The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD-192-88 DN: 192-88 v �� TOWN OF NEWCASTLE � 1 REPORT File # r�- 5r Res. By-Law # METING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, September 19, 1988 REPORT #: PD-192-88 FILE #: DEV 88-65 SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - MACOURTICE DEVELOPMENTS INCORPORATED PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON OUR FILE: DEV 88-65 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-192-88 be received; and 2. THAT the rezoning application submitted by Kevin Tunney of Tunney Planning on behalf of Macourtice Developments Inc. to rezone a 15.358 ha parcel in order to permit the development of 144 single family dwellings in a Plan of Subdivision, be referred back to Staff for a subsequent report pending Staff's receipt of a Site Servicing Report and upon receipt of the outstanding comments; and 3. THAT the applicant's agent be so advised. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 On June 3, 1988, the Town of Newcastle Planning Department received application to amend By-law 84-63 submitted by Kevin Tunney of Tunney Planning on behalf of Macourtice Developments Inc. The application would seek to permit the development of 144 lots in a residential subdivision on a 15.26 hectare parcel of land located in Part Lot 28, Concession 2, former Township of Darlington. . . .2 REPORT NO. : PD-192-88 PAGE 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.2 Staff would note for the Committee's information that the applicants had applied for the identical proposal in December, 1986, under DEV 86-82 and 18T-86073. The applications were denied by Committee and Council in October, 1987 for a number of reasons; primarily the issue of municipal servicing, environmental issues, and the nonsequential development, noting that the majority of residential subdivisions were developing west of Trull's Road. In that regard, on September 8, 1987 Committee deemed all development east of Courtice Road, premature. 1.3 The subject property is presently zoned "Holding - Urban Residential Type One ( (H)Rl)11 and "Environmental Protection (EP)" by By-law 84-63. The rezoning application would allow for forty-one (41) lots with 12 metres frontage and one hundred and two (102) lots with 15 metres of frontage. The "Environmental Protection (EP)" zoning would be maintained. 2. SURROUNDING LAND USES 2.1 The lands directly to the east of the subject property are pasture lands. The Kings Highway No. 2 abuts the subject lands to the south, however, south of the highway, lands are vacant noting that towards the southwest are a number of residents, a car lot and motor vehicle sales establishment, Roy Nichols Motors. Directly to the west, the lands are vacant, however, are zoned "Environmental Protection (EP)" zone, noting that the Gartner Lee Study identifies these lands as a major tributary and they serve as an important environmental function with respect to drainage for that area. Courtice Secondary High School also has a baseball field and tennis courts at the southwest corner of Courtice Road and Nash Road. To the north and northwest are primarily non-farm residential uses. 3 B8P0fT 0D. : 9D-192-88 PAGE 3 _______________________________________________________________________________ 3. OFFICIAL PLAN CONFORMITY 3.1 The subject lauds are designated "Residential" and "Hazard Laudon in both the Durham Regional Official Plan and Town of Newcastle Official Plan. The use would comply with the intent of Official Plan policies in both documents provided the proper zoning is in place to recognize the use. 4. PUBLIC NOTICE 4.1. Staff would note for the Committee's information that, pursuant to Council's resolution of July 20, 1983 and the requirements of the Planning Act, the appropriate oigoage acknowledging the application was installed on the subject lands. 5. COMMENTS: 5.1 In accordance with departmental procedures, the application was circulated to obtain comments from other departments/agencies. The following is a summary of the comments received to date. 5.2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Department offered an objection to / the application noting that a Site Servicing Report must be submitted in accordance with the principles of Cooctice 8tVcmwatec Management Report prior to any comments being received. 5.3 The Town of Newcastle Fire Department offered no objection noting that the location of the subdivision is located within the ceaD000e area of Station #4 on TroIIo Road. In addition, the applicant will be required to comply with the appropriate sections of the Ontario Fire and Building Codes. 5.4 The Durham Regional Health Services offered no objection provided the subject lands are serviced by municipal water and sewers. ~- REPORT NO. : PD-192-88 PAGE 4 _______________________________________________________________________________ 5.5 The Durham Regional Planning Department noted that the application was premature. The Region also noted that the previous application, and the applicant's efforts to secure easements for servicing did not satisfy the Regional requirements, therefore could not satisfy the requirements of Section I6.6.4(b) for removal of the "Holding (B)" symbol. The Region has also noted that the applicant has been attempting to secure service easements since the last submission. 5,6 The Ministry of Natural Resources offered no objection to the rezoning of Imto l to 144 of the plan of subdivision to oIImv for residential developments. Block 146 should remain in the xEPn zone. / 5.7 The Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education offered no objection, however, requested sidewalks be installed on Nash Road to facilitate pedestrian traffic. 5.8 Staff would note that oonmmuto are still outstanding from the following departments/agencies: - Town of Newcastle Community Services Department - Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority - Regional Works Department - Ministry of Transportation - Ministry of the Environment - Ontario Hydro ( - Separate School Board 6. STAFF COMMENTS 6.1 As noted earlier the subject application had been denied for a number of reasons primarily storm drainage, environmental issues, and iobezaut leap-frogging of development that would result if the proposal was approved. At the time of the previous application, municipal water was available at the intersection of 0aob and Courtice Road. At that time' Regional Works Staff indicated that the site lies outside the perimeters of the defined sanitary sewers service area. In addition, the Region had not intended to assume the costs to extend the trunk sewer. Accordingly, the applicant would be required to bear the full y, ) REPORT K0. : PD-I92-88 PAGE 5 _______________________________________________________________________________ cost of extending the trunk sewer to the site and the acquisition of any necessary easements, at that time one easement proposed was to cross Town owned parkland. Staff have not received information to indicate that the issue of servicing has been resolved to date. 6.2 Staff is of the opinion that a number of issues still remain unaddressed since the submission of the last application, not the least of which is the issue of storm water management and impacts upon the local groundwater. The previous submission noted that the Douctine otormwatec management study indicated a otormwater management pond in the northwest corner of the subject lands. The applicant proposed a detention facility on the Town owned laud. At the time ( this solution was not acceptable to Staff. In addition, Staff are not aware of any solutions to this problem to date. 6.3 As noted earlier, the Gartner Lee Study had identified the lands associated with the tributary as being Environmental/Hazard Areas and recommends that such lands not be developed. The Study recommends that the development applications be supported by a EydcogenlVgiat»a Report which aooeaaea the impact of permanently lowering the existing high wotectmble/ to date no such report has been submitted. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS | Staff would ceconnnem5 that the application be referred bock to Staff to allow the applicant to resolve the aforementioned problems. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee / / + -------------------------- (JWrence ----------------- Fraukliu Wu 0mtaeft Director of Planning & Development Chief A dmi otzative officer CRV*IW* 'ip *Attach. September 9' 1988 CC: See attached list REPORT 0O~ : PD-192-88 PAGE 6 _______________________________________________________________________________ CC: Kevin Tuouey Tuuuey Planning 340 Byron Street South Suite %OU WHITBY, Ontario LIN 4P8 Gay Property Management P.O. Box 2065 103 Athol Street East O8EAWA, Ontario LIB 7V4 Jim Moir R.R. #6 B0WMANVILLE, Ontario LIC 3K7 ( Mr. & Mrs. D. Vaodezkooi R.R. #3, 0aab BDod 8(WMU0NVILL8, Ontario LIC 3K4 Mc. & Mrs. P. Tuezk Group 18v Box 22 B.B. #6 BOW4&NVILL8' Ontario LlC 3K7 Mc. D. 8amia D.B. #6 80WQAJVILLE' Ontario LlC 3K7 AREA OF PROPOSED REZONING LOT 29 LOT 2 8 LOT 2 7 (H)R4 ! R4 EP j Z A A = O f = n R1 � _ � W )R2-3 _ V lz 0 R1 HASH ^ ROAD --- a i a o = Ri ° ( H ) R1 (H)R4 Y 'R1 U - EP Hwy A z cis 5 ! - : O RI -(H) R1 a = 1 �= O 50 {00 zoo 300 m iii i KEY ' mAP 50m Dav- 88�65 JI L/J x CC CL LIJ cc d OM �i p Z z < JET rm °^ bea O 3 $ h ; ; = j p .t ai W $ W K Q L- O " J �wy y�>y m p O ]��;Q Y Q. O n. F— K OC W LSD N W < < q2`^ W F VI �=Y�• 2 \Q z Df s � z o°c �;� ° y �i � � � �� •i��d R M / i 3 4 1 381S a •c fl $ U Y 9 AAA . .. « w T5 31 X _ 1 W }, J —.PCn`.r d.M'L nrpW[)N?.�OO�.— � '�C•�1i tt Y[ �JX 1/M ". I----- ---