Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-175-87 REPORT ##5 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE t REPORT File # l s Res. �_��• By-Law # METING: COUNCIL DATE: Monday, June 22, 1987 REPORT #: PD-175-87 FILE #: DEV 87-17 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN AGREEMENT PRESTON TRANSPORT LIMITED OUR FILE: DEV 87-17 RECOMMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-175-87 be received; and 2. THAT Mr. Preston's request with respect to deletion of the Town ' s Site Plan requirements in respect of road widenings be denied. BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS: On March 6, 1987 the Town received an application, submitted by Barrie and Associates on behalf of Preston Transport Limited, requesting Site Plan approval of a proposed expansion to increase their present 10,000 square feet of buildings to 18,000 square feet. Following receipt of the final circulation comments on June 2, 1987, Staff prepared a draft Site Plan Agreement and forwarded same to the applicant and his agent. In addition, Staff identified, on the proposed site plan, a number of revisions in accordance with Town Policy. These revisions included the dedication of a 10 foot road widening along the north side of Baseline Road, a siqht triangle at the intersection of Martin and Baseline Roads, minor regrading of the existing Baseline Road ditch, upgrading of the proposed entrance from Baseline Road, and the provision of a landscape strip along the Baseline Road frontage in accordance with the requirements of By-law 84-63. . . .2 REPORT NO.: PD-175-87 Page 2 In addition, Staff noted a revision to the location of the proposed sign in accordance with the requirements of the Town's Sign By-law. By letter of June 11, 1987 from Mr. Irwin Hamilton, Solicitor for the applicant, Staff were advised that Mr. Preston is not willing to convey the required road widening or undertake any improvements to the Baseline Road ditch as requested by the Public Works Department. A copy of Mr. Hamilton' s * letter is enclosed for Council 's information. Staff note that pursuant to Section 40 of the Planning Act, 1983, the Town is empowered to require, as a condition of Site Plan approval , the dedication of road widenings and sight triangles. It is also empowered to require the provision of adequate landscaping and site drainage as well as appropriate access. In addition, the Town's Zoning By-law requires provision of a landscaped strip abutting any exterior yard, and the Town' s Sign By-law specifically prohibits roof signs of the nature proposed by Preston Transport. While the landscaping requirement and the roof signage have not been identified as being at issue, they are included in the Staff requirements for site plan approval . With respect to the issue of the road widening, Staff note that the Town' s 1988 Capital Budget calls for the reconstruction of Baseline Road, west of Regional Road 57, and that Baseline Road is designated as a collector road by the Newcastle Official Plan. In that regard, the Official Plan policies require the dedication of road widenings as a condition of development approval . It should be noted that the development of the two (2) properties east of the Preston Transport site, at the corner of Martin and Baseline Roads, were also required to provide road widening dedications as a condition of site plan approval . The only remaining road widening necessary is Part 4 on Plan 1OR-2038 which will be acquired as a condition of the development of that . . .3 REPORT NO.: PD-175-87 Page 3 parcel of land. Inherent in the provision of this road widening is the need to relocate an existing chain-linked fence, Mr. Hamilton has identified this relocation as a concern, both with respect to the cost and the resultant loss of yard space. In that regard, it is Staff' s recommendation that the cost of relocating the fence be borne by the municipality at such time as Baseline Road is reconstructed. While there may be some loss of yard space, this loss would not appear to restrict the use of the lot. Similarly, since the relocation of the fence could affect the provision of the required landscape strip, it is suggested that a Performance Guarantee be provided to the Town to cover the cost of these works and that the works be undertaken at the same time as the relocation of the fence as part of the reconstruction of Baseline Road utilizing the Performance Guarantee to cover the cost of same. With respect to the issue of regrading of the Baseline Road ditch, Staff have reviewed this matter with the Public Works Department and, inasmuch as it appears that most of the site drainage will be handled on site and directed towards a suitable storm outfall , and given the pending recontruction of the road, there is not a critical need for this regarding. Accordingly, this requirement has been waived by Staff. Notwithstanding Mr. Hamilton' s position that we should treat an existing development differently than a new development, it is Staff's position that the required road widening is not unreasonable and is, in fact, consistent with the position taken on similar applications for expansion of existing industrial facilities located along Baseline Road. Therefore, this application has not been treated any differently but would, in fact, establish a precedent if the Town' s requirements were waived as requested by the applicant's solicitor. . . .4 REPORT NO. : PD-175-87 Page 4 Staff respectfully suggest that, given the nature of the use and the large exposure to Highway 401 and the need for adequate road systems to serve this type of industry, these requirements are not unreasonable and are in the best interests of the community and the applicant's operations. Accordingly, we recommend that the request submitted on behalf of Preston Transport Limited, by Mr. Irwin Hamilton, be denied and that the draft Site Plan Agreement be revised to provide for conveyance of the road widening at the Town's expense at such time as is mutually satisfactory to permit the construction of Baseline Road, provision of a Performance Guarantee in respect of the required landscaping to be carried out at such time as the road is reconstructed, and to further provide that the relocation of the existing fence will be done at no cost to the applicant also at such time as Baseline Road is reconstructed. We would, however, require that any new fencing, not presently located on site, be set back in accordance with the required road widening in order to reduce costs related to same when Baseline Road is reconstructed. Staff have discussed this proposal with Mr. Hamilton who has advised that it still remains unacceptable to his client. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee . war s, .P. �awrenc f otsef Director of Planning Chief d inistrative Officer or u ng. Director of Public Works T TE*j i p *Attach. June 16, 1987 BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS P O BOX 357 43 ONTARIO ST BOWMANVILLE,ONTARIO L I C 3L PHONE(416)623-7744 IRWIN A HAMILTON B COM L L B PAUL L BELLEFONTAINE B A LL B June 11 , 1987 DELIVERED Town of Newcastle, ATTENTION: T. EDWARDS, Director of Planning, tz HAMPTON, Ontario LOB 1J0 Dear Sir:RE: Site Plan Agreement Preston Transport Limited As discussed with you we are writing to confirm our objections to Town staff's requests in the site plan agreement. Preston Transport has applied for a building permit to increase their present 10,000 square feet of buildings to 18,000 square feet. The addition is for ware- housing and would connect to the existing building. Town staff have requested a site plan agreement including the following items: (1 ) Upgrade existing easterly access - cost $850.00 (2) Regrade south ditch - cost $1 ,365.00 (3) Convey to the Town road widening and a site triangle as in schedule C. Mr. Preston is willing to upgrade the easterly access. Mr. Preston will not convey the property requested to the Town nor will he pay for regrading the south ditch. Mr. Preston's position is that he does not feel that he should be treated in the same way as a new developer who does not have a substantial investment in the upgrading of site conditions. In this case the present area for the site triangle has been landscaped and maintained by Preston Transport for 20 years. Preston Transport has kept the existing ditch neat and clean. The ditch does not have any back-up and it is difficult to understand why it should be regraded. Further, the area which is to be conveyed to the Town is presently part of Preston Transport' s yard and has a high chain linked fence. The cost of removing and re-installing the fence is high and Mr. Preston does not wish to have his yard space cut back. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . ./2 - 2 - The construction of the new addition does not in any way interfere with the existing ditching, fencing or sight viewing from the intersection. If Preston Transport was proposing to move onto this site and start an entirely new development, Mr. Preston could understand your position. However, as he has been on the existing site for 20 years and as he has a substantial investment in the land which the Town proposes to take, he does not feel that your position is reasonable. We would therefore request that you bring this matter before council as early as possible. As advised, Mr. Preston's tender's on the building expire on June 2, and this matter must be settled before a tender is accepted. Yours very truly, HAMILTON AND BELLEFONTAINE Per: 0�'4 Irwin amilton IAH:led