HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdmin 44-84CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
40 TEMPERANCE STREET
BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO
Ll C 3A6
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
MEETING HELD APRIL 16 1984
ADMIN. 44 - 84
SUBJECT: Staff meeting with objectors and developer of
Plan of Subdivision 18T - 74067
TELEPHONE 623-3379
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend
to Council that:
1. This report be received;
2. That Council endorse the recommendations contained in
PD -77-84 and PD -93-84;
3. That the developer and objectors be advised of Council's action; and
4. That if either party objects to Council's approval of the zoning
they may ask that the matter be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
AS a result of Mr. Willatts' concerns expressed at the Council meeting
of March 26th 1984, the matter was referred to staff to review possible
alternatives. Essentially staff reviewed three alternatives:
1. Mr. Willatts',suggested.rerouting of the -access to
High Street south of the recently created lots;
2. The original draft plan of subdivision as approved
August 5th 1980 by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing;
3. The draft plan of subdivision -as approved in January 1984
by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
ADMIN _ - . -2-
As part of this evaluation, the Planning Director, Director of Public Works
and muself met with the developer and his representatives and the objectors.
(Mr. Willatts, Mr. & Mrs. Robertson and Mr. & Mrs. Koning).
Mr. Willatts lives immediately north of the proposed access to High Street,
Mr. & Mrs. Koning live immediately south of the access and Mr. & Mrs.
Robertson live on the west side of High Street directly across the road from
the proposed access in alternative #3.
Before evaluating the three alternatives, I attempted to clearly establish
the concerns of the objectors with respect to alternative #3.
The objectors are agreeable to the proposed development save and except
the access point to High Street. The objectors, in the strongest terms
possible, object to the location of the road for the following reasons:
It would be too close Mr. Willatts' and Mr. & Mrs. Koning's houses;
Disrupt Mr. & Mrs. Robertson's quiet enjoyment of
their property through glare from the lights of vehicles
at night;
The road may adversely affect drainage with resultant flooding
and finally, the proposed access would devalue the properties
of all three land owners.
If the road location were changed, all three objectors indicated they
would have no objections to the proposed development and the rezoning.
Each alternative has certain advantages and disadvantages:
Alternative #1 would eliminate the concerns of the objectors. It would
eliminate concern of the Town with respect to the ownership of the bermed
area, as proposed in Alternative #2. On the other hand, the Town would
assume a street pattern that is slightly longer and more difficult to maintain
than Alternative #3. The developer is not in favour of the proposal as it
would add an estimated cost of $75,000 ($250 x 3001) to the servicing
of the lots.
It should be noted that planning staff received an enquiry with respect
to the road design from a perspective purchaser of one of the previously
severed lots. After confirming that Council had approved a road design
as outlined in Alternative #3, the individual bought the pie -shaped
to
ADMIN. . - 84 -3-
lot to the south of Mr. & Mrs. Koning's property. The developer
indicated at the meeting that prior to purchasing the lot, the perspective
owner indicated that he did not wish a road to run along the rear
of the property.
Alternative #2 would also solve the objectors' concerns. Unfortunately
this alternative would create even more street surface for the Town to
maintain. Perhaps more importantly, it would leave the Town to maintain
an open space area to the south of the road which includes a berm.
The maintenance costs would be ongoing and as such, staff do not wish to
support this option. Again, the developer has indicated that the cost of
road construction would add significantly to the cost.
Alternative #3 again has its advantages and disadvantages. The objectors'
concerns of proximity of the road allowance to their houses, will not
be resolved. Mr. Robertson's concern about the glare from car lights
at night will still be present. In order to reduce impact, the suggestion
was made of additional buffering, either fencing or tree planting to
minimize the effect of the close proximity of the road allowance.
The objectors feel that very little could be done to eliminate their concerns.
The Town has requested the developer to provide a sketch of the proposed
location of the services within the road allowance. This sketch, which
is appended to report PD -93-84 shows the proposed location of the
travelled surface of the road. The road would be 2115" from the south side
of Mr. Willatts' residence and 34' from the north side of the residence
located at 85 High Street. Under normal conditions, the Town's by-laws
would require a separation of 37' from the residence to the travelled
portion of the lot. Mr. Willatts indicated that while they were
concerned with the road allowance width, they would still not wish to have
the road located in this area even if it were a 66' wide access.
While all three alternatives have their shortcomings, technically
staff is recommending alternative #3 based on shifting the road to the
south within the road allowance.
ADMIN. - 84 -4-
Council may wish to adopt an alternate approach if they feel that the
concerns of the citizens outweigh the technical concerns of staff, the
cost consideration of the developer and the concerns of the property
owner who has recently purchased the pie -shaped lot to the south on
the understanding that the access road would be as described in
alternative #3.
For the information of Council, I have attached copies of the three
alternatives that staff examined.
Respectfully submitted,
DSJ:nof David. Johnston,
Chief Administrative Officer
att.
7 I i
Is
�;�'
�7rj2•E 'bOCJO' qa� ._-l�"� j / / � t�`\�\(�'�.
.e
103
Y � �
•'' / P /
I moi• ' J� � ..} • ••,. / �•\ � � \!
REVISED PLAN
f
ar q 9 y
JA
^ 'IT l�a4c.! �M�r...• /9 YW.
-_ C-1 AS
A o ,/ 1 l
,W
n
OT/
� r2
� � v
4� v pv
rn wive.
ri
Q � `
a
DRAFT APPROVED-
_ _I N7r ��•d5'E 29/00'
. /�zs•9�E� ea ',�:•2e � � � �• (BOJ 0
O
�m
lz�
N7i•4S BOE �/. �' 1 � i / � � —
m.,r,
COUNCIL NOVEMBER 14 1983
MINISTRY OF HOUSING JANUARY 23 1984
,i r - A®i• ._;� �,,� \CC�`� j. t'�v /7 �TGrr1 a'�'iVt 3
u
�•\ �Il,4etfi:4
REVISED Pl. AN