HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-142-90 V
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT File
Res. #
By-Law #
METING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, April 23, 1990
REPORT #: PD- 142-90 FILE #: 18T-85030 & 18T-84011
--(16M-7-9-9-AND 10 M-811)
SUUCT: FOSTER CREEK DEVELOPMENTS LTD.
PLAN OF SUBDIVISIONS 1OM-799 AND IOM-811
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
OPEN SPACE FENCING REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 142-•90 be received;
2 . THAT in consideration of the majority preference of the
homeowners abutting Foster Creek Valley, the developer be
relieved from his obligation to install fencing abutting
Foster Creek Valley as related to in Plans of Subdivision 1OM-
799 and 10M-811;
3. THAT the property owners whose lands are affected and the
developer be informed of Council's decision; and
4 . THAT the Town policies on fencing abutting open space be
referred to the Park Policy Committee.
1. BACKGROUND:
1. 1 The General Purpose and Administration Committee at their
meeting of March 19, 1990 considered a letter submitted by Mr.
John Thorne of 7 Foster Creek Drive. Committee endorsed a
recommendation to the effect "that the matter of ravine
fencing at Foster Creek Development be referred to Staff for
review and report" .
. . .2
REPORT NO. : PD-142-90 PAGE 2
1.2 Staff Report PD-112-90 submitted to Council for their
information was tabled at the meeting of March 26, 1990 to
allow Council to meet with the Director of Planning and the
Director of Community Services in an attempt to resolve the
issue of fencing forthwith.
1. 3 At the Council meeting of April 9, 1990, the Director provided
a verbal report based on the results of a Staff initiated
survey. Council resolved that Staff was to prepare an updated
report on the issue of fencing at the Foster Creek Subdivision
to be considered at the General Purpose and Administration
Committee meeting scheduled to be held on April 23, 1990.
2 . SURVEY RESULTS:
2 . 1 In consideration of Council's deliberation of Staff Report PD-
112-90, Staff forwarded to all property owners abutting Foster
Creek Valley a short questionnaire asking for their assistance
in reviewing this matter.
2 .2 A total of twenty-four (24) questionnaires were mailed out.
As of the writing of this report, eighteen ( 18) responses have
been received.
2 . 3 Three (3) property owners provided no indication or preference
either on the Town survey or the petition as previously
submitted.
2 .4 The remaining three (3) owners although not responding to the
Town's survey did sign the petition against the fencing and
accordingly have been added to the results of the survey.
. . .3
599 4- 1
REPORT NO. : PD-142-90 PAGE 3
2 .5 The survey results were as follows:
Question No. 1
i) wish to have fence 8 (33%)
ii) do not wish to have fence 13 (54%)
(includes 3 who signed petition)
iii) property owners not responding 3 ( 13%)
Total 24
Question No. 2
Type of fence preferred if installed:
6 ' Chain Link 3 ( 17%)
4 ' Chain Link 4 (22%)
Cedar Railing 4 (22%)
,Other: Planting Trees, Shrubs 7 (39%)
2 .6 From the result of the survey, it appears a slight majority
of the owners do not wish to have a fence installed. As a
result, Staff are recommending that the developer be relieved
from the fencing requirement as per the Subdivision Agreement.
3. COMMENTS:
3. 1 As stated in Report PD-112-90, Staff cited various reasons for
fencing including clear delineation of private/public
property, prevention of encroachment, elimination of
trespassing, potential municipal liability, elimination of
future despute under Line Fences Act, as well as deter present
and future homeowners, to erect their own fence of various
. . .4
9 i � r
REPORT NO. : PD- 142-90 PAGE 4
design, height, materials and colour thus creating very
unattractive urban landscape. For all these reasons, Staff
is of the opinion that this particular request from residents
abutting Foster Creek should be treated in isolation and any
decision by Council should not be treated as Town's Policy on
fencing abutting creek valley.
3.2 Staff suggest that the whole issue of fencing should be
referred to the Parks Policy Committee to review and report
back to the General Purpose and Administration Committee.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Franklin Wu, M.C.I .P. Lcivirence Kotseff
Director of Planning Chief A i 'strative
and Development Officer
FW*jip
*Attach
12 April 1990
INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE NOTIFIED OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE'S
DECISION:
Mr. John Thorne
7 Foster Creek Drive
NEWCASTLE, Ontario
LOA 1H0
Foster Creek Developments Ltd.
214 King Street East
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 1L3
599 4 -
LOT 30 }--H LOT 29 }-i i--C LOT 28 N
Z
WILMOT ST._ 0
N
J W
X I n]m-0
Z 0
V
HIGHWAY N° 2 KING STREET
o
o
} LILLIAN SCENT 4'
Wb
co F�
ION-8117 EMILY ITto
F0 ER CREEK DR.
g n OG
°¢ CAROLINE
Q
T
ORES.
10M-799. w 0
3 m w
N
E 'RD ST. W EDWARD
� W
Q
HART BLVD. U
JAMES
HART CT.
SUNSET. BLVD.
U
ROBERT
SUNSET BLVD.
LAKEVIEW HTS.
HIGHWAY N° 401
FENCING REQUIRED- TO -BE BUILT
599 44