HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-115-80 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 JULY 7, 1980.
REPORT NO. : P-115-80
SUBJECT: Report P-86-80 (attached)
Proposed Official Plan Amendment - Part Lot 24,
Concession 9, Township of Clarke, Waverly Heights
Subdivision (Oshawa) Ltd. - File 76-35(D) Revised
BACKGROUND:
Report P-86-80 attached was placed before the Planning and
Development Committee on June 9, 1980 and tabled until the meeting
of July 7, 1980, at the request of the applicant. (Resolution #PD-197-80) .
Further to the Committee's action of June 9, 1980, the solicitor for
the applicant has forwarded the attached letter of June 19, 1980 to
the Planning Department requesting a further deferral of two weeks.
COMMENT:
Staff have no objection to a further deferral of two weeks but
as this matter is long outstanding, suggest that the Committee consider
report P-86-80 at the meeting of July 21, 1980 without further delay.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Report P-86-80 be tabled for a further period
of two weeks to be considered by the Committee at their Meeting of July 21,
1980. �TJq.kd
Respec sub -tPd,
DNS:lb D. N. m , M.C.I.P. n �`
June 26, 1980 Director of Planning � /"
SANDLER, GORDON, GLEIBERMAN & SAPERIA
BARRISTERS, SOLICITORS. NOTARIES
LILLIAN SANDLER r t � Tt n]L. 9 001
JOHN A. GORDON � I.,11�r���i�17 i,EPttAR02 IRVING GLEIBERMAN 3h� 1� � ( } �aF � ET WEST
L. PETER SAPERIA K '�"""""��`"° NTARIO
M4W 3E2
June 19th, 1980
REPLY TO;
IRVING GLEIBERMAN
The Corporation of the
Town of Newcastle
Planning and Development Department
Hampton, Ontario
LOB 1JO
Attention: Mr. D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P. ,
Director of Planning
Dear Sirs:
Re: WAVERLEY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION, Official Plan
Amendment, Lot 24, Concession 9, formerly
Township of Clarke, Ontario
We acknowledge receipt of your letter to us of June 11th, 1980.
Unfortunately we are commencing an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on July 7th,
which is estimated to last one week and we would appreciate a further extension
of at least two weeks.
I
Could you kindly advise with respect to this matter, at your
earliest possible opportunity.
Please note that effective Monday, June 23rd, 1980, my new
office will be at Rose, Persiko, Arnold, Gleiberman, Barristers and Solicitors
Suite 1906, Box 12, Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1A8 -
telephone: 868-1900.
We thank you for your co-operation herein.
Yours very truly,
SANDLER, GO ON, GLE RMAN & SAPERI
Per:
IG/ecp IRV IBE
-Jr
CORPORAHON OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH,M.C.I.P., Director
HAMPTON,ONTAR 10 LOB 1JO T L. (416)263.2231
REPORT TO 'Cliff; PLANNING AND DEVN.LOPMFINT COMMITTEE: NEETINC OF JUNE 9, 1980.
REPORT NO. : P-86-80
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Part Lot 24, Con. 9, former Township of Clarke
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-
culated by Town :in([ Regional. staff. The application was also adver-
Cised by the kcgi.on I-n order to sol.h-Jt public input .
ThO 10,1;nit:; of Ole ci.rculatlon ark sununartzed below:
Town of Newcastle Public Works
W[th reference to your request For comments, this is to advise
Chat Ole application is acceptable to this department, with the
exception of the proposed intersection between lots 1 and 25 .
It is anticipated that, once the exact location of the above
intersection has been deterrnined, further comments and review
will be requested.
Town of Newcastle Fire Depa r amen t
1) ConsideratLon for adequate water supply for fire protection,
underground reservoir 20,000 gall.orts accessible from travelled
portion of road.
2) Arre:;s to al.l area:; for f i rr department veh i.c.I.
_ t
Public School hoard
No objection.
Separate School Board
No objection.
Durham Health Unit
No ob jecL ton.
IfinisLry ui A; ul.turc ;_Ind 1�'ood
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 934 ft .
Subuuq"unt.l.y, the following lots will be restricted. Lots
1-3, northern half of lot 21, lot 22-26. Providing the Agri-
cultural_ Code of practice is applied, we have no objection at
this time .
rCLnisCry of NaLura_l. Resources j
From a natural resources viewpoint, the development would be
damaging to both mineral and forestry resources. This part
of the Oak Ridges hbraine 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 site, and could conflict with eventual uti.liz-
Mon of mineral deposits on the adjacent or nearby lands as well.
as with truck traffic from the Msting pits nearby .
Theru is also a good duality hardwood wood.lot on most of the
properLy. This woodlot has productive potential and would re-
quire a hundred years or so to re-establish on a new site .
From both a forestry and mineral resources point of view, the
best management scheme would be to retain the property in an
unsubdi.vi.ded, rural condition. Neither resource is amenable
to a compromise solution which would protect the resource by
means of a conditional approval.. While 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 mining nearby will be avoided.
Our recommendation at this time is that the proposal is premature.
- 3 -
1511n.istry of _CransporLaLion & Communications
The Min1Ntry has no objecLion Ln Lhe proposed development.
Our requirement will be that a 0 . 3 metre reserve along the
entire frontage of the subject .lands on Hwy. 35 be conveyed
by deed Lo the Ministry . ALI .internal roads must be con-
structed to appropriate standards as outlined in M.T.C.
Circular 72-OLO to be ulgibl.e for future maintenance and/or
reconstruction subsidy.
XlLnistry of thy' I nv_ironmenL
TIIc 21> ](it roN f don t I a I (1('vt' I opillt'II 1 p ropttst`d I!; Lo be ,;U 1 -
vlced by IudivLd"al wc' I IN dHd :WPLic Lank systems . Comments
on the p roposud use of septic Lank systems must be obtained
from the Durham Regional Health Unit.
Water well information for the area is limited. However, it
appear, that several water 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 is 102.5 m. dccp. Although all acquirers may
not be present at any one locaLLon, we do not anticipate
any problems in obtaining a satisfactory supply of water.
The major item of concern regardLnn Lhi.s development relates
to the existence of conf licLing Land uses. The proximity of
the development to Hwy. 35 resul is in a predicted noise level.
excess of 3 df3A on the lots nearusl the highway. Although
this excess may not be of sufficient magnitude to require
the implementation of noise conLrol measures the Ministry of
Housing 's policy "Noise and New Residential. Development Adjacent
to Freeways" states that the existence of this slight problem
should be brought to the attention of prospective purchasers .
i
Ln addi t ion Lo the potenLKI n"iso problem we note that there
IN a i :tlnt l wat_ed adj;ltenl to Ibt' tlt'vt' lopnu'nC Nit(". CaIcllI;It1o11N
u:slna; th,' minimum dLsLancu sep;tral ion formula of the AgrleuLtur;at
Code or Practice for Ontario Kolic"Lus Lhat a separation distance
of 936 ft . (approx. 299 m. ) will be required between the two land
uses . Ile arc of influence delineated by this distance disallows
deveLopnwnL on Lots 1-3, 12-19, and 21-26 all inclusive, In view
of the above, we would not be in a position to offer favourable
continents towards development of the affected lots until the agri-
cultural operation in question is phased out or for some other reason
ceases Lo exist.
Should it be possible to rasol.ve this conflict and proceed with
the development sometime in the future the residents of lots 1-7
inclusive must be advised of the potential noise problem associated
with vehicular traffic on Hwy . 35 . Inclusion of the following warn-
ing clause in a registered portion of the subdivider' s ,agreement
would satisfy our concern.
"Duo to the proximity of this development to Hwy.
35 . noise .leve is on the p rope rLy may be of con-
cern occasional. Ly Murfering w.iLh some activities
of the dwelling's occupants, ''
At the present time, however, we can only provide favourable
continent: tin the devel.opmem of ) lots (Lots 4-11, and Lot 20) .
Should the developer wish to proceed with their portion of
the development at this time the warning clause noted above
should he male to apply to lots 4-7 inclusive .
Ganaraska Conservation Author-L tv
The site was reviewed on a previous occasion Or purposes of.
devulopiny,, it .1.73 unit mohi 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; the tributaries of both the Klmot Creek and
the Cala-aska [fiver. .
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
possi.hle. The detrimental. effect of the development on the
recharge capacity of the site will , therefore , be minimized.
Our concerns with respect to forest cover and density of lots
can beat be dealt with in the subdivision agreement . Tluu
acthority, therefore, has no objection with regard to matters
under Its _jurisdiction and mandate .
Durham Remion_r_L Works Oft_
In view of tho fact that septic tanks and individual wells wi .l.i.
he the method of servicing as indicated in this submission, this
i g
appl.LcaLlon would appear Lo have no .implications from a Regional-
Works point of view. 'Therefore, we have no objection to this
proposed amendment ,
t:Ut�IMI:iV'CS
Section LO. 3. 2 . 1_ of the Durham Rog Lunal 0fficia.l. Plan prescribes
certain criteria that must he considered when reviewing an application
to amend the PLan to permit estate-residential. development. The subject
proposal does not comply with the following ttrree of the requisites for
approval:
(d) "The proposal is not located on Lands having high capability
for agriculture, conservdLion and recreation, forest pro-
duction or m_fncral extraction;''
e The proposal shaLI noL unduly restrict the use of adja-
cent properIlLes for agrfCul Lure, conservation and recreation,
foresL production or mineral. extrati-on;"
i he proposal complies with the Ag;r:icul.tura.l. Code of Practice
as amended from time to time, ''
As indicated by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the site con-
tains a mature hardwood woodlot having productive Potential., as we.l.l as ,
possessing; a high potential for mineral aggregate resources . This is
in direct conflict with the intent of subsection (d) . Both the Ministry
of Agriculture and Food, and the Mn.istry of the Environment indicated
that the proposaI. does not comply with the Agr.icultura.l. Code of Practice,
in direct conflict with subsection ( i ) , 'Ibis, in turn, could unduly re-
strict the use of adjacent lands for agriculture, if the proposal were
approved, and would be in direct conflict with subsection (e) .
The Ministry of the Environment also indicated potential conflicts
clue to noise Levels generated by Highway 35 .
In light of these conflicts , it is our staff opinion that approval
Of this Proposal would not comply with the intent of the Durham Regional
Official Plan , and would result in serious land use conflicts for at least
twenty-ogle of the twenty-six lots proposed. We, therefore, cannot recommend
approval .
Iif.curlr�u:NUA'r f a�ws
L thk• PI;full ln}{ and Ih•veI(yllli"nl CmnniiLLee rer!onu Ile nd Lo ConncI I
i
the following:
1.
That report P-56-80 be received; and that
I
I
Uurli;iin Iw :ldvi :;1 I ll;tL Lliu T wn of 11 uWC;U;L.1 e
r �cunun_nds (lunint �>( tl(I ici;il. Pl;in Amutl<lincnt AppI.icat_i_on
7G-35/1), for Par of Lot 24 , Concess.i.on 9, farmer 'rown5lIip
of Ckil-ku .
Respectfully submitted,
TTE: Lb U. l�.//Smi th, H C. I .I'.
May 8, 1980 DirecLor of Planning;
I
I
I
29 � 28 27 2.6 25 24 23 22 21 20 19.
i I
X i M \�
S I T
I
I
l l
�I
I
t j
05
VIII
I I � I
41
Ij !
I I
i II
I I I
I ~
I , �
�I �I
I i
to
KEY MAP ATI-ACHMENT No 1
d
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 500 j000m
76 -35 /D P-66- 80 300 100
.palf
r!�
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1.10 TEL. (416)263.2231
REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 9, 1980.
REPORT NO. : P-86-80
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Part Lot 24, Con. 9, former Township of Clarke
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-
culated by Town and Regional staff. The application was also adver-
tised by the Region in order to solicit public input.
The results of the circulation are summarized below:
Town of Newcastle Public Works
With reference to your request for comments, this is to advise
that the application is acceptable to this department, with the
exception of the proposed intersection between lots 1 and 25.
It is anticipated that, once the exact location of the above
intersection has been determined, further comments and review
will be requested.
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
1) Consideration for adequate water supply for fire protection,
underground reservoir 20,000 gallons accessible from travelled
portion of road.
2) Access to all areas for fire department vehicles. �� 4
IV
2 -
Public School Board
No objection.
Separate School Board
No objection.
Durham Health Unit
No objection.
Ministry of Agriculture 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 21, lot 22-26. Providing the Agri-
cultural Code of practice is applied, we have no objection at
this time.
Ministry 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 Moraine 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 site, and could conflict with eventual utiliz-
ation of mineral deposits on the adjacent or nearby lands as well
as with truck traffic from the existing 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 a new site.
From both a forestry and mineral resources point of view, the
best management scheme would be to retain the property in an
unsubdivided, rural condition. Neither resource is amenable
to a compromise solution which would protect the resource by
means of a conditional approval. While 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 mining nearby will be avoided.
Our recommendation at this time is that the proposal is premature.
- 3 -
Ministry of Transportation & Communications
The Ministry has no objection to the proposed development.
Our requirement will be that a 0.3 metre reserve along the
entire frontage of the subject lands on Hwy. 35 be conveyed
by deed to the Ministry. All internal roads must be con-
structed to appropriate standards as outlined in M.T.C.
Circular 72-010 to be elgible for future maintenance and/or
reconstruction subsidy.
Ministry of the Environment
The 26 lot residential development proposed is to be ser-
viced by individual wells and septic tank systems. Comments
on the proposed use of septic tank systems must be obtained
from the Durham Regional Health Unit.
Water well information for the area is limited. However, it
appears that several water 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 is 102.5 m. deep. Although all acquifers may
not be present at any one location, we do not anticipate
any problems in obtaining a satisfactory supply of water.
The major item of concern regarding this development relates
to the existence of conflicting land uses. The proximity of
the development to Hwy. 35 results in a predicted noise level
excess of 3 dBA on the lots nearest the highway. Although
this excess may not be of sufficient magnitude to require
the implementation of noise control measures the Ministry of
Housing's policy "Noise and New Residential Development Adjacent
to Freeways" states that the existence of this slight problem
should be brought to the attention of prospective purchasers.
In addition to the potential noise problem we note that there
is a farm located adjacent to the development site. Calculations
using the minimum distance separation formula of the Agricultural
Code of Practice for Ontario indicates that a separation distance
of 984 ft. (approx. 299 m.) will be required between the two land
uses. The arc of influence delineated by this distance disallows
development on Lots 1-3, 12-19, and 21-26 all inclusive. In view
of the above, we would not be in a position to offer favourable
comments towards development of the affected lots until the agri-
cultural operation in question is phased out or for some other reason
ceases to exist.
Should it be possible to resolve this conflict and proceed with
the development sometime in the future the residents of lots 1-7
inclusive must be advised of the potential noise problem associated
with vehicular traffic on Hwy. 35. Inclusion of the following warn-
ing clause in a registered portion of the subdivider's agreement
would satisfy our concern.
- 4 -
"Due to the proximity of this development to Hwy.
35, noise levels on the property may be of con-
cern occasionally interfering with some activities
of the dwelling's occupants."
At the present time, however, we can only provide favourable
comment on the development of 9 lots (Lots 4-11, and Lot 20) .
Should the developer wish to proceed with their portion of
the development at this time the warning clause noted above
should be made to apply to lots 4-7 inclusive.
Ganaraska Conservation Authority
The site was reviewed on a previous occasion for purposes of
developing a 173 unit mobile 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 the tributaries of both the Wilmot Creek and
the Ganaraska River.
The revised proposal has substantially reduced the density
(26 lots minimum size 0.5 ha) . There also appears to be
definite intention to preserve as much of the forest cover as
possible. The detrimental effect of the development on the
recharge capacity of the site will, therefore, be minimized.
Our concerns with respect to forest cover and density of lots
can best be dealt with in the subdivision agreement. The
authority, therefore, has no objection with regard to matters
under its jurisdiction and mandate.
Durham Regional Works Dept.
In view of the fact that septic tanks and individual wells will
be the method of servicing as indicated in this submission, this
application would appear to have no implications from a Regional
Works point of view. Therefore, we have no objection to this
proposed amendment.
COMMENTS:
Section 10.3.2.1 of the Durham Regional Official Plan prescribes
certain criteria that must be considered when reviewing an application
to amend the Plan to permit estate-residential development. The subject
proposal does not comply with the following three of the requisites for
approval:
(d) "The proposal is not located on lands having high capability
for agriculture, conservation and recreation, forest pro-
duction or mineral extraction;"
- 5 -
(e) "The proposal shall not unduly restrict the use of adja-
cent properties for agriculture, conservation and recreation,
forest production or mineral extration;"
(i) "The proposal complies with the Agricultural Code of Practice
as amended from time to time."
As indicated by the Ministry of Natural Resources, the site con-
tains a mature hardwood woodlot having productive potential, as well as,
possessing a high potential for mineral aggregate resources. This is
in direct conflict with the intent of subsection (d) . Both the Ministry
of Agriculture and Food, and the Ministry of the Environment indicated
that the proposal does not comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice,
in direct conflict with subsection (i) . This, in turn, could unduly re-
strict the use of adjacent lands for agriculture, if the proposal were
approved, and would be in direct conflict with subsection (e) .
The Ministry of the Environment also indicated potential conflicts
due to noise levels generated by Highway 35.
In light of these conflicts, it is our staff opinion that approval
of this proposal would not comply with the intent of the Durham Regional
Official Plan, and would result in serious land use conflicts for at least
twenty-one of the twenty-six lots proposed. We, therefore, cannot recommend
approval.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council
the following:
1. That report P-86-80 be received; and that
- 6 -
2. The Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle
recommends denial of Official Plan Amendment Application
76-35/D, for Part of Lot 24, Concession 9, former Township
of Clarke.
Respectfully submitted,
/tL�
TTE:lb D. N.Smith, M.C.I.P.
May 8, 1980 Director of Planning
t
i r
29 2� I 27 1 26 ' 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 7
I I
X
I
I
�J
LANE i
SIT
i I I
IX
iL
I i
i I ILo I I
VIII I I I to I I
I I I n I I I
1 I I Z I I I
I I l I I
I I I I I I I
i I I r 1 I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I i i
I I ( I I I ! I
KEY MAP ATTACHMENT N° 1 0 500 100 0m
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
76 -35 /D P-86-80 3 00 100