Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-29-97DN:PD -29 -97 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT General Purpose and Administration Committee ,t +-bi-/ -6,G 7 Meeting: N File # Date: Monday, March 3, 1997 Report #: .0 .. File #: DEV 96 -007 (X -Ref: 18T- 96002) Res. PO —2L 0( ( By -law # REZONING APPLICATION AND PROPOSED PLAN OF :D • APPLICANT: JANE AND CHARLES ROWE PART LOT 32, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE: DEV 00 •.00 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD -29 -97 be received; 2. THAT the approval of the proposed Zoning By -law Amendment and the Plan of Subdivision application was reviewed in consideration of Council Resolution #C- 780-89 and it was deemed that the proposed Plan of Subdivision would not impact on the future alignment of the Adelaide Avenue extension; 3. THAT the proposed Plan of Subdivision 18T -96002 revised and dated February 21, 1997, as per Attachment No. 2 approved be subject to the conditions of Draft Approval contained in Attachment No. 3 to this Report; 4. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized, by By -law, to execute a Subdivision Agreement between the Owner and the Municipality of Clarington at such time as the Agreement has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Development; 5. THAT an amendment to Zoning By -law 84 -63 be forwarded to Council for approval to remove the Holding (H) Symbol at such time as the Subdivision Agreement has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Development. 6. THAT a copy of this Report and Council's decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham Planning Department; and 7. THAT the interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. 1. APPLICATION 1.1 Owner: Charles and Jane Rowe 618 REPORT NO.: PD -29 -97 PAGE 2 1.2 Applicant: D.G. Biddle and Associates Ltd. 1.3 Rezoning: From in part "Holding - Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1)" and "Environmental Protection (EP)" to appropriate zones to permit the development of a plan of subdivision. 1.4 Subdivision: Seeking approval of a plan of subdivision consisting of ten (10) single detached dwelling units. 1.5 Area: 1.659 hectares (4.099 acres). 1.6 Location: • by informal description, immediately northeast of the intersection of Nash Road and Farewell Creek (and west of George Reynolds Drive); • by municipal address, 1560 Nash Road, Courtice; and • by legal description, Part Lot 32, Concession 3, former Township of Darlington. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 On March 8, 1996 the Planning and Development Department received an application to amend Zoning By -law 84 -63 in order to permit the development of a 10 unit plan of subdivision. On March 18, 1996 the Planning and Development Department was advised by the Region of Durham of an application for a proposed plan of subdivision to implement the development. 2.2 The subdivision proposal is a cul -de -sac accessed from McLellan Drive. 2.3 The Public Meeting for these two applications was held May 6, 1996. Four people 619 REPORT NO.: PD -29 -97 PAGE 3 f spoke in opposition to the applications, one person provided a general comment and the agent spoke in support of the applications. The first objector objected to the McLellan Drive access for the proposed subdivision and presented a petition with the names of 16 fellow objectors. The second objector said more publicly - available information was needed. The third objector stated that the west side of the subject site was part of the Farewell Creek valleylands and that there was a variety of flora and fauna throughout the site. He pointed out that Lots 1 and 10 were perpendicular to several McLellan Drive residences and this created a privacy problem, particularly with the removal of many pine trees._ He argued the proposal should be subject to an Environmental Impact Study, in accordance with the Planning Act, that relotting of the subdivision could be done and that the access should be,from Nash Road rather than McLellan Drive and that flooding would no more be a problem for this new access than it would be for Nash Road itself. His verbal comments were supported by a submission letter. The fourth objector stated that the beautiful natural view from the back of_ his house was being destrgyed. One speaker expressed the concern that the proposal would have an impact on the environment no matter what and that this subdivision proposal should be frozen since Council, through a resolution, had already decided to freeze all subdivision proposals in Courtice north of.Nash Road until the alignment of the Adelaide Avenue Extension was resolved. The applicant /agent for the property owners, Mr. Glenn Genge of The Greer Galloway Group Inc., spoke in favour of the application noting: 620* 1) the access from McLellan Drive was determined eight (8) or nine (9) years ago with the registration of the Kassinger Subdivision - Reg. PI. 10M -809; and with the passing of R1 -Type Zoning for the site, had all the required designations and the required zoning - in principle and so, represented essentially, the completion of Registered Plan of Subdivision 10M -809; 2) the subdivision is totally outside of and buffered from the "Environmental Protection Areas "; 3) Nash Road is a Type C Arterial in the Clarington Official Plan and the adoption of this Plan would not allow a local road to intersect with Nash Road; 4) constructing even a local public street north from Nash Road would be a great engineering challenge, expense and be detrimental to the tributary valley; 5) for environmental and traffic flow reasons, the staff of the Clarington Planning and Development Department and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority strongly oppose a Nash Road access; and 6) an extensive tree preservation plan will be adopted for the subdivision. 2.4 Staff would note that the above issues have been reviewed, and where appropriate, the Draft Plan of Subdivision has been revised. 3. EXISTING AND SURROUNDING USES 3.1 The existing site currently contains a single detached dwelling, a detached garage, a swimming pool, two sheds, a small parking area and a narrow driveway linking this area to Nash Road. The applicant has provided through the design 621 LUMUMM of the plan of subdivision to accommodate the existing dwelling and garage on Lot 5 of the draft plan. The other accessory structures will be removed to accommodate the future development of the remaining lots. 3.2 The surrounding land uses are as follows: North: Single detached housing on both sides of McLellan Drive and in the northwest corner - valleyland open space owned by the Municipality; South: Nash Road and beyond it - single detached housing; East: in the north half - single detached housing on both sides of McLellan Drive and in the south half - the Kassinger Subdivision Stormwater Quantity (Detention) Pond with a capacity of 8,800 cu. m. (1,900,000 gal.); and West: Farewell Creek and its associated valleylands and beyond them - single detached housing. 4. OFFICIAL PLAN CONFORMITY 4.1 Within the Durham Regional Official Plan, the subject property is designated primarily as Living Area (with Environmentally Sensitive Areas). The primary purpose of lands so designated shall be for residential purposes, and as such, the application conforms. 4.2 Within the Clarington Official Plan, the subject property is designated primarily as Urban Residential (Low Density) and marginally (on the south and west edges) as Environmental Protection Area. Environmental issues are addressed later in this report in Section 7 Staff Comments. The application conforms. 5. ZONING BY -LAW COMPLIANCE Within Comprehensive Zoning By -law 84 -63 of the former Town of Newcastle, the subject property is zoned in part "Holding - Urban Residential Type One ((H)R1)" 622 REPORT which would permit the development of the proposed single family lots. The non - developable areas of the property are zoned "Environmental Protection (EP)" which will remain. As a result, no zoning change is required to accommodate the proposed subdivision. The existing "H" holding symbol will be removed upon finalization of a subdivision agreement. 11 6.1 The rezoning application was circulated to various agencies and other departments by the Planning and Development Department. Also, the application for the plan of subdivision was circulated to various agencies and other regional departments by the Durham Regional Planning Department. Comments received by both Departments to date are as follows. 6.2 The Fire Department had no objection. 6.3 The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing had no comment. 6.4 The Separate School Board noted the proximity of the proposed subdivision to its proposed elementary school on the west side of Tooley Road north of Nash Road and requested that consideration be given for the construction of a walkway along the westerly edge of Lot 6 in the proposed plan of subdivision. Staff considered the School Board's request and are of the opinion that a walkway to Nash Road is not warranted due to the small size of the proposed subdivision and disruption to the natural area adjacent to Nash Road. It is Staff's opinion that the existing street and sidewalk network out to Nash Road will continue to provide the appropriate pedestrian access to the surrounding school sites. 6.5 The Public School Board noted that approximately 3 elementary public school students would come from the subdivision and they would be attending Courtice North Public School which is already over - capacity by three (3) portables. 623 REPORT NO.: PD-29-97 PAGE 7 6.6 The Regional Planning Department confirmed the subdivision's conformity to the Durham Regional Official Plan and that the Regional Works Department stated that municipal services can be provided for the subject site from the existing sanitary sewer and watermain on McLellan Drive. 6.7 Ontario Hydro, through its GRID System office, advised that it has no objections. 6.8 The Clarington Public Works Department has no objection to the latest (February 21, 1997) Draft Plan of Subdivision, subject to the Conditions of Draft Approval listed in Attachment No. 3. 6.9 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority in its latest comments stated that previously it could not support draft approval of the plan of subdivision as there was a need to revise lot boundaries due to: slope requirements related to the tributary at the south end of the site, and the need to preserve more of the tableland forest along the west limits of the site. The Authority has been provided the additional information required to appropriately revise the proposed lot boundaries for Lots 5 to 9 inclusive. These revisions have been incorporated into the draft plan. Briefly, Lots 5 to 6 have been revised to maintain the lots outside of the projected 3:1 slope from the adjacent ravine (ie. the tributary). Lots 7 to 9 inclusive, have been revised to attempt to preserve more of the tableland woodlot associated with the Farewell Creek Valley. The revised lot size is based upon grading requirements for the lots, and minimum required useable rear lot areas. The sloping topography of Lots 7 to 9 inclusive requires 2 or 3 metres of fill in order to meet stormwater management requirements (front half of the lots drain to the cul -de -sac) and to provide a relatively flat rear yard. This 624 • •O • degree of filling will require considerable areas of the tableland forest to be removed. However, given the infill nature of the plan of subdivision and the forest which will be retained above the top -of -bank, the Authority is willing to accept the limits of the lots currently proposed provided some compensatory restoration plantings are undertaken along the rear fill slope within the lots. A restoration /planting plan for these lots will be required. A tree preservation plan has been required by Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and is included within the Conditions of Draft Approval. A detailed site grading and sedimentation control plan must be prepared for the site and this plan must have regard for the recommendations in the tree preservation plan. This requirement is included within the Conditions of Draft Approval. Staff notes that the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has responsibility for natural resources concerns and in this regard, it has no additional comments. Despite the above mentioned information requirements the Authority does not anticipate a need for further revisions to the lots and so, the Authority supports the draft approval of this plan of subdivision subject to conditions. 6.10 The Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation had determined the site to have archaeological potential due to: the presence of two watercourses on site, topographic features attractive to and suitable for settlement, and generally across the site, no modern land disturbance. Therefore, archaeological work had to be undertaken by a licensed consultant following Ministry guidelines and prior to the issuance of a clearance letter, the Ministry would have to review the archaeological resource assessment and any subsequent mitigation programs. 625 All of the above has been done. An archaeological assessment of the property found no archaeological resources. The report recommended that there were nc further concerns and the Archaeology and Heritage Planning Unit of the Cultural Programs Branch of the above mentioned Ministry concurred with thal recommendation. This office further stated the above comment was conditional upon the receipt and review of both the conditions of draft plan approval and the approved draft plan of subdivision. 6.11 In general, agency concerns have been taken into account through the Revised (February 21, 1997) Draft Plan of Subdivision. 7. STAFF COMMENTS 7.1 In view of the Regional and Local recognition, through the respective Official Plans, of the environmental sensitivity of the subject site, an Environmental Impact Study Issues Summary Paper was submitted with both applications. It is Staff's opinion that this Paper fulfils the requirements for a scoped environmental impact study. Monitoring requirements for mitigation purposes have been secured through the conditions of draft plan approval. 7.2 Municipal services (sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer) will all be provided from McLellan Drive. Also, the cul -de -sac will be accessed from McLellan Drive and to this end, the proponents have already purchased the stub area which will be the entrance to the cul -de -sac or court. This stub area is Block 124 of Registered Plan of Subdivision 10M -809. 7.3 One commenter at the May 6, 1996 Public Meeting noted the Council Resolution of November 1989 that prohibits decisions on applications in Courtice north of Nash Road until the Adelaide Avenue Extension Needs Study and related Route Alignment Study are completed. Plan of Subdivision Application 18T -96002 is immediately north of Nash Road, far south of the alignment area and, is 626 REPORT NO.: • • , surrounded by developed lands. It represents only infill to the area, and as such, does not have an affect on and is not affected by the Adelaide Avenue alignment. 7.4 Several objectors at the May 6, 1996 Public Meeting stated they preferred that access to the cul -de -sac should be from Nash Road rather than McLellan Drive, similar to Barrington Place, located to the east and off of Nash Road. In the Caarington Official Plan, Nash Road between Townline Road and Trulls Road is designated a Type C Arterial Road which discourages local road access. When the Kassinger Plan of Subdivision, surrounding these lands was approved, the developer was required to illustrate how all the abutting lands could be eventually developed as a component of the neighbourhood. The proposed subdivision implements a street pattern as originally contemplated in the approval of the Kassinger draft plan of subdivision. Staff would note that Barrington Place, unlike the current application, received its approval prior to the approval of the current Official Plan policies. It is staff's opinion that in light of all the comments contained within this report and the concerns expressed by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority with respect to any crossing of the tributary valley adjacent to Nash Road, the location of the street access off McLellan Drive is appropriate. 8. CONCLUSION In consideration of both agency comments and public submissions, and the staff comments in this Report, it is recommended that Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T- 96002 (Rev.) be APPROVED subject to the Proposed Conditions of Draft Approval contained in Attachment No. 3 to this Report. It is recommended that the related removal of the "Holding" Symbol on the "Urban Residential Type One (R1)" Zoning be forwarded to Council for approval at such time as the subdivision agreement has been finalized. 627 REPORT PD-29-97 PAGE 11 Respectfully submitted, Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P., Director of Planning and Development BR *LT *FW *df *km Reviewed by, W. H. Stockwell Chief Administrative Officer Attachment #1 - Site Location Key Map Attachment #2 - Draft Plan of Subdivision 1 BT -96002 Attachment #3 - Proposed Conditions of Draft Approval 24 February 1997 Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Charles & Jane Rowe 1560 Nash Road COURTICE, Ontario L1 E 2K8 David Burnham 39 McLellan Drive COURTICE, Ontario UC 1Z9 Art Jackson 22 McLellan Drive COURTICE, Ontario L1 E 1Z8 George Martin 72 Blackcreek Trail COURTICE, Ontario L1 E U6 Mary Nicholls 8 George Reynolds Drive COURTICE, Ontario L1 E 1Z7 Joe Kastner 9 McLellan Drive COURTICE, Ontario L1 E 1Z7 628 REPORT • PD-29-97 PAGE 12 Jurgen Renz R.C. (Bob) Annaert, C.E.T. 24 McLellan Drive D.G. Biddle and Associates Ltd. COURTICE, Ontario Consulting Engineers L1 E 1Z8 96 King Street East OSHAWA, Ontario Andrew and Susan Pigden L1 H 1B6 49 McLellan Drive COURTICE, Ontario Darryl Galea L1 E 1Z9 15B Darlington Blvd. COURTICE, Ontario John & Victoria Swinarton L1 E 2J8 33 McLellan Drive COURTICE, Ontario Evylin Stroud L1 E 1Z8 89 Little Avenue BOWMANVILLE, Ontario B.J. Kassinger L1 C U9 31 McLellan Drive COURTICE, Ontario L1 E 1Z8 Libby Racansky 3200 Hancock Road COURTICE, Ontario L1 E 2M1 ATTACHMENT #1' 630 -- Q3 - TTNA 1 rc) hl m m 0 co o) r� OD r, ti w \ if) ID I ro co m I \C J �--- �- WE ----- �i3�3q�ggA - o Q 3 — \ if) ID I ro co m I \C ATTACHMENT #2 ON yt SIW �a q Jiff_ VW1$ra s♦; t� 'a K W Zw .0 aW -N a o vCL z �Wicj w aI-L3 L ` I off' 1 631 a Iz T ;\ J \ ATTACHMENT #2 ON yt SIW �a q Jiff_ VW1$ra s♦; t� 'a K W Zw .0 aW -N a o vCL z �Wicj w aI-L3 L ` I off' 1 631 a Iz T ;\ Attachment No. 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN REGISTRATION PLAN IDENTIFICATION That this approval applies to draft Plan of Subdivision 18T -96002 prepared by D.G. Biddle & Associates Ltd., dated February 21, 1997 (revised) showing Lots 1 to 10 inclusive, for single detached dwellings, Block A for Open Space (Environmental Protection Area /Zone) and various blocks for reserve, road widening, site triangle etc. FINAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS 2. That all streets within the Plan of Subdivision shall be dedicated as public highway and shown as such on the final plan. 3. That all streets shall be named to the satisfaction of the Municipality of Clarington and shown on the final plan. REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED PRIOR TO SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 4. That the Owner shall retain a qualified landscape architect to prepare and submit a Landscaping Plan to the Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Development for review and approval. The Landscaping Plan shall reflect the design criteria of the Municipality as amended from time to time. 5. That the Applicant's Engineer will be responsible for providing a Master Lot Grading and Drainage Plan to the Director of Public Works, for review and approval, that details, the conveyance of storm drainage, both minor and major systems from this site. In addition, this grading and drainage plan should specify the location of the storm connection and to which existing storm sewer the applicant proposes to connect. At such time that we receive this information, we may review it and determine the financial implications that this site may have on the Municipality's By -law. Further comment may be necessary before final approval, to deal with this matter. 6. That the Owner shall retain a qualified consultant to prepare and submit a Revised Tree Preservation Plan to the Director of Planning and Development and to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority for review and approval, and that, the Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T -96002 must have regard for the recommendations in the Revised Tree Preservation Plan. REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT 632 Attachment No. 3 7. That the Owner shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the Municipality and agree to abide by all terms and conditions of the Municipality's standard subdivision agreement, including, but not limited to, the requirements that follow. 8. That the Applicant must enter into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality which includes all requirements of the Public Works Department and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority regarding the engineering and construction of all internal and external works and services related to this development. 9. That all easements, road widenings, and reserves as required by the Municipality for this development must be granted to the Municipality free and clear of all encumbrances and in a form satisfactory to the Municipality's Solicitor. 10. That Block C, being a 3.05 metre road widening along Nash Road, and Block B, being a 0.3 metre reserve, be dedicated to the Municipality free and clear of all encumbrances. 11. That the Owner shall pay to the Municipality at the time of execution of the subdivision agreement, five percent (5 %) cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication for residential development. 12. That Block A be deeded gratuitously and in a manner acceptable to the Municipality, as open space. 13. That the pond and the dam structure located in Block 'A' be removed and replaced with a satisfactory low flow structure. 14. That the Owner shall cause all utilities, including, hydro, telephone, cable TV, etc. be installed underground. 15. That the existing entrance driveway to the subject lands be designated a construction access during initial stage works. 16. That Lot 6 be placed on hold with no building permit issued until the initial stage of construction work is substantially complete. Any decision regarding the availability of a building permit on Lot 6 shall be made at the sole discretion of the Director of Public Works. 17. That the Applicant must reimburse the developer of Registered Plan of Subdivision 10M -809 for the cost of over sizing the storm sewer and the stormwater management works to service the drainage of this plan of subdivision. The Applicant's costs are outlined in the subdivision agreement for Registered Plan of Subdivision 10M -809. 633 Attachment No. 3 18. That all works and services including but not limited to sidewalks, street lights and temporary turning circles, must be designed and constructed in accordance with the Municipality of Clarington Design Criteria and Standard Drawings, provisions of the Municipality Development By -law No. 92 -015 and all applicable legislation and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 19. That the Owner shall pay to the Municipality, the development charge in accordance to the Development Charge By -law as amended from time to time, as well as payment of a portion of front end charges pursuant to the Development Charge Act if any are required to be paid by the Owner. 20. That the Owner shall provide the Municipality, at the time of execution of the subdivision agreement unconditional and irrevocable, Letters of Credit acceptable to the Municipality's Treasurer, with respect to Performance Guarantee, Maintenance Guarantee, Occupancy Deposit and other guarantees or deposits as may be required by the Municipality. 21. That the Owner shall adhere to architectural control requirements of the Municipality. 22. That prior to the issuance of building permits, access routes to the subdivision must be provided to meet Subsection 3.2.5.2(6) of the Ontario Building Code and, that all watermains and hydrants are fully serviced and the Owner agrees that during construction, fire access routes be maintained according to Subsection 2.5.1.2 of the Ontario Fire Code, storage of combustible waste be maintained as per Subsection 2.4.1.1 and open burning as per Subsection 2.6.3.4 of the Ontario Fire Code. 23. That the Applicant satisfy all the conditions of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, financially or otherwise. 634