HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-59-87~Cd)
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT File#µ'~~ ~.>
~. ~-
Res . # '~ ~~°
~ ~
By-Law #~ ~ ~ ~ ,~
Ifs: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, March 2, 1987
T #: PD-59-87 FILF ~: DEV 86-38
CT: REZONING APPLICATION - ERNEST COLLISS
PART LOT 18, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
OUR FILE: DEV 86-38
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-59-87 be received; and
2. THAT By-law No. 86-136 be repealed; and
3. THAT the application submitted by Mr. J. Victor, Q.C., on behalf of Ernest Colliss,
as modified by Staff, to rezone a parcel of land located in Part of Lot 18,
Concession 2, former Township of Darlington to permit the development of one (1)
* additional residential lot on private services, and the attached by-law, be
forwarded to Council for approval.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
Un Niay 29, 1986 the Planning Department received an application for rezoning from Mr. J.
Victor, Q.C., on behalf of Nlr. Colliss. This application proposed a rezoning to permit
the development of one (1) additional residential lot. This lot was proposed to be 100
feet frontage by 1,323 feet in depth.
...2
L~d~
REPORT NO.: PD-59-87 Page 2
At the General Purpose and Adminstration Committee meeting of July 21, 1986,
Report PU-190-86 was considered by the Committee and the recommendations
contained within this Report were approved. On July 28, 1986 Council
endorsed the following recommendations made by the General Purpose and
Administration Committee:
"THAT the application submitted by Mr. J. Victor, Q.C., on behalf
of Mr. Collis , to rezone a parcel of land located in Part of Lot
18, Concession 2, former Township of Darlington to permit the
development of an additional lot be tabled to afford the applicant
the opportunity for further dialogue with the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority Staff in consideration of the policies within
the Durham Regional Official Plan pertaining to "Environmentally
Sensitive Lands".
The only objection to the application was received from the Conservation
Authority. The Regional Planning Department provided comments which Staff
interpreted as not being an objection to the application.
The applicant and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority had a
meeting and the issue was resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. The
problem was with the boundary of the rezoning. The Conservation Authority
was concerned about the possible degradation of the forest block and
groundwater recharge area which are located at the east side of the
applicant's lands. The resolution was to modify the application so that the
depth of the rezoning was limited to only 325 feet. This depth would not
intrude into the area which the Authority was attempting to protect.
The Conservation Authority was not of the opinion that an Environmental
Impact Statement was required in this instance; but should further
resi denti a1 development be proposed support would not be offered without
such a study.
Report PD-247-86 was presented to the General Purpose and Administration
Committee on October 20, 1986. This Report recommended approval of a
rezoning for one (1) additional residential lot. By-law No. 86-136 was
passed on Uctober 28, 1986. Notice of the passing of the By-law was sent
out and on November 28, 1986 Staff received notice that the Region of Durham
...3
fLd)
REPORT NO.: PD-59-87 Page 3
were filing an appeal of the By-law. The appeal was lodged based upon
non-conformity to the Official Plan.
The Regional Planning Staff had two reasons. Firstly was that the proposal
represents an infilling situation since it was not located between two
buildings. The second concern was that the amendment was for only one (1)
lot and this did not comply with the Official Plan policies.
At the General Purpose and Administration Committee Meeting of January 5,
1987, Report PU-lU-87 was presented. The recommendation in this Repo rt was
as follows:
"THAT Staff be authorized to amend the application to conform
with the current Regional Policy regarding Clusters and that Staff
bring forward a recommendation at the earliest possible
opportunity."
This was adopted by the Committee, forwarded to Council and approved on
January 12, 1987. On January 14, 1987, Staff re-circulated the application,
amended to comply with the Official Plan policies currently in place.
Staff would note for the Committee's information that pursuant to Council's
resolution of July 26, 1982 and the requirements of the Planning Act, the
appropriate signage acknowledging the application was installed on the
subject lands. Staff would note that no objections to the proposal were
received at the writing of this Report with respect to the amendment
requested.
In accordance with departmental procedures, the application was circulated
to obtain comments from other departments and agencies as noted within Staff
Report PD-10-87. Staff would note the following departments/agencies, in
providing comments, offered no objections to the application as filed:
- Ministry of Natural Resources
- Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authori ty
- Department of Health Services
- Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food
- Newcastle Public Works Department
...4
~~d)
REPORT NO.: PD-59-$7 Page 4
After review of the proposal, Staff revised the application to address the
concerns of the Regional Planning Staff. The Schedule attached to the
$y-law is designed so as to include all lots which are of such a frontage as
to approximate the "Rural Cluster" zone. This includes a total of seven (7)
existing lots.
Staff did not include any further lots to the south or north due to their
very large size, approximately 10 acres each. To include either of these
lots would add to the number of additional lots which would be permitted in
the area. To allow such development would not be in keeping with the desire
to protect the forest block and the groundwater recharge area. Each of
these lots have in excess of 300 feet of frontage which would permit up to
two (2) new lots each. Staff wishes to limit future development in this
area and the rezoning has been designed so as to accomplish this end.
The Regional Planning Staff provided the following comments to the
re-circulated plan:
"This is in response to your request for comments of January 14, 1987
concerning the above-noted proposed zoning amendment.
It is our understanding that the purpose of this amendment is to define the
boundaries of a "cluster" settlement under the revised policies instituted
for such settlements in the Durham Regional Official Plan (see Official Plan
Amendment No. 155). Under these policies an area municipal Council may
recognize definable groupings of non-farm residential dwellings within its
district plan and/or zoning by-law to allow for limited development in the
form of "infilling" and, in exceptional circumstances, minor extensions on
the periphery of the existing developed area. "Minor extensio ns" has been
defined by the plan as meaning the creation of one additional lot on the
edge of existing development, but inside the cluster's boundary as defined
by Council.
The Durham Plan contains a number of prerequisites for the use of this
technique for defining "cluster" settlements, including a requirement for
conformity to the Agricultural Code of Practice. We would suggest that the
Town contact the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to enquire as to the
applicability of the Code in this instance. Also, we would note that the
Durham Plan gives a general indication of environmental sensitivity in the
area of the subject lands (see Section 1.2 of the Regional Plan). It is
suggested that comments from the Conservation Authority be solicited in this
regard."
...5
~Ld)
REPURT NO.: PD-59-87 Page 5
Ministry of Agriculture and Food
"Staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food have reviewed the above
development proposal. Consideration has been given to the proposal in trms
of the goals and objectives of the Ministry and of the criteria and policies
outlined in the Food Land Guidelines. Based on our present knowledge, the
Ministry has no objections to the proposal."
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
"It would appear that the inclusion of seven (7) existing residences within
the Residential Cluster boundary would not alter the intent of the previous
DEV 86-38 circulation. The potential for further residential development
will still remain, only with the single northern lot. Therefore, as the
revised rezoning boundary does not raise any new concerns for the Authority,
Staff have no additional comments, to those supplied in our letter of
September 19, 1986."
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has reviewed the Regional Official Plan policies regarding Node and
Cluster development, Amendment No. 155 to the Regional Official Plan, and in
light of the above comments, Staff are of the opinion that this area
conforms to the characteristics of a cluster set out in Section 10.2.1.3, as
amended:
"i) The cluster is recognized as a definable separate entity and
is of a size so as not to be considered as scattered or strip
development;
ii) the entire cluster, including areas proposed for development, is
identified in the District Plan, local Official Plan, and/or
restricted area zoning by-law. Once defined no further
extensions to the cluster shall be permitted;
iii) the existing group of dwellings are on relatively small lots
generally being less than approximately 3 ha;
iv) new clusters shall be discouraged from locating on a Provincial
Highway or Type "A" arterial road; and
v) development within the cluster is compatible with the
surrounding uses and conforms with the Agricultural Code of
Practice."
...6
~Cd)
REPORT NO.: PD-59-87 Page 6
The subject lands are an identifiable set of homes on existing lots which
have frontages which approximate the minimum requirement of the "Rural
Cluster" zone of the Zoning By-law. The road frontage is a local road, not
a Provincial Highway or Type "A" Arterial. Lastly, as explained above, the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food had no objection to this proposal.
The proposal to create one (1) additional residential lot has not changed
since the application was received. The shape of the lot was modified so as
to alleviate the concerns of the Conservation Authority. The objection
which was received dealt with the extent of the area to be rezoned in
relation to the Official Plan policies. Staff have modified the boundaries
so as to conform to these current policies.
This modification has altered the application in that, instead of rezoning
only the lands to be severed, the area now covers seven (7) lots. The land
owned by the applicant is the only property which is large enough in terms
of frontage to permit a further severance. Staff were concerned that the
area not include lots which could be further severed. To this end, the lots
with 300 feet of frontage were not included in the area to be rezoned.
Staff are of the opinion that the revision which has been made addressed the
concern which precipitated the appeal to By-law 86-136. Staff respectfully
recommends that By-law 86-136 be repealed and the By-law attached hereto be
forwarded to Council for approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Lawrence t~ Kotseff
Chief m'r~istrative Officer
TFC*TTE*jip
*Attach.
February 17, 1987
cc: rvlr. J. Victor, Q.C.
235 King Street East,
P.O. Box 201
OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7L1
Ica)
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
BY-LAW NUMBER 87-
being a By-law to amend By-law 84-63, the Comprehensive 'Zoning
By-taw of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle.
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle deems
it advisable to amend By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Corporation of
the Town of Newcastle.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of
the Town of Newcastle enacts as follows:
1. By-law 86-136 of the Town of Newcastle is hereby repealed.
Z. Schedule "1" to By-law 84-63, as amended, is hereby further
amended by changing the zone designation from "Agricultural (A)" to
"Residential Cluster (RC) Zone" as shown on the attached Schedule "X"
hereto.
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date of passing
hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.
BY-LAW read a first time this day of 1987
BY-LAW read a second time this day of 1987
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this day of
1987.
U
This is Schedule "X" to Bylaw 87° ;~
passed this day of ,198 7 A.D.
NASH ROAD
W
~- N
A
.
.
nglo of
N
d0~ lot 18, Con.2
g
N 72043~00'~E
99060
~ '
o LOT 18
a
~
CON
2
3 .
3
_ o
W $~
_u~
o ma
~~
a,.
M O
~
O ZN Nm
Z
W
J Y
~.. 1
cQ 99060
C N72°22'30"E
•
® ZONE CHANGE FROM I A ~ TO ' RC'
0 25 60 100 I50 250m
Mayor 25 0
Clerfc .
LOT 19 LOT 18 LOT 17
-_.._ .
NASH ROAD
- - ~.
A ~
SUBJEC
SITE i
A
0
a
0
a 0
c
w
o
i z
w
~
~ w
~
w
~ J
a
EP 4
N
A o
w
v
f z
o
.
U
MAPLE GROVE ° 5° loo 200 300m
~. ~
50m 0 ,~