Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75-146Report No. 146 REPORT ON REZONING APPLICATION FOR L.D.C.M. INVESTMENTSa- 1. Purpose of Application: On May 21st, 1975, an application was submitted for an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit the construction and fee simple conveyance of 50 to 55 terrace dwellings on Block C, Plan 698. These are proposed to be townhouses detached above ground level. 2. Official Plan Provisions: The Interim District Plan designates the site "Urban Res- idential". This designation permits "a small amount of medium density residential development". This "small amount" is def- ined as "not more than 10% of the Urban Residential areas". The proposal also conforms to the maximum density limitations for this zone. 3. Zonine By-law Provisi,q�ns: Zoning By-law Amendment No. 74-83 was approved by Council in December 1974. This krendment changed the zoning of Block C, Plan 698 to RM19 permitting 7. row dwellings on the site. One (1) row dwellings are not defined in the by-law, so it is difficult to determine whether or not the proposed town houses detached above grade are . row dwellings. Section 3-54 of By-law 1587 defines a lot as a parcel or tract of land, which is a whole lot as shown on a Registered Plan of Subdivision. 2 3. Zoning By-law Provisions: (continued)..., The minimum lot area, frontage, and side yard requirements of the RM1 zone would not permit the sale of the proposed town houses on individual lots. The applicant requests an amendment to the RM1 zoning for this site to exempt him from these provisions. 4. Circulation of Auulication: The application was circulated to the following agencies for comment. (1) Durham Works Department (2) Bell Canada (3) Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (4) Bowmanville Public Utilities Commission (5) Newcastle Works Department (6) Newcastle Building Department (7) Newcastle Fire Department (8) Consumers Gas (9) Pine Ridge Cable T.V. The following agencies did not reply and were assumed to have no comment: (1) Consumers Gas (2) Pine Ridge Cable T.V. 5. Resume of Comments: 1, The Durham Works Department - stated that they had no obj- ections to the proposal, provided that adequate sewer and water capacity is available to service the project at the time of the signing of the service agreement. They also 3 - 5. Resume of Comments: (continued).... 1. (continued)...... indicated that the servicing agreement will have to in- clude provisions for payment of imposts and service charges, servicing plans, required easements, and fin- ancing of the Region's share and that the sanitary sewers, watermains and appurtenances should be designed in acc- ordance with standards approved by the Region. 2. Bell Canada - advised that they had no objections to this request for rezoning. 3. The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority -'advised that they had no objections to the proposal. However, since the site is subject to the Authority's Fill Con- struction and Alteration to Water Course Regulations, a permit would be required to permit the regrading involved with the implementation of the proposal. 4. The Bowmanville Pilblic UtjlitiesCommission - advised that they had no objections to this proposal. 5. The Newcastle Works Department - stated that this proposal is preferable to other proposals previously submitted for this site. However, tt_.ey expressed concern over the pro- posed strip housing along Hobbs Drive. The provision of individual house service connections to these lots would mean complete destruction of Hobbs Drive in this area. If this was done, the Road must be restored to the Work - 4 - 5. (continued)....... Department's complete satisfaction. The minimum sideyard should be 6 feet on one side of each unit to allow proper provision of services. They also advised that the owners should be required to enter into a site plan agreement with the Town and must meet all requirements in regards to such things as road width and design standards9 curbs and gutters and sidewalks. 6. The Newcastle Building Department - stated that the project should be totally contained within the property. They object to 21 curb cuts on Hobbs Drive opposite existing single family dwellings. 7. The Newcastle Fire Department - advised that they approved of this application, subject to the following reservations. (1) The units are separated only 8 to 15 feet. This could cause exposure fires. (2) Fire hydrants are not indicated on the site plan. They should be located a maximum of 350 to 400 feet apart and should be located in the centre of the cul-de-sac. (3) There should be no dead end water mains. (4) A fire wall would be required to separate the two halves of the double garage att- aching some units. 6. Comments: This site is already zoned for townhouses. The develop- ment proposed by the applicant is for a lower density than that permitted by the present by-law. This, and the fact that the applicant proposes fee simple conveyance of these units, would make the development more compatible with the adjoining lower density housing than a conventional townhouse develop- ment. The applicant agrees to provide additional open space in the rear of the property to supplement land already conveyed at the time of subdivision. The proposed walkways would make this valley land more accessible to other neighbourhood res- idents and give them direct routes into the adjacent park which they would not have in the case of a more conventional townhouse development. However, there are three aspects of this proposal which should be considered. Both the Newcastle Works Department and the Newcastle Building Department have objected to the number of curb cuts proposed for Hobbs Drive. These objections have been made from an aesthetic as well as an engineering viewpoint. This situation could be remedied by changing all of the units front- ing on Hobbs Drive to 'detached -semi units'. Since these units are joined by a common garage, the driveways would be approxi- mately 48 feet apart, and therefore more compatible with the single family dwellings on the other side of the street. The second problem is related to the side yards proposed by the applicant. The Joint Utilities Committee for the Town of 6 - (continued)..... Newcastle has requested that the required sideyard of each dwelling be increased to 6 feet on one side to allow provision of adequate services to these lots. To allow this increased sideyard, two of the units proposed for Hobbs Drive and one of the units proposed for each cul-de-sac would have to be elimin- ated. However, this is not a new proposal and the density has already been reduced significantly in part to accommodate local concerns, it would seem to be an extreme requirement to insist on 6 foot side yards at this time. It should be noted that hundreds of dwellings have been permitted with 4 foot side yards, and although some difficulties have been encountered, they are not impossible to service. The third problem is related to the concerns of the fire department. We would recommend that walls of those parts of garages which are within 8 feet of adjacent dwellings should be of firewall construction. It is, therefore, recommended that this application be granted provided that it conforms with the attached zone pro- visions subject to the following conditions. (1) that the units proposed for Hobbs Drive be changes to the detached semi type (2) that the applicant enter into a site plan agree- ment with the Town as specified under section 35A of the Planning Act to meet the concerns of the agencies commenting above 0 (3) that walls of garages located within 8 feet of adjacent dwellings be of firewall constr- uction. Respectfully submitted, eor ge F. Howden, Planning Director, TOWN OF NEWCASTLE. ZONE PROVISIONS FOR TERRACE DWELLINGS DETACHED ABOVE GRADE 1. Permitted Uses: (a) Terrace Dwellings (b) Uses, buildings and structures accessory to the foregoing permitted uses 2. Regulations for Terrace Dwellings: (a) Minimum Lot Frontage per dwelling unit (b) Minimum Lot Area for each dwelling unit (c) Maximum Lot Coverage (d) Maximum Number of Dwelling units per lot (e) Yard Requirements (i) Minimum Front Yard (ii) Minimum Rear Yard (iii) Minimum Side Yard (iv) Minimum Distance between Buildings (f) Minimum Floor Area (g) Maximum Height 24 feet 2400 sq.ft. 20% 1 20 feet 35 feet 4 feet (on one side none ongar- age side 10 feet 1000 sq.ft. 30 feet 3• Regulations -for Accessory Building s (a) Minimum Yard Recuirements - (i) Except as provided in paragraph (ii) of the clause no accessory building shall be located within 4 feet of a side or rear lot line. i - 2 - (a) Minimum Yard Reauirements - (ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (i) hereof, the minimum yard aubtting a public street shall be 30 feet (b) Maximum Lot Cgveraee - 5 percent provided that lot coverage of all build- ings on the lot does not exceed the maximum lot coverage for dwellings as set forth in sub -section (2) of this section.