HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-272-87DN: 272-87
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
(~>
e ~~ w l
REPORT File # ;,~;r ,~`~ ,
Res. # ~,f r~~ 4 ~ ~._~
By-Law #
N~7IP~: General Purpose and Administration Committee
~~' Monday, November 2, 1987
T #: ~~~ FILE #: ~,° ~~-1~and DEV 86-2
SUB~CT: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION - FILE: 86-15/D
REZONING APPLICATION - FILE: DEV 86-2
APPLICANT: VELTRI & SON LTD.
PART LOT 35, CONCESSION ~2'r FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
`7
RECOM1h9ENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-272-87 be received; and
2. THAT Staff Report PD-142-8~~be lifted from the table and the
recommendations therein approved.
BACKGROUND:
On June 2, 1986 Committee considered Staff Report PD-142-86 (copy attached) in
respect of Official Plan Amendment application 86-15/D and Rezoning application DEV
86-2 submitted by Veltri and Son Limited. The applications seek to permit the
creation of ten (10) 0.8ha residential building lots fronting on Townline Road in
Part Lot 35, Concession 2, former Township of Darlington. The subject lands are
designated "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" by the Durham Regional Official Plan
and zoned "Agricultural Exception (A-1)" by By-law 84-63.
The recommendations in Report PD-142-86 were as follows:
...2
1 ~ ~~~
REPORT NO.: PD-272-87 PAGE 2
"1. THAT Report PD-142-86 be received; and
2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle
recommends that Official Plan Amendment application 86-15/D submitted by
Veltri and Son Limited be denied; and
3. THAT Rezoning application DEV 86-2 submitted by Veltri and Son Limited be
denied; and
4. THAT a copy of Council's decision with respect to these applications be
forwarded to the applicant and the interested parties attached hereto."
Staff's recommendations were based on non-conformity with the provisions of the
regional Official Plan and the Town's criteria for identifying rural nodes and
clusters. The City of Oshawa and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food also
objected to the subject applications. As well, objections were submitted by 20
area residents.
Committee, and subsequently Council on June g, 1986, resolved, at the request of
the applicant, to table Report PD-142-86 for further dialogue.
Staff have contacted the applicant by letter on November 24, 1986 and August 31,
1987 requesting that the Planning Department be advised of his intentions with
respect to these applications. The August 31, 1987 letter indicated that, if nc
response was received within 30 days, Staff would be recommending to Council
that Report PD-142-87 be lifted from the table and dealt with.
No reply has been received in respect of either letters sent by Staff. However,
Staff have been verbally advised by the applicant that the subject properties
have been sold and that they have no objection to the closing of the file. The
applicant has indicated that written confirmation will be provided shortly.
Accordingly, it is recommended that Report PD-142-86 be lifted from the table
and the recommendations therein approved.
...3
~~~-~
REPORT NO.: PD-272-87
JAS~TTE~jip
Attach.
October 14, 1987
PAGE 3
Recommended for presentation
to ~ ~ C-p i -tee
r
~yL~- ®®__®®®_®®-®®®®®®
L„~. rence ;E~ Kotseff
Chief ~ n strative Offieer
CC: Mr. A. Bolotenko CC: City of Oshawa
c/o Aitchison, Starzynsk, 50 Centre Street South
Evans & Bolotenko OSHAWA, Ontario
115 Simcoe Street South L1H 3Z7
P.O. Box 978
OSHAWA, Ontario Mrs. Alice Lytwynchuk
L1H 7N2 607 Beeehwood Street
OSHAWA, Ontario
The Veltri Group L1G 2S1
1038 Pinetree Court
OSHAWA, Ontario Lynda & Brian Lee
L1K 1P~4 R.R. ~~5
OSHAWA, Ontario
Maryanne & Gary VanderHeuvel L1H 7K5
R.R. ~~5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5
Mr. Pat Docimo
R.R. ~~5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5
Victor & Ann White
R.R. ~~5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5
Margaret & Ian Lee
R.R. ~~5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5
Fred & Violet Anderson
R.R. ~~5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5
Walter & Krystyna Gandera
R.R. ~~5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5
~ ~ --
_.,~..~ y ~~~
~~~~ .~ 'y~•,;~ TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
l.. ~~ REPORT
~~ ~ '
~ File #
`~i~`~ ~~ ~ Res: #
------_~ - By-Law '#
~E1Tj(N~; General Purpose and Administration Committee
DAA1E: Monday, June 2, 1986
REPORT #: PD-142-86 FILE #: 86-15/D and DEV 86-2
SUB.ECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN
FILE: 86-15/U
APPLICATION FUR REZONING
FILE: DEV 86-2
VELTRI AND SUN LIMITED
PART LUT 35, CONCESSION 5, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
reconmend to Council the following:
1• THAT Report PD-142-86 be received; and
2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that
Official Plan application 86-15/D submitted by Veltri and Son Limited be denied;
and
l
3• TH.~;I kezoning Application DFV 86-2 submitted ny Veltri and Son Limited be denied;
and
4• THAI a copy of Council's decision with respect to these applications be forwarded
k to the applicant and the interested parties attached hereto.
BACKGROUND:
Un May 17, 1986, a Public Meeting was held with respect to Rezoning Application DEV 86-2
submitted by Veltri and Son Limited to rezone two (2) 4.04 hectare parcels of land to sated
...2
(:
kEPURT NO.: PD-142-86
~-- ,
~ ~~ ~~~
Page 2
in Part of Lot 35, Concession 5, former Township of Darlington from
"Agricultural (A)" to "Rural Cluster (RC )" to permit the development of two
(2) additional residential lots. The General Purpose and Acininistration
Committee.al.so considered Staff Report P0-64-86. The Report summarized
comments received as a result of the circulation of the Rezoning Application
to other departments and agencies. The Region of Durham Planning Department
noted in their comments that the subject grope rty is designated "Permanent
Agricultural Reserve" in the Durham Regional OfficiaY Plan, and that the
proposed non-farm residential development is not permitted within this
designation. Staff recommended in the report that the subject Rezoning
Application be referred back to Staff pending Council consideration of an
application to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan. Committee resolved
(Resolution #GPA-255-86) to adopt the recommendation in the Report; at its
meeting of March 24, 1986, Council resolved (Resolution #C-276-86) to
endorse the recommendation of Committee.
On May 4,. 1986, the Town was advised by the Region of Durham Planning
Department of an application submitted by V eltri and Son Limited to amend
the Durham Regional Official Plan to permit the creation of ten (10) 0.8
hectare (2 acre) residential building lots on the subject lands. Staff note
that rezoni ng Apr lication Ul_'~' ~6-2 proposed the creation of a total of four
l~+) resi den ti al building lots , each with an area of 2 hectares (5 acres).
In accordance with departmental procedure, the Ufficial Plan Amendment
application was circulated by the Planning Department to various departments
and agencies for comment. As well, the Region of Durham provide copies of
comments received through their circulation of the application. Staff note
that comments received through the circulation of the related rezoning
application were summarized for Committee's consideration in Staff Report
PD-64-86). The following is a summary of the comments received on the
Ufficial Plan Amendment application:
... 3
(`
REPORT NO.; PD-14?_-86 Page 3
Town of Newcastle Public Works Oepar•ti~ent
"We have reviewed the application and find we have no oh.iection to this
proposal suhiect to the foll~wina canments:
1. That all works ar•e completed in accordance with the Town of Newcastle's
Design .Criteria and standard drawings;
2. That any easements r•enuir•ed by the Town he granted free anc~ clear of
all encumbrances;
3. That the developer will har•e the costs (100%) of an,y works on Townline
Road which ar•e necessitated as a result of this•~ievelopment (i.e.
external drainage improvements);
4. That the utility distr•ihution (hydro, hell, cable TV, etc. i he
installed underground (secondary services);
.5. That the developer contr•ihirte to the cost of r•econstr•uctina Townline
Road in acr_or•dance with Town Policy;
6. That the Owner• meet all the r•equir•ements of the- Public Works
Department, financial or• otherwise;
~. That the Owner• enter into a Subdivision AQr•eement with the Town,
satisfactory to this Department;
8. That the devel oper• should be r•equi red to provide s+:r•eet 1 i ghti no al ona
Townline Road;
9. ql1 of the standard requirements r•Paar•dinq lot nra~inq, schPdu~es of
Work, PP_r•f~rtnanCe alJdt•antePC, C~St eStif~ateS, Pty. , Shnli~ r! h~ inrlil~!Pr!
in the Subdivision Aor•eement."
Town of Newcastle Fire Department
"No obiection. Response from Station ~4, located on Tr•ulls Road and water
supply is b•y Fir•e Department Tanker Truck. Consideration should he given *.o
Planning Department Report 84-40, with r•egar•d to Fire Protection for• r•ur•al
developments."
Town of Newcastle Bui 1 di nq Depar•tr~ent
"No oh,jection."
...4
r,
REPOP,T NO.: PD-142-86
~~~.
~~;
Pane 4
Town of Newcastle Community Services Department
"Our• Department has no objection to the application. Cash-in-lieu of •
parkland dedication will be required if •applicable," •
Region of Durham Health Unit
"Insofar as health matters ar•e concerned,, there are-no ob,iections to the
approval of the appl i catiori wi th the understanding tha± the number and size
of lots will be determined when the Plan of Suhdivision is circulated,"
Central Lake (lntar•io Conservation Authority
"No objection."
P•linistr•y of Agr•icultur•e and Food
"Consi ~ier•ation has keen cti ven to the pr•oposa 1 i n terms of the coals and
objectives of the Mi ni str•y and of the cr•i ter•i a and pol ici es outlined i n the
Foodland Guidelines.
The site is level to gently rolling and is actively farmed as ar•e the
sur•rnunding lands. Accor•din4 to the Canada Land Inventor.v the soils have an
agricultural capability rating of 80~ Class 1, and 20q Class 4 with
topography limitations.
Although it is recognized that the lands in the area ar•e fragmented into
1 ots f r•om 10 to l5 acres i n size , we do not hel i eve the 1 a nd should he
further fragmented and more non-farm uses added which would result from the
proposed cluster zoninct if anor•oved. iJe ther•efor•e oh.iect to the r•ezonino."
~1inistr•v of !~latural Resources
"No oh,iection to this proposal as it does not adversely affect any Ministr•v
policies or nr•oarams." •
City of Oshawa
The Council of the City of Oshawa considered the above matter at a meeting
held on April 21, 1986 and adopted a recommendation of the Planning and
Development Committee as follows:
"It is recommended that the City Clerk advise the Town of Newcastle and the
Durham Regional Planning Department that the City o~ Oshawa ohiects to the
application to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan (86-15/D) by Veltr•i
and Son Limited for• Part Lot 35, Concession 5 on the east side of Townl ine
Road North in the Town of Newcastle."
..:5
~_
kEPl1kT NU.: PO-142-86 Page ~
Staff note that comments from the Ministry. of Agriculture and Food were not.
provided in Staff Report.PO-64-86 which dealt with, the rezoning application
inasmuch 'as the comments were not available at the time the report written.
The Ministry's comments on the rezoning application, which were received by
the. Planning Department on March 10, 1986, are the same as the comments
submitted. with respect to the.Official Plan Amendment application.
Notice with respect to the proposed Ufficial Plan Amendment was provided on
the subject lands in accordance with Council policy. Two letters and one
petition with 18 signatures was submitted to the~Town by area residents
objecting to the proposed Rezoning and Official Plan Amendment. The
concerns of the residents are as follows:
- suitability of soil for septic systems
- lot drainage
- increased taxes
- increased traffic volume
- impact on availability of well water
- loss of rural atmosphere.
CUf~iN~NT:
The property subject of the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning
applications was designated "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" by Amendment No.
l~~l to the Durham kegional Official Plan which +~ras approved by the i~iinistry
o f l~~ur i ci pal Affairs on Apri 1 24, 1986. An~ndn~ent No. 141 deleted Speci al
Study Area No. 8 from lands within the Town of Newcastle. The lands are
currently zoned "Agricultural (A-1 )" by By-law 84-63, as amended.
Staff processed the rezoning application as a request for a "Rural Cluster
(RC)" zoning. The Town's criteria for identifying Rural Clusters defines
such areas as rural non-farm related residential development which exhibits
similar lot characteristic and contain a minimum of three (3) and a maximum
of six (6) existing residential lots for which building permits would be
available and within which infilling may occur up to a maximum of three (3)
additional lots. Staff note that the two lots immediately to the south of
the subj ect lands are equal in depth to the subject lots and have areas of
U.8 hectares each. Both lots support single family dwellings. The two {2)
~~ ~~
..6
;,.
kEPURT NU.: PD-142-86
~.
i ~ ~~
Page 6
lots directly to the north of the lands subject of the application are al so
owned by the applicant. The zoning of these properties would permit the
issuance of building permits for single family dwellings. These lots
however are both considerably deeper and larger in area than. the new lots as
proposed by the applicant. It would appear therefore that the lands subject
of the .application do not lie within a cluster of rural non=farm related
residential lots which exhibit similar lot characteristics.. As well, the
applicant has proposed the creation of an additional eight (8) residential
lots while the Town's criteria specifies a maximum of three (3) additional
lots.
The Town's criteria also specifies that a Rural Cluster must be bounded on
at least three (3) sides by natural or physical boundaries such as
watercourses or public streets. Staff note that no such boundaries exist
with respect to the subject lands.
The Town's criteria further stipulates that Rural Clusters shall not be
designated in areas located adjacent to active agricultural operations and
must comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice. Staff reference the
comments of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food objecting to the proposed
development.
Staff have discussed the Official Plan Amendment application with Keniona
Planning Staff who advised that the application is not being processed and
as an application to designate Estate Residential development. They noted
that the proposed development constitutes strip development along an
existing public road and that the topographical and landscape features of
the subject site do not comply with the Regional Official Plan's
requirements with respect to Estate Residential development. It must
therefore be considered as an amendment to General Agricultural i n order for
us to deal with the proposed rezoning.
As noted earlier, the subject lands are designated "Permanent Agriculture
Reserve" by the Regional Official Plan. As indicated by the Region in their
comments on the Rezoning application, non-farm related residential
development is not permitted within this designation. It is Staff's opinion
...7
KEPUR] NU.:
Po-hat-s6 ~.
(; .
'v ~'
Page 7 y
that the subject Ufficfal Plan Amendment and Rezoning appli~eations to permit.
non-farm .residential development are not in conformity with the intent of the
'Regional Uffi~cial Plan•.•; Approval could undermine one of ~:t.he tiasic tenets of
the Durham Regional Official Plan - that is, the preservation of. agricultural
areas of the Region and in particular, land designated as prime agricultural
land-unless it can clearly be demonstrated that the existing designation is
inappropriate.. Regional S.taff..have only recently completed a review of the
designations in this area and concluded that the Permanent Agricultural
Reserve designation was appropriate.
Staff also note the objections of local residents with respect to the
proposed development. Regional Planning Staff did not require the applicant
to submit a Soils Analysis or Hydrogeological Study inasmuch as the proposal
is not being processed as an Estate Residential development. In the absence
of same, Staff are unable to address the concerns of the area residents with
respect to suitability of soil for septic systems and the impact of the
proposed development on the availability of well water. An amendment would
be premature in the absence of same. Concerns regarding lot drainage would
be addressed by the Town, through conditions of approval, should the subject
applications be approved. Staff concur with the residents' concerns with an
increased volume of traffic associated with the proposed development, agiven
the present road conditions and impact on rural character. The concern
related to increased taxes lies outside the considerations normally addressed
by Planning Staff.
In the absence of the necessary by drogeological information and in view of
the com~l~ents of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Staf f are un ab le to
support approval and would recommend that the Region of Durham be advised
that the Town of Newcastle recommends that Official Plan Amendment
application 86-15/D submitted by Veltri and Son Limited be denied. It is
further recommended that Rezoning Application DE V 86-2 be denied and that a
copy of Council's decision with respect to these applications be forwarded to
the applicant and the interested parties as attached hereto.
*
Respect mitted,
.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
JAS*TTE*j ip
*Attach.
May 15, 1986
AREA OF PROPOSED REZONING
. 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27
I
i
1
1
)
I
I
w
_z
J
Z
KEY MAP
,~
~ • E P1 ~ ~ CD
' Z
' O
i -
i ~
A-1. W
7
r ~ O
~ V
~ ,
Ep t
A-~ ,
) , z
o
~ ~ ~ ~
w
~ ~ ~ U
~ ' I
I i , Z
I , ~
, , U
__ ---- ~
SEE '
iULE ~ ~
i
1z
,o
~-,
~w
i ~`~ ~ ~ u
z
~~o
~ U
A A EP ~' ~
At3
O L30 S00 IOOOT
~~ ~
• ~-
~.
.~
LIST OF INTERESTED PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO REPORT NO.: PD -142-86
Aitchison, _Star•~ynski
Evans & eolotenko
Bar•r•i ster•s' & Soi i ci tors
115 Sitncoe Street South •
P.O..BQx 978 ~ •~ . ~. .:.
OSHAWA; Ontario ~ ~ •
L1H 7N2
ATTENTION: Mr•. A. Bolotenko~f
The:.Ve).tr~i: • Group. .
1038 Pinetr•ee Court
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1K 1P4N
Maryanne & Gary Vander•Heuvel
R.R. #5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5f~
Mr•. Pat Doci mo
R.R. #5
OSHAWA, Ontar•i o
L1H 7K5N
Victor & Anne White
R.R. #5
OSHAWA, Ontar•i o
L1H 7K5N
Mar•gar•et & 'Ian Lee
R.R. #5
OSHAWA, Ontar•i o
L1H 7K5N
Fred & 1~iolet Anderson
R.R. ;~5
OSHAItiA, Ontario
L1H 7K5N
Walters & Krystyna Gander•a
R.R. #5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5N
Guy & Colleen Dennis
R.R. #5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5N
Lynda & Br•i an Lee
R.R. #5
OSHAWA, Ontario
L1H 7K5N
City of Oshawa
50 Centre Street South
OSHAWA, Ontario
L i H 3Z7~
~(~
Commissioner of Pl,-+nnir,b,
105 Consumers Ur.,
Whitby, Unt. L1t9 6A3
~r
.~~ '
i .
`` __
n
(.
ToKCtline Rd. N,,
R. R. 5,
Os}tawa, Unt.. I.1H 7K5 '
Mar: 14, 1985. .: ~ .~.
Re: File No, 8u-15/U
Dear Sir:
i ob,ject to this vroperty being divided into 10 lots at this
tl(gt; .
About 25(?) Years alto rant 'rlhitby Town:>hip (ncit,l U;'i~.,w„~ ,,n`~
.~ar'_int;ton Townshi now t
P ( he ~o«n ,~. ;,awcusti+; j rai.::e1 Lt~:; .o~Nnlir.;
. d. in :rout of Lhese lots ~uul Installed ~. cult'<:rt dial;ur,-, ~'._y 1'ro:,;
wring spring run-off and hc:;~vy rain~i tills brings the water
from Oshawa onto these lots and then on to ours. ,;t this time when
the fields are covered with snow this isn~t apparent but if you will
take a look at the snow piled on the west side at the north end of
the Townline and keep in mind that a very lame portion of this will
be channelled through these lots Ism sure you will agree that this
heavy clay soil will not absorb all these septic beds, In previous
years this was a sod form and some top soil has been removed.
At any tine of the year the siEris of erosion are here on
our property even though we installed 2 catch basins and drain the
w4 ter back to the ditch.
I think before allowing more housing; the ':own should
f c.hanr;e the culvert, do a soil test and .:onsul.t } _~, ~;,; ~,~,o~i,F,
i ( ~lv;-ci ~~ •~,
wh:.t; we added fill to eu. ~,., ~ -
1 would suggest th~~ u de ~ r a•t; un;:c:r• ~.tt. :t~:,;. ,~;',, r"'=;.
sae ~'or yourself what ~> „<..i: _,~:~r; .~~ ,;;i„ .i.:.~ :~;
i -- happen=~ in the spring, .~'
louru t:•t,l J
~-?/ k ~'
Mrs. F, H. Anderson,
~ Lot 3~, Con. 5
. ,,.,.. •r,, DURHAM ~..1~~. _
D N.... ~,.... _ ,
«wts.«..w«
~:U~'!ES TU 1 B _
11 ~»,r.,,, c ~..,,,.:
ll. n,,,•.,,;K.. , . ,
GSM ER ~.w..,,,r. ~.... -,
_ _. .. .. _
.,
.. ;.
!
.. { r .---.~ ~-------;--. ~
.,
.~ ...: ~... .. ... Apr i l 2 , t 9ft6 ~ ~• ~ ~ . ~. ~ - .,.
~~,f'2 I ~> >'~~~~
l
Town of Newcastle, .
Planning Department. `
ATTENTION: Mr. T.T. Edwards
Dear Sir:
With regards to the application of Veltr; a!~d `c,r. ~`.o have parts of
~ Lot 35, Con. 5, Oarl!ngton Twp. (batter kncrw~n •~<, ~'S.h.~w~;/Newcastle
Towline.
I wish to object to the application for the fnllow!ng reasons:
' Less than a year ago, June 1985, we purchased a ten acre estate lot
which was part of lot 35 (we are ~~~ction D) 'pr thc> sum of $69,000.
with the stipulation that since this was ,~n Est~t~~ Lot we must build
a minimun 2000 square foot house nn r_his lot. As you know this is a
very large house for a couple with only a 21 year old "child" at home.
However, we proceeded with though..*_s of the joys of living in the
country, a small barn, a few h~~ar;~ cif ? ivc~:'oc.k, no heavy traffic
and neighbours close by but not nex~ door. Imagine ar""ter spending this
amount of money and planning to rr~a~~ your dreams come true the disappoint-
ment we feel each time we drive down our road and see a sign applying
for smaller lots d!r-actly to the ~.c::;th of us with nssibilities of the
i!F'iCl,`i.)nUrC nn t?r?;'+~. < :;i~, i,! - ;, r~~ .'r ..'~•. ~ .-!gh` ~C? il)i;dl'J:~1?
U _ .1r. _ '1,. ~. .rt' .. .. ..
11Qh, t0 Shbdl~'lr~" i`ti• , 'l. ,.'' c1r Sd?~? at ;,rC.;t'rl' ,
w. ? ! ,. St}ecula;.c;r :I r ~ .., .. ~~.:ud! !:!:n`,
t'. i .~, <:creaof~ ? n;.., ;} ~ ~ ~ .. .,i+~.. ~.` .:1!; hap[~f[il
to what was a hay i e! d last year a~u; ~1~ .', • ., . ,, :;ur• f uture.
Will we be able to still afford the taxes when we are large property
owners in the middle of a subdivision with the costs that will be
incurred? A short drive down Townline Rd would he self-explanatory
as to what would be required to make this road safe, fora high volume
traffic flow. Next we could envision sidewalks for the children and an
increase in the number of school buses re4uirrd. There would no longer
be room for the people who enjoy r!d!ny the;r h;~r<.<~~; down the road.
Please do not laugh at what 1 wr!te as we all know how many houses
can be build by a bu d der, on t00 acres of land. Even 50 houses are
too many. if this land can be rezoned from "10 Acre Estate Lots" one
year to 2 Acre building lots ten months later, what can we expect in
five years?
f V C
.......2
~ '~-_, _
l ~~ ~ 1
l ~ ~r~l
....2
One more thing to consider is .the water supply. At present our well is
.. adedu~te.fgr us,.but: will there be enough for~ten or possibly..twenty new
Please, let's leave the country for the people who choose to live in the
country and build up the cities for the people who wish to have next-
door neighbours.
As you can see by the attached petition, others in the neighbourhood feel
the same aS we do.
Please, consider this when you are contemplating your decision for Mr. Veltri.
Sincerely,
M~ry.:;nnF~ Vandenheuvel
P~ L Doi l r,r^•
R. P,. l!5
OSHAwA, Unt~;rio
L 1 H 7f~5
' . ~>. ~~. ~.~ kno1,' ~.he h a~, ~ r,; ,!~ l''.!lif (; r'>~ 1 ; lnn.
(,-
rr'
\ ~'h~
Town of Newcastle
Plenning t)epartmenf •
• •~•-THE-UNOERSIGNEO ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OP[NION THAT THE PROPOSAL TO REZONE OR TO
SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOT 35, CONCESSION 5, DARLINGTON TONNSHIP SHOULD NOT
BE APPROVED.
~,_ NAME ADDRESS
,_~___ _ PHONE DATE
}1 . _.. - _; Imo, , ,~ ;; uh'f' /~ /r'~ ~~ ~~ ~ 1/mot i ~/-~ ~ S ~~~s~ .
_ ~ _ ~ • ~~ ~l, y ` ,
~ 6 d' - 1 Sid C`'~4-~
~~~ ~ ;~~ /~~~ 5 olShrt,~~~ ~a ~ ~ ~~ x!/3/8 ~
n .~ - .` ,.
~i (.'li~ti~ Q e 'K-Q
:r•
'~~ C _
' ~ - C~ -~ v
~ n ~~ ~ `
// - ~~---• ~ti_t~._ ~ ; /mot / ~~~ ~~l f-f"% - ' ~ ~ .L .°-1-=..-/ / U'
`~ r
'X
:~5.