Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-247-88 i UNFINISHED BUSINESS TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File # TOMINA Res. # By-Law # - - ---- STING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, November 20, 19 8 9 ADDENDUM TO REPORT #: PD-247-88 FILE #: OPA 87-96/1) SUB.JECT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - MARK AND GERTRUDE TOMINA PART LOT 26, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON OPA 87-96/D RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Addendum to Report PD-247-88 be received; and 2 . THAT Report PD-247-88 be lifted from the table and recommendations therein be approved; 3. THAT the Region of Durham be so advised; i 4. THAT the applicant be so advised; and 5. THAT the list of interested persons attached hereto be advised. 1. BACKGROUND 1. 1 On November 21, 1988 Committee considered Staff Report PD-247- 88, recommending denial of an application to amend the current "Major Open Space" designation in the Durham Regional Official Plan, to permit the development of a 40 unit motel and 150 seat restaurant in the first phase of development. The second phase would develop an additional 40 motel units. The proposal would take place on private services . i i . . .2 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : PD-247-89 PAGE 2 1.2 The application was recommended for denial for the reasons contained in PD-247-88, attached hereto. 1. 3 Committee tabled the application at the request of the applicant's consultant for a period of one year in order that additional information relative to the Official Plan Amendment application to be submitted to the Town. 2 . STAFF COMMENTS 2 . 1 On October 25, 1989, Staff was approached by the applicant, Mr. Mark Tomina, requesting that the application be lifted from the table and dealt with by Committee and Council. 2 .2 The one year period has lapsed and Staff have not received any additional information from the applicant's consultant or from the applicant to substantiate further consideration of the proposal by Staff. Given this, Staff upholds its original recommendation and respectfully submit that the application be DENIED as per the recommendations contained in Repord PD- 247-88 . Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee Franklin Wu, M.C. I.P. Lawren a/E. Kotseff DIrector of Planning Chief linistrative and Development Offic r CV*FW*cc *Attach 8 November 1989 . . .3 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : PD-247 -89 PAGE 3 Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Mr. George Gray, M.C. I .P. , O.P.P. I Mr. & Mrs . Mark Tomina Dundonald R.R. #6 R.R. #5 Group 20, Box 7 Colbourne, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario KOK 1SO L1C 3K7 Douglas & Dons Tromley Terrence & Diane Reid Hancock Road South R.R. # 2 R. R. # 6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K3 L1C 3K7 Tinard and Eva Natoli Allan & Louisa Vaillancourt Hancock Road South R.R. # 6 R.R.# 6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Ronald and Marie Knight Dennis and Joanner Forret Hancock Road South Solina Road West R.R.#6 R.R.#6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Theo and Margaret Gerrits Michael and Anne Ruskay Hancock Road South R.R. #6 R.R.#6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Philip Simpson Susan Bonnell Hancock Road South R.R. #6 R.R.#6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Gerald Mackey Thelma Mackey Hancock Road South R.R. #6 R.R.#6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario 11C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Mrs . B. Cameron-Hill R.R.#3 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K4 nN: 247-88' TOWN OF NEWCASTLE u4 �� REPORT File # Res: # f By Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, November 21, 1988 REPORT #: pn-247-88 FILE 6A 87-96/D WBJECT: OPA APPLICATION - MARK AND GERTRUD .TOMINA PART LOT 26, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON " FILE: OPA 87-96/D RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-247-88 be received; and 2. THAT the application submitted by Mark and Gertrud Tomina to amend Durham Regional Official-Plan, in order to permit the development of a motel and restuarant be denied; 3. THAT the Region of Durham be so advised; 4. THAT the applicants and applicant's agent be so advised; . 5. THAT those residents on the attached list hereto, be so advised. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 On January. 4, 1988, the Town of Newcastle Planning Department was advised by the Region of Durham of an application submitted by Mr. George Gray, Consultant on behalf of Mark and Gertrud Tomina to amend the Durham Regional: i Official Plan. :..2 ad_ C-J • REPORT NO.: ' PD-247-88 PAGE 2 1.2 The subject application would seek a "Special Purpose Commercial" designation in order to develop a two-storey, 40 unit motel and a 150 seat restaurant in the first phase of development. The second phase would allow for an additional 40 units. The development would take place on a 1.93 .ha (4.8 acre) parcel of land being part of a 9.05 hectare parcel (22.4 acres) . In addition, Staff would note that the development would take place on private services. 1.3 Staff would note for the Committee's information that the applicant had submitted a similar proposal in April, 1986. The application involved the creation of a two-storey, 32 unit hotel and a restuarant and was denied, because the proposal did not comply with the intent of the Official Plan policies as well as the objections from Health Service Department and Ministry of Transportation and Communications. 2. LOCATION 2.1 The subject property is located on the north-east corner by Highway No. 2 and Hancock Road, being Part Lot 26, -Concession 2, former Township of Darlington. 3. SURROUNDING LAND USES 3.1 The lands directly to the east are primarily non-farm residential uses,, fronting on Highway No. 2. The lands directly to the south and west are agricultural uses,, ,-noting that a livestock operation is located to the south-west of the subject property. The lands directly to the north are primarily bush covered, noting that these lands are owned by the applicants. 4. CIRCULATION 4.1 In accordance with Departmental procedures, the application was circulated by Planning Staff to the Town's departments for comments. As well, the ...3 REPORT .NO.: PD-247-88 PAGE'3 4.1 ' Regional Planning Department has provided copies of comments received . through their circulation. The following is a summary of the comments received. 4.2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Departement offered no objection .to the proposal provided that the Owner enter into a Site Plan Agreement and the standard requirements such as Lot Grading Plan, Performance Guarantees, etc. be included in the Agreement. - 4.3 The Town of Newcastle Fire Department noted that the building plans.for the motel must be approved by the Office of the Fire Marshall, Hotel Safety Branch. The buildings must comply with subsection 3.2.5.2.(6) of the Ontario Building Code as well as adequate water supply must be available. 4.4 The Region of Durham Works Department noted that the Department did not intend to extend municipal services to the site, therefore the proposal ' I would proceed on private services. 4.5 The Region of Durham Health Department initially noted an objection to ,the proposal since there is insufficient area for on-site sewage disposal. The Health Department noted that the proposed use .is recognized as having high sewage flow rates. However, upon the receipt of an Engineering Study by, Gibson and Associates the Health Department offered no -objection.. .:,,.,._,, 4.6 The_Ministry of Transportation and Communications offered no objection provided only one commercial entrance be allowed to. serve the proposed . development. In addition, a setback of 14 metres (45 feet) minimum, is required for the construction of all buildings and signs. i In .a telephoned conversation with Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the Authority would not support .this proposal noting most of the concerns stem from the septic system proposed. Authority Staff noted that an intermittent watercourse traverses the property within the area shown as ...4 ! ) % REPORT NO. : PD-247-81 PAGE 4 reserve tile bed, therefore the watercourse must be moved. No details were. submitted, to this effect. The Authority has also noted that the applicant has raised the elevation of his lands approximately 6 feet in height. In that regard the lands in that area drain from east to west and will be. hampered by the increases in elevation from the subject property. Finally the Authority has noted that the effluent from the system has a nitrite level far beyond what is required by Ministy of Environment, although. the system proposed will deal with nitrate loading, it must work at its maximum efficiency. If, however, the system fails the ground could be polluted. In addition, the Engineering Report notes that the system was derived through an Engineering Firm in the United States. It is still under consideration by Ministry of Environment and has not been given approval. 5. PUBLIC NOTICES 5.1 Signs advising of the application were posted on the Highway No. 2 frontage and the Hancock Road frontage of the subject property, as well as notice in the local newspapers provided by the Regional Planning Department. 5.2 As a result of the notices, one petition with twenty-two (22) signatures was submitted to the Region and Town Planning Department, in objection to the proposal. The basic reason for opposition is the incompatibility with existing land uses and the potential negative. effect on the quality of.life within the neighbourhood. 6. STAFF COMMENTS 6.1 As noted earlier, the development is to proceed on private services. The Health Department initially had concerns with respect to the high amount of sewage flows from such a use. For example, the sewage flow rate for both phase 1 and 2 total 63,750 litres/day. - However, the applicants have placed a considerable amount of fill on the entire site, approximately 1.2m and have proposed an increase in tile bed, being three (3) acres in size as a result of the Engineering study, the Health Department offered no objection. ...5 ? Ufa REPORT NO.: PD-247—hrs PAGE 5 The concerns of the Conservation Authority are quite substantive, and it .is Staff opinion that the failure of the system could cause numerous problems. Staff is concerned however, with the amount of water being used -and the potential impact on neighbouring wells.- -Although the Study does suspect the impact on nearby wells to be negligible, this was -not supported by actual test drilling. If in fact the use of.the motel/restaurant was at its maximum potential use, would there be enough water? This has not, been addressed by the applicant. 6.2 The subject lands are currently designated as "Major Open Space" in the Durham Regional official Plan. This predominant use of lands so designated shall be used for agricultural uses and farm-related uses as well as uses compatible with the rural setting. The proposal is an urban oriented type. use and shall not be located in the rural area jeopardizing the intent of- the Official Plan. 6.3 The proposal would require a ".Special Purpose Commercial" designation in order to proceed. Section 8.3.2.1 of the Plan states that "Special Purpose Commercial" areas shall serve`those specialized needs of the residents.on an occasional basis with services and facilities which 'consume larger parcels of land and:require exposure to traffic. It also states.that "Special Purpose Commercial" areas shall not be permitted to create or extend an existing strip of commercial development. , Staff would note for the Committee's information that the existing land uses surrounding the subject property, are by-in-large agricultural and non-farm.related rural residential. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed motel and restaurant use in this area will create an undesirable precedent for similar commercial uses along this portion of rural Highway No. 2 and could eventually lead to strip commercial development to the detriment of good planning practice. I I REPORT NO.-. - PD-247-E PAGE 6 7. .RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Based on the foregoing, Staff cannot support the Official Plan Amendment to permit the development of a motel/restaurant. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee Franklin Wu Lawrence E. Kotseff Director of Planning and Development Chief Administrative Officer CRV*FW*bb *Attach. November 14, 1988 cc Mr. George Gray, M.C.I.P., O.P.P.I. cc Mr. and Mrs. Mark Tomina Dundonald R. R. #6 R. R. #5 Group 20, Box 7 Colbourne, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario KOK_1S0 __-- L1C 3K7 cc Douglas and Dons Tromley cc Terrence and Diana Reid Hancock Road South R. R. #2 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K3 L1C 3K7 cc Allan and Louisa-Vaillancourt cc Tindard and Eva Natoli R. R. #6 Hancock Road South Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario UC 3K7 cc Dennis and Joanne Forret Solina Road West cc Ronald and Marie Knight R. R. #6 �! Hancock,Road South Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 cc Michael and Anne Ruskay R. R.. #6 cc Theo and Margaret Gerrits Bowmanville, Ontario Hancock Road South L1C 3K7 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario cc Susan Bonnell L1C 3K7 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario cc Philip Simpson L1C 3K7 Hancock Road South R. R. #6 cc Thelma Mackey Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 cc Gerald Mackey Hancock Road South R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario SEE SCHEDULE �4' (COURTiCE ) HANCOCK ROAD N M SOLINA ROA F 01 .� z V = n D D N r m C. m-- - -- - --- - - - - - - ---_ ^ M M ro 0 D ' I N > � RUNDLE ROAD � � W . N Z to R1. 0T rn�m d I N c N rn -- -- - - -------- --� O G'rn f^ < CD r i CONCESSION 2 CONCESSION 3 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE FT A87-96 .GPA REPORT File #J-)( ,�j� �i),, "� o(I Res. # (VI By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: February 4, 1991 ADDENDUM TO REPORT #: PD-247-88 FILE #: OPA 87-96/D SUUCT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT - MARK AND GERTRUDE TOMINA PART LOT 26, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON OPA 87-96/D RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Addendum to Report PD-247-88 be received; and 2 . THAT Report PD-247-88 be lifted from the table and recommendations contained therein be approved. 1. BACKGROUND 1. 1 On November 21, 1988 Committee considered Staff Report PD- 247-88, recommending denial of an application to amend the current "Major Open Space" designation in the Durham Regional Official Plan, to permit the development of a 40 unit motel and 150 seat restaurant in the first phase of development. The second phase would develop an additional 40 motel units . 1.2 The application was recommended for denial for the reasons contained in PD-247-88, attached hereto. i � t i ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 2 1. 3 Committee tabled the application at the request of the applicant's consultant for a period of one year (until November 20, 1989) in order that additional information relative to the Official Plan Amendment Application could be submitted to the Town. 1.4 The one year period lapsed and Staff did not receive any additional information from the applicant's consultant or from the applicant to substantiate further consideration of the proposal by Staff. On December 4, 1989, the tabled report (PD-247-88) was placed on the General Purpose and Administration agenda and Committee resolved to table the report for one more year. 1.5 The General Purpose and Administration Committee reconsidered the report on December 3, 1990 and subsequently at the Council Meeting of December 10, 1990, the following resolution was passed. "THAT Report PD-247-88 be tabled for a period of one month to allow the Director of Planning and Development to examine the feasibility of servicing this area and to enable Mr. Tomina to submit any new information to the Planning Department. " 2. STAFF COMMENTS 2 . 1 The subject application requires a "Special Purpose Commercial" designation in order to develop a two-storey, 40 unit motel and a 150 seat restaurant in the first phase of development. (The second phase would allow for an additional 40 units . ) The development would take place on a 1. 93 ha (4 . 8 acre) parcel of land being part of a 9 . 05 hectare parcel (22 .4 acres) . { UJ, REPORT NO. : ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 3 2 .2 The applicant appeared before General Purpose and Administration Committee on December 3, 1990 . He stated that he would pay for all costs associated with full municipal services for his development. Staff notes that the site, like many others adjacent to the urban area, could feasibly be serviced with sanitary sewers and water. Staff also notes that Mr. Tomina's offer to pay for full municipal services is the only new information which has come to the attention of the Planning Department. 2 . 3 The issue of the feasibility of servicing Mr. Tomina's site is dependent upon the issue of whether or not the Official Plan should be amended to allow Mr. Tomina to develop his site in the way that he wants to. 2 .4 The proposal would require a "Special Purpose Commercial" designation in order to proceed. Section 8 .3 .2 . 1 of the Regional Plan states that "Special Purpose Commercial" areas shall serve those specialized needs of the residents on an occasional basis with services and facilities which consume larger parcels of land and require exposure to traffic. It also states that "Special Purpose Commercial" areas shall not be permitted to create or extend an existing strip of commercial development. Staff notes for the Committee's information that the existing land uses surrounding the subject property, are mostly agricultural and non-farm related rural residential. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed motel and restaurant use in this area will create an undesirable precedent for similar commercial uses along this portion of rural Highway No. 2 and could eventually lead to strip commercial development to the detriment of the future planning and servicing of the wider area. I � Ul1 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 4 2 .5 Staff notes that this site is in a crucial location. It is east of Hancock Road and therefore, clearly beyond the limits of the Courtice Major Urban Area. However, the proximity of the site to this urban area ensures that if the site is developed it would create the impression that Courtice can now expand to the east. Hancock Road provides a strong definable boundary to contain sprawling urbanization. If this boundary is compromised, it is difficult to imagine that Courtice would not soon expand further east all the way to the Hamlet of Maple Grove, creating a strip of urbanization linking Courtice and Bowmanville. Further strip development is contrary to the urban separator strategy envisaged in the Regional Official Plan and endorsed by Town Council. 3. CONCLUSIONS 3. 1 The applicant may be able to satisfy the servicing requirement of the Region. However, from a planning perspective, the type of use and location are considered detrimental for the reasons cited in Report 247-88 and in this report. Accordingly, there is no valid reason to change the Staff position as contained in Report 247-88 . i Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee Franklin Wu, M.C. I .P. Lawrence Kotseff Director of Planning Chief A i istrative and Development Officer BR*DC*FW*df *Attach 22 January 1991 ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 5 Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Douglas and Dons Tromley Philip Simpson Hancock Road South Hancock Road South R.R. #6 R.R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario. Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Tinard and Eva Natoli Gerald Mackey Hancock Road South Hancock Road South R.R. #6 R.R.#6 Bowmanville, Ontario. Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Theo and Margaret Gerrits Mr. & Mrs . Mark Tomina Hancock Road South R.R.#6 R.R.#6 Group 20, Box 7 Bowmanville, Ontario. Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Terrance and Diane Reid Allen and Louisa Vaillancourt R.R.#2 R.R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario. Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K3 L1C 3K7 Susan Bonnell Michael and Anne Ruskay R.R.#6 R.R.#6 Bowmanville, Ontario. Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 Dennis and Joanne Forret Thelma Mackey Solina Road West R.R.#6 R.R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario. Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3K7 L1C 3K7 i i DN: 247-88 rV TOWN OF NEWCASTLE u REPORT File # &16. 3d • /9-s .:r Res. # By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, November 21, 1988 I, REPORT #: PD-247-88 FILE 6A 87-96/D SLB.ECT: OPA APPLICATION - MARK AND GERTRUD TOMINA PART LOT 26, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE: OPA 87-96/D RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-247-88 be received; and 2. THAT the application submitted by Mark and Gertrud Tomina to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan, in order to permit the development of a motel and restuarant be denied; i 3. THAT the Region of Durham be so advised; i i 4. THAT the applicants and applicant's agent be so advised; 5. THAT those residents on the attached list hereto, be so advised. 1. BACKGROUND i 1.1 On January 4, 1988, the Town of Newcastle Planning Department was advised by the Region of Durham of an application submitted by Mr. George Gray, Consultant on behalf of Mark and Gertrud Tomina to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan. 1 ) . . .2 J� REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 2 1.2 The subject application would seek a "Special Purpose Commercial" designation in order to develop a two-storey, 40 unit motel and a 150 seat restaurant in the first phase of development. The second phase would allow for an additional 40 units. The development would take place on a 1.93 ha (4.8 acre) parcel of land being part of a 9.05 hectare parcel (22.4 acres) . In addition, Staff would note that the development would take place on private services. 1.3 Staff would note for the Committee's information that the applicant had submitted a similar proposal in April, 1986. The application involved the creation of a two-store 32 unit hotel and a restuarant and was denied, r ' i because the proposal did not comply with the intent of the Official Plan policies as well as the objections from Health Service Department and Ministry of Transportation and Communications. 2. LOCATION 2.1 The subject property is located on the north-east corner by Highway No. 2 and Hancock Road, being Part Lot 26, Concession 2, former Township of Darlington. 3. SURROUNDING LAND USES I 3.1 The lands directly to the east are primarily non-farm residential uses, fronting on Highway No. 2. The lands directly to the south and west are agricultural uses, noting that a livestock operation is located to the south-west of the subject property. The lands directly to the north are primarily bush covered, noting that these lands are owned by the applicants. 4. CIRCULATION 4.1 In accordance with Departmental procedures, the application was circulated by Planning Staff to the Town's departments for comments. As well, the . . .3 � i 1 � � 8 REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 3 4.1 Regional Planning Department has provided copies of comments received through their circulation. The following is a summary of the comments received. 4.2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Departement offered no objection to the proposal provided that the Owner enter into a Site Plan Agreement and the standard requirements such as Lot Grading Plan, Performance Guarantees, etc. be included in the Agreement. 4.3 The Town of Newcastle Fire Department noted that the building plans for the motel must be approved by the Office of the Fire Marshall, Hotel Safety Branch. The buildings must comply with subsection 3.2.5.2(6) of the Ontario Building Code as well as adequate water supply must be available. 4.4 The Region of Durham Works Department noted that the Department did not intend to extend municipal services to the site, therefore the proposal would proceed on private services. 4.5 The Region of Durham Health Department initially noted an objection to the proposal since there is insufficient area for on-site sewage disposal. The Health Department noted that the proposed use is recognized as having high i sewage flow rates. However, upon the receipt of an Engineering Study by Gibson and Associates the Health Department offered no objection. i 4.6 The Ministry of Transportation and Communications offered no objection provided only one commercial entrance be allowed to serve the proposed development. In addition, a setback of 14 metres (45 feet) minimum, is i required for the construction of all buildings and signs. I In a telephoned conversation with Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the Authority would not support this proposal noting most of the concerns stem from the septic system proposed. Authority Staff noted that an intermittent watercourse traverses the property within the area shown as . . .4 'I 1U9 i _ACO REPORT NO. : PD-247-87 PAGE 4 reserve tile bed, therefore the watercourse must be moved. No details were submitted, to this effect. The Authority has also noted that the applicant has raised the elevation of his lands approximately 6 feet in height. In that regard the lands in that area drain from east to west and will be hampered by the increases in elevation from the subject property. Finally the Authority has noted that the effluent from the system has a nitrite level far beyond what is required by Ministy of Environment, although the system proposed will deal with nitrate loading, it must work at its maximum efficiency. If, however, the system fails the ground could be polluted. In addition, the Engineering Report notes that the system was derived through i an Engineering Firm in the United States. It is still under consideration by Ministry of Environment and has not been given approval. 5. PUBLIC NOTICES 5.1 Signs advising of the application were posted on the Highway No. 2 frontage and the Hancock Road frontage of the subject property, as well as notice in the local newspapers provided by the Regional Planning Department. 5.2 As a result of the notices, one petition with twenty-two (22) signatures was submitted to the Region and Town Planning Department, in objection to the proposal. The basic reason for opposition is the incompatibility with existing land uses and the potential negative effect on the quality of life within the neighbourhood. 6. STAFF COMMENTS 6.1 As noted earlier, the development is to proceed on private services. The Health Department initially had concerns with respect to the high amount of sewage flows from such a use. For example, the sewage flow rate for both phase 1 and 2 total 63,750 litres/day. However, the applicants have placed a considerable amount of fill on the entire site, approximately 1.2m and have proposed an increase in tile bed, being three (3) acres in size as a result of the Engineering study, the Health Department offered no objection. . . .5 1 X10 REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 5 The concerns of the Conservation Authority are quite substantive, and it is Staff opinion that the failure of the system could cause numerous problems. Staff is concerned however, with the amount of water being used and the potential impact on neighbouring wells. Although the Study does suspect the impact on nearby wells to be negligible, this was not supported by actual test drilling. If in fact the use of.the motel/restaurant was at its maximum potential use, would there be enough water? This has not been addressed by the applicant. 6.2 The subject lands are currently designated as "Major Open Space" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. This predominant use of lands so designated shall be used for agricultural uses and farm-related uses as well as uses compatible with the rural setting. The proposal is an urban oriented type use and shall not be located in the rural area jeopardizing the intent of the official Plan. 6.3 The proposal would require a "Special Purpose Commercial" designation in order to proceed. Section 8.3.2.1 of the Plan states that "Special Purpose Commercial" areas shall serve those specialized needs of the residents on an occasional basis with services and facilities which consume larger parcels of land and require exposure to traffic. It also states that "Special j Purpose Commercial" areas shall not be permitted to create or extend an existing strip of commercial development. , Staff would note for the Committee's information that the existing land uses surrounding the subject property, are by-in-large agricultural and non-farm related rural residential. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed motel and restaurant use in this area will create an undesirable precedent for similar commercial i uses along this portion of rural Highway No. 2 and could eventually lead to strip commercial development to the detriment of good planning practice. 1 � II REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 6 i 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Based on the foregoing, Staff cannot support the Official Plan Amendment to permit the development of a motel/restaurant. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation � ) to e mmittee �.J Franklin Wu rence E tseff Director of Planning and Development Chief Admi i trative Officer CRV*FW*bb i *Attach. November 14, 1988 cc Mr. George Gray, M.C.I.P. , O.P.P.I. cc Mr. and Mrs. Mark Tomina Dundonald R. R. #6 R. R. #5 Group 20, Box 7 Colbourne, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario KOK 1SO L1C 3K7 cc Douglas and Dons Tromley cc Terrence and Diana Reid Hancock Road South R. R. #2 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K3 L1C 3K7 cc Allan and Louisa Vaillancourt cc Tindard and Eva Natoli R. R. #6 Hancock Road South Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 cc Dennis and Joanne Forret Solina Road West cc Ronald and Marie Knight R. R. #6 Hancock Road South Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 cc Michael and Anne Ruskay R. R. #6 cc Theo and Margaret Gerrits Bowmanville, Ontario Hancock Road South L1C 3K7 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario cc Susan Bonnell L1C 3K7 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario cc Philip Simpson L1C 3K7 Hancock Road South R. R. #6 cc Thelma Mackey Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 cc Gerald Mackey Hancock Road South C R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario l ® SUBJECT SITE OTHER LANDS OWNED BY APPLICANT 26 25 24 23 2221 20 19 18 17 I A ' E I I � I I qA- C6 I IA I w ' M3 a V w v; �� �Ep1i � ► ' V NASH A ROAD I I o Q i A EP) I EP N oA Z cr H ' Q SCHEDULE 18' 0 D � WY N42 a La SEE w p I a (MAPLE GROVE) (n x z I z I (n J I N S p i Q w U ' z V ui I / ( z / 1 I L0 I I I 1 I 1 BLOOR STRE I 0 250 500 IOOOm KEG M A t P"'k 500 j i 1 � 1 � ON: 247-88 rV J� TOWN OF NEWCASTLE € 1 REPORT File # 3o , lf-3 .�; �� Res. # By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee IATE: Monday, November 21, 1988 REPORT #: pD-247-88 FILE (6A 87-96/D WBXCT: OPA APPLICATION - MARK AND GERTRUD TOMINA PART LOT 26, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE: OPA 87-96/D I RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: .l. THAT Report PD-247-88 be received; and 2. THAT the application submitted by Mark and Gertrud Tomina to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan, in order to permit the development of a motel and restuarant be denied; 3. THAT the Region of Durham be so advised; 4. THAT the applicants and applicant's agent be so advised; 5. THAT those residents on the attached list hereto, be so advised. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 On January 4, 1988, the Town of Newcastle Planning Department was advised by the Region of Durham of an application submitted by Mr. George Gray, Consultant on behalf of Mark and Gertrud Tomina to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan. . . .2 r(,J1) REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 2 1.2 The subject application would seek a "Special Purpose Commercial" designation in order to develop a two-storey, 40 unit motel and a 150 seat restaurant in the first phase of development. The second phase would allow for an additional 40 units. The development would take place on a 1.93 ha (4.8 acre) parcel of land being part of a 9.05 hectare parcel (22.4 acres) . In addition, Staff would note that the development would take place on private services. 1.3 Staff would note for the Committee's information that the applicant had submitted a similar proposal in April, 1986. The application involved the creation of a two-storey, 32 unit hotel and a restuarant and was denied, because the proposal did not comply with the intent of the Official Plan policies as well as the objections from Health Service Department and Ministry of Transportation and Communications. 2. LOCATION 2.1 The subject property is located on the north-east corner by Highway No. 2 and Hancock Road, being Part Lot 26, Concession 2, former Township of Darlington. 3. SURROUNDING LAND USES 3.1 The lands directly to the east are primarily non-farm residential uses, fronting on Highway No. 2. The lands directly to the south and west are agricultural uses, noting that a livestock operation is located to the south-west of the subject property. The lands directly to the north are primarily bush covered, noting that these lands are owned by the applicants. 4. CIRCULATION 4.1 In accordance with Departmental procedures, the application was circulated by Planning Staff to the Town's departments for comments. As well, the . . .3 �CJ> REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 3 4.1 Regional Planning Department has provided copies of comments received through their circulation. The following is a summary of the comments received. 4.2 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Departement offered no objection to the proposal provided that the Owner enter into a Site Plan Agreement and the standard requirements such as Lot Grading Plan, Performance Guarantees, etc. be included in the Agreement. 4.3 The Town of Newcastle Fire Department noted that the building plans for the motel must be approved by the Office of the Fire Marshall, Hotel Safety Branch. The buildings must comply with subsection 3.2.5.2(6) of the Ontario Building Code as well as adequate water supply must be available. 4.4 The Region of Durham Works Department noted that the Department did not intend to extend municipal services to the site, therefore the proposal would proceed on private services. 4.5 The Region of Durham Health Department initially noted an objection to the proposal since there is insufficient area for on-site sewage disposal. The Health Department noted that the proposed use is recognized as having high I sewage flow rates. However, upon the receipt of an Engineering Study by Gibson and Associates the Health Department offered no objection. 4.6 The Ministry of Transportation and Communications offered no objection provided only one commercial entrance be allowed to serve the proposed development. In addition, a setback of 14 metres (45 feet) minimum, is required for the construction of all buildings and signs. i In a telephoned conversation with Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the Authority would not support this proposal noting most of the concerns stem from the septic system proposed. Authority Staff noted that an intermittent watercourse traverses the property within the area shown as . . .4 i J C_) REPORT NO. : PD-247-87 PAGE 4 reserve tile bed, therefore the watercourse must be moved. No details were submitted, to this effect. The Authority has also noted that the applicant has raised the elevation of his lands approximately 6 feet in height. In that regard the lands in that area drain from east to west and will be hampered by the increases in elevation from the subject property. Finally the Authority has noted that the effluent from the system has a nitrite level far beyond what is required by Ministy of Environment, although the system proposed will deal with nitrate loading, it must work at its maximum efficiency. If, however, the system fails the ground could be polluted. In addition, the Engineering Report notes that the system was derived through an Engineering Firm in the United States. It is still under consideration by Ministry of Environment and has not been given approval. 5. PUBLIC NOTICES 5.1 Signs advising of the application were posted on the Highway No. 2 frontage and the Hancock Road frontage of the subject property, as well as notice in the local newspapers provided by the Regional Planning Department. 5.2 As a result of the notices, one petition with twenty-two (22) signatures was submitted to the Region and Town Planning Department, in objection to the I proposal. The basic reason for opposition is the incompatibility with existing land uses and the potential negative effect on the quality of life within the neighbourhood. 6. STAFF COMMENTS 6.1 As noted earlier, the development is to proceed on private services. The Health Department initially had concerns with respect to the high amount of I sewage flows from such a use. For example, the sewage flow rate for both phase 1 and 2 total 63,750 litres/day. However, the applicants have placed a considerable amount of fill on the entire site, approximately 1.2m and have proposed an increase in tile bed, being three (3) acres in size as a result of the Engineering study, the Health Department offered no objection. . . .5 i REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 5 The concerns of the Conservation Authority are quite substantive, and it is Staff opinion that the failure of the system could cause numerous problems. Staff is concerned however, with the amount of water being used and the potential impact on neighbouring wells. Although the Study does suspect the impact on nearby wells to be negligible, this was not supported by actual test drilling. If in fact the use of the motel/restaurant was at its maximum potential use, would there be enough water? This has not been addressed by the applicant. 6.2 The subject lands are currently designated as "Major Open Space" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. This predominant use of lands so designated shall be used for agricultural uses and farm-related uses as well as uses compatible with the rural setting. The proposal is an urban oriented type use and shall not be located in the rural area jeopardizing the intent of the Official Plan. 6.3 The proposal would require a "Special Purpose Commercial" designation in order to proceed. Section 8.3.2.1 of the Plan states that "Special Purpose i Commercial" areas shall serve those specialized needs of the residents on an occasional basis with services and facilities which consume larger parcels of land and require exposure to traffic. It also states that "Special Purpose Commercial" areas shall not be permitted to create or extend an existing strip of commercial development. Staff would note for the Committee's information that the existing land uses surrounding the subject property, are by-in-large agricultural and non-farm related rural residential. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed motel and restaurant use in this area will create an undesirable precedent for similar commercial uses along this portion of rural Highway No. 2 and could eventually lead to strip commercial development to the detriment of good planning practice. . . .6 i REPORT NO. : PD-247-88 PAGE 6 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Based on the foregoing, Staff cannot support the Official Plan Amendment to permit the development of a motel/restaurant. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation }} to e ittee Franklin Wu rence E tseff Director of Planning and Development Chief Admi i trative Officer CRV*FW*bb *Attach. November 14, 1988 cc Mr. George Gray, M.C.I.P. , O.P.P.I. cc Mr. and Mrs. Mark Tomina Dundonald R. R. #6 R. R. #5 Group 20, Box 7 Colbourne, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario KOK 1SO L1C 3K7 cc Douglas and Dons Tromley cc Terrence and Diana Reid Hancock Road South R. R. #2 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K3 LlC 3x7 cc Allan and Louisa Vaillancourt cc Tindard and Eva Natoli R. R. #6 Hancock Road South Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 cc Dennis and Joanne Forret Solina Road West cc Ronald and Marie Knight R. R. #6 Hancock Road South Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 cc Michael and Anne Ruskay R. R. #6 cc Theo and Margaret Gerrits Bowmanville, Ontario Hancock Road South L1C 3K7 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario cc Susan Bonnell L1C 3K7 R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario cc Philip Simpson L1C 3K7 Hancock Road South R. R. #6 cc Thelma Mackey Bowmanville, Ontario R. R. #6 L1C 3K7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K7 cc Gerald Mackey Hancock Road South R. R. #6 Bowmanville, Ontario ® SUBJECT SITE OTHER LANDS OWNED BY APPLICANT 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 E 1A-1 1 o W M3 v �' i 0 EP )l � i � V NASH ,A ROAD 0 A Q i o x EF C6 CEP N oA z ' SEE 0 M HwY iN�2 o SCHEDULE 18' ._ w 0 1 a a (MAPLE GROVE) (n X z I z i N = 0 �� : p W w N i z A a z 0 � � V BLOOR STREET 0 250 500 1000 KEY MAF 500m 100 Ll I