Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-78-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE y Nt,+E ' `tom REPORT File # r Res. B c5 6- By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, April 7, 1986 REPORT #: PD-78-86 FILE #: DEV 85-5 SUDJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - M. MANGAR PART LOT 28, CONCESSION 5, CLARKE (17 MILL STREET, ORONO) OUR FILE: DEV 85-5 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-78-86 be received; and 2. THAT the application for rezoning and site plan approval , submitted by Mr. M. Mangar, for a 0.03 hectare parcel of land in Part Lot 28, Concession 5, former Township of Clarke, be denied insofar as it relates to the proposed bodyshop and paintspray booth; and 3. THAT a copy of Council 's decision be forwarded to the applicant and all persons expressing an interest in the application. BACKGROUND: On February 5, 1986, the Town received a new submission from Mr. M. Mangar with respect to the proposed rezoning of his property in Part Lot 28, Concession 5, Clarke (Mill Street, Orono) to permit an expansion of the uses permitted in conjunction with the existing motor vehicle service station. Specifically, the new submission proposes the construction of a * 5m x 15m two-storey addition to the rear of the existing single storey garage building (see site plan attached) . The main floor of the addition would house a 4.7m x 7m paint . . .2 REPORT NO. : PD-78-86 Page 2 spray booth for the painting of an entire automobile. This spray booth would be equipped with an exhaust and filter system which meets the guidelines of the Ministry of the Environment. The main floor would also house a 4.7m x 7.4m body preparation area where minor bodywork such as sanding with hand held tools and the replacement of the odd deteriorated part would be carried out. The second floor addition would be used for the sale of new and used motor vehicle parts. The applicant has indicated that the spray painting of vehicles will be limited to a maximum of two (2) cars per week, and that no major collision bodywork would be done. All bodywork would be carried out within the existing garage and the body preparation area of the addition with all doors closed. I Mr. Mangar has also applied for permission to sell motor vehicles with a maximum of four (4) motor vehicles to be displayed on four (4) parking spaces at the northern portion of the frontyard of the property. He has also requested permission to rent vehicles to customers while their own cars are being serviced at the garage. Mr. Mangar has indicated that all painting, bodywork and motor vehicle sales would take place only between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. The application also indicates that there will be no propane conversions of automobiles, as previously requested. Staff note that the revised application does not state that the uses permitted by the "C6" zone on the property will continue; however, a discussion with the applicant' s solicitor indicated that Mr. Mangar intends to continue with those activities associated with a motor vehicle service station. This new submission is substantially unchanged with respect to proposed uses from the original application which was submitted on March 6, 1985 , although that application sought permission to sell propane fuel and to carry out propane conversions. The original application also proposed the construction of an addition. . . .3 i I��� REPORT NO. : PO-78-86 Page 3 As a result of the public notification process on the the original application, the Town received a number of letters of objection and support from residents in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Mangar' s property. The concerns as expressed by those residents objections were as follows: - the proposed uses are incompatible with a residential area and would decrease the residential value of the neighbourhood - the applicant does not currently maintain his property - danger of fire or explosion - damage to neighbouring property from paint and debris - applicant has illegally carried on bodywork and painting since 1977 - applicant currently stores and sells motor vehicles on property A Public Meeting with respect to the original application was held on May 6, 1985. One resident who lives across the road from the property objected to the noise and fumes from the present operation, while a resident from an adjacent property expressed concern 'that paint would run onto her property, as oil previously had. She also indicated there were derelict cars at the garage. One gentleman, who is not a resident of Orono, spoke in support of the application. The General Purpose and Administration Committee also considered Staff Report PD-76-85 at the May 6, 1985 meeting. That report provided a brief history of the subject property and noted that Mr. Mangar had applied to the Town on three previous occasions to expand the permitted uses on his property. The first two applications, being a minor variance and a rezoning, were denied. A third application, submitted in 1982, resulted in the rezoning of the property to permit the existing motor vehicle service station and fuel bar, but specifically excluding motor vehicle bodywork. The zoning of the subject site became "C6-Service Station Commercial " upon . . .4 REPORT NO. : PD-78-86 Page 4 the adoption of By-law 84-63. The Report also noted that the property has been the subject of numerous by-law enforcement complaints regarding automotive bodywork and the storage and sale of used automobiles in 1983 which resulted in two convictions. I In Report PD-76-85, Staff noted that there was a potential for adverse effects on area residents resulting from the establishment of a motor vehicle paintspray operation and that the sale of motor vehicles and auto parts were not compatible with the residential nature of the surrounding area. Based on these considerations, Staff recommended denial of the application. Committee however, resolved (Resolution #GPA-283-85) to refer the report back to Staff to confer with the applicant and his representative, to bring forward a report attempting to alleviate the concerns of the objectors and Council . In response to the Council request and in conjunction with his most recent submission, Mr. Mangar submitted a report prepared by Proctor & Redfern , Consulting Engineers and Planners. The Report is intended to address three areas of concern, namely noise pollution, air pollution and fire safety. Proctor and Redfern indicate that it is possible to design a paintspray booth that will meet or exceed the Guidelines of the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Labour. They also indicate that, inasmuch as most of the sanding will be done by hand, it is their opinion that the noise levels associated with bodywork will be insignificant and less than those currently produced as the result of mechanical repairs. They further note that the proposed body shop is to be located at the rear of the existing garage and consequently sound emissions will be shielded to a large degree. It is their opinion that, in light of the low level of anticipated noise emissions, the Town can adequately address noise related concerns through two measures - restricting the hours of operation and specifying that outside doors be kept closed during bodywork operation. . . .5 i I rV REPORT NO. : PD-78-86 Page 5 COMMENT: Staff refer to Committee's previous direction with respect to this application and note that the applicant has attempted to address the concerns of area residents as they relate to his proposed development. With respect to the numerous complaints regarding noise and fumes from automotive bodywork and painting performed on the property, Staff note that the construction of the addition would permit the applicant to carry on these activities entirely indoors and under controlled conditions. The construction of the addition would be required to comply with the requirements of the Ontario Building Code and the Ontario Ministry of Labour. In particular, the paintspray booth would be equipped with an exhaust and filter system approved by the Ministry of the Environment. Other complaints from area residents relate to the storage and sale of used motor vehicles and the general maintenance of the property. Should the rezoning application be approved, the construction of the addition and the development and maintenance of the entire property would be subject to Site Plan Control . A Development Agreement with the applicant would be registered on title prior to the issuance of any building permits. Through this Agreement the Town would be able to control , for example, the location and the number of motor vehicles being displayed for sale at any one time and the location and the screening of the waste disposal bin. As well , pursuant to Section 3.15 of By-law 84-63, a planting strip or privacy fence is required to be located on any side or rear lot line abutting a residential zone. The applicant has indicated that a 1.8m fence would be erected around the parking area at the rear of the garage. Staff acknowledge that the approval of the subject application would alleviate many of the concerns of area residents and that, through Site Plan Control , the Town could extend a greater degree of control over the use and maintenance of the property than is currently possible. However, in Report j PD-76-85, Staff indicated a concern with the extent to which automotive REPORT NO. : PD-78-86 Page 6 bodywork and spray painting will be carried on and the principle of establishing an industrial and Special Purpose Commercial use in an established residential area. Staff continue to be concerned about these aspects of the application. Mr. Mangar has indicated in his rezoning application that he would only perform minor bodywork and would not undertake any collision work. Staff note that the paintspray booth as proposed would be large enough to paint an entire vehicle and while this ensures adequate control of painting operations, the opportunity does exist, with a facility of this size, for motor vehicle bodywork and painting to become the primary use of the property. Mr. Mangar has also indicated that a maximum of two (2) motor vehicles would be painted each week and that all bodywork, painting and motor vehicle sales would take place between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Given that the bodywork and painting would occur indoors, Staff feel that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to regulate the number of vehicles being painted and the hours of operation. Staff further note that the Town is not specifically empowered by the Site Plan Control provisions in the Planning Act to control the hours of operation and that, even though such a restriction could be included within a Development Agreement signed by the applicant, Staff question the enforceability of such a requirement. The applicant's solicitor states, in correspondence accompanying the application, that if Mr. Mangar conducts the bodywork and spray painting in compliance with the specifications provided by the consultant, these activities can be carried on in safety and within very acceptable noise and air pollution levels. He goes on to suggest that such activities would be an extension of the existing legal use of the property and would be no less compatible with the surrounding residential area than that of the present legal use. Staff note that motor vehicle painting is defined by By-law . . .7 v Ce> REPORT NO. : PD-78-86 Page 7 84-63 as an industrial use and is only permitted in conjunction with a motor vehicle bodyshop in the "M2-General Industrial " zone. However, it is Staff's opinion that while the establishment of a bodyshop and paintspray booth could be considered as being similar to the uses permitted by the "C6" zone and the proposed measures would largely mitigate our concerns, it must also be considered an intrusion of an industrial use into an established residential area. The Ministry of the Environment, in 1983, issued the applicant with a Certificate of Approval for the installation of a paintspray booth. This Certificate is permanent and valid for an indefinite period unless revoked or cancelled by the Ministry. Ministry Staff indicated in 1983 that the paintspray booth would be capable of operating within regulatory limits. i They also noted, however, that under cetain production and/or weather conditions, excessive solvent odours may result in justifiable complaints. (underlining added) Such an occurance could require modifications to the installation to rectify the situation. By approving the rezoning application, the conditions under which these proposed activities occur would be substantially improved, thereby helping to alleviate the adverse effects on area residents. Based on the above considerations, Staff are satisfied that it is possible to substantially, but not completely, alleviate the concerns of residents in j this area relative to that portion of the rezoning application related to automotive bodywork and spray painting. i I With respect to the applicant' s request to sell and rent motor vehicles and to sell automotive parts, such uses are Special Purpose Commercial in nature and must be considered, as with the bodyshop, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.6.5 of the Durham Regional Official Plan. Said I section states Council "may zone to permit the continuation, expansion or enlargement of existing uses, or variation to similar uses provided that such uses" "have no adverse effect on the present uses of surrounding lands. " Staff have no objection to this aspect of the proposed rezoning. . . .8 REPORT NO. : PD-78-86 Page 8 While Staff would not normally support the introduction of such uses as a bodyshop into an established residential area, we have been directed (#GPA-283-85) to attempt to alleviate the concerns of the residents and the past Council . If, based on the foregoing, Council is satisfied that the proposed mitigative measures are sufficient to eliminate any adverse effects upon existing residential uses , they may approve the application. Otherwise, it is respectfully suggested that that portion of the application should be denied. If Council is inclined to approve the application, as submitted, Staff will prepare an appropriate By-law amendment for submission to Council at such time as a Development Agreement has been executed and registered on title. Respectfully submitted, T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P. Director of Planning JAS*TTE*j i p *Attach. March 18, 1986 Applicant: Mr. M. Mangar 17 Mill Street ORONO, Ontario LOB IMO cc: Mr. R. Strike Strike & Strike Barristers & Solicitors P.O. Box 7 38 King Street West BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K8 i I