HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-191-80 t
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 COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 1980.
REPORT NO. :14. P-191-80
SUBJECT: Request for Town Comments on Correspondence received
by the Ministry of Housing from Mr. E. A. Goodman, Q.C.
in respect of Regional Official Plan Amendment 24
BACKGROUND:
On September 22, 1980, Town Council received the attached
letter from Mr. G. M. Farrow to Mr. E. A. Goodman, dated August 28,
1980, and referred it to the Director of Planning for a report to the
Planning and Development Committee, as per Council Resolution #C-80-1197:
"That the letter dated August 28, 1980 addressed to Mr.
E. A. Goodman, Q.C. .by the Ministry of Housing be referred
to the Director of Planning for a report to the Planning
and Development Committee."
Mr. Farrow's letter of August 28, 1980 refers to correspondence
between the Ministry of Housing and Mr. Goodman, (acting on behalf of
i
East Woodbridge Developments Ltd.) , in respect of proposed Regional Offic-
ial Plan Amendment No. 24. As outlined in the correspondence between the
Ministry and Mr. Goodman, copy attached, East Woodbridge Developments Ltd.
i
have objected to the approval of Official Plan Amendment 24.
I
i
- 2 -
Staff note that Amendment 24 to the Regional Official Plan
approved by Regional Council on March 19, 1980 embodies "alternative number
4," one of nine alternative road systems evaluated by the Region of Dur-
ham through a study initiated in 1977 under Section 13.2.6 of the Regional
Plan. In November of 1977, Regional staff presented the conclusions of
the study to Newcastle Council. Regional staff recommended that "alter-
native 3" be adopted, Newcastle Council resolved to request the Region to
select "alternative 4".
Subsequent to the discussions of November 1977 and the endor-
sation of road alternative number 4 (Council resolution C-77-1597) , Town
Council received a report from the Director of Works, copy attached, which
recommended that Council's previous action be upheld. Town Council endorsed
the Director's report and forwarded it to the Region (resolution C-78-126) .
Subsequent to that action, Town Planning staff forwarded a report (copy
attached) to Council February 27, 1978, recommending that alternative
number 3 be endorsed. Council received and filed the report from Planning
staff.
On March 8, 1978 Regional Council considered the matter through
a report from the Regional Planning and Development Committee, to the
effect that despite Newcastle's position, alternative number 3 was most
appropriate. Despite the recommendation to adopt alternative number 3,
Regional Council selected alternative number 4. Subsequent to that action,
Newcastle staff requested the Region to defer adoption of the necessary
official plan amendment pending the preparation of a portion of the Town's
District Plan, (for the Bowmanville Urban Area) . Regional Planning and
3 -
and Development Committee considered the report in early 1979 and
tabled the Official Plan Amendment "pending receipt of a recommendation
from the Town of Newcastle".
In March of 1979, Newcastle Planning and Development Committee
considered Staff Report P-47-79 which recommended "that the Region be
requested to defer a decision on the proposed amendment to the Durham
Regional Official Plan regarding the location of a future north-south
arterial road in east Bowmanville pending the completion of the Bowmanville
Urban Area Plan". Staff Report P-47-79 was tabled by the Newcastle Plan-
ning and Development committee until July 23, 1980 at which time a recommen-
dation to consider the deferral recommendation was received and the fol-
lowing resolution subsequently approved by Town Council:
"That Report P-126-79 relative to the North/South Arterial
Road, Bowmanville, be received for information and Council
reaffirms its position that the Training School Road be the
North/South Arterial Road."
(July 30, 1979)
Subsequent to that resolution, Regional Council on October 17,
1979 adopted the recommendation of the Regional Planning and Development
Committee to rescind Council's earlier resolution indicating that Training
School Road was to be the future North/South Arterial Road in East Bowman-
ville, apparently to allow the Town to provide further comments over and
above the resolution passed by Newcastle Council on July 30, 1979.
On October 22, 1979, Newcastle Council adopted the following
resolution (C-1439-79) :
"BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Town of Newcastle
respond to the Regional Municipality of Durham's request
for the Town's direction regarding the location of eastern
- 4 -
Bowmanville interchange and that the Town of Newcastle
requests the Regional Municipality of Durham approve
the location of the future North/South arterial road
and Highway No. 401 interchange be as shown on Alternative
No. 4 (Training School Road or Lamb's Road) in the eastern
part of Bowmanville and direct the Regional Planning and
Development Department to bring forward the suitable O.P.A.
to the next Regional Council meeting for their approval."
On November 5, 1979, Newcastle Council adopted in reference
to the road:
"Be it resolved that the following letter be dispatched for
the next Region of Durham Meeting of October 31, 1979 for
their consideration."
(a copy of the letter is appended to this
report)
On February 12, 1980, Regional Planning and Development Com-
mittee considered a recommendation to hold a public meeting on the pro-
posed road, but directed staff to bring forward the necessary official
plan document, to amend the Regional Plan to incorporate "alternative 4".
The necessary documentation was brought before Regional Planning Committee
on March 11, 1980 and subsequently adopted by Regional Council on March
19, 1980 as Official Plan Amendment 24.
COMMENT:
Staff understand that in addition to the objection filed by
East Woodbridge Developments Ltd. to the approval of Regional Official
Plan Amendment 24 that objections have also been raised to the draft
plan approval of two subdivisions 18T-76011 (Penwest Developments Ltd.)
and 18T-75526 (Schickedanz Investments Ltd.) . These subdivision plans
- 5 -
were recommended for draft plan approval by the Town in conjunction
with the "Soper Creek Neighbourhood Plan". The "Soper Creek Neighbour-
hood Plan", a neighbourhood secondary plan required under the existing
Bowmanville Official Plan was approved in principle by Town Council
on March 26, 1979, "subject to agreement in principle by the Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority relative to flood lines and storm
drainage".
On October 5, 1979, Newcastle Planning and Development
Committee considered a revised version of the "Soper Creek Neighbourhood
Plan" addressing the flood and storm drainage concerns and also considered
the above-mentioned subdivision plans which fall within the Soper Creek
Neighbourhood Plan. The Committee recommended approval of all these
matters. Town Council, meeting on October 9, 1979, passed the following
resolution:
"That the Soper Creek Neighbourhood Plan be adopted, as
revised and forwarded to Durham Region, with all relevant
background material, for their approval; and
That the draft plans of subdivision located within the
Soper Creek Neighbourhood, and dealt with under separate
reports, be considered for Draft Plan approval conditional
upon the provision of services and specifically sewage
capacity."
Staff note that the Soper Creek Neighbourhood Plan was approved
by Regional Council on May 14, 1980.
In view of the approval in principle of the "Soper Creek
Neighbourhood Plan" by Council March of 1979 and in light of the July 30,
1979 resolution in respect of the location of the North/South Arterial
- 6 -
Road, Town staff brought forward the "Soper Creek Neighbourhood Plan"
and the above noted subdivisions in conformity with Council's position.
However, staff did note at the October Committee meeting that the plan
set the development pattern in this area of Bowmanville. It was noted
at the July Committee meeting that current Town staff had not been re-
quested to provide any comments on the location of the proposed arterial
road. It is the opinion of staff as reflected in the staff report presented
by Town Planning staff in February of 1978, that alternative 3 would be
preferable to the alignment reflected in Official Plan Amendment 4.
Following from the objections to the subdivision plans mentioned
above, staff have received the attached correspondence from C. Dowson on
behalf of Penwest Developments Ltd. It is the understanding of Town staff
that the Penwest Plan may be affected by the alignment of the North/South
Arterial Road in the situation that alignment 3 were adopted rather than
alignment 4. Under these circumstances, a small portion of the plan might
be affect by the road. Newcastle staff feel that the Ministry of Housing
could proceed with the approval of the Penwest subdivision provided that
a modification is made to the subdivision plan and reflected in the con-
ditions of draft plan approval.
In respect of the points raised in Mr. Goodman's letter, staff
note the following:
(a) Official Plan Amendment application 75-32/ND for
Part of Lot 7, Concession 1, former Township of Darl-
ington has been considered by Newcastle Planning and
Development Committee via staff reports P-90-79 (copy
attached) and P-210-79 (copy attached) . The matter
remains tabled in accordance with resolution PD-54-79.
- 7 -
"That Report P-210-79, relative to Proposed Official
Plan Amendment (Schickedanz, Part Lot 7, Concession 1,
former Township of Darlington (Trudeau Property) be
tabled until land uses of Pine Ridge Property is de-
termined".
At the time of writing this report, Town staff under-
stand that Regional Planning and Development Committee
has considered application 75-32/ND in the absence of a
Newcastle Council comment and has recommended to Regional
Council that the application be denied.
(b) The Town of Newcastle has made several representations
to the Provincial Government in respect of the future
use of the Pine Ridge Training School Property. Most
recently, His Worship Mayor G. Rickard wrote to the Premier
of Ontario and the Minister of Government Services in res-
pect of the lands. (copy attached)
The Premier of Ontario has responded (copy of letter
attached) to the effect that the Ministry of Agriculture
and Food may wish to use the property.
Newcastle staff have reported to Council on this matter
on several occasions. Staff have recommended that the site
be used for agricultural uses. Staff in a report to Council
December 10, 1979 made the following recommendation:
"Based on our review of information available land use
Concept 3 (agricultural uses) is recommended at this time.
The costs of rehabilitating selected buildings. . .would
appear prohibitive as do the costs of maintaining and
- 8 -
operating the physical plant. To date, there has been
no analysis of the efficiency of delivering services to
the site, both municipal and social. In addition, the
site is physically removed from the centre of present
and future population concentrations; would detract
from the effective revitalization of the Bowmanville
Main Central Area; and is contrary to provincially
approved Planning policies contained in the Durham
Regional Official Plan."
(c) The Town of Newcastle has recently conducted a series
of public meetings in respect of a draft plan for the
Bowmanville Urban Area as required under the Durham Reg-
ional Official Plan. The draft document has been circulated
to a number of local agencies and Provincial Ministries
including the Ministry of Housing. The proposed Plan has
been referred to staff for review on the basis of the comments
received at the public meetings. A major concern expressed
has been the staging policies within the proposed plan.
At this time, it is anticipated that the proposed plan will
be presented to Newcastle Council in revised form in early
1981.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that:
1. This report be received; and
- 9 -
2. That a copy of this report be forwarded by the Town
Clerk to Mr. G. M. Farrow in response to his letter
of August 28, 1980.
Respectfully submitted,
4114W//--
DNS:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
October 28, 1980 Director of Planning
i
Ministry 111am 416/965(34 1 R 56 Wellesley Stivel West
Hill Floor
of Ad it i n i v Toronto, Ontario
Housing Divklon M7A 21<4
Ontario
August 28 , 1980
'SEP
Mr . E.A. Goodman, Q.C .
Goodman and Goodman OF 'T
Barristers and Solicitors tff
I� c s r L I[
101 Richmond Street West -LI-I I I_IU
Suite 1500
Toronto, Ontario
MSH 1V5
Subject: Proposed Amendment No . 24 to the
Official Plan for the Regional
Municipality of Durham Planning Area .
Our File 18-OP-0010-24
Dear Mr. Goodman:
Thank you for your letter further clarifying your
clients ' objections to this proposed official plan
amendment .
By copy of this letter I have forwarded your response
to the clerks of the Town of Newcastle and of the
Regional Municipality of Durham for their councils '
response . As you point out, your objections to this
amendment are closely related to a number of other
planning proposals still under review at the local
and regional level and not yet before this ministry.
Upon receipt of the local responses we will make our
al -- commendations to our minister.
Your truly,
M. Farrow
Exe e Director
C .C . Mr . J .M . McIlroy, Town of Newcastle e%
Mr . C .W . Lundy, Region of Durham
On
GOODMAN & GOODMAN
FIARIIISTCRS G SOLICITORS
DAVID D GOODMAN,O C.11017-R10L1
EDWIN A.GOODMAN,O.G. NORMAN H SCHIPPCR,O C HCROCRT N SOLWAY,O C LIONEL H SC'NIPPCR,O.C.
KENNETH N.KARP.00 .SHCLDON SILVER,0 PHINCAS SCHWARTZ.O C GERALD ROS S,O C.
CHARLES J SCHWARTZ LORI[ wA ISDCRG DONALD G PIC RC C.O C C.GAIL CORNWALL
C CLIPCORD LAX GORDON I KIRKE ARTHUR O JACOUC S HEIL WHARRIS
ALLAN LCIOCL WILLIAM V,ALCAMO N.KATHRYN ROOINSON PRISCILLA N HCALY
JOHH A.KCCCC PAT NICIA A.ROBINSON JOSEPH SHIER STEPH CH OIAHOHO
WANDA DOROSI PAUL HINS ANDREW P.RCICH ALAN P,SHAHOIC
RICHARD STORRCY ERIK J.FISH ARNOLD Hr RSCHORN ROSLYN HOUSER
JU L1 MORROW A IRVIN SCHEIN
July 30 , 1980
yr . G.M. Farrow
Executive Director
Ministry of Housing �.\\
Plans Administration Division
.•E:�
8th Floor
56 Wellesley Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 2K4
Dear Sir :
Re : OPA 24 of Town of Newcastle
We have now had an opportunity of reading the report
prepared by Barton Ashman of Canada Limited concerning the main
collector road to service the urban area of the Town of Bowmanville
as set out in OPA No . 24 . We have also met with our clients and
discussed the matter with them at great length .
It is not our clients ' intention to in any way hinder
the legitimate development of any other developer ' s lands . It is
clear , however , when one puts the collector road in its proper
context with other planning steps that are being taken by the
Region and the area municipality that the choice of alternative
number 4 will contravene the basic planning objectives of the
Region ' s official plan and will cause a considerable delay in
development of my clients ' lands .
These other matters which must be considered when
evaluating its choice of the arterial road are as follows :
'EL' ;?'E"gR•2'1`'OI CABLE GOO 'AAN , ?(ILEX W220-'I - IELCCOPY 116.869-088S .�
101 RIC• •.•JfID 57RCCT WCSi SUlif 1500 • TORONTO. CANADA - MSH IVS
k
GOODMAN tic GOODMAN _ 2
i
(a) an application has been made to the Town of
Newcastle by Mr . G . Schi.ckedanz - for an OP
amendment altering the eastern boundary of
urban development for Bowmanville to include '
his farm lands . This would increase the
amount of land for development by adding 'a
considerable acreage of excellent agricultural
land . It would also completely change the
regional proposal for urban development in
this area . This OPA can only be justified if
the collector road is moved eastward . ,
(b) the Town of Newcastle has made a request for the
purchase of Pine Ridge Training School from the
Province of Ontario to use as a development of
a Town Centre . This in turn would change the
urban thrust of Bowmanville and have real effects
upon the commercial growth of Bowmanville . This
also depends on alternative number 4 being approved
as the arterial road . .
(c) there is now under consideration by the Town of
Newcastle a stage plan for development. The
approval of the easterly arterial might have
the ultimate effect of putting lands that are not
now marked for urban development and giving them
a number 1 priority and relegating our clients '
lands to a number 3 priority . This in turn would
abnegate the previous planning thrust of the
Region .
All of these developments are contingent upon the change of
the eastern arterial road to alternative number 4 . This was contrary
to the planning recommendation of the planners of the Region of
Durham who foresaw the developments which I have enumerated .
The Minister , therefore , clearly cannot take the position that our.-
request that this matter to be referred to the Ontario Municipal
Board is a frivolous application when it changes the whole pattern
of development in this part of the Region and our position is
supported by the Regional planners .
i
i
I
GOODMAN & GOODMAN - 3
My clients would be quite content , however , to have all
of these matters heard together and we would therefore suggest
that OPA not be dealt with until the Schickedanz application is
processed together with the processing of the stage plan of the
Town of Newcastle . The writer wishes to have an opportunity to
discuss this with you and 'with the Minister , if necessary .
Yours very truly ,
GOODMAN & GOODMAN
�. PER:
r
EAG: HM
C..
Report No. 7
Mayor Pickard and Members of Council : -
Re: Future North-South Arterial Road in East Bowmanville
Further to a Meeting with the Region Planning Department, attended by Members of
the Town of Newcastle Council, and two public meetings held in Bowmanville, Council ,
on November 21, 1977, by Resolution NC-77-1597, recommended Alternative N 4 to
the Regional Planning $ Development Committee,
The following are my comments in regard to the subject future arterial road: -
Alternatives Nos . 3 and 4 were under consideration by the Region Planning
Development and Works Committees and, as a result, Alternative N 3 was recommended
to Regional Council. On January 4, 1978, the Regional Council tabled the matter
for one month pending further comments from the Town of Newcastle.
The estimated cost as
( prepared by the Region) is $3.7 million for either
Alternative 3 or 4, this figure being exclusive of land acquisition; however,
land acquisition is a vital factor and should have been taken into consideration
when comparative cost estimates for both alternatives were being prepared.
I fail to see lard acquisition costs being identical for each alternative, acid
it is fair assumption that such costs would be considerably less for Alternative
# 4.
Concerns relating to improving Highway No, 2 were expressed, as a result of which
the Region of Durham responded by saying that improvements to Highway No, 2 were
not required to accommodate the growth in Bowmanville ( as shown in the Official
Plan) if Alternative # 3 were to be implemented
be required after the 'planning horizon' . If this lisothe would rovements
question why improvements to Highway No, 2 are recommended in Alternative N 4?
i
In my opinion it is quite evident that improvements will be required to Highway
No, 2, regardless of where the proposed arterial road is located, and its is
equally possible that they will be n
horizon' . ecessary prior to the so-called 'planning
Concerns were also expressed in relation to the 'barrier effect ' of tho arterial
road through a residential area. As proposed in Alternative 0 3, the new
arterial road would be designed to a lower urban design speed of 50-60 km/hr
(30-40 m.p.h.) ; apart from this, north of Highway No. 2 Alternative #3 still
results in a division of a residential community.
Disruption to the Bowmanville Cemetery and the Maranatha Christian Reformed Church
is a concern; as commented by the Region : "If Alternative V 3 were selected, no
land would be required from the Cemetery and it is expected that the parking
facilities for the Maranatha Christian Reformed Church would be relocated south-
east, of the Church with the associated costs borne by the implementing agency
Unless there are some improvements to Highway No. 2, congestion would occur
where Alternative fla intersects, and correcting this would probably involve further
disruption to the existing Church setting, Also, south of this the
industrial , and if the proposed arterial road is
then additional land to be a controlled access road,
l�j be lust in acquiring access to any industrial. development,
Without preliminary engineering I cannot support the comment that "no land would
be required from the Cemetery". The existing pavement between the Cemetery and
the Church is approximately eighteen (18) feet, and the total width between the
Church parking lot and the Cemetery is approximately thirty-eight (38) feet;
from this it would appear that additional land would be required from both propertie
in order to obtain an eight-six (86) foot• right-of-way.
Environmental and Social impacts are determined by the number of properties
affected, regardless as to which alternative is adopted. However, from
Highway No. 401 to Highway No. 2 the impact would most definitely be greatly
reduced if Alternative A 4 was accepted and implemented. North of Highway No. 2,
Alternative #3 would have a considerable detrimental environmental impact on
�.
stream crossings and woodlots . Alternative # 4 greatly reduces the environmental
distortion.
Based on the foregoing evaluation, and unlike the other comments that neither
Alternative # 3 nor 0 4 "clearly stands out as a preferred choice" I recommend
Alternative # 4 be adopted from Highway No. 401 to Highway No. 2.
Costs associated with the construction of the proposed arterial road have not been
defined but, rather, have been referred to as "being borne by the implementing
agency". Consideration should be given to the Town of Newcastle being the
"implementing agency" as this would result in the arterial road being located to
the optimum advantage of the Town.
I do not agree with the comments that "the Training School Road, north of Highway
No. 2, Mearns Avenue and Concession Street would have to be improved" as the
timing and design will be the decision of the Town of Newcastle.
Finally I would state that, in my opinion, the action taken by Council in
Resolution NC-77-1597 should be unheld, and recommended, in the strongest terms,
to the Regional Municipality of Durham.
i
Respectfully Submitted,
J. Dunham,
Janaury 19th, Director of Public Forks
1 9 7 8
n i