Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout75-164Report No. 164 1. Purpose of Application - On February 12, 1975, an application was submitted for a twelve lot subdivision on a seven acre parcel comprising part of lot 149 concession 89 Darlington. 2. Official Plan Provisions - The site is designated "Suburban Residential" in the Darl- ington Official Plan and "Estate Residential" in Amendment No. 8. Both of these designations permit residential develop- ment. However, while the Darlington Official Plan permits a density of 10 persons per acre, which would accommodate this proposal, Amendment No. 8 suggests 2 acre lots for these areas. The Interim District Plan designates a small part of the site "Hamlet" and the remainder "Rural". Only "limited non-farm residential uses" are ,permitted in the "Rural" area, and these are not permitted on lots where the soil capability for agric- ulture is rated in the Canadian Land Inventory as Class 1, 2 or 3". In cases where the soil is poor and the topography is rolling, a limited number of 2 acre estate residential lots may be permitted. It was suggested that this type of develop- ment would be preferable "reasonably close to community facil- ities but not in areas where future urban development or piped services are planned". A portion of the subject site is designated "Hamlet" in the Interim District Plan. It is suggested that in the absence of full piped services9 "residential development in the Hamlet areas should be limited to minor infilling on private wells., and septic tanks.". The plan also suggests that "extensive new development" should not be permitted until a Hamlet Plan has been formulated. The applicant is.proposing lots which vary in size but which average 1/2 an acre. 3. Zone Provisions - The subject site is zoned "R3" and "Deferred Development" in the Darlington Zoning By-law. Int the R3 zone, lots of 16,000 square feet (interior lots) and 20,000 square feet (corner lots) are permitted. In the Deferred Developmemt Zone, the minimum lot area for residential use is 37,500 square feet. The only case mentioned where severances are permitted is that of a bona fide farmer retaining a lot from the sale of his farm. 4. Circulation of Application - The application was circulated to the following agencies for their comments. 1. Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education 2. Peterborough -Victoria -Northumberland and Newcastle Separate School Board 3. Durham Health Unit 4. Bell Canada 5. Ministry of Natural Resources 6. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority 7. Ontario Hydro 8. Newcastle Works Department g. Newcastle Building Department 10. Newcastle Fire Department All of these agencies replied. i 5. Resume of Comments - 1. The Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education - advised that they had no objections to this proposal. 2, The Peterborough -Victoria -Northumberland and Newcastle Separate School Board - had no objections. 3. The Durham Regional Health Unit - advised that while the tests carried out by the applicant did not fully comply with the Health Unit's requirements, they provided enough information to indicate that soil conditions are not suitable for septic tank installation. Serious drainage problems and a high water table were also indic- ated. For these reasons, the Health Unit recommended that this proposal not be approved. 4. BellCanada - advised that they had no objections to this proposal. 5. The Ministry of Natural Resources - expressed concern about the possible effects of this subdivision on the tri» butary of the Bowmanville Creek which flows west of the site. This watercourse is a high quality trout stream. They also observed that the north -south road which becomes King Street in Haydon may not be suitable for large in- creases in traffic. 6. The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority advised that they have no objections to this proposal. 7. Ontario Hydro - advised that service is available to all proposed lots on the site. 8. The Newcastle Works Department - requested that the applicant enter into a site plan agreement with the Town and that all necessary roads be improved to meet with the Town's approval. 9. The Newcastle Building Department - advised that they had no comments on this proposal. 10. The Newcastle Fire Department - advised that they had no objections to this proposal, subject to the follow- ing conditions. (1) access to -all units (driveway, road, street) (2) fire safe building design as it pertains to safety (3) consideration of adequate water supply for fire service. 6. Comments - There are several problems with this proposal, which stem from design as well as the site itself. First, let us deal with the design issues. Part of the area included in this applicas tion is included in an old plan of subdivision. This old plan divided the area into lots which are much too small by todays standards. The two road allowances deeded to the Township were only 49.5 feet wide and are too narrow by today's standards. The applicant has included one of these unopened road allowances in the property to be divided into four lots. This road allow- ance would have to be closed and conveyed to the applicant. The applicant intends to use the other unopened road allowance as an access for four lots. While the applicant would dedicate sufficient land on his property for road widening purposes, 145 feet of this road allowance abuts property owned by others. The applicant would be required to assume the cost of acquiring the land required for road widening and the reconstruction of the 6. Comments - (continued).... road. Access to two southerly lots is proposed from Nelson Street. Nelson Street is presently a dirt road which appears too narrow for two cars to pass. It would have to be reconstructed and extended to accommodate even this modest increase in traf- fic. Both Nelson Street and Moor Street would require turning circles. This would reduce the area of several lots below acceptable standards. The Works Department has also recommended that an increase in the traffic on King Street should not be allowed until the street has been reconstructed. The Town has no plans to do this in the near future. All of the design problems listed above could be solved. However, there are several major problems with the site itself which seem insoluble. The land is low and drains property to the north and east. A layer of fairly impervious soil exists below the 3 - 4 feet depth. This, and the fact that the water table is high in wet seasons, makes the site unsuitable for septic tank installation and building. The Health Unit does not recommend this proposal for approval. For these reasons, it is recommended that the Ministry and the Region be advised that the subject site is unsuitable for development as a subdivision. Respectfully submitted, George F. Howden, Planning Director.