Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-178-80 �- ) CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P., Director HAMPTON, ONTARIO LOB 1 JO TEL.(416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1980. REPORT NO.: P-178-80 SUBJECT: Proposed Hamlet Development Plan - Hampton File: 3.4 BACKGROUND: In early 1978, Planning staff prepared three land use alternatives for the hamlet of Hampton. In September of that year, Council authorized staff to forward these alternatives to the Region of Durham for comment, accompanied by a comment that Council preferred the first alternative which proposed development on individual wells and septic tanks. In response to that circulation, the Region advised that none of the alternatives conformed to the Regional Official Plan, and requested that a meeting be arranged to discuss hamlet development. As a result of that meeting, the Town was further i advised that only that proposal which indicated internal infilling and minor extensions to development on private services would be in conformity with Regional policies. Subsequently, a further staff report was prepared, which suggested that additional development within Hampton would be possible if a municipal water system were available. 2 - In that regard, Council requested the Region of Durham to undertake a feasibility study for providing such a system pursuant to Section 10.4.2. 7 of the Durham Regional Official Plan. In January of 1979, staff were advised by Town's Regional Councillor for Darlington that the Region of Durham received and filed the Town's request without taking any action. On January 17, 1979 staff prepared a further report which recom- mended that, in light of the Region's position, the hamlet plan should be prepared to reflect limited to minor infilling with private drilled wells and septic tanks with future expansion only permitted if a municipal water system was made available. This recommendation was endorsed by Council on February 12, 1979. In October of 1979, staff were approached by Mr. J. Beresford of Flanagan, Beresford and Patteson about the possibility of preparing a Development Plan for Hampton on behalf of their clients who had develop- ment interests in the Hampton area. At that time, it was pointed out that Hamlet Plans were a low priority in the Department's 1980.Work Program and should Mr. Beresford and his clients wish to proceed, that the Depart- ment would in no way be willing to endorse or recommend such a plan but would consider it as input during our own review. In April of this year, a proposed hamlet development plan was sub- mitted by Mr. Beresford on behalf of his clients, Gerrits Construction Company, Hampton Court Developments and Waverly Heights Subdivision (Oshawa) Ltd. Copies of the submitted plan have been provided for the information of the Committee members. As can be noted from the Department's approved 1980 Work Program, I work on Hamlet Development Plans was scheduled to begin in October of this i tL� - 3 - year. Notwithstanding this fact, during the months of May through August, the Department employed the services of a Planning student to undertake preliminary investigations in respect of specific hamlets and to implement and monitor a survey of hamlet residents. In that regard, the submitted proposal was circulated in late April in an effort to expedite work on this particular hamlet plan. In late June, the above mentioned hamlet survey was initiated and the results of same reported on through report P-152-80 submitted on September 29, 1980. As a result of our circulation, the following comments were received: Newcastle Public Works 1) It appears that the proposal does not give a realistic or composite view of the hamlet of Hampton, and has not addressed itself to such major items as: a) Existing road systems, and future requirements for improve- ments to same. b) Storm drainage for existing and/or future development. c) Mill Street and the reconstruction of same. d) Proposed recreational facilities, e.g. the development of the Hampton Mill Pond. e) The existing cemetery facilities and the expansion of same. 2) We are not in agreement with the proposed road layouts. It is felt that a far better road network (using many of the existing roadways) could be designed to create a nucleus of development within the hamlet. 3) Prior to any development being finalized, studies on the follow- ing should be undertaken. a) Reconstruction of the Hampton Mill Pond road (i.e. Mill St.) or the relocation of same. b) Review the existing Storm Sewer Study for Hampton, incor- porating areas of future or proposed development. I I - 4 - Newcastle Fire Department 1) The hamlet of Hampton is just beyond the 5 mile radius of a fire station. 2) Development Policies: It is recommended that residential development be serviced by private drilled wells, drawing from deeper aquifers. There is no water supply for fire protection within the area. The pond no longer exists and the main stream is too shallow and too great a lift for drafting purposes. Alternative would require adequate water storage reservoirs for fire protection. 3) Plans of subdivision should be of a low density with ready access for fire department vehicles and adequate water supply for fire protection. Region of Durham Planning 1) The Durham Regional Official Plan designates Hampton for in- filling and minor extensions. The amount of new residential development proposed in the hamlet cannot be considered as minor extensions to the existing hamlet. 2) Section 3.4.1 of the hamlet plan deals with commercial develop- ment within the hamlet and may require modification subject to the approval of an official plan amendment presently being pro- cessed by the Region to permit limited commercial uses rather than limited convenience commercial uses in Hamlets. 3) In accordance with Section 16.9.4 of the Durham Regional Official Plan, all development larger than three lots must be by plan of subdivision. In addition, it is suggested that the phrase, "if the dedication of new roads is required" in Section 4.1 of the Hamlet plan is inappropriate. 4) The Regional Works Department also reviewed the hamlet develop- ment plan. It is suggested that Section 4.3 should be revised as indicated in their memo to more accurately reflect the intent of the Durham Regional Official Plan. 5) Schedule 1 - Land Use, has some agricultural area designated within the Hamlet Development area. It is suggested that either an appropriate designation as part of the hamlet be assigned to such areas or alternatively the hamlet boundary could be adjusted to exclude such areas from the hamlet. 6) A major amount of development on Schedule 1 has been proposed for an area in the north-east portion of the hamlet which has been indicated in the Hamlet Servicing Study conducted for the Region as unsuitable for development due to a high water table and soil conditions. It is suggested that this be taken into consideration in the finalization of the Hamlet Plan. V - 5 - Durham Health Unit The proposed plan accommodates all concerns of this Health Unit in a satisfactory manner. Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board The Plan, in general, would not adversely affect the mandate of this School Board. Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education The Board reviewed the above noted plan at its last Regular Meeting. I have been directed to advise you that no objection was raised. Ministry of Natural Resources This proposed development plan for the Hamlet of Hampton has been reviewed in this office. This Ministry's major concerns in Hampton are the management of the Bowmanville Creek as a sensitive fish habitat and the management of adjacent flood plains. The Bowmanville Creek north of the Hampton Pond, and the tributary east of the Scugog Road are considered by this Ministry to be sensitive cold water trout streams. The pro- posed land use restrictions described in Section 3. 7 will help to maintain this habitat. The flood lines, which mark the boundaries of the "Area subject to Development Restriction", appear to be those used by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. The use of this limit, as well as the policies set out in Sections 3.2.1(viii) (d) , 3.2.1(ix) , and Section 3. 7, are in agreement with our own policies. We, therefore, feel that in those areas which are under our man- date this plan proposes good development policies. We hope to see such guidelines repeated in an approved development plan and subsequently backed up by a Restricted Area Zoning By-law. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Staff of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food have reviewed the above plan, and consideration has been given to it in view of the present goals and objectives of the Ministry and the guidelines on land use which support these goals and objectives. On the west side of Hampton, there are two livestock operations, and when the subdivision is proposed will have to conform to the Agricultural Code of Practice. Section 3.2.1 (vi) includes the Code as a policy. - 6 - North of the 6th Concession Road approximately 200 metres is an abattoir. Residential development must have an adequate buffer from this use. Our final comment is in regard to the use of natural features, in this case Bowmanville Creek, to delineate the Hamlet boundary. We would recommend, at this time, the Creek be used as the west- ern boundary. Section 4B.6 of the Food Land Guidelines further explains this. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority The above proposed development plan has been reviewed. We offer the following comments for your consideration. The Authority's concerns for the area addressed in the proposed development plan encompass four general areas, as noted below. 1. the potential degreadation of the local aquifer; 2. chemical and sediment impacts on the Bowmanville Creek; 3. conflicts between the development plan and the Authority's adopted master plan for the Hampton Conservation Area; and, 4. the necessity of upgrading the Mill Street roadway, pond and dam to a multiple use facility. Local Aquifer Recharge The Hampton area is situated in an area of outwash sands and gravels which were deposited over a till layer during glaciation. Thus, a perched water table condition may exist, a possible ex- planation of the contamination of shallow bored wells mentioned in section 2.2.2 of the proposed development plan. In order to properly manage the quality and quantity of the local aquifer, given the demands to which it may be subjected in the future, a site specific hydrogeological investigation should be carried out and approved by the Town and Authority, prior to granting preliminary approval of a subdivision application. In section 2.2.4, the sentence, "Development on the clay till soils is acceptable provided that a sufficient overburden cover to the water table exists, and lots are adequately sized." causes us concern. This may satisfy the requirements of regulations related to private sewage disposal systems,but it does not address the manner in which potential cumulative impacts on the local aquifer, which would be identified in the referred-to study, would be over- come or mitigated. (Staff note that Section 2.2.4 is not a policy section and therefore this concern has been addressed through Section 3.8 as revised.) Bowmanville Creek The hydrogeological study noted previously should address potential chemical loading from development and the need for base flow main- tenance and possible augmentation. Quality and quantity should re- ceive attention. Site specific design facilities may be warranted V I 7 - should development threaten the natural recharge of the aquifer and its contribution to base flow. Stormwater man- agement is an essential component in the management of an existing or potential fishery. Within this context, under section 3.8, Servicing, page 14, it is suggested that, "and other agencies having jurisdiction" be added after "to the satisfaction of the Town and the Durham Health unit," and that, "and to restrict the rate of runoff to predevelopment levels and maintain or improve levels of water quality" be added after "contamination of wells. (,)". The need for reservoirs as noted in section 3.3.1, (iii) could be dealt with during the preparation of a stormwater management stra- tegy for Hampton. (Staff note that reservoirs referred to are not related to Stormwater Management and therefore not within C.L.O.C.A. 's area of concern.) In the interests of floodplain management, section 3.2.1, (ix) should be rewritten: "No new construction shall be permitted within those areas subject to development restrictions as delineated on Schedule '1' of this Plan, nor shall any building lot or portion thereof be permitted by plan of subdivision within these areas. Appli- cations for land severance shall be subject to the consent- granting policies of the Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of Durham." (Staff note that this concern is already dealt with through Section 3. 7 which itself was based upon comments received from C.L.O.C.A. in respect of other hamlets.) C.L.O.C.A. Master Plan for the Hampton Conservation Area The subdivision application indicated on the Development Con- siderations schedule, west of Scugog Road, is totally within the Authority's adopted master plan for the Hampton Conservation Area. It is recommended that the Town take measures as necessary to ensure that the future development plan for Hampton conforms with the Authority's conservation area master plan. An additional schedule should be added to the development plan which outlines those lands within the Authority's master plan for acquisition. This would provide additional information for public review and avoid the potential confusion to be created by the statement on page 4 of the proposed development plan, "The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has proposed an extensive conservation area running the length of the Bowmanville Creek from Taunton Road to the 6th Concession." The underscored portion would appear to indicate that the conservation area includes only creek-associated lands which is not the case, since some table land is slated for acquisition in order to accommodate those needs that are normally not compatible with flood-prone areas. The quoted sentence could be removed from the text; the schedule of Authority proposed acquisitions should nonetheless be shown. (Staff note that the limits of the Master Plan Area have been iden- tified on staff prepared proposals and that the referenced text reworded.) — s — Mill Street Roadway, Pond and Dam A statement should be added to the development plan which iden- tifies the need to upgrade the roadway, pond and dam area to a multiple-use facility. Factors that may require specific atten- tion are fish migration, water supply, fire control, recreation, low-flow augmentation, flood control and vehicular access. (Staff note that an appropriate addition has been made to Section 3.6) COMMENTS: Staff have reviewed the above-noted comments, received in respect of the consultant's submitted proposal, as well as, the results of the recent hamlet survey and have prepared two alternative land use schedules in addition to the submitted proposal. We have also made numerous revis- ions to the text reflecting such things as the comments received, the hamlet survey and standard wording as utilized in other hamlet plans. Land Use Alternative 1 represents a maximum approach to hamlet development and has as its basis a number of current development proposals. As indicated by Durham Region this approach does not conform to the Durham Regional Official Plan and therefore would require an amendment to same. Nor does it recognize the approved status of the Hampton Conservation Area Master Plan. Alternative 2 represents a minimal development strategy which permits development along existing road frontages with a limited amount of indepth development. This alternative also reflects the results of the recent hamlet survey which indicated that only 40% of the respondents felt additional growth was desirable. Alternative 3 represents, in our opinion, a reasonable compromise between the two extremes permitting additional growth along existing road frontages and indepth development to what, we feel, would be the maximum �I - 9 - permitted by the Durham Regional Official Plan. It is this latter alternative that we would recommend for adoption. However, prior to the Committee selecting one of these three options, we suggest that the alternatives be presented to a public meeting in order to obtain addit- ional public input. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. That report P-178-80 be received; and that 2. Staff be authorized to schedule a public meeting to be held during the month of December, for the purposes of presenting the proposed hamlet development plan and dis- cussing the three land use alternatives. Respectfully submitted, /k- TTE:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P. October 9, 1980 Director of Planning I I