Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75-144REPORT N0, 144 REZONING APPLICATION FOR BELFRAN REALTY. - RE: Zoning Application for Proposed Townhouse Development9 Jackman Road 1. PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: On January 239 1975, an application was received regarding part of Lots 13 and 149 Concession 29 Bowmanville. These lots are located south of Jackman Road between Scugog Street and Bowmanville Creek. The applicant is requesting a change of the existing Open Space and General Residential Zoning to permit a Medium Density development of 101 Townhouses. 2. OFFICIAL PLAN PROVISIONS: The Interim District Plan designates the site "Urban Residential". This designation permits "a small amount of medium density residential development not to exceed 10% of Urban Residential Areas". It also permits "a limited amount of local commercial uses serving the day to day needs of the immediate neighbourhood. It would appear that this proposal conforms to these provisions. 3. ZONING PROVISIONS: The Bowmanville Zoning By-law designates a portion of the site General Residential and the remainder Open Space. The General Resi- dential zone permits "multi -family dwellings" except in the built up sections of the Town where a maximum of 3 suite apartments only are permitted. Multi -family dwellings are not defined but this would appear to permit town house units on this site except that W - 2 - 3, ZONING PROVISIONS: (continued).... there are already two dwellings on the lot and the by-law does not permit more than one dwelling on a lot. If those dwellings were removed, then the 101 Townhouses could be built provided they were all in one building. These zone provisions would not permit the proposed commercial component. The Open Space zone does not provide for residential uses. The applicant is requesting the rezoning of this parcel to Medium Density Residential. The land for the commercial use would need to be rezoned Local Commercial, but the applicant did not re- quest this in his application. �+. CIRCULATION OF APPLICATION: The application was circulated to the following agencies for comment: (1) Ministry of the Environment (2) Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education (3) Peterborough -Victoria -Northumberland and Newcastle Separate School Board (4) Durham Works Department (5) Bell Canada (6) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (7) Bowmanville Public Utilities Commission (8) Newcastle Works Department (9) Newcastle Fire Department (10) Newcastle Building Department The Ministry of the Environment did not reply and was assumed to have no comments. 3 5. RESUME OF COMMENTS. (1) The Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Eflucation - stated that they had no objections to the proposal. (2) The ool Board - advised that they will not require a in the proposed development, (3) The Durham Works De ap rtment - advised that because there is no residual capacity available in either the sewage treatment or water purification plants to accommodate this proposal, they would consider it premature at this time. A subsequent conversation with Mr. Goad revealed that this development would need to be serviced by an extension of an existing 14 inch trunk sewer which now flows from Rehder Avenue to Chapel Street and Waverly Road. He recommended that the maximum number of units be reduced to 73. The exis- ting sewer on Jackman Road is not adequate to accommodate this development, so the developer would have to construct the above mentioned sewer over approximately 900 feet of land to the south of his development which he does not own. A six inch water main ends 900 feet west of Barbara Street. This main is not adequate to serve the proposed development unless it is looped to join Scugog Street with Jackman Road. (4) Bell Canada - advised that although they have insufficient telephone f?-i.lities in the area of the applicant's rezoning request, they have no objections to this proposal. (5) The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authorily - advised that except fo,: the most southerly end of the plan in which a swimming pool and tennis courts have been shown, the proposal satisfies:. their requirements. They felt that due to the topography of the site and the vegetative cover in the south- ern section of the site, it would seem inadvisable to do any major grading necessary for the location of facilities at that location. Approval of the Community Centre would be subject to more detailed plans showing how the building would fit the site. The Conservation Authority emphasized that any building or grading on the site is subject to their approval. (6) The Bowman_yille Public Utilities Commission - advised that there is only a single phase power supply in the area and that if a three phase power supply is required it should be at the developer's expense. They pointed out that the underground electrical distribution system within the plan - 4 - (6) (continued)..... is the responsibility of the owner and that satisfactory arrangements for metering of the units must be made with the Commission prior to construction. (7) The Newcastle Works Department - stated that the proposed main entrance to the property is only fifty five feet from the top of the bank and forty five feet from the crest of the road. An entrance at this location would be dangerous. They also expressed concern over the ability of the Jack- man Road Bridge to handle this increased traffic. (8) The Newcastle Buildine Department - advised that they had no objections to the proposal as shown on the site plan. (9) The Newcastle Fire Department - advised that they had no objections, provided that the following requirements were met. 1. Access to all areas and buildings 2. Adequate water supply for fire service (would not be available) 3. Water mains to be looped (no dead end mains) (not available) 4. Hydrants to be spaced 300 to 400 feet from buildings to be protected 5. Fire safe building design, as it pertains to fire safety, (10) Mr. Ernest R. Eves submitted a petition signed by 26 area residents. This petition objected to townhouses in an area previously zoned as low density residential. COMMENTS The present zoning permits only one dwelling on each lot. There are already 2 dwellings on the lot. One of these would be demolished for construction of the proposed development, but a severance would still be required before development of the subject lands could proceed. If this severance were granted, the applicant could construct townhouses, provided that they were limited to one building, and provided that no part of the building was in the Open Space zone. Although these town- - 5 - i COMMENTS: (continued).... houses could be built, under by-law 1587 they could not be occupied until water and services were provided. The eixsting water and sewage facilities on the adjacent street are inadequate for a development of this scale, and provision of services would require major construction including easements over property not owned by the applicant. An entrance permit would not be granted for the proposed main entrance because it is considered too close to the crest of the hill on Jackman Road and visibility is poor. This would leave only one entrance for all 101 units and this is considered inadequate.. The Planning Advisory Committee could consider rezoning the site to Medium Density Residential. However, it is suggested that this site is not suitable for townhouses for the following reasons: (1) The bridge across the Bowmanville Creek is not capable of carrying large volumes of traffic and may eventually be removed. This would turn Jackman Road into a very long cul-de-sac. If this development was allowed, the Town of Newcastle would inevitably be committed to maintain and improve the bridge as a top priority. This would cost $200,000 exclusive of land costs. (2) There are no sidewalks along Jackman Road. It would intensify an already dangerous situation to dramatically increase the number of children walking along the road. (3) The street lighting presently of the 25 watt bulb and pie plate type is inadequate for increased traffic. It would be necessary to replace these to accommodate the additional pedestrian and vehicle traffic generated by this develop- ment. 0+) Adequate services are not readily available to the site especially water for fire protection and there is no feasible way for the developer to provide same. - 6 - (5) The commercial component proposed for the site is in a dan- gerous location in terms of access and is not viable as a service to the small area population which would be insuff- icient even with the proposed development. The proposed development is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood which is mainly single family dwellings on large lots. (6) It is difficult to determine the environmental impact of such a high concentration of people immediately adjacent to an ecologically sensitive area. This effect would be intensified by trespassing of children caused by the lack of alternate parkland in the area. For these reasons, it is recommended that this site is not suit- able for a townhouse development. However, lower density semi -estate type residential development would be within the capacity of the existing services and in character with the surrounding neighbourhood. It is therefore, recommended that the land above the top of the bank be zoned R1 in the new zoning by-law now being prepared. Respectfully submitted, C_ George F. Howden, Planning Director.