The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD-166-89NZAMM0 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File #-LA _11SILL-LAS Res. # By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, July 3, 1989 REPORT #: PD- 166 -89 — FILE #: DEV 88-83 & OP 2.2.2(4) SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND COURTICE SOUTH NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW 84-63 APPLICANT: COURTICE ANIMAL CARE LIMITED FILES: DEV 88-83 AND OP 2.2.2(4) RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-166-89 be received; 2. THAT the applications to amend the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan and By-law 84-63, submitted by Lennis Trotter, Architect, on behalf of Courtice Animal Care to permit a Veterinary Clinic be DENIED; and 3. THAT the list of names attached hereto be so advised. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 On Monday, December 12, 1988, Committee considered Staff Report PD-272-88 in consideration of an application to amend the Courtice South Neighbourhood Development Plan and By-law 84-63, to permit the renovation of a 95 square metre dwelling to allow a Veterinary Clinic on a 1,997.16 square metre parcel. The development would also take place on private services. CCI0 REPORT NO.: PD-166-89 PAGE 2 1.2 The subject applications would amend the current "Residential" designation in the Neighbourhood Development Plan and rezone the lands from "Holding - Urban Residential Type One ((H)Rl)" to an appropriate designation/zone to permit the proposed development. 1.3 Committee endorsed Staff's recommendation to refer the application back to Staff to allow the applicant to submit an Engineering Study. the meeting was also necessary for fulfilling the Public Meeting requirement in accordance with the Planning Act. 2. PUBLIC MEETINGS AND SUBMISSIONS 2.1 Pursuant to the requirements of the Planning Act, a Public Meeting was held on December 12, 1988. 2.2 Mr. George Gouldburn spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that the application was premature until such time as municipal services were available. Subsequently Staff received written correspondence from Mr. Gouldburn further noting that the additional traffic, odour, and noise will infringe on their ability to enjoy their home. Mr. Gouldburn resides in the single family dwelling immediately west of the subject property. 3. CIRCULATION COMMENTS 3.1 In accordance with departmental procedures, the applications were circulated to various agencies for comments. The following is a summary of comments which have been received. 3.2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Department offered no objection to the proposal, noting that the applicant/owner must enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the Town and must meet all the requirements financial and otherwise. ...3 1:n0 J7/ . 0 V --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.3 The Town of Newcastle Fire Department offered no objection, however, noted that the proposed renovations must comply to the appropriate sections of the Ontario Building Code and Ontario Fire Code. 3.4 The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority also offered no objection, however, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 161/80, permits would be required prior to any placement of fill or grading on this site. 3.5 The Ministry of Transportation offered no objection to the proposed amendment, however will restrict the existing entrance at the east limit of the property with no additional direct access to Highway No. 2. The Ownwer will be required to upgrade the existing entrance to commercial standards. In addition, permits for the sign will be required. 3.6 The Region of Durham Works Department noted that municipal water and sewer were not available to the site and the Region has no plans to extend services that far at this time. 3.7 The Region of Durham Health Services Department recommends approval. 3.8 The Region of Durham Planning Department noted that the proposed development includes facilities which have a potential for causing nuisance problems. This necessitates that this facility be located in a Special Purpose Commercial Area. However, they do note that compatibility with surrounding uses would still be a concern. They also state that the Region has no plans to extend municipal water supply and sanitary sewer services into this area. Therefore, this proposed development must proceed with private services. 4. STAFF COMMENTS 4.1 Pursuant to Section 8.3 of the Durham Regional official Plan the applicant was required to submit an Engineering Study indicating that there is an adequate supply of potable water, adequate fire protection, 4 n i developed for the proposed use if a deeper well (minimum 15 metres) is constructed, tested and sealed, and that a new waste disposal system incorporating the recommended treatment system be installed. 4.2 Currently an application has been submitted to develop the lands directly to the south and east of the applicant's lands as an 8 unit, 1489.5 m2 commercial plaza. Attempts were made by the Planning and Development Review Branch to have the respective landowners meet and submit a joint proposal which would incorporate the Vet Clinic with the proposed commercial plaza. However, this did not occur and as the proposal stands, the application submitted is not conducive to orderly commercial development. Since the two parties did not come to an agreement, the Vet Clinic would be located directly in front of the proposed commercial plaza, hence creating a development which does not meet some of the design principles referred to in Section 6iv)e) of the Town of Newcastle Official Plan. 4.3 This current application does not meet a number of policies outlined in the Town of Newcastle official Plan for Special Purpose Commercial Areas (Section 6.iv)e). For example: - the image of the major entrance (being Highway No. 2 and Courtice Road) to the Courtice Major Urban Area should be enhanced by appropriate development. This current proposal does not enhance or improve the image of this gateway. - consolidation, clusters and orderly development is encouraged rather than piecemeal development. Since the two parties could not come to any agreement, the approval of this proposal would result in piecemeal and unorderly development. - that common ingress and egress and internal traffic circulation should be consolidated. If this development was to proceed, then eventually an agreement would have to be made which provides access to both the proposed Vet Clinic and the recently submitted application for an 8 unit commercial plaza to be located directly behind the Vet Clinic. IM&I Q Q n - that commercial development minimally impacts surrounding residential areas physically and/or visually. Since the surrounding area is residential, a development which incorporated the clinic with the commercial plaza would have less of a physical and visual impact. 5. RECOMMENDATION In consideration of the above, Staff would respectfully recommend that the application for a Veterinary Clinic be DENIED. Respectfully submitted, -------------------------- Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning & Development HM* FW*jip *Attach. June 26, 1989 Recommended for presentation to the Committee ----------------- i Lawrence E �Kotseff Chief Ad strative Officer INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE NOTIFIED OF COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL'S DECISION Dr. Mary F. Monteith c/o Courtice Animal Care Limited 555 Mayfair Avenue Apt. 1205 OSHAWA, Ontario LlK Q8 Lennis Trotter, Architect 168 Centre Street South OSHAWA, Ontario LlH 4A6 Mr. & Mrs. G.E. Gouldburn Box 7, Group 18 R.R. #6 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario LlC 3K7 r99 0 7) .SUBJECT' SiTE' LOT 30 LOT r� I RIO .. KEY -MAP .. 599 04 (H) Rli N1 iZ 0 W U Z O U D