HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-149-87-~~y~.""'~'~~~~~-,,1 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
,,
~'~~~~~-' ~ REPORT
~~
~`~
(~EEflf~i: General Purpose and Administration Committee
(~~
i
~~.~~~~a
File # ~ b
Res. # _ / '~;~~ a ~~',~ =S",%
By-Law # ~°~`~ -z4~
DATE: Tuesday, May 19, 1987
T #: PD-149-87 FILE #: 85-59/ND, OP 2.2.2(1) & DEV 85-47
CT: APPLICATION TO AMEND TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN - FILE: 85-59/ND
APPLICATION TO AMEND COURTICE SOUTH NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FILE: OP 2.2.2(1)
REZONING APPLICATION - FILE: DEV 85-47
JARIGAY INVESTMENTS LIMITED
PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-149-87 be received; and
2. THAT Staff Reports PD-193-86, PD-258-86 and PD-17-87 be lifted from the table and
received for information; and
3. THAT Council consider the attached request in respect of a proposed Official Plan
Amendment, Neighbourhood Development Plan Amendment and Rezoning as outlined by
the planning consultant for the applicant in his letter of March 17, 1987 and
provide direction to Staff; and
4. THAT a copy of Council's decision be forwarded to the applicant and the interested
parties indicated hereto.
BACKGROUND:
Un January 19, 1987, the General Purpose and Administration Committee considered Staff
Report PD-17-87 (Attachment No. 1 hereto). The Report recommended that Staff Reports
PD-285-86 and PD-193-86 (Attachments 2 and 3 respectively) be lifted from the table and
received for information, and that the applications for Official Plan Amendment,
...2
--~
~~~~
REPORT NU.: PD-149-87 Page 'L
Neighbourhood Development Plan Amendment and rezoning submitted by Jarigay
Investments Limited be denied. Committee resolved (Resolution #GPA-43-87)
to adopt the recommendations in Report PD-17-87. However, at the request
of the applicant's solicitor, Council resolved (Resolution #C-67-87) on
January 26, 1987 to table the Staff Report for four (4) months.
Staff have rnet with the applicant's solicitor and planning consultant to
discuss the proposed development. On March 17, 1987, the planning
* consultant submitted a letter to the Planning Department (Attachment 4)
proposing alternatives by which the subject applications could be handled.
Staff note that the applicant has acquired the lot directly to the east of
the lands subject of the applications, but that the second lot to the east
which is currently designated and zoned "Special Purpose Commercial" has not
been acquired. The acquisition of the new lot increases the total area of
the applicant's site to 0.4 hectares (1 acre), and the total frontage along
Highway No. 2 to 45.6 metres (149.67 feet). As of the writing of this
Report, the applicant has not submitted a revised site plan to the Planning
Department.
CUNINIENT
Staff have reviewed the proposal submitted by the applicant's planning
consultant and have the following comments to offer for Committee's
consideration:
1. Point 1 proposes the redesignation of the site to permit a convenience
commercial and gas bar development in the Official Plan and
Neighbourhood Development Plan, be accomplished by either a
"Notwithstanding" clause under the "Special Purpose Commercial"
provisions or by a specific redesignation of the site. Staff do not
feel that the "Notwithstanding" clause is an appropriate approach, given
that the proposed uses are not of a Special Purpose Commercial nature.
Staff would prefer the latter alternative, being the site specific
...3
--_..
/L /~
REPORT NO.: PD-149-87
Page 3
redesignation. The site would require redesignation to "Residential" in
the Town of Newcastle Official Plan and to "Convenience Commercial" in
the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan.
'L. Point 2 proposes the site be rezoned, subject to a Holding Symbol in the
By-law. Staff have no objection in principle to this proposal, inasmuch
as it would be consistent with the Town's use of the holding symbol on
other sites.
3. Point 3 proposes that the Official Plan and Neighbourhood Development
Plan amendments, and the rezoning not be brought into effect until such
time as a Development Agreement between the Town and the applicant has
been finalized. Development of the site would not proceed until the
Agreement had been executed and no application for the removal of the
Holding Symbol would be made until full municipal services are
available, or until additional land is assembled making the interim
development of the site on private services feasible and a Servicing
Agreement with the Region has been executed with respect to future
connections to municipal services.
The approach being proposed would involve Committee resolving to approve the
applications to amend the Official Plan, the Neighbourhood Development Plan,
and By-law 84-63. At such time as a Development Agreement with the
applicant has been finalized, a recommendation to approve the Official Plan
Amendment could be forwarded by Council to the Region. Upon Regional
Council adoption of the Official Plan amendment, documents to amend the
Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan and By-law 84-63 could be
forwarded to Council for final approval.
Notwithstanding the comments submitted by the planning consultant, Staff
continue to be of the opinon that approval of the subject application is
premature given that it is the intent of both the Region and the Town
Official Plans that commercial development within designated urban areas
proceed on full municipal services. As Staff has indicated in previous
...4
/v ~~J
REPORT NU.: PD-149-87 Page 4
reports, the Region of Durham Health Unit has requested that no high volume
water uses be permitted to establish on the subject site. Staff are
concerned that such a restriction on uses would undermine the development's
ability to provide convenience commercial services to the surrounding area.
Staff note, however, that a revised site plan has not as yet been submitted
by the applicant and therefore comments from various agencies, including the
Health Unit, are therefore not available for the expanded site.
Staff further reference Council's resolution of March 23, 1987 (Resolution
#C-309-87) requesting Staff to bring forward a report on the implications of
changing the land use designation of the area east of Courtice Road within
the Courtice Urban Area. The removal of the area east of Courtice Road from
the urban area would affect the ultimate availability of municipal services
to the subject site. As well, it would result in anon-complying use being
located outside the urban area and further would bring into question the
need for the proposed development should surrounding lands not develop for
urban residential purposes.
With respect to the second property on Highway No. 2 designated and zoned
"Special Purpose Commercial" which has not been acquired by the applicant,
Staff note that development of this parcel for Special Purpose Commercial
uses in isolation would not be appropriate should the subject application
for convenience commercial gas bar uses be approved. A redesignation and
rezoning of this property to either "Residential" or "Convenience
Commercial" would be possible. Staff note as well that Section 3.14(d) of
By-law 84-63 requires that commercial parking spaces be set back at least
1.5m from the boundaries of a residential zone. Should the subject
property be redesignated and rezoned to "Residential", the applicant may
need to acquire a strip of land along the rear of the property to maintain
the required setback from the proposed parking spaces at the south end of
the property. A copy of this Staff Report has been forwarded to the owner
of the subject property.
...5
/~i/~
REPORT NO.: PD-149-87
Page 5
Given the factors discussed above, it is suggested that Council give
consideration to the proposal submitted by the applicant's planning consultant
as outlined in his letter of March 17, 1987 with respect to possible opt ions
for the approval of the subject applications for Official Plan Amendment,
Neighbourhood Development Plan Amendment and Rezoning and provide appropriate
direction to Staff.
Respectfu
JAS*TTE*jip
*Attach.
May 7, 1987
CC: Mr. Ron Armstrong
c/o Jones & Jones
Barristers & Solicitors
130 King Street East
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 1B6~1
Mr. Frank C. Reid
R.R. #6
BUWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K7N
Mr. John Nicholson
Ms. Karen Lomax
R.R. #6
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K7~
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Lawrence otseff
Chi of A i i trati ve Officer
..
CC: Mr. Richard Gay
Ashley 333 Co. Ltd.
97 Athol Street
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7V4N
Mr. Bob Macaulay
Macaulay Shiomi Howson Ltd.
586 Eglinton Avenue East
Suite 604
TORONTO, Ontario
M4P 1P2
Director of Planning
..
.. `, f ..
~: i~:~S~"~~
hEETING:
DAIS:
RQ'ORT #:
SUB.ECT:
REPORT File #
Res_ #
By-Law #
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Monday, January 19, 1987
PD-17-87 FILE #: 85-59/NU, OEV 85-47 & OP 2.2.2(i)
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN - FILE: 85-59/NO
APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COURTICE SOUTN IEIGHSOURH000 OEVQOPMENT PLAN
FILE: OP 2.2.2(1)
REZONING APPLICATION - FILE: OEV 85-47
JARIGAY INYESTMENTS LIMITED
PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 2, DARLINGTON (COURTICE URBAN AREA)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended .that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1.
2.
THAT Report PO=17-87 be received; and
THAT Staff Reports PD-193-86 and PD-285-86 be lifted from the table and received for
information; and
3. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that
Official Plan Amendment Application 85-59/ND submitted by Jarigay Investments be
denied; and
4. THAT the Application to amend the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan and
Rezoning Application DEV 85-47 submitted by Jarigay Investments Limited be denied;
and
5. THAT a copy of this Staff Report, Staff Reports PD-193-86 and PD-285-8b, and
Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of D urham.
...2
BACKG RUUNO:
On July 21, 1986 and December 1, 1986, the General Purpose and
Administration Committee considered Staff Reports PD-193-86 and PD- 285-86
* respectively (attached). The recommendations in Report PD-193-86 were as
follows:
"1. THAT Report PD-193-86 be received; and
2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle
recommends that Official Plan Amendment Application 85-59/ND submitted
by J arigay Investments Limited be~denied as premature; and
3. THAT a copy of Council's decision with respect to this matter be
forwarded to the Region of Durham, the applicant and the interested
parties indicated hereto."
Committee resolved to table Repo rt PD-193-86.
Report PO-285-86 recommended that Staff Report PD-193-86 be lifted from the
table and the recommendations therein adopted. Committee resolved to table
the report fora period of six (6) weeks at the request of the applicant.
On December 5, 1986, the Planning Department received the following letter
from the applicant's agent:
"Mr. Richard Gay on behalf of Jarigay Investments Limited has compiled
several proposals for the Town of Newcastle for comments on the above-noted
report.
Proposal No. 5 is the latest proposal for the General Purpose and
Administration Committee with comments from various Departments. As
Designers for Mr. Gay, I wish to rebuke as follows:
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
1. Underground gasoline fuel storage tanks shall be more than 105 feet
from the Highway #2 centre line.
2. Signage shown at 10' from the property line is acceptable by O~rner.
3. Owner shall undertake to provide -Site Servicing Plan on an approved
Site Scheme.
...3
~.
Page 3
Town of Newcastle Planning Staff
1. Regarding Parking: Proposed Building shall be reduced by 15m2 to
comply with by-law re 25 parking spaces.
2. Parking spaces are smaller then suggested re Section 3.14(a) of By-law
84-63, which I understand is presently under review, but do comply with
acceptable sizes from all other municipalities in the Region of Durham
including the City of Oshawa whose requirements are 9' x 19'. Shown on
Plan are spaces of 9' x 20'.
3. Gas Bar and Kiosk: circulation between the two entrances was not
intended.
4. Loading spaces comply to City of 'Oshawa 3.6m x 9m as opposed to 4m
required by 3.11 of By-law 84-63.
5. Waiting area for loading spaces not necessary, 2 spots provided. No
other municipality requires this.
6. Isle adjacent to loading spaces would be enlarged when Building area is
reduced as noted in Point 1.
7. Most southerly entrance should have radius eliminated on south side.
Entry from southbound traffic only, exit northbound or southbound.
Fence at south side of site should terminate at the front of the
existing residence.
8. Parking for the west side of the plaza between Gas Bar has larger
turning radius or driveway width to facilitate entry of spaces on
slight angle.
9. Refuse pick-up shall be private and shall be arranged for during hours
when the plaza is closed. Therefore it will not interfere with loading
spaces."
COMMENT:
Staff have reviewed this most recent submission from the applicant and note
that there are still a number of concerns with respect to site development.
These are as follows:
...4
~..
REPORT NO.: PD-17=87 ~ Page 4 ;~%
Parking - Staff noted that the parking si~aces being proposed are smaller
than required by By-law 84-63.
- The applicant states that the size of the parking spaces (2.74m
x 6m) complies with the requirements of other municipalities and
that the size requirement in 8y-law 84-63 is being reviewed.
The amendment being proposed by Staff (see Report PO-14-87)
would reduce the length requirement to 5.75m and the width
requirement to 2.75m. The parking spaces being proposed by the
applicant would comply with the reduced length requirement but
would be marginally smaller than the reduced width requirement.
However, Staff are satisfied that wider parking spaces would be
achieved through a minor site redesign.
- Staff noted that the proposed plaza would require 26 parking
spaces, wh.i.le the site plan shows 25 spaces. The applicant
proposes to reduce the area-of the proposed building by 15m2
to comply with the parking space requirements of By-law 84-63.
However, the By-law requires 1 space per 30m2 of floor area
and therefore the floor area ~of the bui 1 di ng must be reduced by
30m2.
- Staff would therefore have no difficulty with the parking being
proposed by the applicant provided the proposed amendments to
By-law 84-63 regarding the size of parking spaces are approved
by Council, and further provided that the site plan is modified
to increase the width of the spaces to 2.75m and to reduce the
area of the building by 30 square metres.
Loading Spaces -Staff noted that the loading spaces are smaller than
required, and that the waiting area would interfere with parking
spaces and traffic using the most southerly entrance onto
Courtice Road.
- The applicant states that the proposed loading spaces comply
with the requirements of the City of Oshawa, and further that n o
waiting area is necessary in that such is not required by other
municipalities. Staff emphasize that the requirements of By-law
84-63 have been approved by Council and all developments within
the Town must conform to these requirements.
Entrances - Staff noted that the most southerly entrance directly abuts the
residential property to the south, and that the turning radius
vaould interfere with the residence's driveway. The applicant
proposes to eliminate the turning radius and restrict the
traffic using the entrance. In Staff's opinion, this is an
unacceptable solution in that such restrictions would be
difficult to enforce, would ma'r,2 traffic circulation on-site
difficult, and would be confusing to motorists using the site.
As well, although By-law 84-63 currently requires commercial
entrances to be at least 9rn fror~ a residential lot, Staff is
proposing to reduce this requirement, but only to 7.5m (see
Report p~-14-87). Staff feel that the location of ti~is
commercial entrance immediately adjacent to the existing
residential use is inappropriate.
r
.. ....'. ' I ,~~
/:
Page 5
Entrances - Staff noted that the planting strip required between the subject
lot and the adjacent residential lot to the south would impede
visibility for traffic using the most southerly entrance. The
applicant proposes to terminate the fence at the front of the
residence and to restrict the entrance to southbound left turns
only. Staff note that the barrier is intended to buffer the
residential use from activity on the commercial site and, as
stated earlier, restrictions on the use of the entrance would be
confusing and difficult to enforce.
Refuse Container - Staff noted that access to the refuse container is
restricted and is located so as to interfere with the loading
spaces. The applicant proposes to arrange for refuse pick-up
when the plaza is closed. Staff note, however, that refuse
pick-up could therefore be late in the evening or early in the
morning and would provide considerable disturbance to the
adjacent residential use during normally quiet hours.
~~Gas Bar & Kiosk - Staff noted that the gas bar and kiosk would be located so
as to interfere with traffic circulation between the two
entrances and the parking area on the west side of the proposed
building. The applicant indicates that the driveway for this
parking area would be slightly wider to facilitate angle
parking. However, Staff note that if a vehicle is parked on the
east side of the gas bar, the access to the parking spaces would
be restricted, particularly since the applicant proposes to
restrict traffic using the southern entrance.
As noted in earlier reports, the Regional Health Unit has approved the
on-site sewage disposal system but the approval prohibits the establishment
of high volume water uses. Such restrictions would limit the plaza's
ability to provide commercial services to the surrounding area. As well, it
is the intent of the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Town of Newcastle
Official Plan that commercial development within designated urban areas be
serviced by full municipal services. Staff also note that there are no
plans of subdivision currently proposed for the residentially designated
lands in the vicinity of the subject site.
The site plan submitted by the applicant also demonstrates the manner in
which the future development of the commercially designated lands to the
east would tie in with the proposed development. Staff are not satisfied
from a review of the plan that the proposed development will not prejudice
._.h
_ ~.,~j .
~. , ~/ .
Page 6
development of the adjacent lands. As well, both the Ministry of
Transportation and Communications and the Region of Durham Works Department
have indicated that the joint development of the properties would be
preferable in terms of the location of the entrances.
Based on the above considerations, Staff is still of the opinion that the
proposed development is premature. It is therefore recommended that Staff
Reports PD-193-86 and PD-285-86 be lifted from the table and received fo r
information. It is further recommended that the Region of Durham be advised
that the Town recommends that Official Plan Amendment Application 85-59/ND be
denied as premature. It is further recommended that the Applications to. amend
the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan and for Rezoning be denied
as premature.
Respectfully submitted,
. war s,
Director of Planning
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
awrence otse
Chief Administrative Officer
JAS*TTE*jip
*Attach .
December 19, 1986
CC: Mr. Richard Gay
Ashley 333 Company Ltd.
97 Athol Street
OSHAWA, Ontario
LiC 3K7
CC: Mr. Frank C. Reid
R.R. #6
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K7
~-~. i'~ ~'<y
MEETING:
DATE:
RF~ORT #:
St1B.>ECT:
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
RE('0(ZT
General Purpose and Administration Committee
ATTACHMENT N0. 2~T0 ~_
REPbRT: ~ 'PD-149=87 ~ ~,.~ ... ~.,:..
Y
File #_
Res_ #
fay-Law #
Monday, December 1, 1986
PO-285-86 FILE #: 85-59/N0, OP 2.2.2(1), OEV 85-47
APPLICATION TO AMEND TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN - FILE: 85-59/NO
APPLICATION TO AMEND COIfRTICE SOUTH NEI6H80llRH000 OEYELOPl~NT PLAN
FIl>E: OP 2.2.2(1)
REZONING APPLICATION - FILE: OEY 85-47
PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 2, FORt£R TOWNSHIP OF OARLIN6TON
APPLICANT: JARI6AY INVESTMENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the~General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-285-86 be received; and
2. THAT Staff Report PO-193-86 be lifted from the table and the recommendations
therein approved.
BACKGROUND:
Un July 21, 1986, the General Purpose and Administration Committee considered Staff Report
PU-193-86 which dealt with the applications for Official P]an Amendment, Neighbourhood
Development Plan Amendment and Rezoning submitted by Jarigay Investments to permit the
development of a Neighbourhood Commercial site and gas bar on the southeast corner of
Highway No. 2 and Courtice Road {see Key N1ap)_ The recommendations in the Report were as
fol loG~s:
.__2
REPURT NO.: PU-285-86
1. THAT Report PU-193-86 be received; and
2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that tt~e Town of
Newcastle recommends that Official Plan Amendment
Application 85=59/NU submitted by J arigay Investments
Limited be denied as premature; and
3. THAT Application No. 1 to amend the Courtice South
Neighbourhood Development Plan and Rezoning Application OEV
85-47 submitted by Ja rigay Investments Limited be denied as
premature; and
4. THAT a copy of Council's decision with respect to this
matter be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the applicant
and the interested parties indicated hereto.
The applicant, Mr. Richard Gay; appe ared as a delegation at the meeting and
requested that the matter be tabled to allow him to deal with the problems
and concerns related to this proposal. Committee resolved (Resolution
#GPA-715-86).to table the applications; this resolution was subsequently
endorsed by Council on July 28, 1986 (Resolution #C-661-86 ).
* The applicant submitted a revised site plan (attached) in response to the
concerns identified by Staff in Report PO-193-86. Staff ci rculated the
revised plan to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the
Region°of` Uurham~Hea'ith' Unit: ~ The' foi`lowing co~ments~on the revised plan
were received:
Ministry of Transportation and Communications
"(i) The proposal as shown is acceptable and seems to incorporate our
earlier comments of June 19, 1986 (Corridor Co ntrol Section
Correspondence).
{ii) There is no indication on the present plan of the location of the
underground gasoline fuel storage tanks. The must be located a
r,ii ni rium of 105 feet fror~~ the Ni gh~rayL centre 1 i ne.
(iii ) The si gnage shown at appr oximately ~' from the property line i s not
acceptable. The signage sho~m at 10' fro+:r the pronr,~ty ?inn is
ac~cpta,i~
.i
(iv) A previous plan indicated a parking lot/roof storm drain which
does not appear on this plan. I assume this has ben deleted from
the development. Any storm drains out-letting into Ministry
faci 1 i ti es or right-of-way wi l 1 require an Encroachment Permit from
this office.
(v) All relevant permits will be required from this office prior to
construction commencing."
Region of Durham Health Unit
"Please be advised that this Department has no objection to the above
rezoning providing the daily sewage flow shall be restricted to 6.122.7
litres (1,346.8 T.GaI.) in accordance with the Ministry of the Environment
Guidelines, noted on M.J. Davenport and associates Drawing No. 269-01, and
that the following businesses are not located at the site: ~~
1. Restaurants of any type, including donut shops,
2. Any type of Laundromat,
3• Eood processing establishments,
4. Hairdressing establishment.
Would you please provide this Department with a list of businesses which
will be permitted in this development."
COMMENT
Staff have reviewed the revised site plan and_th_e comments from the_ _
circu]ated agencies and .note that the applicant has been. unable to~ deal with .
a1i of the site development problems identified by Staff Report PO-193-86. ~~
The following is a summary of these outstanding concerns:
parking - the proposed plaza would require 26 parking spaces; the
revised site plan only indicates 25 spaces
- parking spaces are smaller than required by Section
3.14(a) of 8y-law 84-63
gas bar and kiosk - located so as to interfere with traffic
circulation between the two entrances and the
parking area on the west side of the proposed
plaza
..~
'~ '.
{, ... .. .. ~.t ,
REPORT NO.. PO-285-86
Page 4
loading spaces - loading spaces are 3.65m wide, rather than 4m
wide as required by Section 3.11 of By-law 84-63
- waiting area for loading spaces would interfere
with parking spaces and traffic using the most
southerly entrance onto Courtice Road
- loading spaces reduce the width of the aisle
accessing adjacent parking spaces to below the
minimum 6m required by Section 3.14(a) of By-law
84-63
entrances - the most southerly entrance directly abuts the
residential property to the south. The turning radius
for the entrance would encroach onto the road allowance
in front of the resi denti al property, thereby
interfering with the driveway entrance for the
residence
- Section 3.15(a) of By-law 84-63 requires a planting
strip or a privacy fence along the interior lot line
where a Commercial Zone abuts a Residential Zone. Such
a barrier would impede visibility for traffic using the
most southerly entrance
- the revised site plan indicates that the most southerly
. ~ entrance would only be used for the gasbar and
deliveries. Staff note that such a restriction would 6e
difficult to enforce and would make it difficult for
vehicles to access the parking spaces on the west side
.... .... .. . w . _ ...... - -~ - ... _ . ~of:..the.-.p.laza ... _ .... .. .. , .. ~ , ~, ~_ , _....... - ..._ ~.....
refuse container..- access to the refuse container is restricted
- located so as to interfere with loading spaces
Staff note that, although the Regional i-Health tJni t has approved the on-si to
sewage disposal system, the approval prohibits the establishment of high
volume water uses. As previously stated by Staff in Report PD-193-86, such
restrictions would limit the plaza's ability to provide commercial services
to the surrounding area. As well, it is file intent of the Durham Regional
Official Plan and the Newcastle Official Plan that commercial development
~rithin designated urban areas lie serviced b~~ full municipal serviceS_ Staff
.. ~~
also note that there are no proposed plans of sub division currently proposed
for the residentially designated lands in the vicinity of the subject site_
The revised site plan also demonstrates the manner in which the future
development of the commercially-designated lands to the east would tie in
with the proposed development. Staff are not satisfied from a review of the
plan that the proposed development will not prejudice the future development
of the adjacent lands.. As well, as Staff noted in Report PO-193-86, both
the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the Region of Durham
Works Department have indicated that the joint development of the grope rties
would be preferable in terms of the location of entrances.
Based on the above considerations, Staff is still of the opinion that the
proposed development is premature. It is therefore recommended that Staff
Report PD-193-86 be lifted from the table and the recommendatio ns therein
adopted..
Respectfully s ed, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Director of Planning Chief Administrative Officer
JAS*TTE*j i p
*Attach.
November i7, 1986
CC: (Ylr. Kichard Gay
Ashley 333 Company Ltd.
97 Athol Street
USHAWA, Untario L1H 7V4
CC: t~1r_ Frank C_ Rei d
K.R. 6
tiUWhIAt:V1LLE, Untario L1C 3K7
~` ~ C` ~ :
.
.•
.. ~ : •
.
:
~N
~ N~GH
t
' • • '
1
i~ ,
~•Q ~ •
~ ,y, ~' ~,~~
y ~
~
y~1'
`
+ i c
~ 'f
~ ~ '~
r
.!<,y`
~~ _i
a
~
J
~ r- ~ .. _ t ~ .-. - •r---
~
•I
i ---
~
~
+ ~
~ .
t . .
t ~ ~ .y.eM•:
t--Sr,.w. ,.~
- 'r L_ ; ~ ~
• ...sr.<rI -
LOT 29 LOT 28 tDT 27
- _ R1 A ~~
I
~ .~
1 ~~
.- ~~'; !
_ _ _. 4" _ ~~ _._ j y
' ~ •~y if \ 3 -\ ~~'
-- `
~; ~ ~~
i~~; Stl~JECT SIT
~' ~ ~
~I I/ ~~
", j , ~ r. l
~' z
l~ o
~ .~~ ~~~~
. ~~:
~• ~~.
~,
~` ! i '; o
~' ;; v
!; TOt~lt~! OF rlEtR.CASTLE Forrierty Totvnsh(~ of Dariington
r
~.
. :.
_M~..,~. ~....
(YEEf ING:
DATE:
REPORT #:
SUBJECT:
TOWN OF NEWCASr~E
. REPORT
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Monday, July 21, 1986
PO-193-86 Fj(F #~ 85-59/NO and OEV 85-47
ATTACHMENT N0. ~3 TO
REPORT PD-149-87.r~~ ,
.. ~ ~ ~~
file #_
Res_ ~
By-law #
APPLICATIUN TO AMEND TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN - FILE: 85-59/NO
APPLICATION TO AMEND COURTICE SOUTH NEIGHSOURH000 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPLICATION FOR REZUNING - JARIGAY INVESTMENTS LIMITED
FILE: OEV 85-47
PART LUT 28, CONCESSION 2, FORMER. TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following::
1. THAT Report PO -193-86 be received; and
Z. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle reconmends that
Official Plan Amendment Application 85-59/NO submitted by Jarigay Investments
Limited be denied as premature; and
3. THAT Application No. 1 to amend the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan
and Rezoning Application DEV 85-47 submitted by Jarigay Investments Limi ted be
denied as premature; and
4. THAl~ a copy of Council's decision with respect to this matter be forwarded to the
Region of Durham, the applicant and the interested parties indicated hereto.
BACKGROUND:
On March 3, 1986, a Public Meeting was held with respect to the above-referenced
app]ications submitted by Jarigay Investments Limited to amend the Town of Newcastle
.__2
~~ ~
REPURT NO.. PO-193-86 Page 2
Ufficial Plan, the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Pian and Zoning
8y-law 84-63. The purpose of the applications is to redesignate in the
Ufficial Plan and Neighbourhood Development Plan. and to rezone a 0.31 ha
(0.76 acre) lot in Part of Lot 28, Concession 2, Courtice Urban Area (see
* Key Map attached) to permit the development of a 610 square metre (6,500
square foot) retail plaza and gas bar. The subject site is currently
designated "Special Purpose Commercial" by the Town of Newcastle Of fi ci al
Plan and the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan, and zoned
"Special Purpose Commercial Exception (C5-5) Zone" by 8y-law 84-63. This
zoning permits all uses permitted by the "C5" zone with the exception of a
. tavern or beer, liquor or wine outlet, and reflects the zoning of the
property under 8y~law 2111 of the former Township of Darlington. The
property is currently used to park vehicles for the autoaabile dealership
located across Courtice. Road from the site; as well, there is a single
family dwelling on the lot which the applicant proposes to ~ coolish through
.the development of the site.
Committee also considered Staff Report PD-50-86 which noted that a number of
agencies circulated with the application indicated concerns with the
proposed development of the site. The Regional Works Department noted that
the proposal would have to proceed with private se rvicing inasmuch as
municipal sewer and water services would not be avai]able to the site. They
also expressed a concern with the proposed location of entrances and
requested a road widening along the Courtice Road frontage of the subject
lands. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications advised that all
access to the site would be restricted to Courtice Road South with no direct
access to Highway No. 2. The Regional He alth Unit indicated the proposal as
submitted was unsuitable_
Staff Report PO-5U-86 recommended that the subject applications be referred
back to Staff for further di scussions with the applicant with respect to
development of the site_ Committee resolved (Resolution rGPA-185-86) to
adopt this recoamendation; this decision was subsequently approved by
Council on March LU, 1986 (Resolution ~C-225-86)_
._3
. ..
REPURT NO.: PO-193-86
Page 3
The applicant subsequently submitted a,revised site plan (attached) which
was circulated by Staff. The site area has been reduced to 0.29 ha (0.72
acres) due to the road widening along Courtice Road being requested by the
Regional Works Oepartment. The following is a summary of the comments
received.
Region of Ourham Health Unit
"No objection to the proposal provided the following businesses are not
located at the site:
1. Restaurant of any type, including doughnut shop
2. Any type of Laundromat or dry cleaning done on the site
3. Food processing establishment
4. Hairdressing establishment."
Region of Durham Works Department
"The proposed entranceways onto Regional Road No. 34 are now acceptable."
Ministry of Transportation and Canmunications
"Although this Ministry has no obj ection to the proposed rezoning, we advise
that access to the subject lands will be restricted to Courtice Road with no
direct access to Highway No. 2.
This Ministry has concerns with the proposed location of the septic system
and advise that the owner should be aware that th i s Ministry wiz l require
the tank to be set back a minimum distance of 85' from the centreline of our
highway while the ti]e bed should be set back a minimum distance of 70' from
the centreline. We will require that all buildings be set back a minimum
distance of 14 m from our highway property line. Permits wi17 be required
for all buildings, signs and illumination prior to any construction being
done.
The applicant should be aware that an encroachment permit will be required
from thi s Ministry for the storm sewer. The Owner shoul d i ndicate the
amount of drainage to be directed into our sto rm sewer system at the time an
application is made for the encroachment permit."
._.4
REPORT NO.: PO-193-86
Page 4
The following agencies indicated no objection to the revised site plan:
- Town of Newcastle Public Works Department
- Town of Newcastle Buil ding Department
- Town of Newcastle Fire Department
- Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authori ty
Une area resident has submitted a letter of objection to the proposed
development, citing concerns with the increased traffic volume at the
intersection of Courtice Road and Highway. No. 2 and the potential litte r
problem.
COMMENT:
Staff have reviewed the revised site plan prepared ~by the applicant and the
comments from the circulated agencies and note that a number of site
development concerns remain as follows:
parking areas - the parking area on the south side of the site
would not be readily accessible to patrons of the
proposed plaza
- the parking area to the west of the proposed plaza could
create conflicts with traffic using the entrance onto
Courtice Road
- parking spaces are smaller than required by Section
3.14a. of By-law'84-63, and are not setback a mi nimum of
1.5m from the lot lines as required by Section
3.14d.iii )
loading space - would conflict with traffic using the entrances
onto Courtice Road
- adequate space for the parking of vehicles awaiting
access to the loading spaces is not provided as required
by Section 3.ila_ of By-law 84-63
entrances - the southerly entrance directly abuts the
resi denti al property to the south, rather than being
setback a minimum distance of 9.0 m as required by
Section 3.14d.i) of Qy-law 84-63_
---~
REPORT NO.: PO-193-86 Page 5
gas bar & kiosk - located so as to interfere with traffic
circulation between the two entrances
refuse container - access is restricted
septic tank and bed - located within the minimum setback distance
from the centreline of Highway 2 as required by M.T.C.
- Health Unit has advised that, due to the location of
wells on adjacent property es, the only possible area for
sewage disposal is the northwest corner of the
property
Staf f note as we] 1 that the two 1 ots di r~ectly to the east of the subject
site are included within the "Special Purpose Commercial" designation in the
Official Plan and the Neighbourhood Development Plan, and the "C5-5" zone in
By-law 84-63, the intention being that the properties will be developed
jointly. The entire area of the three (3) commercially designated lots in
0.54 ha (1.33 acre)., with a total frontage along Highway No. 2 of 71.6m (235
feet). The Ministry of Transportation and Communications indicated in
recent discussions with Town Staff that, should the three (3) properties be
developed jointly there would probably be sufficient frontage on Highway No.
2 to permit an entrance. Regional Works Staff also indicated in discussions
with Town Staff that an entrance onto Highway No. 2 would be prefe rable to
that current]y proposed by the applicant.
Staff also note that the Health Unit has requested the exclusion of high
water volume businesses due to site constraints. Such restrictions would
limit the development's ability to provide commercial services to the
surrounding area. We also note that it is the intent of the Durham
Regional Official Plan and the Newcastle Official Plan that comrr~rcial
development within designated urban are as be serviced by full municipal
services. These are not yet available to the site.
In Staff's opinion, the proposed development is therefore premature and
wool d prejudi ce the future dove] oprrrent of the adj acent commercial ly-
desi gnated properti es .
...6
REPORT NO.: PD-193-86
Page 6
It is therefore recommended that the Region of Durham be advised that the
Town of Newcastle recommends that Officia] P]an Amendment application
85-59/0 be denied. It is also recommended that Application No. 1 to amend
the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan and Rezoning Application
OEV 85-47 be denied without prejudice.
Respectful d,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
JAS*TTE*j ip
*Attach.
July 11, .1986
cc: Mr. Richard Gay
Ashley 333 Company ltd.
97 Athol Street
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1N 7V4
cc: Mr. Frank C. Reid
R.R. #6
80WMANVIELE, Untario
L1C 3K7
r
~~~,,.<
.,~
~~
.•R
i
:' f`f' ~
1
a - .. -~ J 8
i
L 'i i '~ Q
! ;- ,,.
} ~. ' : f ~'. 3 S
~~
• '': +• .~
.. ~ rr .
s __~
. t `• ~ .~
N _'
.,. .-
E--`. ••.
` „~ I` <.
LOT 29 LOT 28 iL`T 27
a; ~ ~ A
____
.
~
~,
~{
-~~l _
.: v; _
:~ '"
,
\'` -1
~ _
'~ 1
• L
~~I ~ / ~
~
~.4' , SUBJECT S1T
~ ~
;
V~ ~~,
~~
~- ~ ,~;
,a: ~,
,
,,: ; _
~:_
,; ~J
;a`
:.i ,~ ~,;
~; ~~ Ltl
~
.
~; '
U
{1
(: L
~~ O
- ~ •
ATTACHhIENT N0. 4 TO L ~)_ I~
r~ ~ REPORT: PD-149-87
.. :. ~ - M~C~u1~y: ~hiolni I~oW~on I~td._
' . ' - ~ - - ~ • • municipal arid~dev~lopinent planning services
;~
March 17 1987
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle D 1~f~jr•~ t-
Department of Planning and Development ~~"""+ ~~?~' ~~•.i
Hampton, Ontario
LOB 1J0
SAAR 20 X987
Attention: Terry T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning TO~~ OF Nf'~iC1lS~
. PtAl4~JlN~ DF~%AR•r•~},'+1`
Dear Mr. Edwards:
Re: Jarigay Investments Ltd.,
Part Lot 28 Con. 2 Darlington
Courtice Road and Highway #2
Convenience Commercial (and Gas Bar)
O.P. 2 2 2(i), DEV 85-47 and 85 59/ND
This i`s further to our meeting on. February 4, 1987, at which Ron
Armstrong and I discussed with you, in principle, certain
revisions to Jarigay's existing applications, for appropriate
designation and zoning to permit a convenience commercial
development (including a gas bar) on the subject lands. Following
from our discussions at that time, and further dialogue with our
client Jarigay, we are now formally requesting that the
applications be revised as follows:
1. Designation of the Jarigay site in the Courtice South Neigh-
bourhood Development Plan and the Town of Newcastle Official
Plan to permit the requested convenience commercial and gas
bar development, which could occur by the use of one of the
following measures: a "notwithstanding" section, for example;
"Notwithstanding the Special Purpose Commercial designation
on the southeast corner of Courtice Road and Highway #2, the
Jarigay Investments Ltd, s.zte (legal description inserted)
may be zoned for development as convenience commercial (and
gas bar) subject to certain "H" Holding provisions as
contained in the By-law", OR by a separate, specific
designation of the Jarigay Investments Ltd. site to
convenience commercial (including gas bar).
2. Rezoning of the Jarigay Investments Ltd'. site to an
appropriate category to permit development of the site for
convenience commercial and gas bar uses, subject to an "H"
Holding Symbol.
586 Eglinton venue East•Toronto Ontario • M4P 1P2
Suite 604 416.48'Z•4101
• ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~(
~J
3. The Official Plan and Development Plan amendments, and the
rezoning amendment to be put into effect only upon the prior
execution of a development agreement between the Town of
Newcastle and Jarigay Investments Ltd., the terms of such
agreement to be as follows:
(a) development of the site, and the issuance of a
building permit shall be subject to approval of a
site plan and the execution of a site plan
agreement;
(b) development of the site shall not occur, and no
application for removal of the "H" Holding Symbol
shall be made until such time as either:
(i) full municipal services are available by
extension to the site, and an agreement has
been executed with the Regional Municipality
of Durham satisfying its requirements with
regard to servicing; OR,
(ii) assembly of additional property adjacent to
the site has taken place, which makes feasible
the interim development of the site on private
services, subject always to approval of a site
plan and execution of a site plan agreement,
and subject to execution of an agreement with
the regional Municipality of Durham to provide
for the future hook-up to full municipal
services when such are available in the
immediate area of the site.
If the above is generally satisfactory to you, it would seemingly \
remain for you to decide how you want to handle the designation in
the underlying O.P., and Development Plan, choosing from one of the
two alternatives outlined in item 1 above. Secondly, it would
presumably make sense for the principles of the development
agreement discussed in item 3 above to be referenced only in your
report at this stage (and possibly reflected in any "interim"
Council resolution giving approval-in-principle) since there may
be other provisions you wish to insert. Hence, it strikes me that
finalization of the terms of that agreement (and its execution)
are probably best left to some later date, after Council has dealt
with the proposal in principle, but before the requested
amendments are actually brought into effect.
~~~~
We will look forward to hearing from you at your convenience,
particularly with respect to the handling of the two items
referred to in the last paragraph above. If further information
or discussion is required, please let me know.
Yours truly,
MACAULAY SHIOMI HOWSON LTD.
Per: Rober-JL yT~ Macaulay, MCI
RJM:mc
cc: Ron Armstrong