HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-106-84 4 .
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 MAY 7, 1964
REPORT NO. : PD-106-64
SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR REZONING - E. POLLARD
PART LOTS 29 & 30, CONC. 3, COURTICE
FILE: DEV 83-21
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the
following :
1 . That Report PD-106-84 be received; and
That Council authorize Staff to proceed with
the preparation of a Neighbourhood Development
Plan for Neighbourhood 3B of Courtice; and
2. Staff be authorized to schedule a public
meeting in respect of said development plan, to
be held in the Courtice area; and
3. That the subject application for rezoning File
DEV 83-21 , be tabled until after the
aforementioned public meeting has been held;
and
4. That following the public meeting referred to
in No. 2 above, that Staff prepare a draft
Development Agreement and draft Zoning By-law
for the Committee 's consideration; and
5. That Council further provide direction to Staff
with respect to Mr. Pollard 's request for
reduction or elimination of development
charges.
r ��
REPORT NO. : PD-106-84 Page 2
BACKGROUND:
On September 6, 1983, Mr. Elmer Pollard submitted an
application to the Town of Newcastle to rezone a 25.75
hectare (63.6 acre) parcel of land in Part Lots 29 & 30,
Concession 3, former Township of Darlington (Courtice) to
permit the development of a 452 unit senior citizens
complex. Approximately 19.4 hectares (48 acres) of the site
lies within the Courtice Urban Area. The application
proposed locating the entire development on 3.4 hectares
(8.4 acres) south of the tributary of Black Creek. Access
to the development was proposed to be through the existing
low density residential subdivision immediately to the south
and connecting to Nash Road.
On September 28, 1983, the Planning Department advised the
applicant that the Courtice Urban Area Plan requires that
high density developments be located either in the Community
Central Area or adjacent to arterial roads, and that
inasmuch as the proposed development meets neither of these
requirements, an Official Plan Admendment to indicate a High
Density designation on the site was required. The applicant
subsequently submitted an application to the Region of
Durham to amend the Courtice Urban Area Plan.
The Planning Department circulated the Official Plan
Amendment and rezoning applications concurrently. The
Public Works Department noted that a collector roadway would
be required to handle the traffic volume generated by the
proposed development and that the existing residential
streets adjacent to the proposal are not constructed to that
standard. The Public Works Department requested that a
traffic study be prepared to determine the traffic volumes
and assess the necessary improvements to area roads.
. . .3
REPORT NO. : PD-106-84 Page 3
The area residents also expressed a great deal of concern
with respect to the proposed development, particularly the
proposed density, the provision of on-site parking, traffic
volumes generated, the potential drawdown of the water table
and decreased property values. A petition with ninety (90)
signatures objecting to the development was submitted to the
Planning Department.
On December 5, 1983, the General Purpose and Administration
Committee considered Staff Report PD-182-83; as well , a
public meeting with respect to the Pollard proposal and a
review of planning policies for the Courtice Urban Area was
held. In the Report , Staff brought forward draft
Development Plans for Neighbourhoods 3B & 3C, and
recommended that the Durham and Darlington Official Plans be
amended to reduce the areas designated for urban development
within Courtice to recognize environmental sensitivity and
to permit greater flexibility with respect to densities
without raising the overall population of the Courtice Area.
Staff also presented the Pollard proposal and a proposal
submitted by Mr. & Mrs. W. Nozdryn for a high density
development in the Community Central Area, and recommended
that both proposals and the draft Neighbourhood Development
Plans be referred back to Staff for further review and
circulation. However, as a result of the public meeting , a
number of concerns were identified by members of the public
and the development industry related to the proposed
amendments. On December 12, 1983, Council resolved to refer
the entire matter back to Staff for further review and
discussion with the parties concerned, and that a report be
brough forward to a General Purpose and Administration
Committee meeting to discuss this report only.
.. .4
REPORT NO. : PO-106-84 Page 4
In January and February, Planning Department staff met with
a number of area residents to discuss their concerns with
regards to the Pollard proposal and the future development
for the Courtice Urban Area. As well , Staff met with Mr.
Pollard to discuss revising his proposal to accommodate the
residents ' concerns.
Planning Department staff also contacted the Region of
Durham Planning Department to discuss a number of possible
scenarios for the future development of Courtice. As a
result of these discussions, it was agreed that the most
acceptable alternative would involve retaining the existing
urban area boundary and official plan designations, but
amending the Courtice Urban Area Plan to allow more
flexibility with respect to population densities and to
allow residential development within the environmentally
sensitive areas dependent upon appropriate and reasonable
conditions . It was also agreed to delete the proposed
Adelaide Avenue east of Townline Road from the Regional and
Courtice Official Plans.
i
On February 22, 1984, Mr. Pollard submitted a revised
proposal to the Planning Department. The revised proposal
involves the provision of an access to Regional Road 34
(Courtice Road) and the construction of six (6) apartment
buildings with seven hundred and ten (710) units north of
the Black Creek tributary, and two hundred and fifty (250)
"mews" apartments (2 storey buildings) adjacent to the
existing single family development. The remaining 13.1
hectares (32.4 acres) would be developed for a golf course
and private open space.
.. .5
REPORT NO. : Pit-106-84 Page 5
On March 21 , 1984, the applicant' s consultant submitted a
report to the Town, addressing sanitary and storm drainage ,
the supply of potable water, environmental sensitivity and
traffic circulation and routing.
By letter dated April 9, 1984 and copied to the Town , the
Region of Durham advised Mr. Pollard that, since they
consider the revised proposal to be in conformity with the
Courtice Urban Area Plan, an Official Plan Amendment would
no longer be required. This determination was based on the
fact that the density for that portion of the parcel within
the urban area falls within the High Density range as
specified by the Courtice Urban Area Plan ; as well , the
Region indicated that they consider the proposal to have
frontage onto both Regional Road 34 and the proposed
Adelaide Avenue extension to the north, both of which are
identified as arterial roads. Town Staff has been advised
by Regional Staff that a report was considered by Regional
Planning Committee May 1 , 1984 advising that an amendment is
not required and recommending that the official plan
amendment file be closed.
As a result of the circulation of the revised proposal , the
Public Works Department indicated no objection, although
they noted that a master drainage plan must be approved.
i
They also noted that the access to the development from
Regional Road 34 would be a private access and therefore its
maintenance would be the responsibility of the owner, and
that the access to Fourth Street connecting to Nash Road
shall serve as an emergency access only.
. . .6 j
i
I
i
I
REPORT NO. : PD-106-84 Page 6
The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority indicated
that the majority of the lands subject to the revised
proposal are indicated by the Regional Official Plan as
environmentally sensitive and described as "Open Space" in
the Courtice Environmental Analysis, and therefore,
development should not be permitted on these lands.
In a letter to the Town dated March 26, 1984, Mr. Pollard
objected to the Town 's development charge policy which
i
requires a levy of $625.00 for each apartment unit in
Courtice, while the levy applicable to the rest of the Town
would be only $416.00 per unit. As well , he indicated
difficulty with the dedication of 5% of the site for
parkland or cash-in-lieu, stating that the residents of the
immediate area will benefit from the open space associated
with the proposed development. Mr. Pollard requested that
these matters be brought forward to Council for discussion .
COMMENT:
Planning Department Staff have reviewed the revised proposal
submitted by Mr. Pollard and find that it is generally more
responsive to the concerns of the area residents than the
original proposal . The provision of a direct access to
Courtice Road avoids the routing of traffic through the
adjacent single family area, as well , the location of medium
density mews apartments adjacent to existing low density
development provides a buffer for the higher density
apartment buildings as required by the Courtice Urban Area
Plan.
. . .7
I
i
REPORT NO. : PD-106-84 Page 7
Staff note however, that the density of the mews appartments
exceeds that permitted by the Courtice Urban Area Plan for
medium density developments. The proposed site layout
indicates that approximately ninety-six (96) units would be
located within the Hazard Lands adjacent to the Black Creek
tributary as designated by the Courtice Environmental
Analysis and proposes an unacceptable setback from the
existing single family homes. Therefore, the layout of the
medium density site would have to be modified somewhat and
the number of units reduced should the proposed development
be approved.
With respect to the comments provided by Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority that a majority of the
Pollard site is described as environmentally sensitive and
therefore should not be developed, Staff note that the lands
are designated "Residential " by both the Regional and
Courtice Official Plans. Environmental sensitivity is not a
designation but rather an indication that environmental
studies are required prior to the approval of development
applications. The applicant' s consultant has prepared a
very preliminary envirionmental analysis which indicates
that the impact will be kept to a minimum. Staff will be
requiring the submission of more detailed information on the
environmental characteristics of the site and any mitigating
measures required as a condition to be fulfilled through a
development agreement.
The Region indicated to the applicant that an Official Plan
Amendment would no longer be required for the development
since the density for that portion of the site within the
Urban Area falls within the High Density Range specified by
the Courtice Urban Area Plan. This calculation includes the
area of the golf course located within the Urban Area.
. . .8
i
REPORT NO. : PD-106-84 Page 8
However, the Courtice Plan states that density shall be
calculated using the area of residential lands. The
Regional calculation was based on a density transfer - that
is, the location of all or most of the development on one
portion of a parcel , but using the area of the entire
parcel , including non-residential lands, to calculate
density.
Density transfers are currently not addressed by the
Courtice Official Plan. As indicated earlier, Town and
Regional Planning Staff have agreed that the Courtice Plan
should be amended to allow more flexibility with respect to
densities. Such an amendment, although not necessary to
permit the development of the Pollard lands, would provide
greater flexibility in dealing with development in other
areas, in particular Neighbourhood 3C.
The Courtice Plan currently indicates a design population
for Courtice North of 6300 persons, with 2100 persons being
allocated to Neighbourhood 3B, the Neighbourhood in which
the Pollard proposal is located. Staff have calculated that
the potential population for the neighbourhood could exceed
that. As well , Staff note that the Courtice Plan requires
the preparation and approval of a Neighbourhood Development
Plan prior to the approval of development applications.
Should Council decide to deny the application and close the
file, there would be no requirement to proceed with either
the official plan amendments or the Neighbourhood Plan at
this time.
. . .9
REPORT NO. : PD-106-84 Page 9
Based on the foregoing, Staff are now in a position to
recommend approval of the subject proposal , subject to the
following conditions :
1 . That a Neighbourhood Development Plan be
prepared in accordance with the requirements of
the Darlington Official Plan Amendment No. 12;
2. That a public meeting be held in Courtice in
respect of the Neighbourhood Development Plan
and proposed rezoning;
3. That the applicant enter into a suitable
Development Agreement with the Town which would
include, in addition to our usual requirements,
specific provisions with respect to the
following matters :
i ) access restrictions ;
ii ) storm drainage and storm water management ;
iii ) mitigation of any identified environmental
impacts ;
iv) tree preservation ;
v) dewateri ng of wells ;
vi ) effects upon water quality of wells ;
vii ) development charges ; and
viii ) any external works required to service the
site.
4. Reduction of densities for those lands south of
the tributary of the Black Creek as well as an
increase in building setbacks for selected
areas of that portion of the site.
Staff note that Council cannot approve the subject proposal
until such time as a Neighbourhood Plan has been adopted.
Staff would propose to prepare such a document for
consideration at a public meeting concurrent with public
consideration of the revised proposal . Staff recommend that
such a meeting be scheduled as soon as possible in order to
expedite consideration of this development.
. . .10
i
I
REPORT NO. : PO-106-84 Page 10
With respect to Mr. Pollard 's request for a relaxation of
the Town ' s Development Charge Policy and the parkland
dedication , Staff note that the differential between the lot
levies applicable in Courtice and the balance of the Town,
is based upon a lack of community facilities presently
available in that area. Revised lot levies may be addressed
through a Development Agreement , however Council direction
is required in order to modify the established levy
schedule. Staff cannot recommend such a reduction at this
point in time.
Staff further note that in consideration of Mr. Pollard 's
request with respect to parkland, that pursuant to the
provisions of the Planning Act , unless Council has passed
a by-law pursuant to Section 41 of the Act, there is no
authority for the municipality to request a parkland
dedication or cash-in-lieu in the case of a rezoning. Staff
would therefore suggest that Mr. Pollard 's request is
redundant, and in consideration of the site area and the
amenities to be provided on-site, that would be included as
a condition of development approval , the provision of
recreation facilities is not as great a concern as it would
otherwise be on a high density site.
Staff note that the Committee is concurrently considering a
report in respect of reductions to development requirements,
and if deemed appropriate by Committee, a resolution direct-
ing Staff to incorporate such reductions within a
development agreement negotiated in respect of the subject
application, would be appropriate.
Resp ;f mitt-
s,
r' T. . Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
Applicant : Mr. E. Pollard
JAS*TTE*jip Group 19, Box 19
April 26, 1984 R.R. #3
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
9 I alt/A
KEY MAP
FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
LOT ' LOT ' LOT ' LOT LOT ' LOT LOT ' LOT I LOT LOT LOT
35 I 34 I 33 lU� 31 I 30 T 29 _ 27_ 1 26 _I_ 25_ 24
i I I i I i I
I i I I I I i
I OUTSIDE i
I I I URBAN I I I
I I
AREA-
SUBJECT
I I SITE I I
I
.NASH _ I ROAD
i I I I
I HWY. Ne I 2 I I e�ncK
I I �
I I i I
I I ICOURTKE
a i I i I i
I I ( I w ( I
I I I I I I I
I ( I I I I
I I I o I I
i I I I I I
i I I I • I J I
to
IRIEQ*NAL I I SOAP I Nl. 22
T
I i I I I
I I I i I I
0 1 I I • I
0 250 500 IOOOm
500 100