HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-32-81 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 FEBRUARY
2, 1981.
REPORT NO. : P-32-81
i
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment, Part Lot 24,
Con. 9, former Township of Clarke
Waverly Heights Subdivision (Oshawa) Ltd.
File: 76-35/D (Revised)
BACKGROUND & COMMENTS:
At the Planning and Development Committee meeting of January
19, 1981, Committee considered Mr. I. Gleiberman's request for re-
consideration of the above noted matter and adopted the following
resolution:
Resolution #PD-47-81
"THAT the principles in Waverly Heights (Oshawa) Limited
Mr. Gleiberman and Mr. Zygocki be given the opportunity
to present their case at the next Planning and Develop-
ment Committee meeting in light of the fact that they
claim not to have received notice that the item was on
the previous agenda and that the Regional Planning
Department be so notified."
In accordance with this resolution, staff have written to
the Regional Municipality of Durham requesting that they defer
their consideration of this matter until further information comes
from the Town of Newcastle.
2 -
It is recommended that Committee now consider Mr. Gleiberman's
request for reconsideration. Attached, please find staff's previous
reports in respect of this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that Committee now reconsider
its previous position in respect of Official Plan Amendment 76-35/D
(Revised) .
Respectfully submitted,
DNS:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
January 22, 1981 Director of Planning
f
� r
�Y\,3 I"^�' ,I1�
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEVVCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P., Director
HAMPTON. ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL. (416)263-2231
REPORT TO TII1 PLANNING AND DEVRLOPMENT COMMITTER 1`1EETING OF JANUARY
5, 1981.
REPORT NO. : P-9-81 (Revised)
SUBJECT: Proposed Official Plan Amendment, Part Lot 24,
Con. 9, former Township of Clarke
Waverly Heights Subdivision (Oshawa) Ltd.
File: 76-35/D (Revised)
BACKGROUND & COIZiENTS:
On October 27, 1980, the Planning and Development Committee
considered Report P-186-80 (copy attached) . At the applicant's request
this matter was again tabled for a further period of thirty (30) days
in order to pur.mit him additional time to address concerns relative to
his proposal.
On December 11, 1981, staff received correspondence from the
applicant's solicitor advising us that the Ministry of the Environment
had modified :its position relative to the application of the Agricultural
Code of Practice to his client's proposal. Copies of the relative corres-
pondence are also attached for the Committee's information. The net: effect
of this change in position would be to remove the building restriction from
four additional. .lots bringing the total number of developable lots to 12
out of the total 26 proposed.
2 -
Discussiors with the applicant's solicitor have indicated
that they arc, content to develop a portion of the site at the present
time with the remainder to be developed at such time as the restrictions ,
relative to application of the Agricultural Code of Practice, can be re-
moved. Map 1 (attached) identifies the extent of this proposal which
would be restricted, and although no objections have been raised relative
to the development of the unaffected lots, or portions of lots, it is un-
realistic, and contrary to established planning principles, to consider
approval of only a portion of this site. It is also unreasonable to assume
that the restrictions upon the balance of the site will, at some time in
the future, be removed, since this, in turn, assumes that adjacent livestock
operations will be phased out and will not return. Such assumptions have
no basis in .tact. Indeed, the development of all, or part, of this site
for non-farm residential purposes would represent an intrusion into an
established agricultural area and could unduly restrict the present and
future use of adjacent lands for agricultural purposes. This would be on
direct conflict with the intent of Section 10. 3.2.1 (e) of the Durham Regional
Official Plan and we are, therefore, unable to support approval of all or
part of this proposal.
Our staff position in respect of this application has been clearly
and consistently defined within previous staff reports, all of which have
been either tabled or referred back to staff; and in view of the fact that
this matter was tabled on October 21, 1980 by the Durham Regional Planning
and development Committee for a period of sixty days, now expired, pending
receipt of the Town's comments , it would be appropriate and expedient for
the Committee to deal with this matter at this time.
i
I
3 —
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning and Development Committee lift Report
P-186-80 from the table and that it be dealt with at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
t-
TTE:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
December 19, 1980 Director of Planning
i
i
JZOsL, hl R2;mo, 1\11NO 1.1>, (iI,E113];RU�\N 11 TELE11110111. 1.116) 11600✓00
� CALI I Af7 O 51; ••PRAETOR'•
:1
glarrimer4 111 'k':w l(Cltllrll "
TI:LUX 063.24619
•-- --.-.- y ^ ILLI t_UI'II
If (11 16) LIGO.17011
ALLAN C. nOSE, q,C. O1.art..1110 J Pt:n SIK0. O.C. DEC 11 17J 1
MARVIN S. ARNOLO, O.C.,LL.D..LL.A/. :f141t•G GLL111ERI•fAN. D.A. SUITE 11906
R0%YA)i0 LITOWITZ, t1.A.,LL.0. I MNY 11AI ARAN, 11 A..LL.D, I'!.!,1 ,lf f IC,(: IJUX IL
MADCLAINC A. I,An C. D,A.,LL.D. Fl(� !!•!tt /(; DEPART ,FfNT tnNuN1U•UUt.tI NIU tJ 130X Towrn
COUNSEL, WILLIAM V. BASSO. !1 A..I.L.D. TO,'i' 1 O.' NEWCASi i.� TORONTO.hO;.IINION CENTRE
TORONTO, CANADA
AISK, IAO
REFER TO IRVING GLEIBERMAN
I-ILE
December 8th, 1980 .
Planning Department
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
Hampton, Ontario
LOB 1JO
Atten : T. T. I,dwards
Dear Sir :
RC: : Official Plan Amendment, Waverly
Heights Subdivision (Oshawa) Limited,
Town of Newcastle
We enclose herewith photostatic copy of letter which
we have received from the Ministry of the Environment directed
to the Regional Planning Department, with respect to the proposed
Official Plan Amendment for the Estate Residential of Waverly
Heights Subdivision (Oshawa) Limited, for part of Lot 24 , Conc . 9 ,
former Townsliip of Clarke, Your fiie 76-35/D.
We hope that this amended letter will assist you in
preparing a report to committee relating to this project .
Yours very truly,
ROSE, PERSIKO, , GLEIBERMAN
Per :
IG/lk IRVING GLEIBERMAN
encls.
cc -- Mr. Michael Zygocki
r Ministry — -^� ntra ( We goo KI
of the Region 150 For rand Dr/e
Don Mills, Onlario
Environment Mac acs
016)4240000
1980 12 03
Mr. L. Kotseff, Manager
Strategic ;Tanning Branch
Regional Municipality of Durham
P. O. Box 623
105 Consumers Drive
Whitby, Ontario —
L1N 6A3
Dear Mr. Kotseff:
Re: Official Plan Amendment, Waverly Heights
Subdivision (Oshawa) Limited,
Town of Newcastle
F i l e X10: 76-35/D
Please be advised that on December 2, 1980, representatives of this
Ministry met. with Mr. Michael Zygocki , owner and Mr. I . Gleiberman,
solicitor, to discuss our previous comments relating to the
Agricultural Code of Practice.
In our correspondence dated April 17, 1980, we advised that a
minimum separation distance of 984 feet would be required between
the subjem development and the adjacent agricultural operation.
The area affected by this requirement included 1 ots 1-4 , 12-19 and
21-26 all inclusive and we recommended that no development be
allowed to take place on these lots until the agricultural operation
has been phased out.
Although ollr position has not changed in terms of the separation
distance imquired, we wish to advise that we would not object to
construction of dwellings on lots 4 , 12, 19 and 21 provided that the
units wore iocated outside the zone of influence as shown on the
attached Irllcltocopy, This miry require revisions to the lot layout,
however, the owner indicated that such revisions may be possible.
Assuming that sufficient space can be made available on each of
these lots to accomodate a dwelling unit, we would be willing to
alter our recommendation to read:
. . ... ......
"We are: lble to offer favourahle comme towards A development
on Lots t '13 , 12-18 and 22-26 until the`
Aacent agricultural '11)
operation is phased out or for some other reason ceases to
exist. We do not object to development of the remaining lots
(i . e. , 4-11 and 19-21 inclusive) provided that the dwelling
units on lots 4, 12, 19 and 21 are constructed outside the area
of influence delineated by an arc on the attached drawing".
All other comments contained in our April 17, 1980 correspondence
remain unchanged,
Yours truly,
D. M. Pirie , Chief
Approvals & Planning
Technical Support Section
PH/ns/W-CC
cc:, Mr. M. Zygocki , 378 King Street West, Oshawa LN 2J9
Mr. R. Dolan, Ministry of dousing
Encls.
fRooldonc;
$110 Form Rulldings
RDAU ALLOWANC� OE CWE�- CQNC 551aN, g AND IQ
f
It3 ,
z6
�J
4.
z 4 ,
k
' A
�,�\ i� �\` �:< � k.2�� �\\ Ski Q `` <♦
Y'
Ln `z
N l9
0
N Mh
Fi—i 2l 4
❑
� 20
Z �
w l0 0 Q)
z
W .�
D r
9
o
❑
a
o .
a
0
MAP 1
F ILE - 76 -35/D ( REVISED)
AREA AFFECTED BY APPLICATION 0 50 150m
OF AGRICULTURAL CODE OF PRACTICE. 50
• Jam.,t��IK,ti.�.,�,':
•'u
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P., Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB WO TEL. (416)263.2231
REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER
27, 1980.
REPORT NO. : P-186-80
SUBJECT: Application for amendment to Regional Official Plan
Part Lot 24, Concession 9, former Clarke Township
Waverly Heights Subdivision - File: 76-35/D (Revised)
BACKGROUND:
On October 21, 1980 Regional Planning and Development Committee '
considered the above mentioned application and tabled the application
for sixty days to allow the applicant to submit additional information
in respect of the proposal. Regional Planning staff have requested
Town staff to bring forward a report in respect of this matter as soon
as possible. Regional staff are aware that Town staff have presented
a number of reports regarding the proposal which have been tabled or
referred back to staff. On September 15, 1980, Newcastle Planning
and Development Committee referred Report P-138-80 back to Planning
staff for reconsideration with correspondence from the Ministry of
Natural Resources, dated September 12, 1980. Staff have reviewed the
letter from Natural Resources and in order to comply with the Regional
request for a response within sixty days, submit this Report as the meeting
of October 27, 1980 may be the last meeting of the presently constituted
Committee.
2 -
COMMENT:
As noted in the Regional Staff Report (copy attached) , the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food has indicated that there must be a
minimun separation distance between the agricultural use north of the
property and any of the proposed lands. A major portion of the proposed
plan is affected by this requirement. Staff have indicated to the pro-
w.
ponent on a number of occasions that this particular concern should be
addressed in addition to those concerns of the Ministry ,of Natural Re-
sources. It is interesting to note that Regional staff are of the opinion
that despite the withdrawal of the Ministry of Natural Resources ' objection,
that the proposed plan does not conform with the Durham Regional Official
Plan.
Town staff note that the proponent has not yet addressed the matter
of noise generated from Highway 35 nor has the applicant thoroughly dealt
with the matter of heavy truck traffic on Regional Road 20.
Staff Report P-86-80 (attached) was placed before the Planning Com-
mittee on June 9, 1980 at the applicant's request. On July 7, 1980 and
July 21, 1980, the report was tabled at the applicant's request. On September
15, 1980, staff recommended that Report P-86-80 be lifted from the table
and dealt with at that time at the applicant's request. Resolution PD-284-80
was moved as rioted above. Town staff feel that the proponent has had
adequate time to address those matters noted above and feel that the recom-
mendation of Report P-86-80 should now be considered again.
RECOMMENDATION:
i
I
That Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council
that the following Resolution be adopted:
II
3 -
"The Town of Newcascle recommends denial of Official
Plan Amendment 76-35/D (Revised) for Part of Lot 24,
Concession 9 , former Township of Clarke. "
i
Respectfully submitted,
IA641e.
DNS:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
October 21, 1980 Director of Planning
u . RI
• k �ak�
IV
�DURHAM
Planning Department
Commissioner' s Report to Planning Committee
Report No. 80-239
Date: , October 21, 1980
SUBJECT
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN ON BEHALF OF WAVERLY
HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (OSHAWA) LIMITED, FILE 76-35/D.
CORRESPONDENCE ##76-164 DATED DECEMBER 2, 1976
FROM MR. C. F. FLEISCHMANN, DONEVAN AND FLEISCHMANN CO. LTD. (APPLICATION)
CORRESPONDENCE #79-855 DATED JULY 27 , 1979
FROM MR. M. ZYGOCKI, WAVERLY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (OSHAWA) LIMITED
(REV.ISED APPLICATION)
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the application of Waverly Heights Subdivision (Oshawa) Limited , File
76-35/D, to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan be denied; and further that
the applicant and the Council of the Town of Newcastle be so advised .
REPORT
1 ) Application
In December, 1976, the applicant submitted a proposal (Correspondence 76-164)
to develop a 173 unit mobile home park on 19 ha (47 acre) of land located on
Part of Lot 24, Concession 9, former Township of Clarke now in the Town of
Newcastle.
On July 27 , 1979, Mr. M. Zygocki of Waverly Heights Subdivision (Oshawa)
Limited revised his Official Plan Amendment application (Correspondence
79-855) by now requesting that the subject lands be designated to permit
estate residential development consisting of 26 lots. The proposal to permit
estate residential development is the subject of this report.
2) Submissions
2.1 In response to a "Public Notice" placed in the appropriate newspapers , no
submissions with respect to the subject estate residential amendment
application were received by the Region.
38
b
Commissioner' s Report No. 80-239 Page 2
2.2 The Town of Newcastle in dealing with the original proposal , that of a
mobile home park, received a number of letters of objection as well as a
petition containing twenty-four signatures.
3. ' Background
3.1 The subject site is presently designated Major Open Space System - Oak
Ridges Moraine in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Estate Residential
developments may be permitted by amendment to the Plan subject to a
number of criteria as identified in the Plan.
3.2 The northern boundary to the site fronts onto the road between
Concessions 9 and 10 while most of the eastern boundary of the site
fronts onto Highway No. 35.
3 .3 The site is slightly rolling and is almost completely forest covered ,
such forest consisting of a mixture of birch, maple, oak, pine and
poplar.
3.4 The surrounding land uses consist of agricultural operations to the
north, agricultural lands and wooded area to the east, south and west.
Highway 35 borders the eastern boundary of the subject lands.
4) Area Municipal Council Resolution
4.1 To date a recommendation from the Council of the Town of Newcastle has
not been received with respect to this matter.
4.2 As indicated above, this application was originally received by the
Region in 1976. In an effort to deal with these old amendment
applications , received prior to 1979, the Regional Planning Committee in
May 1980 respectfully requested the Area Municipalities which have not
provided a recommendation to forward its comments within 60 days or it
would be assumed that no comments would be forthcoming. No response to
this request has been received to date.
4.3 The subject amendment application has been tabled by the Planning
Committee of the Town of Newcastle further to its review of a
recommendation received from staff of the Town to deny the subject
Official Plan Amendment application of Waverly Heights Subdivision
(Oshawa) Limited.
5) Comments
5.1 An existing agricultural operation is located to the north of the subject
lands. On these lands a barn is located approximately 75 feet north of
39
si,*A .
Page 3 , x?;
Commissioner' s Report No. 80-239
1
the northern boundary f andeFoodainritsseview residential The
Ministry of Agriculture of
application has indicate 9tha the ands asl a ural resul tae a numbertofe lots
gu�requires
a distance separation
would not Pe�icates Section 103.2.1.i ) of the
residential proposals msha Regional
lcomply
Official Plan an i �i
with the Agricultural Code of Practice.
5.2 The lands to the east, west and north of the ptheos al are currentl yyusedth
for agricultural purposes. In addition,
the Agricultural Code of Practintrusion intof an s opinion that the agricultural areapand
residential development is an
could hamper the viability sult, flexibility of
proposal activities
adjacent areas. As a result,
10.3.2.1 .e) of the Durh alamroeosalsl s�allcnot undulylrestrictcthesuseaof
such estate resident p p
adjacent properties for, among other things, agricultural uses .
5.3 Highway No. 35 is adjacent to approximately 1200 ft. of the eastern
boundary of the subject lands and is in close proximity to another 500
feet of the subject lands. Staff is of the opinion that it is
inappropriate to locate estate residential developments which are
designed to be relatively free of traditionl ni urban housingdimpacts , to
ot se sources adjacent
as nt to s
high volumes of traffic at high speeds. These volumes include
carry hi
trucks g ng the highway at various times throughout the day and night.
In addition, gravel trucks from the numerous gravel pits to the north use
this highway to b ng resource inappropriate ti intrusion on to an
opinion that these e noise
estate residential proposal in this location. In this regard , the
Ministry of the Environment n sreviewing
of the the application proposal . has indicated
its concern with respect
Furthermore, Section 10.3.2.1 .c) of the Durham Regional Official Plan
indicates that the location of estate residential proposals should be
such that they are not adversely affected by exist ng oriproposl�i nes.
utilities , highways , airports, railways and hydro
5.4 The subject lands hown Regional official"High o
0ffii alPl ani al"ina addition, a
identified on Map
number of gravel pits are located the the
applicant�hasrundertakenpa ptudy
residential subdivision. However,
to determine the uaggteda nmateri al the
s limited and thatparpi t
indicates that q Y granular
operation is not feasible.
5 .5 With respect to the ed°area t�oithecsouth,aeasttandewest,rstaffeof�thes
part of a large wood
Ministry of Natural Resources co�n rhardwoodcomments
woodl otnwi with armpxture
has indicated that it 9 quality
of well established mature hardwoods, maple, oak and hemlock. Thi s
40
i
i
Commissioner' s Report No. 80-239 Page 4
woodlot has productive potenti al and ideal ly should be managed to
maximize its forestry value. It is Regional staff's opinion that the use
of the subject site for forestry production is a more appropriate use
than that proposed by the applicant in that it would be in keeping with
the rural environment of the area. Staff should point out however, that
staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources in a subsequent letter
addressed to the Town of Newcastle has now indicated that although they
still find it unfortunate that such a productive woodlot should be
sterilized for future use they are now wi 1 1 i ng to withdraw their
objection to the proposal . The Ministry indicates there is no way of
ensuring that the trees would be managed for production even if
development were not approved.
However, and notwithstanding the withdrawal of the Ministry of Natural
Resource's objection, Regional staff maintain that if the woodlot as part
of, a larger forested area is valuable , and it has been indicated to be
so, '.that, the approval of the subject application would be contrary to
Section 10.3.2.1 .d ) of the Durham Regional Official Plan which indicates
that estate residential proposals are not to be located on lands having a
high capability for, among other things, forest production.
There are mechanisms such as a Tree By-law passed persuant to the Trees
Act in which municipalities can protect valuable forest and woodlot
resources from i ndi scrimi nant cutting and destruction. In addition,
Section 12.3.2. of the Durham Regional Official Plan indicates i n part
that "The reforestation and improvement of existing natural wooded areas
within the Region and in particular within the Major Open Space System
shall be encouraged . . . . ".
5.6 In conclusion, as a result of the previous comments made in this report,
staff is reconxnending that the subject amendment application be
dens ed.
r
Dr. M. Michael , M.C . I .P.
Commissioner of Planning.
JS/LK
Attachments: Location Map
41
,
MANVERS TWP,
LOT FOREST CLARK
s� t
wT 23
FOREST
L
FOREST
CON. X I I I I 'o .�
AGRICULTURAL LAND ^'2
. I i �
APPLICANT''S PROPOSAL i I c
AGAKXA I.PAL LAND
aARN
TENTH I LINE
AGRICULTURAL / ---�--_{
LAND / AGRICULTURAL t.%0
EXTENT OF ,�-
COOE OF PRACTICE
FOREST.�• `t`Yl-..,f l \ _.
y lL L I FOREST
CON. 1X
Y.t^•-'-' •'; ``..� .`•...x..4...1 r'1 ��✓t ✓`'v ,r_..�..�:�,`. ` L\\� I
r
TOWN OF NE�CASTLE
I I I I
I I I
( I I I I
KEY MAP
SITE APPLICATIOtl SUBMITTED BY
WAVERLY HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (OSHAWA) LTD,
)2,)I 30,29 28 27,26, 25 T
FILE: 7E-35/D
^I co�o,a��a
wl II
i
42
•EA
��yy Milg7 y0
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
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, 1.980, 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
previous occasions and the fact that further delay will only result in
i
i
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,,
TTE:lb D. . Smith, M.C.I.P.
August 1, 1980 Director of Planning
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1.10 D.N. SMITH,M.C.I.P., Dlractor
TEL. (116)263.2221
REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CUMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNK: 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. 'i'he :il,l,tication 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 y
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
es review
will be requted.
Town of Newcastle Fire Departm,211t
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 ii-re department vehicles .
�T
2 -
Public School (board
No ob,jer.tLon,
Separate School board
No objection,
Durham llea.lth Unit
No ob.Juction.
tfinistry 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 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 .
Itinistry of Natural Resources
From a natural resources viewpoint , the development would be
damaging; to both mineral and fores
try resources. This pert
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 p[-cvcnt -Illy of minerals which may
be present on the site, and could conflict wi.tli eventual utiliz-
atton of mtn�'ral <lepor;itt; oll th(� ;, l }ncunt or nearby lands ati well
as wiLh truck traffic from the � xi ticu pits nearby.
I•liere is also a good quality hardwood woodlot on most of the
property • This woodlot has productLve 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 , Tf the owner wishes to pur-
sue this development, we suggest he obtain a serve he the a >
potential of the property b a y aggregate
how conflicts with mining ncari)vl,willlbe avoidedional and explain
Our recommendation at this time is that the proposal is premature.
,w
The Ministry has no ObjVULLOn to the proposed development .
Our requLrcniv,_,nL will be that a O. 3 metro reserve along the
entire frontage or the s"bjuvt lands on Hwy . 35 be conveyed
by deed to the IWSLry . All internal roads must be con-
structud to appropriate standards aN outlined in M.T.C.
Circular 72-010 to be elgibLe for future maintenance and/or
reconstruction subsidy .
I'll"IstrY Of the - F.tivironmunt
The 2b 10L rusidenLLN I tkvo liqmunj proposed is to be ser-
Mud by LndLvLdual wells "nd Nuplic Look systems , Comments
on the proposed use or septic took systuns must pe 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 UL deep. Al though 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; LhLs development relates
to the existence or conflicting land uses. Thu proximity of
the development to Hwy . 35 rusHl Ls in a predicted noise level
excess of 3 dish on the lots noarm the highway . Although
this excess may not be Of suffix ionL "Log"U"de to require
the implementation of noise control measures the Ilinistry of
Housing 's Policy "Noise and New Residential development Adjacent
to Freeways" states that the CQSLcnc6 of this slight problem
should be brought to the attention of prospective purchasers .
in addition Co the potential n"ina problem we note that Chore
is a farm located adlaconL to ti;n lopmc'nC site. Calculations
using Lhe minimum UsLanve svpordi ion VorK"In of the Agricultural.
Code of P1-,'1cLLcu for Ontario indicaLoN LhAt a suparaLion distance-
Of 986 K , (approx. 299 m, ) will hu 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 rusolvc this conflict and Proceed with
the development sometime in the future the residents of lots I
inclusive must be advised of the 7
potential noise problem associated
with vehicular traffic on Hwy . 35 . Inclusion of
warn-
ing clause the following warn-
In a V09istured portion of the subdivider 's agreement
would sac [sCy our concern.
®ti
i
"Duo to the proximity of this development to Hwy.
35 , noise levels on the properly may be or con-
cern occasionally interferinr with some activities
Of the dwelling 's occupants . "
At the present time, however, we can only provide favourable
comment on the developrn,'VIL of 9 1"ts (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.
Canaraska ConsurvaQon Authority
'1'110 site was reviewed on a previou.-; occasion for purposes of
d0vuloping a 173 unit mobile home park. At that time our
concerns were in respucL of the importance of So site and
surrounding; lands as a major revhargv area for groundwater
supplies feeding the tribuLaries or both the ,Jilmot Crock and
the Canaraska River.
The revised proposal has substantially reduced the density
(26 tuts minimum sire 0. 5 ha) . Thor,' 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 5i cu wi I I t:he'efore , be minimized.
Our concerns with respect to lor, :;t cover and density of .lots
can best be dealt with in the subdivision agreement . tie
auchorlLy, therefore , has no ol, ju tion with regard to matters
under its jurisdiction and mandate .
Durham Re tonal lJut_ks Dept_
In view of the fact that sepLic tanks and individual wells will
be the method of servicing, as .ind, aced in this submission, this
.cpplic,rtion would appear to have no implications from a Regional
Works point of view. Sherclore, we have no objection CO this
proposed amendment.
���rlru•:N'fs :
Section tU. 3. 2 . 1 of the Durham Rerio"al Uffici,rl flan prescribes
certain criteria that must he rons.idered when reviewing an application
to amend the Plan to Permit estaLU-rusidential development . •rite subject
proposal does not comply with the following Lhree of the requisites for
approval:
(d) "The proposal is noL located on lands having high capability
[or agriculture , conserv;rl ion and recreation ,c uaCiun , Cuc•0st pro-
duction or mineral exLraction
lvj)
(u) ''The proposal shall. not unduly restrict Chu use of adja-
cent properties for agrLcttlturu , conservation and recreation,
Lorest production or mineral eztration;,'
(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 Nggrcgate resources . This is
in direct conflict with the intent of subsection (d) . Both the Ministry
of Agriculture and Food, and the 11Lnistry of the Environment indicated
that Chu proposaL does not comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice,
in direct conflict wLth subSucli"n ( 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 ,tlsn indicated potential conflicts
due to noise .Levu Ls generated by Ili};hwav Si .
In light Of these conflicts , it is our staff opinion that approval
of this proposal would not Comply with illO intent of the Durham Regional
Official Plan , and would result in scrion, land use colt!lists for at leas
twenty-one or the CWent —S.i:i _
Y lots proposed. We , therefore
cannot reconunend
approval.
ItI;Ct)M�IL;NUA'1'Lc)1�5 ;
'f'hat Chu I`Iannln}; and It� v� l„I,nn:ut t:,„,,niillee reeontntotttl Co (:unncil
the following:
1.
That report P-86-80 be mccive,l; and that
2. I'I, It ;Lon ul Uurl I,u '1 IVi:;-'II tl,.iL ll,c •I'„wn of (Juwc:itiLlu
rucommcnds dun[al or offirin PIdn Amundmunt Application
7G- 35/U, for Part of Lot 2'. , Concession 9, former Township
or Clarke .
Iterspuctful.ly submitted,
i
TTG: lb
U. N. Smitl�, t•I.C.1 .P.
May 8, 1980 Director of Planning
Z9 28 i 27 28 25 24 23
I
23 22 21 20 19
i I
x
i o
SITE -
Ix
X
i�
r
i I .
I 1
1 •
i
VIII co
i
I i
' 3
J_JL I
i I I
I I
KEY MAP ATTACHMENT N ° 1
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT ° 500 °°°"'
76- -� 35 /D P• 86 - 80 300 foo
July 23, 1980
DURHAM Mr. J. Mc I 1 roy
Clerk
Town of ewcastle
the aegional ' 40 Temperance Street
Municipality p
of Durham Bowmanvil le, Ontario
Planning
Doponmont
Box 623 i Dear Mr. Mc I1 roy:
106 Consumers Dr,
Whitby, Ontario Re: Official Plan Amendment Applications
Canada,LIN 6A3
(416) 668.7731 No. 75-32/D/ND - Schickedanz Development
No. 76-35/D - WaverTey'Ne q hts
I
Dli. M. A. MICHAEL. M.C.I.P. Town ofNewcastle
C<xnmssionor of Planning
At the direction of the Planning Committee, I have been instructed
to conta t those area municipalities which have not yet forwarded
a recommendation 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,
� r
Dr, M. M chael , M.C. I .P,
Commissioner of Planning
cb
. x'•J ,`` 1', 'i, NJ)
CORIP0,1RATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH,M.C.I.P., Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB U0 TEL. (416)263-2231
July 31 , 1981)
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
Piles: 75-32/D/ND - Schickedanz
7G-35/D - Waverly heights ,
Further to your letter of July 23, 1980, in respect
of the above noted proposed Official flan amendments; please
be advised that the Council for the 'town of Newcastle has not
yet reached a decLsion on either of the subject applications.
I it Lh • i!anp o f I'I I 7`,- 12/D/NU, the Town' H Planning
and lk:vu.lopm42nt CommltLuc tabled staff Report f'-210-79, attached,
pending a duturmination of the future .land uses of the Pine Ridge
Training School property.
In the casu of File 76-35/1), 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 ti'UsL that this information will be of assistance .
Yours u��ry -vruly,
TTE: 1b T. T. Edwards , M.C. 1 . 1'
Encl.
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING ANO DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
D.N. SMITH,M.C.I.P., Dlrecfor
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1J0
TEL. (416)263.2231
REPORT TO T"K PL.ANNLNG AND DEVELOPMENT C0hI1'IL 'TI:L 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 (U) (Revised)
BACKGROUND:
As in by staff report P-182-79 on October 15, 1979 ,
the above noted proposal was circulated to the town for continent
on September 24 , 1979. The subject application has since been cir-
culated by Town and Regional staff. The ;application was also adver-
tlsed by the Region in order to Solicit public input .
The r.esuLLn 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 continents and review
will be requested.
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
1) Consideration for adequate water supply for fire protection,
Portion of road.
underground reservoir 20,000 6 1.l.ons accessible from travelled
2) Access to all areas for fire department vehicles .
i
_ r
2 -
Public School Board
No objection.
Separate School board
No objection.
Durham Health Unit
No objection.
fLinistry 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 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 .
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 11oraine 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 uti.ltzation of minerals which may
be present on the site, and could conflict with eventual utiliz-
Mon of mineral deposits on thu ad,jacunt or nearby lands as well
as WIG 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-cstab.lish on a new site .
From bath a forestry and mineral resources point of view, the
best management scheme would be to retain the property in an
unsubdiv.ided, 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.
I
- 3 -
Ministry of '1_ransportation S Communications
The hLin.istry 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. 33 be conveyed
by deed to the 111nistry . All internal roads must be con-
structed to appropriate standards as outlined in M.T.C.
Circular 72-010 to be e.lgib.l.e for future maintenance and/or
reconstruction subsidy.
Ministry of the Environment
The 26 Lot resldunti.al. development proposed is to be sur-
e Lcud by l nd L v Ldura l wu L Ls and Svp L LU 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 acquifers may
not be present at any one locatLon, we do not anticipate
any problems in obtaining n satisfactory supply of water.
The major itum of concern regarding this development relates
to the existence of confLicLing Lind uses. The proximity of
the development to Hwy . 35 results Ln 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 Mnistry 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 potenLLr.a.l noise problem we note that there
is ra farm located adjacent to G o &w, lopment site. Cr.al.culat.ions
using the mLnimum di.stancu supar"Llon formula of the Agricultural
Code of Practice for Ontario LndicaLus that a separation di.stance
of 934 ft . (;approx. 299 m. ) will be ruquirud between the two .land
uses . Thu 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 phrased out or for some other reaso.
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.
I
d
i
"Ouk! to the proximity of this development to Hwy.
35 , noise IU VC is on the p ropu r ty may be or con-
curn 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.
Canaraska Conservation Authority
The site 'was reviewed on a previous occasion for purposes of
developing; a 173 unit mobile home bark. 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 Mmot Creek and
the Canaraska 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 situ wil I , therefore , be minimized.
Our concerns with respect to forout rover and density of .Lots
can bunt be dealt with in the subd Nis Lon agreement. The
authority, therefore, has no objection with regard to matters
under its jurisdiction and mandate .
llurha�;iorIai.. Norks 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.
COrlr ENTS :
Section 10. 3. 2. 1 of the Durham Regional Official flan prescribes
certain criteria that must be considered when reviewing an application
to amend the Plan to permit estate-resideut.ial development. The subject
proposal does not comply with the following three of the requisites for
approval:
(d) "'flee proposal is not located on lands having high capability
for agriculture, conservation and recreation, forest pro-
duction or mineral extraction;"
(e) "The proposal shall not unduly restrict the use of adja-
cent properties for agriculture , conservation and recreation,
I production or mineral extrati.on;"
(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 road, 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) . 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) .
I'lte hUnlstry 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 Cite intent of the Durham Regional
Official Plan , and would result in seri.o"s land use conflicts for at Least
twenty-one of the twenty-six lots pruposod. We, therefore, cannot recommend
approval .
RI;COI`L�tGNI)A'I'l�)Nti
'l'Itat the Planning and DuveLopment Committee recommend to Council
the following:
I. That report P-86-80 be received: and that
.w - i)
2. ('liv I:� I,I��u ul Uurit;un IW l(lvi:.t-'tl III.-IL Litu Town of NuwcrtsL.lu
ru�uuununls duninl. of t)(( icirtl N--Ill rinwndntcnL Application
Ili-•35/1), for P;trL of Lot 24 , Cu11c.L2ssion 9, formcr 'l'uwnsl�il>
o L' (,.la rke.
ReshcctiLlIIy submitted,
TTG: lb D. N. SmiLll, 1,I.C.I .P.
May 8, 1980 Director of Planning
28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 -
i
I I
I z
li
SITE
II '
tx
' I
Ln
Vlli
�I o
Z, ,
I
� I
KEY MAP ATTACHMENT N ° 1
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT ° 500 ►Doom
76 -35 /D P-86-80 300 100