Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-05-19 Report No. 6JUR 10 IU/G Municipal Planning Consultants OO. LTD. 400 MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD. TORONTO. MAY 231.972 May 19, 1972 Mr. Horace R. Best, Secretary -Treasurer, Clarke Planning Board, P.O. Box 219, Orono, Ontario. Dear Mr. Best: Re: Consultantsi Report No. 6, Application'for Rezoning, Clarke Township, Our File: FIN 3530 Please find enclosed twelve copies of Consultants' Report No. 6. If you have any queries, please contact me. Tz� b fed rot- f up, the r c c, e, rfd,!b,/, ,!ours very truly, ti TORAUSKy r LouitteRy JELF/bc Encl. MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. Sohn E. L. Farrow, M.T.P.I.C. J Copy 'Ih ReSPe-CTIVF. FILES. TOWN PLANNERS . PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. May 19, 1972. 400 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto 295. PN: 3530 CLARKE PLANNING BOARD Consultants' Report No. 6 APPLICATION FOR REZONING JAMES CUNNINGHAM - J. A. HODGE 1. APPLICATION - J. CUNNINGHAM This application is for the rezoning of 17.9 acres to Estate Residential. General Situation The site is close to the Village of Newcastle being only a short distance from Highway 2 and the junction with Highway 35. The land abuts a gravel road which crosses over the 401. Site Details The site slopes gently towards the east and towards the Wilmot Creek, and is on the west side of the gravel road. The soil is grey -brown loam over light brown loam underlain by weak brown clay loam. The clay is generally at a depth from 1/2 to 2 feet. It is anticipated from the information available on soils and ground water that septic tanks and wells in this area would work satisfactorily. We would agree with the estimate that water could be found at a depth between thirty and fifty feet. Discussion We feel that this land in common with a lot of much other land in the Town- ship of Clarke is quite capable of supporting Estate Development. The matter involved here is one of policy concerning the whole Township. It is noticeable that since the suggestion that certain areas be designated for Estate Residential was put forward that a number of people have made appli- cation that their particular area be designated for this purpose. We pointed out previously that we did not think it was a good approach to allow each and every application for this type of development. The result of this would be a widespread scattering of lots over the whole Township. We feel that development in this way would put a strain on the resources of the Township. It should be borne in mind that one of the ways that owners change the value of their land is to get the zoning changed whether they intend to develop or not. We feel the approach to this Estate Residential designation should be for the Council to decide in which areas they want to allow Estate Residential development initially, and then for a short period stick with these areas and see how they develop. If each application for development is considered one at a time, it will be difficult to develop an overall policy. (1) We suggest that the Planning Board sit down and take a comprehensive look at the areas they wish to select for Estate Residential development. We do not think that the site involved in the Cunningham application is ideal, princi- pally because of its location close to the noise of the 401. However, if a zone change to Estate Residential in this area is approved by Planning Board, we would suggest that it be limited to the area north of the owner's existing house and be limited to the area shown as being approximately 11 acres. 2. APPLICATION FROM MR. J. A. HODGE Discussion This concerns an application from the owners of a nursery to be allowed to build two dwelling units on one lot. The area involved fronts onto a paved road and the soil is grey -brown sandy loam. We understand that the intent of this application is to provide accommodation for an employee on the nursery. It does not appear to us that such a change in this instance contravenes the intent of the Official Plan. We would, therefore, recommend that the By-law be amended to allow on this particular lot the construction of two dwelling units. It should be pointed out to the applicant in writing that the present policy would not allow the severance of this house unless the farmer retires and sells the farm. 3. MOSPORT RACE TRACK We have discussed with Mr. B. Kamin the policy proposed for Mosport Race Track which was forwarded to you April 18•, 1972. Mr. Kamin initially had some reservations about this policy but after discussions with him he is in agree- ment with the policy on all but one item. The matter which he is unhappy about is the inclusion of the statement that music festivals are not a per- mitted use. Wedo not feel that this statement is important to the policy for Mosport and included this with a view to satisfying other residents in the Township. We know this matter is a rather delicate issue for the Planning Board and Council to decide on,but from a planning point of view, it should be pointed out that the deletion of this phrase with respect to music festivals is not important. One other minor change which we are proposing is that in paragraph (d) of the policy which refers to "supply of potable water for each lot", we propose to delete "lot" and insert in its place, "proposed use". It would seem in this instance at least we have been able to satisfy one of the objectors and Mosport Race Track seems happy with the policy that has been drafted for them. Respectfully submitted, i MUNICIPAL PLANNING CQNSULTANTS CO. LTD. John E. L. Farrow, M.T.P.I.C. JELF/bc I (2)