HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-63-92 Addendum UNFINISHED BUSINESS
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File#-liLl-Vie_
Date: OCTOBER 19, 1992 Res. #
ADDENDUM TO By-Law#
Report#: File#: _D_.L2,31,0 5
Subject: BARRICADES AT THE EAST END OF PRAIR AVENUE, COURTICE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Addendum to Report WD-63-92 be received;
2 . THAT Report WD-63-92 be lifted from the table and received;
3 . THAT the east end of Phair Avenue remain closed to vehicular
traffic;
4 . THAT the existing barricades be replaced with permanent
barricades;
5 . THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to negotiate
with the two (2) property owners at the east end of Phair
Avenue to use their land and/or driveways to construct a
"hammerhead" type of turnaround;
6 . THAT funds be provided in the 1993 Budget for the cost of the
barricades and the turnaround; and
7 . THAT all the residents of Phair Avenue and the other residents
of the area who attended the meeting held on September 22,
/2 1201
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : WD-63-92 PAGE 2
1992, and Gordon Mills, M.P.P. , be advised of Council's
decision and be provided with a copy of Addendum to Report WD-
63-92 .
---------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No. 1: Report WD-63-92 dated July 13, 1992,. Regarding
Removal of Barricades on Phair Avenue
No. 2: Correspondence dated September 22, 1992, from Jim
Baker, Durham Region Works Department
No. 3 Attendance Register - Meeting Held on September 22,
1992
No. 4 Petition from Residents of Phair Avenue
No. 5 Typical Hammerhead Turnaround
2.0 BACKGROUND
2 . 1 At a meeting held on Monday, July 13, 1992, Council considered
Report WD-63-92 (Attachment No. 1) , Removal of Barricades on
Phair Avenue, and passed Resolution #C-503-92 :
"THAT Report WD-63-92 be tabled to allow staff
an opportunity to meet with residents of Phair
Avenue and Councillor Novak in an attempt to
resolve the residents ' concerns . "
3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT
3 . 1 Meeting Held
A meeting was held at 7 :00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22,
1992, at Dr. Emily Stowe Public School on Sandringham Drive,
Courtice, with residents of Phair Avenue and others to discuss
the removal/non-removal of barricades at the east end of Phair
Avenue. Fifteen ( 15) residents from Phair Avenue and five (5)
residents from other streets in the area attended.
. . . /3
1202
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : WD-63-92 PAGE 3
The issues which were discussed at the meeting are reviewed
in the balance of this report.
3 .2 Some History About Phair Avenue
Phair Avenue was constructed as part of Registered Plan No.
630, which was registered on June 26, 1953 . At that time,
Phair Avenue was dead-ended at the east limit and the plan
contained a 0 . 3 m reserve at the east end of Phair Avenue.
This reserve has not been lifted.
3 . 3 Removal of Barricades if Phair Avenue is Reconstructed
The question was put to the residents of Phair Avenue as to
whether or not they would be in favour of opening Phair Avenue
to vehicular traffic if Phair Avenue was reconstructed with
curb and gutter, storm sewers and sidewalks .
The unanimous answer was, 'no' .
3 .4 Petition from Residents Regarding Costs
A petition signed by the residents of Phair Avenue raising
concerns about costs was presented at the meeting (Attachment
No. 4) . The letter dated September 22, 1992, from Jim Baker
(Attachment No. 2) explains the position of the Region of
Durham related to costs for sanitary sewers if they are
constructed on Phair Avenue.
This issue was discussed at the Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing held from September 6, 1977, to May 5, 1978, on two
plans of subdivision referred to as Courtice Heights
Developments, one located north of Highway 2 and the other
located south of Highway 2 in the Courtice area. The
southerly plan includes the development which has occurred in
the area of Phair Avenue.
12. 03
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : WD-63-92 PAGE 4
The decision of the Ontario Municipal Board is dated June 12,
1978 .
The following is quoted from Page 8 of the decision:
"Most of the ratepayers who gave evidence told
the Board that they recognized that
development of some kind was inevitable in the
Courtice area. However, they are all
apprehensive about future costs, especially if
they involve services they feel they don't
need e.g. water and sanitary sewers . Even
when trunk sanitary sewers and watermains are
installed on a street, it is Regional policy
not to compel the existing residents to
connect, nor have them pay frontage charges if
they don't connect. So if existing well water
and septic systems continue to function
adequately, there will be no additional
charge. The matter of possible fluctuation of
the water table as it relates to wells is
obviously one of the main concerns of the
Courtice residents. Here again, the Region,
who has the responsibility for water and
sewers, has a policy whereby it takes full
responsibility for maintaining the water table
at an appropriate level or makes alternative
arrangements to ensure an ongoing supply of
good water. "
A watermain was constructed on Phair Avenue in 1987/88. The
costs to the residents to connect to the watermain were in
I
accordance with the Region's "well interference policy" .
Frontage charges were waived and the connection fee was $300 .
. . . /5
1204
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : WD-63-92 PAGE 5
3 .5 Need for a Turnaround
If Phair Avenue is to remain a dead end street, there is a
need for an improved turnaround for snowploughs and other
large vehicles . At the meeting held on September 22, 1992,
it was suggested that a "hammerhead" turnaround be constructed
at the east end (Attachment No. 5) . The two (2) residents,
who own the property at the east end of Phair Avenue, said
that they would be agreeable to discussing the construction
of a turnaround in conjunction with their driveways .
3 . 6 Traffic Signals at Prestonvale Road and Highway 2
The residents of Phair Avenue are aware that the Ministry of
Transportation has advised that their warrants are met for the
installation of traffic signals at Prestonvale Road and
Highway 2 .
The Town of Newcastle, the Region of Durham, and Gordon Mills,
M.P.P. , have all requested the Ministry to expedite the
installation of these signals .
3 . 7 Traffic Signals at Sandringham Drive
It was suggested that traffic signals should be installed at
Sandringham Drive and Highway 2, in addition to Prestonvale
Road and Highway 2 .
It is unlikely that the Ministry of Transportation will
install traffic signals at Sandringham Drive because of the
short distance between Prestonvale Road and Sandringham Drive.
In any event, any consideration for the installation of
traffic signals at Sandringham Drive and Highway 2 should be
deferred until some time after the installation of traffic
signals at Prestonvale Road and Highway 2 .
i
12. 05
i
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : WD-63-92 PAGE 6
One of the residents made the statement that he felt that the
traffic signals should be located at Sandringham Drive and
Highway 2, rather than Prestonvale Road and Highway 2 because
of the hill on Highway 2 west of Prestonvale Road. The reason
that the Ministry has selected Prestonvale Road rather than
Sandringham Drive for the installation of traffic signals is
that the warrants for the installation are met at Prestonvale
Road and are not met at Sandringham Drive. In addition, the
Ministry considers such items as length of visibility and
approaches to traffic signals and, in this case, they do not
consider the hill on Highway 2 to be a problem.
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4 . 1 From the above it is concluded:
1 . That the residents of Phair Avenue do not want Phair
Avenue opened to vehicular traffic, even if Phair Avenue
is reconstructed with curbs and gutters, storm sewers and
sidewalks .
2 . If Phair Avenue remains closed, the barricades at the
east end require replacing and an improved turnaround
should be constructed at the east end.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee,
alter A. Evans, P.Eng. , Lawrence E. KotselV
Director of Public Works Chief Administrative Officer
WAE*ph
September 28, 1992
Attachments
. . . /7
1206
ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. : WD-63-92 PAGE 7
pc: Ken Kormic Walter Zarowny
57 Lyndale Crescent Doreen Jasmer
Courtice, Ontario 29 Phair Avenue
LlE 1W6 Courtice, Ontario
LlE 1X5
Kathleen Lofthouse Dorothy Hopson
33 Phair Avenue 34 Phair Avenue
Courtice, Ontario Courtice, Ontario
LlE 1X5 LlE 1X5
Mr. & Mrs . Z . Dranski Henry Veenhof
17 Phair Avenue 2749 Prestonvale Road
Courtice, Ontario Courtice, Ontario
LlE lX5 LlE 2R8
Donald Hawley Rhonda Baumken
13 Phair Avenue 10 Stephen Avenue
Courtice, Ontario Courtice, Ontario
LlE 1X5 LlE 1Z2
Loyal Hopson Mr. & Mrs . P. Kingdom
34 Phair Avenue 26 Phair Avenue
Courtice, Ontario Courtice, Ontario
LlE 1X5 LlE 1X5
Judy Hannah Mr. & Mrs . J. Mailer
25 Phair Avenue 30 Phair Avenue
Courtice, Ontario Courtice, Ontario
LlE 1X5 LlE 1X5
G. T. Snee Mr. & Mrs . A. Vongunten
125 Poulton Crescent 22 Phair Avenue
Courtice, Ontario Courtice, Ontario
LlE 2H6 LlE 1X5
A. Mailer Ann Cowman
30 Phair Avenue 55 Darlington Boulevard
Courtice, Ontario Courtice, Ontario
LlE 1X5 LlE 2J8
Mr. Gord Mills
M.P.P. , Durham East
68 King Street East
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3X2
i
i
I
1207
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
Meeting: COUNCIL File #
Date: Monday, July 13, 1992 Res. #
By-Law#
Report#` WD-63-92 File#: - D.,02 .-31 . 05
Subject: REMOVAL OF BARRICADES ON PHAIR AVENUE, COURTICE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended:
1. THAT Report WD-63-92 be received for information.
----------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS }
No. 1: Rey Map
2.0 BACKGROUND
2 . 1 At the meeting of the General Purpose and Administration
Committee held on Monday, July 6, 1992 , direction was given
to report to the July 13, 1992, Council Meeting regarding the
proposal to remove the barricades on Phair Avenue.
3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENTS
3 . 1 The barricades on the east end of Phair Avenue were put in
place in mid 1987 in response to complaints from the residents
on Phair Avenue that a large number of construction vehicles
were using Phair Avenue as a route to the construction sites
for the subdivisions under construction in the area at that
time.
n ATTACHMENT N0. 1
ADDENDUM TO WD-63-92
®aE°.«
' T116 6 V2+RFOCN REOVCIED VAf`FN
REPORT NO. : WD-63-92 PAGE 2
3 .2 The construction in the area is complete and we have been
receiving several phone calls from residents in the area
demanding that the barricades be removed. At the present time
residents in the area west of Prestonvale Road must use Claret
Road if they wish to get to Sandringham Drive and likewise the
residents on the east side of Sandringham Drive must use
Claret Road if they wish to get to Prestonvale Road. As noted
on the key map Claret Road is about 450 metres ( 1330 ft. )
south of Phair Avenue.
3 . 3 On June 26, 1992, a letter was sent to the residents of Phair
Avenue advising them that it is our intention to remove the
barricades at the end of July.
3 .4 Phair- Avenue has open ditch drainage with culverts at each
entrance and the road is surface treated. Residents on Phair
Avenue are concerned that if the barricades are removed a
relatively large amount of traffic may be using Phair Avenue.
Residents concerns are mainly that there are no sidewalks on
Phair Avenue.
3 .5 One option would be to close Phair Avenue off permanently at
the intersection with Sandringham Drive. The problem with
this option is that there are houses located at the north-
west and south-west intersection of Phair Avenue and
Sandringham Drive. This makes it impossible to build a turn
around for maintenances vehicles such as snowplows and fire
trucks .
3 . 6 Since Phair Avenue has open ditch drainage it would be
necessary to reconstruct the road in order to build sidewalks .
The estimated cost to reconstruct Phair Avenue with storm
sewers, curb and gutter and sidewalks is $240,000 . No
provision has been made in the 1992 Four Year Forecast for
this work.
1 ?019
REPORT NO. : WD-63-92 PAGE 3
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the. Committee,
Walter A. Evans, P.Eng. , Lawrence E. Ro s ff,
Director of Public Works Chief Administ ive Officer
WAE*hj
July. 8, 1992
Attachments
z
1210
HIGHWAY NO. 2
BARR
EAD END
BARRICADE
( 66
OLD KINGSTON RD,,:, 2Q� m
0
w
o<PHA�R PEE STIRLING
STRATHAL.LAN
o Q cn
0 '''
cn
o V, w > STEPHEN
Q O z o
r� p z
� � Z
NATyAwA DR. ° o
w z O
m w d
MULNO�
CT �N
CLARET R
0
J�
RENWICK IR-
ROAD QP�
,oc**w N%t
WSTCH 0
egg$J�
_« � o
ti
J
a $
O _
DRAWN BY. JM DATE. JULY 1992
pY}3� ATTACHMENT NO.
Q cKs.
111� } �} ATTACHMENT N0. 1
Y
MAP
1 ? 1i �
MOM
September 22, 1992
DURHAM
W.A. Evans, P.Eng,
Director of Public Works
Town of Newcastle
The Regional Department of Public Works.
Municlpe.11ty
of Durham 40 Temperance Street
Works Di'partment Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Sox 623
105 0omiumers Dr.
Whitby,Ontario Dear Sir:
Canada, Li N 6A3
(416)6611-7721
Fax(416 1 668-Pos 1 RE: Sanitary Sewers. Cou4ztz-._ce
V.A.SILGiAILIS, Pxng. Further to our telephone conversation, the following will
CommieelonerofWorks outline the Region's policies regarding the charges
applicable to property owners for the provision of
pleasoquote our ref: sanitary sewers and with respect to mandatory connection
to the system.
SAN-N-1-1
aa� ei�
Each owner connecting to the sanitary sewer system will
be faced with a frontage charge, a Connection charge and
user charges . Based an the 1992 approved rates, these
charges are illustrated below. please advise the owners
that the charges that will be applied w`_ll be those in
effect at the time application is made to connect to the
sewer.
Frontage Charge
Thin charge, which is a contribution toward the cost of
the sewer main, is based on the frontage of the property
and a rate approved annually by Regional Council and is
payable either as a lump sum payment at the time of
application, or as an annual payment over a period of ten
( 10) years.
Under the annual payment basis, the owner will be
required to enter into an agreement with the Region. In
order to prepare the agreement, we will require a copy of
the deed to the property indicating the registered j
property owners names and a legal description of the
property. The agreement must be executed. and reygig-
can title prior to the igananna cif the connection pormit.
As the agreement procedure will take at least four weeks
to complete, the owner must indicate his/tier intention to
proceed in this manner at an early date. The cost to
propare this agreement Is presently $54 .00.
i
. . . 2
ATTACHMENT NO . 2
�`., ' ADDENDUM TO WD-63-92
-- 2
The 1992 rates for the frontage charge payment arcs ds
follows:
Lump Sum Payment - $47.86 per foot of frontage
Annual. Payment - $7.62 per foot. of frontage
per year for a. ten year
period
The annual payments will be collected on the water bill
on a quarterly basis (every 3 months) over the term of
ten years .
NOTES OWNERS PAY EITHER OP THE ]ABOVE AMOUNTS - NOT WYM
Connect-ton Charges
This charge is required as a payment for the portion of
the connection located between the sewer main and the
property line. All work on private property (between the
street Line and the house) must be arranged by the owner.
This Charge 3.s payable ih cash (or by cheque) at the time
application is made for permission to connect to the
sewer system.
1992 Sewer connection Charge - $2,315 . 00
User Charges
Once a property is connected to the seiner system, the
owner or occupant is required to contribute to the
maintenance and operation costs of the system through
user charges. These charges, which are billed vin the
Regional water/sewer bill on a quarterly basks, are
dependent upon the volume of water used.
Based on the 1992 sewer rates, the user charge associated
with a water consumption of 60,000 gallons is
approximately $187 .00 per year.
mandatory connection
There will be no requirement for the residents to connect
to the sanitary sewer unless there are faulty private
septic systems which are drawn to the a-ltention of the
Health Department. Normally, if the Health Department
becomes involved through the investigation of a
complaint, if sewers are existing, they will order the
owners to connect rather than . permit a ropair or
replacement of the septic system.
1213 . . .
3
The only instances where the Region orders the residents
to connect to the sewer system is where a grant has been
received and it is a condition of the grant that al
properties must connect.
I trust this information addresses your emquiry.
Yours truly
/Ps J. ker
Manager, Administrative Services
cc: V. Taylor
I
i
I
i
I
- I
i
i
MEETING
HELD AT DR. EMILY STOWE PUBLIC SCHOOL
7:00 P.M. , TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1992
Purpose: To discuss the Barricades at the east end of Phair Avenue
R E G I S T E R
Name Address Postal Code
L lyV64.4-6 C, eT. 4-1 Lci d.4.dtg.
dilt- -i-/Z- -/ 5<',5
60 A14;� 54 45--
Ttllool
— 3o 19 14
z
w
i
,� t - 1
5 ATTACHMENT NO. 3
ADDENDUM TO WD-63-92
WE, THE RESIDENTS OF PHAIR AVENUE PETITION THE
COUNCIL FOR THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE, THAT THEY
ADHERE TO THEIR COMMITMENT MADE IN 1979 TO THE
EXISTING RESIDENTS, THAT IF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT
IMPACTED ON US, IN ANY WAY, THERE WOULD BE NO
CHARGE FOR THE RESULTING EFFECTS.
DATED AT COURTICE, ONTARIO THIS 22ND DAY OF
SEPTEMBER 1992.
N tT1..1
( 4A y y"OIt) -k �„; rJ DA
i
1 ATTACHMENT NO. 4
I ADDENDUM TO WD-63-92
22,Om
.8.0m 10.olm
— — — — — — — — — — —
I
3,Om
— — —' R9,000m
3,Om
PROPOSED DRIVING
SURFACE
20,Om
i PROPERTY LINE I 3,Om
i
TYPICAL
HAMMERHEAD
TURN - AROUND
i
C:\AITACHS VARIOUS HAMHEAD
DRAWN BY: JM DATE: SEPT, 1992
i
ATTACHMENT N0, 5
7 , ADDENDUM TO WD-63-92