled, further comments and review
will. be requested .
Town of Newc;lstl.e Fire_DepirLmcnC
l.) Consideration for water supply for fire proLecti,oll,
kit dergrotmd reservoir .20,000 g;j1.lmilt; accessil,lrt (roIn travelled
porIIoil of road .
�) Access to all ;tre;lt; Ior lIr sepal"tlik'llt V 'lllr' 1�'t;
Public School Board
No objection.
-_":,,I!,,',L _lo,I—r
No objection,
No ObjvUl.on.
111"Is L
_Aaric,lturQ and Food
Our main concern regards the application of the agricultural.
code of practice from the barn to the north of lot 26. The
distance from the barn to the property is 75 ft . whereas the
minimum separation distance required by the code is 984 ft ,
Subsequently, the following lots will be restricted. Lots
1-3, northern half of lot 2L, Lot 22-26. Providing the Agri-
cultural Code of practice is applied, we have no objection at
this time .
MinisLI of Natural Resources
From a natural resources viewpoint, the development would be
damaging to both mineral and forestry resources. This part
Of the Oak Ridges I'loraine has a high probability of containing
valuable aggregate material. There are several existing licenced
Pits on the two concessions north of the property . Residential
development would prevent any utilization of Minerals which may
be present on the situ, and could conflict with eventual utiliz-
Won of mineral deposits on LhP adinco"t or nearby lands n,
as with truck traffic from the oxiskng pits nearby.
There is also a good quality hardwood woodlot on most of the
property . This woodlot has productive Potential and would re-
quire a hundred years or so to re-establish on , now L,, .
I'l-0111 both a forestry and mineral resources point of view, the
best management scheme would be to retain the Property in an
unsubdivildud, rural condition. Wither resource is amenable
to a compromise solution which would protect the resource by
means of a conditional approval . WAY there is an obvious con-
flict between forestry and gravel extraction, the approval of
this proposal would preclude both . If the owner wishes to pur-
sue this development, we suggest he obtain a survey of the aggregate
Potential of the property by a qualified Professional and explain
how conflicts with minLng nParbY will he "voided,
Our reconmwndation at- this time is that the proposal is premature.
111nistry ot_[ ralt:�)ol'tation « Comm"ni_caLLons
The Ministry has no ohjecLion Lo the proposed duvolopmenL.
Our requLrcinelit will. be that At 0. 3 noire rose rve along the
enti.re irontagc of So subjcc•t lands on Hwy . 35 be ronveyed
by (lead to the Miulstry . M1 inLernal roads must be con-
structed to appropriate standards as out.lLned in M.T.C.
Circular 72-01.0 to be calgi.bte for luturc maintenance and/or
reconstruction subsidy .
MLnls_try_ot_ .( ho. 0-VAonmc_nt
The :'I) lot ru:; IdenLi ;ll t0volopnmul pIjIp(js,d I :. to be ser-
v od by I nd I V Ldua l wells .Ind :;ei,L i c: Lonk :;ys Lums . Conunen Ls
on the proposed use of septic gull: systems must be obtained
Crom the Durham Regional. Health Unit.
Water weLL information for the area is .limited. However, it
appears Lhat several waLer bearing; formations exist in the
overburden. The closest recorded wells obtained water. at
depths of 67 and 71. 5 metres below ground while the deepest
recorded well Ls 102 .5 m. deep. Although all acquirers may
not be present at any one locnLion, we do not anticipate
any problems in obLai.ni.ng a SaLislactory supply of water.
Thoe nlrljor item of concern r(.�};ardine; this development relates
to the exisLence of conflic•tin}; land toes . The proximLty of
the development to Hwv . 35 rosulLs in a predicted noise Love.]
excess I 3 dBA on Lice I ots nea re:;t ( he h i};ht✓,IV , A] Lhon};h
this excess may not be of sufficient ntagnitude to require
the implementation of noise control measures the Hi.nistry of
Housing 's pol Ley "Noise and New l;eti i dent i.a 1 Development Adjacent
to 1'roeways" states that the exist-once of Lhis tillghL problem
should he brought to the attention of prospectLve purchasers .
In addi t ion to Lhe potential ri"K w problem wo no Le Lhat there
1s; a I :IIm I-"'a Led nd j:le nl I „ II, do Ic,pnu nt iI C;llc:ulnt ion:;
II:; inI" t.b,.- nllrlinnlul di:;lanec :;ep,ll .il i ,n lornlill:; .,I Llle A),rlc:IiILural
Code III PlacLLce for Ontario indic"Las AM a suparati.on dIsLance
Of 981 IL . (approx. 299 In. ) wi I I hw r"glli red betonucri So Lwo land
uses . The are of influence dcl ine;lLed by AM distance disollows
development on Lots 1-3; 12- 19, and 21-2)O all inclusive . In view
of the above , we would not he in a pc.,:;ition to offer favourable.
COMM ULS towards development of Lhe ;effected lots until the agri-
cultural operatilon Ln question is phased out or I "r some whcr re:lson
census Lo e\Lst .
Should it he pons Lb lv to roso 1 ve this conflict and proceed wi t.h
the d0V,' l()plllent Sometllle in the luture the rosi.dent:s of lots l-7
inclusivo must he advised of Go poLent ial noise problem associated
with vehicular traffic on Hwy . 3') . Inc• lusic,n of the following warn-
ing clause In a regi-stured p(,l'(. loll c1I the :;Ilbdivlder':; rl};i'cenlellC
would satisfy our concern.
"Duc: to the proximity of Lhi s davulopmeuL to Hwy.
35 , noise .levels on the property may be of con-
corn occasionally inteilerinn With Some acQvit.ies
of the dwelling's occupants . "
AL the present time, however, we can only providC lavourabV
comment. on the dove Lopment of c) lots (Lots 1-11 , and LoL 20) .
Should the developer wish to proceed with Lhei r portion of
the development at this time the warning clause noted above
should be made to apply to lots I - 1 incLnsive.
Canaraska Conservation nnthor=li_l_v
The ;site was r'ev.Luwed un a pr'evion:; occas; Lon for purposes of
dev(! lopi n)-, a .1.73 uni t mob le home park. At that time our
concerns were in respect of the importance of the site and
surrounding lands as a major recharge area for groundwater
supplies feeding; Me tributaries of both the Klmot Creak and
the Canaraska River. .
The revised proposal has Substantially reduced the density
(26 lots minimum size 0. 5 hn) . 'There also appears to be
definite intention to preserve as much of the forest cover as
possible. '1'hc detrimental effec•L of the developnu'nt on the
rechnrge c•apacLty of the site will , therefore , be minimized.
Our Our Come-rn:; with respect to forest cover and density of LOW
can best be dealt with in the subdivision agreement . The
authorl tv , Lherefore , has no object Lull with regard to matters
under its jurisdiction and mandate .
ll Irham IZe i.on:rL forks
In view of Lho fact that septic lank:s and individual wells will
be Lhe nwLhod of survic.ing arc iudic.rcted in L h i s rcul)mi.s`;ion, LhL
aPPI i.rat ion would appear to have no implications from a Regional.
Works point of view. 'I'herolore , we have no objection to this
proposed amendment. .
Section IO. _3. :'_, l of the Durham Region& Off icial Plan prescribes
certaLn crfLorK that hull be considered when rc'viewiny an application
to amend the Plan to permit estate-residential development. The subject
proposal does not comply with the fog1owing to rue of the recl His 1Lus for
approval:
cc, ,
(d) proposal iS no located on lands having high capabiIiLy
I or Ngri culture, ccinservation JHd recreaLion, forest: pro-
ducLion or mineral extraction ,''
(e) "The proposal shall noL unduly rustrict Chu use of adja-
cent propvrLi0a for agri cult ure• , c'onservat.iou and rccremf( n,
Iul'o:;L pre)c tICL1Ul1 of Illint:l'a1 e':iLl":lh.l.on;
,
U)) "The proposal complies with the Agricultural Code of Practice
as amended from time to time. "
As indic'NLed by Cho Ministry of NaLural Resources, the site con-
tains a nurture hardwood woodlot having productive potential, as we.l.l as ,
possessing a high potential. for mineral aggregate resources . This is
in direct conf list with the intent of subsection (d) . Both the Mi.nis,Lry
of Agriculture and Food, and the !linistry of the Environment indicated
that the proposal does not comply with the Agricultural. Code of Practice,
in direct conflict with subsecLion ( i ) . 'Ibis , in turn, could unduly re-
strict: Clio use of adjacent lands for agriculture, if the proposal were
approved, and would be in direct conflict with subsection (e) .
The H NISLry of the Envi ronm,w also indicaLud potential conflicts
due Lo noise levels gene rated by Highway 35 .
In .Light, of Chose conf.licLs , it L; our staff oPWOn Chat. approval.
of this proposal would noL comply with Cho intent of Chu Durham RegLonal
Official Plan , and would result in scrionq bend use conf IicLs for nt. loam
LwunLy-one of Lila twenLy-s Lx luLs prop"nod. We , therefore , cannot recommend
approval .
I'il:It t lic P l anu 111)" and Ile'\',' l L Le.'e.' re, lt! Lo (:chill i l
the following:
1 . 'lUC report P-86-80 be receivo,I; rnld LhNL
TI w k' i ill i 1 1)(1111,1111 Iw Ndv i :.—I I IIN L Llu. f iwil of
cc�ouun. n is d(Wh I of Off i c[N I PIN n Amu ndMcnL App Licat ioll
76-35/1), for Part of Lot 24 , Concession 9, former Township
of Clarke.
Respectfully submitted,
TTI?: 1b D. N. SmLth , H.C. L .P.
May 8, 1980 Director of Planning,
29 _ 2_8 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19
i
x
SITE -__ z
Ix l
II 1
1
in
VIII , to
to
Z,
I'
I � S
KEY MAP ATTACHMENT N °
0 500 l000m
OFFICIAL. PLAN AMENDMENT
76 --35 /D P- 86-80 100