HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-9-87,. ~ ~„
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
NESTING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, January 5, 1987
T #: PD-9-87 FILE #: DEV 86-66
SUB.~CT: REZONING APPLICATION - COSCARELLA
PART LOT 29, CONCESSION 4, DARLINGTON
UUR FILE: DEV 86-66
RECOMMENDATIONS:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
F i 1 e# r4 ~~~ .~ 7
Res. #
By-Law #
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-9-87 be received; and
2. THAT the application for rezoning of Part of Lot 29, Concession 4, former Township
of Darlington, submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Coscarella, to permit the development of a
Node/Cluster be denied without prejudice as the proposal does not conform to the
Regional Official Plan.
BACKGROUND:
On October 23, 1986, the Planning Department received an application submitted by Mr. &
Mrs. Coscarella to rezone a 9.0 hectare parcel of land located in Part Lot 29, Concession
4, of the former Township of Darlington, fronting onto Courtice Road (Regional Road No.
34). The application was requesting five (5) new small lots along Courtice Road.
The current zoning of the subject lands, as set out by the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive
By-law 84-63, as amended, is a combination of "Environmental Protection (EP)" and
"Agricultural Exception (A-1)". The "EP" zone covers a large percentage of the frontage
and of the southern portions of the property.
...2
REPORT NO.: PD--9-87 Page 2
Within the Regional Ufficial Plan, the subject lands are designated
"Permanent Agriculture Reserve", "Major Open Space", and "Environmentally
Sensitive". After speaking with the Regional Planning Department it is
clear that neither they, nor the Regional Works Department is in favour of
this application. Problems regarding Transportation Policy, Infill Policy,
and the question of use were all raised. Each of these issues will be dealt
within this Report.
Staff would note for the Committee's information that, pursuant to Council's
resolution of July 26, 1982 and the requirements of the Planni ng 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 with Staff
Report PD-270-86. Staff would note the following departments/agencies, in
providing comments, offered no objections to the application as filed:
- Newcastle Community Services Department
- Newcastle Fire Department
- Newcastle Bui 1 di ng Departrent
- Regional Health Services Department
- Ministry of Agriculture and Food
- Ontario Hydro
- Trans Canada Pipeline
- Bell Canada
One of the first concerns of Staff is the fact that a large landlocked
parcel, shown on Attachment No. 1 as Block A, will be created if this
development is permitted. Such development is not permitted by the Zoning
By-law (Section 3.1(a)) or the Official Plan which both require that any new
lots must have frontage on an improved public street. There are provisions
for access using rights-of-way although this would be an undesirable
solution to the problem, and Staff cannot support the creation of this type
of lot since it is contrary to the intent of both planning documents.
...3
REPORT NO.: PD--9-87 Page 3
A second problem is the fact that the area shown on Attachment No. 1 as
Block B is virtually all in the floodplain. From the information provided
by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA), Block B, as well
as Lot 5 are within the area considered unsuitable for development. If the
five (5) lots were allowed to develop this would create a sixth lot (Block
B) for wYiich a building permit could be requested.
The Town could not issue a permit for this land because it is almost
exclusively in the "EP" zone, and no residential uses are permitted in this
zone. A similar situation appears to exist for Lot 5.
From the viewpoint of not permitting development within the "EP" zone,
neither Lots 4 or 5 should be permitted. Blocks A and B along with Lots 4
and 5 should be melded to form one parcel if any further examination is to
be carried out. Such a melding would, at least, create a situation in which
one building permit could possibly be issued if all other concerns were to
be satisfactorily resolved. This would still place a great deal of stress
on the land with respect to the ability to handle the septic systems while
not adversely affecting the stream.
At this time, two (2) permits are available. To increase this to four (4)
could cause a great deal of pressure on the stream with the level of damage,
which could be created, being unknown.
The Region of Durham has passed an Amendment (No. 155) to the Regional
Official Plan which set out the criteria for Node/Cluster development. In
part, the Amendment to Section 10.2.1 states that: "Clusters shall contain
the following characteristics:
i) the cluster is recognized as a definable separate entity and is of a
size so as not to be consi dered as scattered or strip devel opment;
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;
...4
REPORT NO.: PD--9-87 Page 4
iii) the existing group of dwellings are on relatively small lots
generally being less than approximately 3 hectares;
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."
After review of the pertinent sections of this policy, it is clear that this
proposal cannot be considered as cluster development. The development
definitely creates a strip of lots which the Amendment clearly states is not
a cluster. The policy also speaks of the existing lots. To the south, is a
creek and pipeline while the parcels to the north are on average 4 hectare
(10 acre) parcels. The creation of lots of 0.37 hectares (0.92 acres) in
size is not in keeping with the existing development. This is not
considered by the Regional or Town planners to be infilling.
Clusters shall also be discouraged from developing on a Type 'A' Arterial
Road. The Regional Works Department has objected to the proposal based upon
Section 13.2.14, which states:
"The maximum number of private accesses to Type 'A'Arterial Roads
shall generally be as follows and regard shall be had to the
provisions of Section 13.3.3:
a) 2 access points per side per mile (1.6km) in rural areas; and
b) 600 feet between adjacent access points in urban areas."
This site is within the rural area of the Town and thus greatly exceeds
these limits. The total frontage of the property is only about 600 feet
(183m). There is an escape clause (Section 13.3.3) which permits these
criteria to be relaxed if "....after adequate study to the effect that such
provisions are impractical and cannot be implemented precisely". This is
aimed at minor changes which do not have a major impact upon a main artery.
The Regional Works Department has informed Staff that after review of the
application they have determined this site to be outside the Mitchell's
Corner Namlet and believe this development is not appropriate. Therefore,
unless this can be resolved, access for this large number of lots from
Courtice Road will not be permitted. Staff is of a similar opinion and
believes that such access is contrary to the Transportation Policy.
...5
REPURT NO.: PD--9-87 Page 5
The plan which was submitted provided insufficient details regarding the
topography of the site and the existing hydrogeologic system and impacts of
development upon the system. C.L.O.C.A. noted the fact that the line shown
as "Top of Bank" by the applicant is, in fact, the Regional Storm Floodline.
As shown on Attachment No. 1, the Fill and Construction line covers a great
deal more of the subject lands. One of C.L.O.C.A.'s concerns was with the
hydrogeology of the site. At the same time, the Town's Works Department was
concerned with tfie impact of surface drainage from the site. If this
application was to be considered, the Hy drogeologic Study and Drain age Plans
would have to be prepared prior to any approval being considered.
The Ministry of Natural Resources (M NR) had no objection provided that the
existing "EP" zone be preserved and no degradation of the Cold Water Trout
Fishery takes place. To ensure this, the planned drainage plan would be
required. Their comments were as follows:
"The Farewell Creek and its associated valley systern traverse the western
and southern portions of the subject property. A portion of this valley
system, currently zoned "Environmental Protection (EP)", is located within
the two southern proposed lots. The attached map indicates the approximate
location of the "EP" zone on the noted lots.
The Farewell Creek is a significant Coldwater trout stream and is,
therefore, sensitive to water quality degradation. The vegetated valley
slopes on the property assist in minimizing erosion and the subsequent
siltation of the creek as well as the downstream wetland. Downstream, the
Ushawa Second Marsh serves as a provincially significant warmwater fish
spawning and wildlife habitat. Any adverse effects caused by upstream
development activities should, therefore, be minimized."
The Newcastle Community Services Department had no objections to the
concept, although a 5% contribution in lieu of parkland dedication will be
requi red. This i s a policy requi rement of the Comm unity Servi ces
Department.
Staff would note for Council's information that this site has been the
subject of a previous application. In 1984, the owners made application to
the Land Division Committee fora severance. This was denied by the
Committee, but the Ontario Niunicipal Board allowed an appeal by the
applicants. The original decision was made based upon the decision by Staff
...6
REPORT NO.: PD--9-87 Page 6
that the application was not a boundary re-alignment because an additional
building lot was to be created. (The original lot line was a north-south
line which landlocked the rear; the application created an east-west line
shown on the Attachment as the line between Blocks A & B and Lots 3 & 4).
If a new lot was created this would not co nform to the Regional Official
Plan.
C.L.O.C.A. was also opposed to the severance application. The Ontario
Municipal Board allowed the appeal on the basis that the application was a
boundary re-al i gnrrient.
Staff was not present at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing because the
non-conformity was with the Regional Official Plan and their Staff were to
be in attendance. At the hearing, the Regional Planner and its Counsel
withdrew their objection as the proposal was only a relocation of the two
existing lots. This was contrary to the position taken by Town Staff, since
an additional building lot was being created.
Part of the Ontario Municipal Board decision was:
"3. Any house to be built on the parcel of land to be owned by
Vitorrio Coscarella and Carmela Coscarella shall be erected to
the north and east of the "fill and construction line" in a
location approximately shown and marked as an "X" in red on
Exhibit 1, copy of which is hereto attached as Appendix #l."
The same line is shown on the attachment to this Report. This clearly
informed the applicants that development would be strictly limited.
Staff would also note for the Comrnittee's information that the present
honing By-law 84-63, as amended, was brought into effect after the Land
Division decision and there were no objections to the proposed zoning of
this site. The zoning permits two residential buildings to be built, one on
each lot created by the Ontario Municipal Board. Even the two entrances for
these lots within this distance, greatly exceeds the levels set out by the
Official Plan. Since the Region has consented to the two entrances, it is
Staff opinion that six (6) entrances is not a reasonable request and does
not conform to the Official Plan.
...7
REPURT NU.: PD--9-87 Page 7
Based upon the information provided, Staff is not able to support this
application. Staff cannot support strip development, especially when such
development is not in Keeping with the intent of the Ufficial Plan. The
site can currently have two (2) homes built on it and this should be
re-affirmed as the acceptable limit.
A great deal of concern has been generated with respect to the impact upon
Farewell Creek. This issue was raised by the Conservation Authority, the
Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Town's Works Department. The
Ufficial Plan restricts development permitted in such areas and this type of
development is generally discouraged.
The proposal does not conform to the Transportation Policy, nor the policy
for development in the "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" areas of the Regional
Ufficial Plan.
The number of possible negative impacts of the development outweigh the
development benefits. Since the proposal does not comply with the intent of
the Regional and Newcastle Official Plans and such development does not
conform to the type and form of development encouraged by the Town, Staff
cannot support this application.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
~~awrence t K tserr
Chief Adm' i t~rati ve Officer
TFC*TTE*jip
*Attach.
December 15, 1986
CC: Mr. J. Neubauer
74 Simcoe Street South
Box 826
USHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7N1
;.\
LOT 29 CONCESSION 4
I~
~~~-
;, ~
BLOCK A m
i
~~~6.73'
APPROXIMATE .7J' ~sco' I
FILL LINE --~ I LOT ~
- BANK LOT
roP °~ `- FLOODi LINE LOT 3
'4.4.,00 " /S~¢ (.
8 L0~8 I LOT 4 ~ ~ ~
E~9
1, ~
~~ . ~i~l
~.~•
.~,• "?
~~
~I
~ ^~` ~
V
'r`n'
1n/ V
n~n'
"1
N
PEBBL ESTONE RD. .
I
ATTACHMENT 1 to DEV. ~6-66
N~
-- T'p°tis i m ;f1
SUBJECT SITE
35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 2T 26 25
ONC. R0.
~ fi. IL1'I ~
r l 1 ~
I
1 ;
1
~
& 1 Z
I A{
1
i
I
~ 1 1
'
G 1 i < & ; EP
~'J~I 1
~
<
~ 1 1 ~
i 1 W
_
1
J IV 1 ' -
~ , 1 U
~ ~
~~ ~ ~
o .q-j A-I o
.,1~~,~ - -~-~- I
TAUNTON ROAO U
1
SEE
~ , C6l
'
~
I
I scNEOVLE 'e'
IMITCNEI_LS CORNSRSI n
"~
n 1/T_11r ~1
h'~ 11
Z
w
LLA ; 8 I iEPI ~
1 a O
cn
o
0
1 I;EP
1 ~
Q 1 1
/~ ~
= tp
W
6 - - AI
~ ~
~ I ;
/ „
;q.~l
~
Z
t
e ~ Y
I
EP q.g ~ I A 1 A EP 1 I 1 U
R 4 PEBOLESTONE RV MS 1
1
M
. ~ Z
I Q
1 k N
(COURTICE) 1
I W
U
I!1 Z
O
!~
SEE ~ U
SCNEOUIE V~
0 W D00 1000.•
KEY MAP ~®