Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971-06-17 Report No. 1i i Municipal Planning Consultants CD. LTD. 400 MOUNT PLEASANT ROAD. TORONTO. CANADA. (416) 486-7777 June 17, 1971. Mr. Horace Best, Secretary -Treasurer, Clarke Planning Board, P. 0. Box 219, Orono, Ontario. Dear Mr. Best: (_ CN soL7n .i T'S l2r Po)2f ml Re: Applications for Rezoning, Clarke Township. Our File: PN 3530 In response to the applications for rezoning which you for- warded to us, the enclosed report has been prepared. The report format has been adopted and will be used in future if you find it satisfactory. Numbered reports make the identification of the comments at a later date easier. Six copies of the report have been reproduced and are enclosed to make study and discussion easier by members of Planning Board. With reference to your telephone call on Thursday, June 10, 1971, we would like to make the following comments. We un- derstand the situation to be as follows. There are in the Township a number of mobile homes which existed on their present sites when the Zoning By-law came into effect and are, therefore, permitted as existing non -conforming uses. Each mobile home is licensed separately under The Municipal Act, though all are located on one site. Some owners now wish to move their mobile homes to a new site and wish to know if this is permitted. Our examination of the Zoning By-law which is now in effect in the Township indicates that mobile homes are not permitted uses in any zone. To put a mobile home on land not previously used for this purpose would be a change of use which would re- / .......... 2 TOWN PLANNERS . PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS Municipal Planning Consultants .o. .2. quire a Zoning By-law amendment. The fact that the mobile home has been permitted as an existing non -conforming use elsewhere in the Township would not alter the situation. We would be pleased if you would advise us of the location of the site of the proposed new mobile home park, and also of the existing mobile home park and pass on Planning Board's feelings about the desirability of each of these sites so that provision can, if necessary, be made in the Official Plan. If you have any further questions concerning our comments, please contact us. Yours very truly, MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. John E.L. Farrow, M.T.P.I.C. JELF/len Enclosures 6 MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. 400 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto 295. CLARKE PLANNING BOARD Consultants Report No. 1 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE 2. APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING June 14, 1971. PN: 3530 In accordance with Mr. Best's request for comments, each appli- cation for rezoning is considered separately below. (a) Wilkin. Part Lot 9, Con. 6, Blocks "P" and "S", Lots 21, 22, 23, 24 Application for rezoning from Rural Residential to Commercial. The facts of the application are in order as far as we can ascertain. This type of application should be considered from two points of view: (1) The suitability of the location for such an operation when the whole of Kendal and the Township is considered. The location of this type of use in a village is preferable, to a location on the open highway. In the proposed location, it will provide a convenient facility for people living in the Village and will not be a hazard to fast traffic because of the speed restrictions in effect. (ii) The suitability of the location when the amenity of adja- cent owners is considered. The use proposed will involve a car park, and this will be immediately adjacent to an existing residential area. The parking of cars can cause noise and dust problems. The ap- pearance of outside storage can, in some cases, also be unpleasant. To protect the adjacent owners, we suggest that (1) be allowed, the e It is also important to ensure that the provision in-fhe By-law requiring the treatment of parking areas to prevent dust should be enforced. Except for the minor problems mentioned above, there would not appear to be any major objections to this application from a planning point of view. (b) Marvin. Part Lot 32, Con. 7 The facts of this application appear to be correct. There are two basic matters concerning this application. (i) Does this application conform with the Township's policy for the development of the rural areas? The Official Plan is not yet complete and it is this docu- ment which, when approved by Council and Planning Board, will outline the policy for development. It is an advan- tage to have such a document to guide policy decisions as it is then clear to everyone that such decisions are not arbitrary and do not represent favouritism to the person- alities involved. If this land is rezoned, the owners across the road and to the south will expect that they have a right to have their land zoned in the same way. Zoning changes have to be approved by the Ontario Municipal Board and a change such as this in the absence of an Of- ficial Plan will be the subject of careful scrutiny with a possibility of the change not being approved. (ii) Is the site suitable for development? The site needs to be examined by an expert to ascertain its suitability for the construction proposed. The Conservation Authority should certainly be consulted on how close buildings should be located to the "Top of Bank". The most southerly lot seems to have a very small area which would be suitable for building. Our recommendation is that this application be turned down as premature, to be reconsidered in approximately six months' time when the Council has a policy expressed in an Official Plan. (2) (c) Ochonski. "A" part Lot 29, Con. 5, Township of Clarke, in- cluding "B" part of Block 8, Police Village of Orono This rezoning application involves a plan of subdivision which has been draft approved. There would not appear to be any problem with this rezoning application, and our recommendation is that the land be rezoned to Residential Zone (R1). (d) Irwin. Part Lot 29, Con. 4 The facts contained in the application appear to be correct. This application involves land which it is proposed to sub- divide into eight lots and is adjacent to land which has already been subdivided under the consent procedure. It is understood that an application was made some time ago to the Department of Municipal Affairs for approval of a Plan of Subdivision under The Planning Act, but that approval has never been received. There are two problems involved in the rezoning of this land. The application involves the rezoning of land on which eight new residential lots are proposed. The attitude of the Ontario Mu- nicipal Board and the Department of Municipal Affairs will be that the correct way to create these lots is by a plan of subdi- vision under Section 28 of The Planning Act, but it is likely that any rezoning will be deferred until a plan of subdivision is draft approved. The other problem is that a plan of subdivision has been submitted to the Department of Municipal Affairs and not approved. The reasons for the plan not being approved are not known. It may be that the applicant is not handling his applica- tion properly, or it may be that there are problems which cannot be resolved. Our recommendation is that the land should not be rezoned at the present time, and that the applicant should be advised to pro- ceed in the following way. The applicant should progress to the point where his plan of subdivision is draft approved and then apply for the land to be rezoned. It would be unwise for the Township to rezone the land until the plan of subdivision has been draft approved. A zoning by-law submitted in the above circumstances is unlikely to be approved by the Ontario Municipal Board and would put the Townhip in the position of pushing the case on behalf of the developer. If the developer feels that his (3) JELF/len application has been treated unfairly, he should, after en- suring that non -approval is not the result of a misunderstanding between himself and the Department of Municipal Affairs, ask for his application to be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board for consideration. Respectfully submitted, MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. John E.L. Farrow, M.T.P.I.C. (4) MUNICIPAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS CO. LTD. August 31, 1971 400 Mount Pleasant Road, Toronto 295 PPT: 3530 CLARKE PLANNING BOARD Consultants' Report No. 2 APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING 1. MARVIN - PART LOT 32, CON. 7 Having reviewed the application and the comments received from the agencies contacted, we would make the following recommendations. This piece of land is surrounded by other lots on which development for residences can occur, therefore,provid- ing the details can be resolved,there would not seem to be any objection to the rezoning of this land. However, there are two important matters which need to be resolved. One is the suite- bility of the land for septic tanks. The report of the County Health Unit indicates that the most southerly lot is inadequate for septic tanks. We would advise,therefore, that the land be divided into two lots rather than three. Rezoning for develop- ment on two lots could then proceed when: - (a) The applicant provides the necessary soil borings and obtains the approval of the County Health Unit for the installation of septic tanks. (b) The applicant obtains a survey plan showing the top of the bank certified by an Ontario Land Surveyor. (The Plan already prepared may be adequate if a certification is obtained from the Ontario Land Surveyor stating that the top of the bank is accurately shown) This informar tion is necessary for the preparing of the zoning by-law amendment. Once the above information is obtained ,the zoning by-law amendment can be prepared and processed, We suggest that the applicant be advised of the situation and asked to provide the additional information. 2. MALLON - PART OF LOT 16 CONCESSION 3 It is our opinion that there are two steps necessary in reaching a decision on this application. The first is to decide whether the proposed overnight trailer site is satis- factory in principle,and the second is to establish whether the detailed problems can be resolved satisfactorily. With regard to deciding on the application in principle, the following needs consideration: - {1) (a) The demand for the development proposed: It is undesirable the land should be developed for uses for which there is little or no demand. In this case, demand is very difficult to ascertain and because of our inability to assess this factor, the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt. (b) The location of the site: A problem with this proposal is its location as it is over two miles via gravel roads to the nearest Provincial Highway or County Road. A location closer to major traffic routes,which would be the major source of demand would be desirable. If a camp site is successful in the location proposed,wear tolTownahip roads will be increased by the extra traffic. Gravel roads require more maintenance than asphalt roads. (c) The costs and benefits to the Township: The assess- ment value and,therefore,the return in taxes will depend very much on the success of the operation. A small increase in the assessment is possible,but not certain. Increased costs to the 'Township will relate mainly to extra road repairs and are unlikely to be considerable. Costs and benefits could be expected to balance out. (d) The opinion of the surrounding residents: The petitions from the surrounding residents raise only one point which will not be dealt with under another heading,and that is as to the character of the campers. This is something which is difficult to be positive about and is largely a matter of judge- ment. The character of the people using the site is likely to be similar to others now using camping sites in the Township. We suggest that the Planning Board enquire as to problems concerning the conduct and character of campers on other sites if they do not already have knowledge of the situation. The decision will ultimately depend on Planning Boards' assessment of the likely problems. After considering the above matters,the Planning Board should reach a decision on whether the application is satis- factory in principle. If the application is not approved, the applicant should be advised so that he does not waste any money on getting detailed surveys,etc.( If the application is approved in principle, the following matters of detail will require resolution,and it is up to the applicant to demonstrate to you that the matters are resolved to the satisfaction of the various bodies who have expertise in the fields concerned. (2) f9 4. 5. (i) Water Supply - The Ontario Water Resources Commission is concerned (Ba wellacent The applicants) about should the adequate supply of water. approach the Ontario Water Resources Commission to determine what tests are required to ascertain whether there is sufficient water and whether adjacent ls will be affected. (11) Flood Area - The applicant should prepare a plan showing where he proposes to locate his camp sites, wells, septic tanks and approach the Conservation Authority for their approval. (iii) Sewerage Disposal - The applicant should submit the same plan to the Health Unit for their approval. If these details are resolved,then there would seem no reason why a zoning amendment should nnot be in the (sed always supposing that it was approved place). STEPHEfISON - PART LOT 23 CON 1 From a planning point of view, this application for rezoning, Which would permit the erection of a single-family dwelling, is badly located. This application is away from community tfacilities, and extensive development of this type is expensive Municipality. The other point is that the site faces a major road, a number of similar applications receiving approval along this gh traffic andbit the wouldalso result inction of as reduction of for the Peed rting through limit. Replies indicate that the various agencies so far contacted have no objection. However, if this application is considered for approval, a favourable reply from the Health Unit would also be necessary. In our opinion,the location of this development is not good and the application for rezoning should be refused. WILKCr - PART LOT 9, CON 6,BLOCKS "P" AND "S" LOTS 21 22 23 and 24 As there would seem to be no major objection not views or in application either from a general planning point detail, an _amendment has been pared and is enclosed,together with the Notice and Explanatory rep Please note Rules 12 and 13 of the Ontario municipal Board Rules of Procedure which require that you obtain advice lfrom aws ayoo Municipal Solicitor "as to the form and clarity" of by - which suggest that he be consulted about form and content of affidavits, declarations,exhibits,etc. (3)