HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-301-87DN: 301-87
,,,,~{,.,m~~~, w,-x
~ `~
J
~ 4 ~;
,~~t ~r
:~, ~~
,~ ~k>
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
./.,1, re.. 1
File # ~ ~~~~,.~ ~~~o'~e
ReS. #
By-Law #
Imo: General Purpose and Administration Committee
~+~~ Monday, December 7, 1987
T #: pn_3CL1®R7 FILE #: ~~=.~
~T: REZONING APPLICATION - OLIVE M. VAUGHAN
PART LOT 11, BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION, FORMER TOWN OF BOWMANVILLE
OUR FILE: DEV 87-63
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-301-87 be received; and
2. THAT the application submitted by Olive M. Vaughan to rezone a 0.1~ hectare
parcel of land located in Part Lot 11, Broken Front Concession, former Town
of Bowmanville, be denied as the proposal does not conform to the
provisions of the Regional Official Plan or the intent of the Zoning By-law.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
On September 28, 1987 the Planning Department received an application submitted by
Olive A4. Vaughan to rezone a parcel of land within Part of Lot 11, Broken Front
Concession, former Town of Bowmanville to permit the development of two cottages on
the subject property; one for summer use being the existing structure and one for
winter use, being the structure presently under construction.
The subject lands are designated "Lands Affected By Section 12.3.3" within the
Region of Durham Official Plan. The Regional Plan stipulates that Regional
...2
Z~~~'
REPORT NO.: PD-301-87
PAGE 2
Council shall prepare and adopt plans which include appropriate development
policies for said lands. Until such plans have been prepared, only recreational
uses may be allowed. In addition infilling between two existing residential
dwellings, on the same side of the road may be permitted for permanent or seasonal
residential development provided the infilling will not jeopardize the objectives
of the Official Plan and that the Medical Officer of Health is satisfied that such
developeent will not create any pollution problems.
Within Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Town of Newcastle the subject site
is currently zoned "Residential Shoreline (RS)" and "Environmental Protection
(EP)". The "RS" zone permits a single detached dwelling or a seasonal dwelling on
a lot with a minimum frontage of 30 metres and a minimum lot area of 2800 square
metres, or a lot having a lesser lot area and/or frontage than required where the
lot was legally conveyable prior to the date of passing of By-law 84-63 (September
10, 1984).
In addition to the above, no residential building or structure may be erected or no
existing residential building or structure may be enlarged, extended or
reconstructed and no use may be established unless serviced by a private potable
water supply system installed in accordance with the requirements of the Ministry
of the Environment.
In accordance with approved policy, the subject application was circultated to
various agencies and departments for comments. The following is a summary of
comments which have been received. The following departments/agencies had no
objections:
- Town of Newcastle Public Works Department
- Town of Newcastle Fire Department
- Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission
- Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
- Ministry of Agriculture and Food
The Durham Regional Department of Health Services offered the following comment:
"The application has been investigated and is not approved as there does
not appear to be sufficient area for a conventional sewage system".
...3
«~
REPORT NO.: PD-301-87 PAGE 3
The Town of Newcastle Building Department commented as follows:
"The proposed dwelling is substantially complete, is close to the road and
does not appear to meet minimum floor area requirements. Further the
building was constructed without a building permit".
The Durham Regional Planning Department commented as follows:
"The subject property is designated "Major Open Space" and is subject to
Section 12.3.3 of the Durham Plan. Permanent or seasonal residential
development of an infilling nature, and conversions of seasonal dwellings
to permanent dwelling may be permitted by this designation. However, the
proposal to have two seasonal dwellings on a single lot would appear not
to conform".
Staff also received a letter of objection from a neighbour who commented as follows:
"We are strongly opposed to the development...The building erected without
building permit and is sited right on the lot line. We believe to permit
this amendment would open the way to a proliferation of multiple dwellings
on small lots...".
Staff upon reviewing the application with regard to the Regional Official Plan and
the intent of the Zoning By-law are of the opinion that the application does not
conform with the above Regional Official Plan provisions nor the intent of By-law
84-63, as amended. Furthermore, as confirmed by the Regional Health Unit there
would appear to be insufficient area for a conventional sewage system on site for
the second dwelling unit.
As noted, previously, the subject lands are located within the "RS - Residential
Shoreline" zone, which permits a single detached dwelling or a seasonal dwelling,
on a lot with a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres (98.4') and lot area of 2800
square metres. Staff would note that the subject lands nor the adjacent lots
immediately abutting the subject property, each having a frontage of 15.24 metres
(50'), would not comply with the minimum frontage requirement. However, inasmuch
as each are existing lots of record, which were legally conveyable prior to the
...4
REPORT NO.: PD-301-87
T~~~
PAGE ~
passing of By-law 84-63, a building permit for either a single detached dwelling or
seasonal dwelling, being the principle use permitted within the "(RS)" zone could
be considered. Staff would note that a proposed lot in compliance with the
provisions of the Zoning By-law, could not be created upon which the proposed second
cottage would be sited. Staff accordingly are of the opinion that a second dwelling
unit on the total holdings would not be in keeping with the abutting lots and present
use of each, being a single dwelling unit.
Accordingly, and in consideration of the above-noted comments, Staff are not in a
position to support the rezoning application as filed.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
r
PBN~TTE~bb
'Attach.
November 25, 1887
`renee ' otseff
of Ad ,trative Officer
~C~)
SUBJECT SITE
LOT 12 L.OT I i I...OT 10
~~,,,r,.,.:..~+ HIGHWAY N° 40 ""~..~ ... ....r..,a,u.~.r
~
_.---
I EP A _
A -- --._._
M2
i ~
~
P
Z,
~'
~ ' a .
M 2 ~ ~~'
~FS ~
T v~
eEACy ROgO ~ .. ~
O
~
~, a
M 3-1 ~
~ U
~
Mai I a
. i
. v
ac, C5-2 ~
II m
~~~ ~
RS
C VE AD W P
~ E f
,
t ~I !
OAK E
-
~~T'4iQia
_
o ao ~o0 200 3oom
~'
KE ~~
~
Dev. 87-74