Information Report No. 06-15
Draft Plans of Subdivision Applications SP-2015-01, SP 2015-03, SP-2015-04; SP-2015~05, SP-2015-06
Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 2/15, A 5/15, A 8/15, A 10/15 and A 11/15
Ontario Infrastructure and Land Corporation Seaton Community

Download Report

Ontario Infrastructure and Land Corporation (OILC) has submitted five applications for the approval of draft plans of subdivision and related zoning by-law amendments. The proposals reflect the developable OILC lands in each of the Seaton Neighbourhoods. Further, all the Seaton Natural Heritage System lands throughout Seaton are included in one of the rezoning applications.

Of particular interest to Whitevale is the following application that includes the Gravel Pits, lands around the Whitevale Cemetery, and lands north and south of Whitevale Road at the east end of the village (see map above) :

Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-06 and Zoning By-law Amendment A 11/15 Neighbourhoods 18 and 16

These applications represent the remnant developable parcels owned by OILC in Seaton Neighbourhood 18, Mount Pleasant and two small parcels in Neighbourhood 16, Lamoreaux (see Neighbourhood 18: Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood Plan, Attachment #18 and Neighbourhood 16: Lamoreaux Neighbourhood Plan, Attachment #19). The subject draft plan represents the OILC developable lands within these Neighbourhoods. The majority of developable lands in these Neighbourhoods are owned by various Seaton developers that have been rezoned and the subdivisions have been draft approved.

Property Description

• the subject lands consisting of eight individual parcels spread across Neighbourhood 18, as well as two parcels in Neighbourhood 16
• some of these parcels of land are small remnant pieces and others are larger developable blocks (see Location Map, Attachment #20)
• the subject lands have a total area of approximately 41 hectares
• the Provincially owned lands in Neighbourhood 18 are spread across the northern portion of Neighbourhood 18, and are generally adjacent to Low Density Type 1 land uses that are held by other landowners and are also adjacent to the Seaton Natural Heritage System and/or the Hamlet of Whitevale
• the subject lands include lands designated as Low Density Area Type 1, Low Density Area Type 2, Village Green, Open Space and Hamlet Heritage Open Space
• a Community Park, a Neighbourhood Park and two elementary schools sites are identified within the lands designated Hamlet Heritage Open Space
• the Neighbourhood 16 lands include a block designated as a Mixed Corridor Type 2- Gateway Site, and a block for High Density Residential

Application Detail

• the proposed draft plan of subdivision is reflective of the land use designations in Neighbourhoods 16 and 18 of the Official Plan (see Submitted Plan, Attachment #21)
• the larger development blocks in Neighbourhood 18 are adjacent to the Hamlet of Whitevale
• the lands that partially surround the Hamlet of Whitevale, located in the lands designated Hamlet Heritage Open Space, are intended to provide a buffer/transition between new urban development and the Hamlet, while supporting community integration
• the Hamlet Heritage Open Space designation allows for institutional and recreational facilities, including two blocks for elementary schools, a Community Park, a Neighbourhood Park and a stormwater management pond
• two blocks for elementary school sites are located in the northwestern and southeastern corners of the Hamlet Heritage Open Space
• the Hamlet Heritage Open Space designation also has a Neighbourhood Park proposed south of Whitevale Road, and a Community Park north of Whitevale Road; both parks are directly adjacent to new Low Density Area neighbourhoods
• north of the Hamlet Heritage Open Space designation, on the west side of North Road, is a residential development parcel that is proposed for 148 detached dwellings and 24 semi-detached dwellings
• the other developable parcel in Neighbourhood 18 is on the south side of Whitevale Road, east of the Whitevale Cemetery
• this parcel is proposed for 4 7 detached dwellings
• an open space block is proposed on the west side of the cemetery that is designated as Cemetery
• the two remnant developable parcels in Neighbourhood 16 are a Gateway block along Sideline 26 that is anticipated to be developed with adjacent property, and a High Density block along Taunton Road
• see Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-06 details on Attachment #22

Information Report No. 06-15
Draft Plans of Subdivision Applications SP-2015-01, SP 2015-03, SP-2015-04; SP-2015~05, SP-2015-06
Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 2/15, A 5/15, A 8/15, A 10/15 and A 11/15
Ontario Infrastructure and Land Corporation Seaton Community

Download Report

Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, October 5, 2015

A public information meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above-noted application.

Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Strategic Initiatives, with the aid of a power point presentation, provided an outline of Information Report 06-15. He provided an overview of the five applications for the Seaton Community, explaining the various land uses within the developable areas and along Brock Road. He noted he would be available after the meeting to answer questions. He also explained the permitted uses for the buffer area surrounding Whitevale, explaining low intensity uses such as parks and schools, with no new residential development in this area.

Emma West, planningAlliance, appeared before the Committee on behalf of Infrastructure Ontario, noting she was in attendance to receive comments from the residents.

Lloyd Thomas, 489 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee, providing Members with a map, outlining where the trails come down from the 407 along North Road. He indicated the Old Quarry could be a potential site for a secondary trail head. He explained the ecological sensitivity of the area where the development was proposed, and questioned a better use for this land, which is a hub for trails. He stated this would be an ideal area for a trail head, as it head north into Rouge Park. He also stated parking is already inadequate in the area. He asked that Council request the Provincial Government to place this land into the greenbelt for use as a trail head, noting the influx of residents would have access to hiking and fishing.

Rob Quig, 440 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee questioning what the proposed plan was for the Heritage Hamlet open space. He requested clarification on the use of a community park.

Susan Wilson, 3245 North Road, appeared before the Committee noting her concerns regarding the impact on existing wells. She questioned whether an assessment would be done to ensure water protection for existing residents with the subdivision being to the north, and subsequent recourse should they experience water problems.

Marion Thomas, 489 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee, noting some confusion with respect to the North Road development, questioning where exactly the development would be in proximity to the pit. She also noted concerns with respect to illegal dumping, stating the pits are a great place to walk and experience nature. She noted it was unclear where the Natural Heritage area is and where the residential and industrial development would be going, noting she would like to see a better plan. Ms. Thomas noted her support with the plan to build a trail head as well as the need for additional parking. She also stated her desire to see a car pool area in the Seaton development.

Mrs. Douglas, 3230 Mulberry Lane appeared before the Committee noting her concerns with respect to trail head issues. She stated that currently there are a number of issues with respect to noise from dirt bikes and four wheelers. She stated this should be a quiet area, and requested justification for what the usage would be for the trail heads.

Karen Hodson, 3555 Sideline 34, Green River, appeared before the Committee questioning whether the current residents would have an opportunity to upgrade to City water and sewer.

Scott Finlayson, 3185 Altona Road, Whitevale, appeared before the Committee questioning whether an environmental assessment had been done and what the next steps were.

Arzo Baig appeared before the Committee questioning the greenspace use and whether a wildlife impact study had been completed.

Jennifer Krueger, 492 Churchwin Street, Whitevale, appeared before the Committee and also questioned whether City hook ups for water and sewer would be offered, as Whitevale residents are currently on wells and septic tanks. She also questioned what would happen in the event that the current residents experience problems with their wells.

Mike Rowan, 75 Highway 7, Green River, appeared before the Committee questioning where the waste disposal site would be situated as well as traffic plans for Highway 7 as Seaton develops.

Abel Wong, 540 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee questioning the open space areas and noting concerns with respect to noise, safety as well as traffic. He questioned whether the traffic studies were realistic or underestimated. He also noted concerns with respect to the impact on existing wells and water pollution due to construction.

Peter Rodrigues, 750 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee, stating this was the time for Council to take action to protect sensitive land. He stated more precision was needed to determiDe exact boundaries and questioned the number of housing units being proposed.

Hyder Baig, 3181 Golf Club Road, Whitevale, appeared before the Committee, noting concerns with respect to the impact on underground streams with the digging around Whitevale and who would be responsible in the event their wells go dry. He also noted concerns with respect to safety, questioning whether fencing was being considered.

Nicole Brewster, 335 Whitevale Road, appeared before the Committee noting concerns for the lands being proposed for school sites, questioning what the process would be should a school not be constructed. She also noted concerns with respect to a lack of parking, noting the area is heavily used and also questioned how the open space areas would be utilized.

Emma West reappeared in response to questions raised, noting that the concerns would be discussed in more detail once all comments had been received, including agency comments such as TRCA and the Region of Durham.

A question and answer period ensued with respect to the Quarry, infrastructure for additional roads to move traffic in and out of the area on main roads such as Brock and Taunton.