HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-132-87,,,,r ....~iw w
~,~ ~'~;
.~
~~ ,,~~
~~ ~;,..~~ ~ r ~~
hE~f ING:
DATE:
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
~(~/
REPORT File # Q- ~~~
Res. # - ~f~J
By-Law # ~ 7- ~d /
General Purpose and Administration Committee
Monday, Ma<y 4, 1987
REPORT #: PD-132-fi7 FILE #: DEV 8Z-15
SUB.ECT: REZONING APPLICATION - RILEY
PART LOT 24, BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION
FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE
OUR FILE: DEV 87-15 CLERK'S FILE: 60.35.349
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
- 1. THAT Report PU-132-87 be received; and
2. THAT the application submitted by Mr. S. Cureatz, on behalf of the owners of the
property (Riley and Auston) to rezone a parcel of land in Part of Lot 24, B.F.C.,
former Township of Clarke to permit the creation of one (1) additional residential
lot be approved in principle and the necessary by-law forwarded to Council once
the 100 year erosion limit has been determined to the satisfaction of Staff and the
(Ministry of Natural Resources.
BACKGRUUNU AND COMMENT:
On March 4, 1987 the Planning Department received an application from Mr. S. Cureatz, on
behalf of the owners of the subject lands (Riley and Auston) to rezone the subject lands
to permit the creation of one (1) additional residential lot.
The subject lands are designated as "Major Open Space" by the Durham Region Official Plan
and are subject to the policies regarding development of waterfront areas. The
implications of this will be discussed below.
...2
~( ~~
REPORT NO.: PD-132-87 Page 2
The subject lands are currently zoned as "Agricultural (A)" and
"Environmental Protection (EP)" within the Town of Newcastle Comprehensive
Zoning By-law. The property was created by severance in 1986, as a
retirement lot for a bona-fide farmer. The remaining lands (severed), which
are to the east of the subject lands, are to be used for agricultural
purposes only; therefore a 'one foot' reserve has been placed along the
frontage of the property. It will not be possible to have another
residential dwelling on this property. Such a use is not permitted by the
Ufficial Plan.
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 St aff
Report PD-94-87. Staff would note the following departments/agencies, in
providing comments, offered no objections to the application as filed:
- Newcastle Fire Department
- Newcastle Building Department
- Newcastle Community Services Department
- Regional Health Unit
- Ministry of Agriculture and Food
- Ontario Hydro
The creation of one (1) additional residential lot appears to conform to the
policies set out by the Official Plan. The creation of anew lot complies
with the infilling criteria set down by the Region, namely there is a
residence within 300 feet to the west on the same side of the road. At this
time there has been no further study into waterfront policies for this area;
therefore, there are no further guidelines within the Official Plan.
...3
,~\
~'~J
REPURT NO.: PD-132-87 Page 3
The Health Services Department has no objection to the rezoning. The number
of lots suitable for on site sewage disposal will be determined at the time
the severance is applied for and further information has been supplied.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the application and provided the
following comments:
"1) That a 3.65m (12') road widening be dedicated to the Town
across parcels 1 through 2;
2) That the owner contribute to the costs of upgrading
Lakeshore Road in accordance with Town Policy. (ie:
shoulder widening and ditching) ;
3) That a maintenance easement (15m x 6m) required by the Town
be granted free and clear of any encumbrances."
These will be conditions which Staff shall attach to the application fo r
1 and division.
In commenting on the application, Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
had no objections to the applications but noted that the Ministry of Natural
Resources would comment upon lake related flood and erosion susceptibility.
At the time this Report was written, Staff had received only verbal canments
from the Ministry of Natural Resources. There was no objection to the
proposal to create one (1) additional building lot on this site. The
topography of the site creates a situation where the 100 year erosion limit
is difficult to establish. At this time the Ministry Staff are drafting
this limit onto an appropriate map and shall forward the information to
Staff as soon as possible.
While Staff have no objection to the creation of one (1) additional lot in
this location, it is necessary to accurately establish the limits of the
"Environmental Protection (EP)" zone prior to setting the limits of the
rezoning. The l0U year erosion limit is used to provide new residents with
...4
~~
'~
REPORT NO.: PD-132-87
Page 4
some measure of protection from short term impacts of erosion. Once the
Ministry has provided the information, Staff will draft a By-law and forward
it to Council for approval.
Respectfully submitted,
.-°
. war s, .
Director of Planning
TFC*TTE*jip
*Attach.
April 23, 1987
CC: Nir. S. Cureatz
Humphreys, Hillman &Cureatz
Box 186
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7L1
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Lawrence ~. Kotsett
Chief `mi ni strati ve Officer
LOT 25 BROKEN f'/~ONT,s~~°~~ C NCESSION w ~ 8 ~`~
~~~~ / ~ ~N~ y0
~ ~ 8 ~"
m tim y
_ : O n
8 ~ I ^ ^ I -1 ~- 41 ~ y "
ROAD ALLOWANCE. BETWEEN LOTS 24AN025~`.~~`m-~ •-+ ~,_"''°z)'oo'w ~'Lo_••n_..,'1
?J ~ 3119.00 RAN IORB/O Q
m N/7°2700"w RAN /OR BlO n r^
/ ~ e e ser 2 y
I/ q~~~ { N~ IS C1~'MEAS ~
.'`+(lgJj O 0 <S. /t'PLANipRB/p ~ I ~
~1 \ O x \ ~ ~
~~ 'Y ~l q Nl)2)'[~7 "W R.6Y IQQBR7e Mf15. ~ ~ s e
a°~4 8~6~4 ~ :~~ 2 I a
1 ,dy'~' ~ Z ' 8 M ~
N y /'~ 1~~~ A '~~ ?yam I I r~
as 1 L tN ¢ ~~ T
~Y C :r• V 0.~ ~ ~ ~ 4a .
~ ~ a
~ ° ~o
\ °`~ ~ a ,8
z' ~ D O 'O r~ 'Y ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ ]1 ~
~, ,
+n ti t W a ~ ~
rb~v '~ ~ C bo ~ r ~
o. : t~ ti & ~° r ~
~lv ^ in m. E '~ 0 .~ ~
O
p+•00 ~~ \ ~ _ ~
_ m \
.~- il0. 3' i7. .rt.<, . NC : ~. •:-; ,.?'RlMCE ~ O
~•r ~~.n p~ !<0.00', M/l"17'01!"W RAN fRelO ?
idd.0' .. ___ 27.7' a I+00 /mil O,yf ~ Z 0 ~
0
~ y ~~ ~ y ~ ~
o ~ ab ~a ,~ ~ ~-:
-~
~u ~ o ~ Hom ~~ro smm ¢~ ~
~ ~a
~ p tT
)0.6 15+00 i~ i' 8~~ i~ yj a a• a a a a
J
Z
~_
0
ti
X01. !
/B/, ,fp • ~ m 46/, d9' ,'" +y~' ~ ~ ~A 2 ~ ~ ~ a ?~ ~ ~ '~' ~ ? a ~ to \
,"A2 `'~ N~P6ib"N'*•f<.e ~ w 0 ~ ~ o A ^~~+a ~ T a s
~s3 Vie. ay<+0o ?x.09' m~ ~ s~}n! ~ i~ < o ~o ~ Zj
ar>,~ ~ 2n a ti
.,. )z o OL ~6a M Ay a ~
_ ~ n' ~~~ '" $~
SO' ?+10 Z ~ ~ v~O Z O C
a ~
-` y .. S~ ~ 2 H ~
v
3.90
83.2' a+00 a~ ~' ~~ g m
<< 2' x
o ~ at
~ `.. ~ ~ y y
~ ~ y
'' o ~ d "' C n1 ~' ~ t o
a ~ ~ h~~ 0 n i ~ Cs~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sI --C~
n °. ~?t ~y O ~ ~ ~Q N ~ ^1 Z
_._. si'J ` 31.3' e+00 ~.W OD ~ ~ ~`~C~ S C ~ n ~ y O
i m b =~L y~ 0 0 0 2 y
C O ~
330' e. <2. )i ? y i ~~O a i a~ y A T,
~0a ~ A o~ ~ g o n o 'p m _~
97. 2' ~ 0. 80 ~ 2 2 R 2 5 ~ ''~
~'l~• 9 SOD ~ ~1 ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ y
~ _
~ ~ ~ yg ~ o
ti 1.03' v~ a~ M~~ y o v a n
0 P e W MEAS. FENCf ` (~j -_ ~ ~ Q ~ Q S (~ , ~ ~ C \
~l~P/0.03'- __ __ o ya, s ~, O r~
3/6.3 , N /6°5l'~'JO "W Mus '~ * < ~ o y n ~ n a
!/S.bO', H /6°10'!0 W.R.AY.Q92t/ N .'}7.97'R,wnrr7°MEAS. ~~. •' ~ •O y "'
-j`L/Nf elw LO )!2l ANO t< =m pD N/D4~¢'FO"W MEAL _ ~ ~` f~T1 {~~j T \ ~.
Sa. NIeM710 "w K.INKMttI ~~ ~/ `•+ b
.~ , x 2 2 2 ~ ~3 `\~
/~~IQT G 7 ;~~iai~ ini ~LG~i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 0 '~O ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
/NST N° B5Pl5 ~ Ly I~` _~ y ti j ~ # .Vq x a ~ IC~
3' o `~
i n r ~.3
RRI~KFN FRONT GD/1/CFS.S/ON `
'~_/
AREA OF PROPOSED REZONING I
29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19
SEE
SCHEDULE 'S'
(NEWCASTLE VILLAGE)
N
Z
O
U
^
~ Z
I O
~ U
r
LJ..
m
Z
LAKE-SHORE ROAD y ~ ~' - -- - -
ONj'4~/0
o ~ ~ ~~
IIKEY MAP ~`°8O° D'
THESE ARE ]'C'~i;'~1;; C•r C~rJECTION TO THE PRCPO`_~ED ZO?~~?P;7 BY-LAW
AN_ND:``~?v'i FLA?v';I'.d3 i ILE DEV 87-15.
(1.83 hectare parcel located in Part of Lot 2(}, Broken Front
Concession ...to permit the severance of 2 additional residential lots.)
1. THE DESCRIPTIOI`' of the plans for the property does not tally with
the survey I received as an adjacent owner (the survey proposes 3
parcels - 1 a narrow strip along tine northern edge of parcel 2) ..
but the application f'or amendment cites 2 additional residential
lots.
2. THE WESTERLY LOT prcposed bridges a runoff gully which has been
eroding since the original survey of my property in 1929. This
natural runoff doesn't interfere with my buildings fr with the
existinb home on the Reilly property but in my observation, makes
the area unsuitable for building because of the division and the erosion.
3. NB: AS EVIDEPICE of the ongoing instability of the ravine area, look
at the gulf in the front eastern edge of my property - formerly a
solid landbridge in 1939. This gully now extends b~ron$ where shown
on the existing survey.~c
4• In the estate lot properties to the West of my property, there is
a 100-year erosion setback ~'~L/~' from the cliff
edge. erosion is continual in this area. In the case of Mr Smith's
property to the east of the Reilly's, a setback of 135' from the
edge was required for building near a staliliaed ravine.
I feel that these same standards of environmental projection should
be applied to this application for creation of building lots. Tanis
does not seem to be happening, In the most Westerly lot (which
bridges the ravine) - a setback of 135'from the ravine would be
reasonable. But it leaves an un-natural building area.
In the case o2' the Easterly lot proposed, the same setback as on the
7 estate lots would be reasonable. As the ap;~roximate depth of the
Easterly lot is 200', and there is a necessary setback for t~idening
the road and ditching, this leaves another odd area for a building
lot - both odd and non-conforming to existing standards.
IN SU?'"~?ATION MY OBT'CCT?ONS TO THE PROPOSAL ARE:
1. Unsuitable property for division:
- Westerly lot divided by an eroding run-off ravine.
Remaining proposed building area an odd shape particularly when
subject to local established ravine setback requirements.
- Easterly portion too shallow for consideration if same standards
of 100 year setback are applied to this property as to other lakeshore
development in the area. Erosion is severe (see pixy.
2. unnatural increase in density and oar access:
- proposal requests building lots in unn~3tural lots serviced by
the Lakeshore road which has critical erosion problems.
- other access is on a northerly road with level railroad crossings.
and no safety apparatus.
~ S~ Ste, ' A ,, ~,~ ~ 9 ~ S
~ o-~ /~o.' ~ 9 y-~-y .