HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-53-96DN: KURTZ.GPA THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
g: General Purpose and Administration Committees =;
Meetin G p File
Date: Monday April 22, 1996 Res.
Report #: PD -53 -96 File #: By -law #
Subject: ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING - ERWIN KURTZ
PART OF LOTS 11 & 12, CONCESSION 1, FORMER TOWN OF
BOWMANVILLE (96 KING STREET EAST) - FILE: DEV 95 -059
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -53 -96 be received for information.
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 In August of 1995, the Municipality of Clarington Planning and Development
Department received an application for both site plan approval and an
amendment to the zoning by -law on the subject lands at 96 King Street East in
Bowmanville. The application is proposing to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-
law 84 -63 of the former Town of Newcastle in order to allow the expansion and
renovation of the existing motor vehicle fuel bar into a restaurant.
1.2 On October 2, 1995 and October 16, 1995, staff presented Report PD- 104 -95 and
an addendum to Report PD- 104 -95, both of which recommended that the
application be denied. On October 16, 1995, Council resolved to deny the
application, although the resolution would allow the application to be reactivated
without additional fees if the site plan were revised within six (6) months of
Council's decision.
2
_
501
REPORT • -D PAGE 2
1.3 In December of 1995, staff met with Mr. Kurtz and his agent who submitted
revised site plan approval drawings and requested the application be brought
back to Committee and Council.
1.4 On January 22, 1996, staff presented Report PD -11 -96 to the General Purpose
and Administration Committee. Although staff were encouraged by some of the
changes, the revisions on their own merits were not sufficient to cause staff to
alter their previous position.
1.5 The General Purpose and Administration Committee in their review of Report PD-
11 -96 recommended approval of the rezoning application. Council adopted the
Committee's recommendation and a by -law was passed on February 12, 1996.
By -law 96 -045 provides a zone category which would facilitate the applicant's
desire to renovate and expand the existing building into a restaurant.
1.6 On March 11, 1996, the Clerk's Department received an appeal of By -law 96 -045
by an area resident. A copy of the appeal is attached hereto for your information.
The appeal was in turn forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board and a hearing
date will be scheduled in the future.
1.7 In consideration of staff's recommendation to Committee and Council, staff will
not be in a position to attend the hearing in support of the By -law and in fact,
would not participate in the hearing unless being summoned to appear as a
witness. Should Council wish to be represented at the Board Hearing to defend
By -law 96 -045, Council may direct that a Planning Consultant and Solicitor be
retained. The cost of legal and planning consultant fees for the hearing is
estimated to be $20,000.00 which has not been accounted for in the 1996
Budget.
...3
502
REPORT NO.: PD -53 -96
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.,
Director of Planning
and Development
WM *FW *Jip
Attachment #1 - Key Map
Attachment #2 - Copy of Appeal Notice
April 10, 1996
Reviewed by,
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
503
I
LOT
12
I LL
f
ATTACHMENT #1
LOT 11
L
DEV. 95 -059
54
z
O
m
Cn
W
U
Z
0
U
e
March 8, 1996
Patti L. Barrie, Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 3A6
Re: Clerk's File No. D14.DEV.95.059
ATTACHMENT #2
4
C�
Mr. Peter logo
30 Penfound Drive
Bowmanville, Ont
L1C 3K1
Phone: 623 -9666
t , p
MAR 1 1 1896
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Dear Madam:
This is to provide formal notice that I wish to file a notice
of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board regarding the
passing of Clarington By -law 96 -45.
The reasons for my objection are as follows:
a) The "drive -thru" aspect of the plan does not consider the
hazard to both motorists travelling east on King Street,
and pedestrians walking eastward on the north sidewalk of
King Street. I believe that the hazard is due to the
existing wall abutting the western edge of the site.
This wall will act as a 'blind spot' to automobiles
exiting the drive -thru in a southerly direction, and to
the above mentioned motorists and pedestrians.
Automobiles exiting the drive -thru could create a danger
to eastward bound persons as neither the exiting vehicle
nor an eastbound vehicle or pedestrian would see each
other until the vehicle exiting the drive -thru was about
to pass over the sidewalk. This situation could be
particularly hazardous to sidewalk users such as persons
pushing baby carriages and to persons utilizing handicap
'scooters' and similar devices.
b) It is questionable whether the related site plan is
supported by the Regional Official Plan. Sec. 9.2.2 c)
of the Regional Official Plan states that Central Areas
shall be developed "with direct street pedestrian access
to buildings, and the provision of potential transit and
parking areas sited at the rear or within buildings,
wherever possible."
cont ...
Patti Barrie ... page 2
c) Other recent commercial construction in the area has
complied with the requirement mentioned in item b) above.
This By -law has created an exemption for the applicant.
d) The January 22, 1996 report from the Planning Department
(# PD- 11 -96) recommended a denial of the application for
the second time. This was following an initial denial in
their October 2, 1995 report ( #PD- 104 -95.) The second
plan submitted by the applicant did not fully address the
Planning Department's concerns expressed in the latter
report. The Planning Department report stated that,
"...the revisions on their own merits are not sufficient
to cause staff to alter their previous position. Staff
remain of the opinion that the application is a suburban
type development that conflicts with the existing built
environment of the historic downtown."
e) Finally, staff report # PD -11 -96 advised that the Public
Works Department has re- confirmed that the southerly
entrance from George Street must be removed before site
plan approval could be issued. The revised plan
continues to incorporate this southerly entrance.
Please advise if you require any further information
regarding my appeal. Thank you for your attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Peter Le
506
ACK. DY ....
_ ..... J_.
of