Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-94-98DN: PD-9498 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Meeting: Date: General Purpose and Administration Committee File # `p14 .-~~. g7.o88' Res. # GPi~ - 437 - 9 ~ Monday, July 13, 1998 Report #: PD-94-98 FILE #: DEV 97-088 Subject: SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS COFFEE TIME APPLICATION, NEWCASTLE VILLAGE FILE: DEV 97-088 By-law # Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-94-98 be received for information. BACKGROUND: At the General Purpose and Administration meeting held on June 21, 1998, Committee passed the following resolution: "THAT the Director of Planning and Development be requested to submit a report on the process which was followed for the Site Plan Application made by Coffee Time Donuts, Newcastle, for the drive-thru, addressing how the neighbours were advised during the process". 2. COFFEE TIME SITE PLAN APPLICATION: 2.1 This is an application to amend an existing approved site plan to provide for adrive- thru facility which includes alteration to the existing building and the addition of a drive-through lane. 2.2 The property is located at the northwest corner of Arthur Street and Highway No. 2 in Newcastle Village. - 696 REPORT NO.: PD-94-98 PAGE2 3. SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS FOR COFFEE TIME APPLICATION: The following is a chronology of events of the process undertaken by staff in dealing with the Coffee Time application. • November 13, 1997 -the Planning and Development Department received an application to amend an approved site plan for adrive-through facility. The application was circulated to the applicable agencies on the same day. • November 18, 1997 -staff received a phone call from Mr. Sam Citrigno who stated Coffee Time Donuts is doing some construction work. Staff contacted Mr. Frank Manolis of Coffee Time and advised him to stop work. Mr. Manolis insisted he has done no construction work. • November 19, 1997 -staff visited the site and confirmed there was no construction work related to the drive-through facility underway. • November 20, 1997 -staff discussed the above matter with Mr. Citrigno and stated that no unauthorized construction work related to the site plan amendment was underway. • December 1, 1997 -staff reviewed the concerns raised by Mr. Citrigno with Mr. Manolis and requested the applicant to retain a professional acoustical engineer to advise if and how noise from the proposed drive-thru facility can be attenuated. • January 29, 1998 -Councillor Troy Young requested information about the application. Staff provided the information and advised of the status of the application. 697 REPORT NO.: PD-9498 PAGE3 • February 3, 1998 -staff spoke with Mr. Citrigno advising that he would be informed when the Noise Study arrives and when staff has made a decision about the study. • February 16, 1998 -Councillor Charlie Trim telephoned staff for information about the application. Councillor Trim said he had received phone calls from several residents and so, he wanted to be updated on the application. Staff provided the requested information and advised of the status of the application. The Director was subsequently informed of the Councillor's enquiry. • February 23, 1998 -Council -Communications for Direction -Suggested Disposition: "THAT the correspondence dated November 24, 1997 from Sam Citrigno regarding concerns with respect to the Coffee Time restaurant located adjacent to his home, be received; THAT, in view of the fad that the property owner has applied for a site plan amendment, the correspondence be referred to the Director of Planning and Development to be reviewed in conjunction with the subject file; and THAT Sam Citrigno be advised of Council's decision." • March 24, 1998 -staff told Mr. Citrigno that the applicant had, earlier in the day, submitted the Environmental Noise Study and the Revised Site Plan. • May 8, 1998 -staff met with Mr. Sam Citrigno to review the noise report and recommendation for noise attenuation. • June 17, 1998 -staff informed Mr. Citrigno that the Site Plan Amendment has been approved on June 16, 1998. - 698 REPORT NO.: PD-9498 PAGE4 4. THE PLANNING ACT: 4.1 Section 41 of the Planning Act provides for the legislative authority to a local municipality to approve site plan subject to certain conditions. Where necessary, these conditions could include matters such as access, curbs, traffic direction signs, driveway, walkway, floodlights, wall, fences, garbage collection area, siting of buildings etc. 4.2 The Act also provides for an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board if the Municipality fails to approve the site plan within 30 days or the owner of the land is not satisfied with any of the requirements made by the Municipality. The Act does not provide for any appeal mechanism to neighbours or any parties other than the owner of the land. Presumably, the opportunity for objection by others is provided for in the official plan and rezoning process. 5. SITE PLAN APPROVAL AUTHORITY 5.1 Site plan approval was delegated by Council to the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works by By-law 83-15. Said delegation was reconfirmed by By- law 90-130. 5.2 Since the delegation, both Directors have approved countless site plan applications. On rare occasion where the applicants do not agree with the decisions or the conditions to be imposed by the Directors, a report will be prepared and Council will be requested to provide some directions or to render a decision. The Director cannot recall ever bringing forward such a report to Council in recent years except for the condominium application at Wellington and Temperance Streets where the applicant requested a different formula be applied to cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. 699 REPORT NO.: PD-94-98 6. PAGE 5 SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS FOR SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS: The Department procedures for processing a site plan application are as follows: a) application received and reviewed for conformity to Official Plan and Zoning By-law. b) circulation to applicable agencies. c) discussion with owner/applicant of requirements/problems, if any, arising our review and/or comments from agencies. d) applicant resolves agency's concerns. e) circulation completed. f) site plan approval granted and agreement executed, if applicable. 6.2 The above procedure does not contain any public consultation process which is usually done through the official plan amendment or rezoning application stage. Despite this, if staff is aware of any concern raised by a neighbour, we will definitely involve the neighbour in the process and we will try our best to resolve the concern. 6.3 With respect to the Coffee Time application, the drive-thru facility conforms to the Zoning By-law, the drive-thru laneway meets our laneway width standard. Despite all these, staff is cognizant of the potential noise problem and have requested the applicant to retain a professional acoustic engineer to demonstrate if and how noise can be attenuated. The Report demonstrated noise can be attenuated by erecting a 6' high solid wood fence. Despite Mr. Citrigno's continuous concern, staff has no reason not to grant approval to the site plan. 6.4 Staff receives enquiries from the Mayor and Councillors on a fairly regular basis with respect to various development applications and we always endeavour to provide the requested information promptly. In the case of the Coffee Time 699001 REPORT NO.: PD-94-98 PAGE6 application, the Planner in charge of the file and the Director are aware of the previous enquiries made by the Councillors. However, both did not advise the Councillors prior to granting approval to the Coffee Time site plan. The Director will accept responsibility for this particularly when Councillor Trim has requested to be updated back in February this year. 7. CONCLUSION: The site plan approval process has worked well and has worked well throughout the last 15 years. No change is recommended. Respectfully submitted, Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Planning & Development FW*jip June 30, 1998 Reviewed by, W.H. Stockwell, Chief Administrative Officer. 699002