HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-72-85 j� FF NO.......
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB UO TEL.(416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
OF MAY 6, 1985
REPORT NO. : PD-72-85
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION - OUR FILE: 18T-19720
FOSTER CREEK DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1 . That Report PD-72-85 be received; and
2. That the request of Foster Creek Developments Ltd. in
respect of Blocks 100 and 102 be approved conditional
upon the developer agreeing to undertake the complete
construction, at his cost and to Town standards, of
the walkways necessary to facilitate pedestrian
traffic to proposed neighbourhood parks; and
3. That Council ratify the Staff action relative to
incorporation of Block 101 and the balance of Block
100 within the abutting residential lots.
Y�
REPORT NO. : PD-72-85 Page 2
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
During the preparation of the Subdivision Agreement for the
above-referenced plan of subdivision, the developer submitted a
request relative to three blocks of land contained within the Plan.
These blocks are identified as Numbers 100 to 102 inclusive.
Block 100 was identified on -the draft plan of subdivision for
future walkway connection to a proposed park to the north as well
as a proposed park to the east. In reviewing the situation, it is
Staff's opinion that possible connections to park blocks, such as
that contained in the draft plan, would present a number of
problems relative to safety long term maintenance. We have
therefore suggested to the developer that, that portion of Block
100 running east and west to the north of the approved lots be
incorporated within those abutting lots, and that the remaining
portion would be dedicated to the municipality for the north/south
walkway connection.
The developer has requested that the Town consider a further change
in respect of Block 100 and that the developer only be responsible
for constructing a ten foot (10' ) walkway to Town standards from
the proposed street to the north limit of the Plan and that the
balance of the lands be retained by the developer as a building
lot. Inasmuch as the original plan, as draft approved, showed this
land as a park block, such a request requires Council approval .
The net impact to the municipality would, in our opinion, be the
difference between the market value of such a lot and the cost of
constructing a walkway to Town standards.
Similarly, the developer has requested the Town to consider
releasing it from the requirement to convey Block 102 as a
temporary access in order to permit the developer to, again,
provide a ten foot (10' ) walkway to Town standards and retain the
. . .3
REPORT NO. : PD-72-85 Page 3
lands as two building lots. I would, again, suggest that the net
cost to the Town would be the difference between the cost of
constructing a walkway and the market value of the two lots.
The third block in question is Block 101 which was originally
designated as a boulevard block. The development of this block
would be inconsistent with current Town standards, are we are
therefore suggesting that the developer incorporate Block 101
within the abutting lots subject only to the provision of
appropriate site triangles for the two corner lots (Lots 48 and 59
respectively) .
At this time, we would also bring to Council 's attention the fact
that the developer is proposing a number of changes to the street
names within this development and accordingly, Staff have reserved
these names with the Region of Durham and confirmed to the
developer that Town Staff have no objection to same. For the
information of Council , the proposed names are as follows:
Raymond Court
Vincent Court
Hart Boulevard
Hart Court
Chester Lane
The developer had also suggested the name of Massey Boulevard,
however, Staff noted that this name was previously reserved and
presumed to be set aside for a road having greater visability owing
to the local significance to the name. The developer has,
therefore, asked that that street name be reserved for another
street within an adjacent plan of subdivision which street would
have an intersection with Highway 2. This point is raised in order
to solicit any comments that the Members of Council may have
relative to use of that particular name and failing any specific
. ..4
REPORT NO. : PD-72-85 Page 4
direction, Staff will continue to approve street names based upon
the present practice which is to avoid duplication of any existing
streets and to encourage the use of names which have some local
significance.
Respectfully. ubmitted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P.
Director of Planning
TTE*jip
April 24, 1985
cc Mr. Ed Vanhaverbeke
c/o Edvan Realty
214 King Street East
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 1P3