HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-138-80 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 SEPTEMBER
15, 1980.
REPORT NO. : P-138-80
SUBJECT: Report P-86-80 (attached)
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Part Lot 24, Concession 9, former Township of Clarke
Waverly Heights Subdivision (Oshawa) Ltd.
File: 76-35/D (Revised)
BACKGROUND:
Report P-86-80, attached, was placed before the Planning
Committee on June 9, 1980 at the applicant's request. On two further
occasions, July 7, 1980 and July 21, 1980, the subject report was again
tabled, at the applicant's request.
On July 28, 1980, staff received correspondence from Dr. M.
Michael, Commissioner of Planning for Durham Region, which requested
the Town's comments on this matter by September 23, 1980. His letter
also advised us that, in the absence of our response, his department
shall proceed to prepare a recommendation to the Region Planning Com-
mittee and Council, (a copy of his letter and staff's reply is attached) .
COMMENTS:
In view of the fact that this matter has been tabled on three
It;0
previous occasions and the fact that further delay will only result in
t�
l
I V(2-)
_ 2 _
a Regional decision without local input; staff suggest that this
matter be lifted from the table and dealt with, in order to meet
the Regional deadline for comments.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Report P-86-80 be lifted from the
table and dealt with at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
� a s
TTE:lb D. . Smith, M.C.I.P.
August 1, 1980 Director of Planning
ANA
§ �
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 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)
1ACKGROUND:
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 .
2 _
Public School Board
No objection.
Separate School Board
No objection.
Durliam Health Unit
No objection.
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Our main concerti 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.
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.
�Linistr�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 wl.th eventual utiliz-
aLion of mineral depos:iLs on the adjncent or nearby lands as well
as with truck traffic from the cx.isting pits nearby.
There is also a good quality hardwood woodlot on most of the
property. This WOOd1oL" 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 lie obtain a survey of the aggregate
Potential of the property by a qualified professional and explain
liow conflicts with mining nearby will be avoided.
Our recommendation at this time is that Lhe proposal is premature.
'V 0
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 LoL rusidentLaL development proposed is to be ser-
vLeud by LndLvfduaL wuLls and sUpLic Lank 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 acquirers 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 tlinistry 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
In addition to the poLonLLat noise problem we note that there
is a farm LocnLed adjacent to LhP dpvolopmunt situ. Calculations
using Lhe minimum distance suparNLion formula of the Agricultural
Code of Practice for Ontario indicates that a separation distance-
Of 984 ft . (approx. 299 m. ) Ktt be required between the two land
uses. The are 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 rosolve 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— j
ing clause in a registered portion of the subdivider's agreement
would satisfy our concern.
i
- 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 Conse rva t.i.on 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.
COrir ENIS:
Section 10. 3. 2. 1 of the Durham Regional Official Plan prescribes
curtain 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;"
V
(e) "Thu proposal shall not unduly restrict the use of adja-
cent properties for agri.cuIture , conservation and recreation,
forest production or mineral exrration;"
(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—
twins 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 conflLct with subsection ( L) . 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 Tinistry 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 reconunend
approval.
RECOIMLNDATIONS:
That the PLannLng and UvveL"pnwnt Committee recommend to Coin ul. l
the following:
1. That report P-86-80 be received; and that
2. The Region of Durham bu advised that the Town of Newcastle
recommends denial of Official Plan Amendment Application
76-35/11, for Part of Lot 24 , Concession 9, former Township
of Clarke.
Respectfully submitted,
i
TTE:1b D. N.5mith, M.C.I.P.
May 8, 1980 Director of Planning
i
29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20
19
I
X
SITE
I' •
II♦
' I I
I
I
II 111
t
I
I I '
Vlll MI !
of
( I 1
i � I
I I it
� I I
I I I
I
KEY MAP ATTACHMENT N ° 1 ° 500 100 0m
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
76 -35 /D P-86°80 300 °°
July 23 1980 °-
n.
DURHAM
Mr. J. McIlroy
Clerk
Town of �ewcastle
The Regional'
Street
Municipality 40 Temperance i� j'
of Durham Bowmanvi le, Ontario
Planning
Department
Box 623 Dear Mr. McIlroy:
105 Consumers Dr.
Whitby, Ontario Re: Official Plan Amendment Applications
Canada,UN 6A3 pP
(416) W-7731 No. 75-32/D/ND - Schickedanz Developmenj
No. 76-35/D - Waver ey Heiqllhts
Town—of Newcast I e
Oli. M. R. MICHAEL, M.C.I.P.
Commissioner of Planning
At the di rection of the Planning Committee, I have been instructed
to conta t those area municipalities which have not yet forwarded
a recomm ndation with respect to any Official Plan Amendment
applications received prior to January 1979.
Accordingly, your Council recommendation or an explanation as to
why Regional Planning Committee and Council shoul d' continue to
delay action on the above-noted applications is respectfully
requested.
If we do not receive a response within 60 days of the date of this
letter, we will assume that you have no comments to offer on the
above applications and this department will proceed to formulate a
recommendation to the Planning Committee and Regional Council with
respect to the above matters.
Yours very truly,
I
Dr. M. M chael , M.C. I.P.
Commissioner of Planning
cb
p
100 r-
�"Ilnj
VO
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH,M.C.I.P., Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB IJO TEL. (416)263.2231
July 31) 1980
Dr. M. Michael, M.C.I.P.
Commissioner of Planning
Durham Regional Planning Dept.
105 Consumers Drive
WHITBY, Ontario
Dear Dr. Michael:
Re: Proposed Official Plan Amendments
Files: 75-32/D/ND - Schickedanz
76-35/D - Waverly Heights
Further to your letter of July 23, 1980, in respect
of the above noted proposed Official Plan amendments; please
be advised that the Council for the Town of Newcastle has not
yet reached a decision on either of the subject applications.
In the came of File 75- 32/D/ND, the T'own's Planning
and Development Committee tabled staff Report P-210-79, attached,
pending a determination of the future land uses of the Pine Ridge
Training School property.
In the case of File 76-35/D, the Committee has tabled
staff Report P-86-80, attached, until its first meeting in September,
at the applicant's request.
Inasmuch as the Planning Committee will not be meeting again
until September 15 , 1980, and will be unable to make recommendations
to Council on those matters, until September 22, 1980, we will be
unable to provide you with a more definitive response until that time.
I trust that this information will be of assistance.
Yours ry�7aruly,
/ i
TTE:ib T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Encl. Long, Range Planner.
9
d:
88pte,rber 12, 1930 5 -OP—J.142
11r. L.L. Kristoff
Director of plaaa(aing & Davelop°gent
Kinicipal uil.dtaa , 'loan of tieweagtle
Hampton, Ontario
LOB 1jo
Doer €.r$
SUBJE t grog000d Redid aatial Sub4ivision
Part Lot 24, Coria. 9, Town of traawcsstsle
On Aagaat '19, 19436, ptaf'f of this office met with qtr. Mich@.Ol
Zy118cki, Owner and d oloper of the above property. We disco eyed
this Kinistry'n concento ra ardi.aag forestry and as neral resources
v6vms a props med residential subdivisioll.
'1110 developer explained that some of the treag w4wald have to be
aa30vad to facilitate the development of an interior roast and
building iotG. Chore possible, quality trees would be left for
thoir aesthetic value. While this residential development would
prevent the maintaining of the hardwood woodlot as 4 viablo -,aauagaablra
unit, it OpO* zra the davelopaext plan would retain a sig aificaarxt
bx)rtion of time prcapOrtY in forest cover. Approvinj the plea woold
cm-190 a loco of productive for*st , regardless of tho rau bor of
trees retained for aesthetic purpose&, stied thi.3 is anfr#rtuvisto.
Rowever, hays two way of enintring that the tress w(kild be wanaged
for produatiO4 even if the developnent were not Approved, 00 it is
a compromise % are willing to accopt.
Concerning pota tial gravel resources on the property, the developer
Ot cmt r0gU0Qt had d as consultant Oirther tract: the proporty. .A roport
eaaaa prepared by Soil– ng T. nitad of Rearborough and the tent data
indicatoo that quality granular materials are li.m tuA and that a
pit Operation is not feaasiblaa.
The report &ion not address the issue of poteant,i,aal conflicts wit,,
other land +co s, notably gravel pits, and in spito of the geology
of the � nd
prtyo the �re� is �n important souse of ���;>re �.tra end
ham been appropriately designated i.ra the Dmrhari Official plan,
Therm are " oral licdnczd pits to the uVat on than lOtub coraca$o:i.ogc
Of Clae4e, but their current operations &ad truck routes des not
appO,mr to conflict with residents on this site. The retention of
4 laar96 proportion of tho trarao on the site, as propoc4nd by the
dGv'Qloper would help to buffer the devoloptid pc)rt~ions of the lots
ffrOet any aacti.vities on adjacant propertic4,j. P,'
)?age
Septvmber 12, 1980
Mr. L.L. KvLotoff
D&aed on the abo4e, we would withdraw our objection to this ay.zodtrant.
However, we continue to be concerned about possible conflicts with
aggregate operations in the area, a concern which applies to future
as voll as existing pit&. We hopa that the Town of Newcastle will
contime to giva appropriate consideration to the need* of the
aggro ate industry avid the protection of natural resources when
roviowing 6itura proposals in this area.
Yours tnaly,
C.R. Cray
/'District 14anager, Liddvay Di2trict
Anistry of �Nat
ural Resources
322 Kent Street, West
Ltndsay, aitarto
K9V 4T7
1-705-324-6121
MDBil linga:cb
c.a. Planning Department
Regional ?ktnicipality of Durhir-i
Whitby, Ontario
Mr. Michael Zygocki
378 King Street, West
Oshawa, Ontario