Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-72-84 i0 �0s CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL.(416)263.2231 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1984 REPORT NO. : PD-72-84 (REVISED) SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR REZONING - R. AMYOTTE PART LOTS 31 & 32, B.F.C. , DARLINGTON OUR FILE: DEV 79-27 RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following : 1 . That Report PD-72-84 be received; and * 2. That the attached By-law authorizing execution of an agreement between 507886 Ontario Limited and the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle be approved; and 3. That Council consider Mr. Amyotte's request for ail relief from the Town 's requirements and provide Staff with further direction relative thereto.'' P' pp )U /v .2 �� j REPORT NO. : PD-72-84 Page 2 BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: On April 13, 1981 the, then Planning and Development Committee considered Staff Report P-56-81 in respect of the subject application for rezoning. As a result of the Committee's consideration, Resolution PD-110-81 was approved as follows: "That the recommendation in Report P-56-81 be endorsed; and 1 . P-56-81 be received ; 2. The attached amendment to Restricted Area By-law 2111 , as amended, be forwarded to Council for approval upon execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the Town of Newcastle, which shall include, but shall not be specifically limited to provisions in respect of the following: 1 . That the Owner dedicate to the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle a 3 metre (10 Foot) road widening along the entire frontage of the property abutting Baseline Road; 2. That a Site Grading and Drainage Plan be approved by the Town 's Director of Public Works, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications , prior to issuance of any building permits on the subject lands; 3. That the Town shall require Site Plan Agreements as a condition of development of all or part of the subject lands; 4. That such easements as may be required for utility or drainage purposes shall be granted free and clear of all encumbrances to the appropriate authority; . . .3 REPORT NO. : PD-72-84 Page 3 5. That the Owner agrees to provide on site, one or more reservoirs for fire fighting purposes to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief of the Town of Newcastle; 6. That no Occupancy Permit shall be issued for any building until such building is connected to and serviced by a potable supply of water, that the sanitary sewage disposal system approved by the Authority having jurisdiction ; and 7. That an overall Site Plan incorporating visual buffering of the future industrial uses adjacent to Highway 401 , has been approved by i the Town of Newcastle." Prior to the Committee' s consideration, the applicant had been provided a copy of the Staff Report. By letter of March 12, 1981, he was also provided a copy of a Development Agreement previously executed by the Town, in respect of a property in the same vicinity. By letter of April 23, 1981 , the applicant was advised of the Committee's decision and on June 3, 1981 , a reminder was sent to the applicant requesting submission of a draft Subdivision Agreement for review by Town Staff. On August 25, 1982, the applicant 's solicitor submitted ten (10) signed copies of an Agreement requesting execution by the Municipality. By letter of September 21 , 1982, the applicant ' s solicitor was advised that the proposed Agreement was being circulated to ensure compliance with all of the Town' s requirements. This was done, due to the fact that the proposed Agreement was a first draft, as far as the Municipality was concerned. . . .4 i REPORT NO. : PD-72-84 Page 4 Following circulation , a number of concerns were identified and a request was forwarded to the applicant 's solicitor on October 6, 1982, for submission of backup information , including reference plans and engineering drawings to facilitate review of the proposed Agreement by our Works Department. In early November, 1982, Mr. Amyotte met with the Director of Public Works and indicated that, rather than proceed with a subdivision, he would simply like to set the stage for same, and his primary concern was the rezoning of the property. By memorandum of November 5, 1982, the Director of Public Works indicated that, while he had no difficulty with the rezoning, he would be looking for certain inclusions within the Subdivision Agreement related to the improvement of Baseline Road, and control of access points. No further information with respect to proposed engineering, or Works Cost Estimates was ever submitted by the applicant, and accordingly, the application became a low priority with the Department. The failure to submit the requested information was apparently due to an omission by the applicant 's solicitor, who may have failed to forward the Town 's requirement to his client. i Following a number of informal discussions with the applicant early in 1983, and, bearing in mind, the Town' s current requirements for Subdivision Agreements, Staff prepared a revised draft of the Subdivision Agreement and forwarded same to the applicant on July 14, 1983. REPORT NO. : PD-72-84 Page 5 On August 17, 1983, Mr. Amyotte wrote to the Public Works Department expressing his concerns about the delays being encountered relative to the approval of the Subdivision Agreement, and outlining the history of his various applications and dealings with the Town. Staff are not in a position to comment on circumstances prior to 1979 when the current application was formally submitted, however, a review of the files indicates that a primary reason that this matter has not been finalized, was a disagreement in respect of Developer's contributions for the upgrading of Baseline Road, and the failure to submit the required background information prior to approval of the Zoning By-law. It is also evident from the applicant's letter of August 17, that he feels that he has not been treated equitably, taking into consideration, circumstances prior to 1979. His concern being that applications submitted at the same time, or after his proposal , were approved without the imposition of many of these conditions, particularly the requirement to Cost Share for road improvements. It is the applicant 's position, that the road is presently in excellent condition, and that taxes generated by development of the property would pay for future road improvements. Public Works Department Staff have advised that Baseline Road in this location, is presently in good condition and at present, does not require reconstruction. Mr. Amyotte 's letter of August 17, 1983 was responded to by letter of September 9, 1983, at which time he was advised that if he wishes a reduction in the Town 's requirements, I appropriate direction must come from Council , and that he should contact the Planning Department to detail the points in the Agreement which he would liked changed. REPORT NO. : PD-72-84 Page 6 No response was received from Mr. Amyotte until March 6, 1983, at which time Planning and Public Works Department Staff met with Mr. Amyotte to further discuss the Town 's requirements. At this meeting it became evident that the required contribution to road improvements was the only outstanding item of real concern , and Mr. Amyotte was assured that Staff would submit his request for relief to Town Council for their consideration. Staff would note that this requirement is presently a standard condition of development approval , and is based upon the need to provide transportation systems which can adequately accommodate the types and volumes of traffic generated by development. It was pointed out to the applicant, that the collective effect of new development within any given area places demands on the road system which lead to deterioration of the road, subsequently requiring improvements, the cost of which are ultimately borne by the Taxpayer. A prime example of such a situation is Baseline Road in Bowmanville. In an effort to assist the applicant , Staff have provided an estimate of the cost of upgrading that portion of Baseline Road abutting the subject lands, and indicated that the applicant 's share would be in the order of $30,000.00. This figure is unacceptable to the applicant , and he is requesting relief from this requirement. We note however, that such relief represents a substantial change in the Town 's position relative to development approvals. Staff have consistently applied the policies in place at the time of an approval . Mr. Amyotte, on the other hand, is requesting that the policies in place in 1980, the date when an adjacent development was approved, should apply. He is not seeking a revision to our current policy, . . .7 REPORT NO. : PD-72-84 Page 7 but rather relief from it given the history of his develop- ment proposal . Inasmuch as staff cannot agree to this request and inasmuch as this is a decision that can only be made by Council , Staff therefore respectfully request Council ' s direction in respect of this issue. Respectf ed, f$ T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P I ' ` Director of Planning TTE*j i p *Attach. March 15, 1984 Applicant: Mr. R. Amyotte Terra Properties 152.5 Jalna Avenue MISSISSAUGA, Ontario L5J 1S6 I -ECEIVED AUG 17 1983 Terra Properties 1525 Jalna :'Avenue Mississauga, Ontario L5J 196 :august 17, 1983 The Town of :dewcastle; H`Ampton, Ontario I.103 i JO I T H 0 U T P R E J U D I C E Attention: i,r. Ron Rupris; P. Eng. Director of Public .forks -,ear :`r. Dupris: Further to our earlier conversation, I am sure you can sympathize that it is difficult for me to have any confidence that anything I do will have any effect in ?rocessing my land for rezoning. However, as per your request, I thank you for the opportunity to outline my efforts over the past nine years. I,, July of 1974, I review she bylaw with a member of the Town Staff and acquired legal opinion before purchasing the land for the processing of forestry products. In consideration of others; outside storage was screened from view with cedar trees planted on a ten foot berm. It was called Indian Industries and employed 27 local people. How- ever. before full operations got underway; the building inspector called me in and in the presence of a witness stated " ie don't want a bunch of Indians around here" and had a bylaw infraction laid. The Council said the case was subjudica, but I could get the land rezoned in approximately three months. I immediately applied. I was then informed that I must first apply for redesig- nation. . . .to which I immediately complied. ?'luch later I was told that the total area was to be designated Greenbelt. However when I put my case to the Department of the Ontario Treasurer, they immediately exempted my land and withdrew their objection. The Town would still not approve the zoning and forced me to apply again. I was later told that my application was not being Processed because the whole area was to be rezoned in the .iew Official Plan. This did not occur. In the meantime the bylaw charge was heard in court (two ;;ears later) and the Town was found to be without a case. GIB won the case but lost the business including the contract with General Motors. i was told if I got a survey my land would be rezoned. .. to which I immediately complied and submitted. ;:uch later I was told that if I got a lot seperation Survey together with road and drainage easements the land ;vould be rezoned. . , to which I immediately complied and submitted. r. DUpris 2 Aug. 17/83 / iduch later I was told if I got a soil study, my land ;vould be rezoned. . .to rthich I immediately complied and after a oie year wait for the study was submitted. I was then sent a copy of the development agreement of the property across the street and told to prepare one similar. . .to which I immediately complied and submitted one year later. it being held up by the negligence of a lawyer. I:i the meantime other applicants were approved without placing on them the demands placed on me. In fact, when an auto repair shop was set up across the road, in definite contravention of the bylaw. they were asked to apply for rezoning which was approved in less then four months: with- out any demands, `•;y last submission dated Ilay 28th, 19$2 took fifteen aonths to receive an answer. Again I find myself with yet another set of demands. . .the Town stating 'this is now policy' I am now to pay all legal costs. I am now to have the 3a I t a or tie documents at my rnGt. and slid every one o them, am n o contriou e towards the reconstruction o a . It is my understanding that I am to er,ploy an engineer in the costly and time consuming job of designing the road, without knowing what type of road is to be designed. Is it possible that you may have one of your technicians inspect the road and clarify what is being requested? In consideration of what has gone before, I have much ifficulty in dealing with these demands because: fl 1 my application proceeded the policy .D ethers who applied after me did not have to meet these demands c the road is in excellent condition now d the only time acditional work would be required on the road is after the property is generating more than sufficient excess taxes to pay for it. Ilowever, even these new demands are possibly negotiable and oolveable but to be honest the problem I have the most difficulty in dealing with is that of submitting yet another agreement at considerable cost and time and having it lay dormant for yet_ another year or two and to be answered with another set of demands and new policies. To this point in time I have not been treated with equality with is my constitutional right at a considerable financial cost to myself. However, after talking with you I.1r. Dupris and with Mr. Smith I have some element of trust that now I :lay be treated fairly. Thank you for your interest in requesting this brief history. I will be back in touch with you within a few days. Yours very truly; 2'/e= Ronald Amyotte I I THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE BY-LAW NUMBER 84- 47 being a By-law to authorize the entering into of an Agreement with 507886 Ontario Limited and the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle. The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle hereby enacts as follows: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle, and seal with the Corporation's seal, an Agreement between 507886 Ontario Limited and the said Corporation dated the day of 1984, in the form attached hereto as Schedule "V. i 2. THAT Schedule "X" attached hereto forms part of this by-law. BY-LAW read a first time this 9th day of April 1984 BY-LAW read a second time this 9th day of April 1984 BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 9th day of April 1984 G. B. RICKARD, MAYOR D. W. OAKES, CLERK i I