Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-16-94THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CARRINGTON Subject: REZONING APPLICATION - WAYNE CHASRAVICH PART LOT 24, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON FILE: DEV 93 -005 (REVISED) Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD -16 -94 be received; 2. THAT the revised application to amend Comprehensive Zoning By -law 84 -63 of the former Town of Newcastle, submitted by Wayne Chaskavich be referred back to staff for further processing; 3. THAT the interested parties listed in this report and any delegation be advised of Council's decision. 1. APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 Applicant: Wayne Chaskavich 1.2 Owners: Various 1.3 Rezoning: Original Proposal: From Agricultural (A) to an appropriate zone or zones in order to permit the development of one (1) additional single family dwelling lot through the consent process. 1.4 Revised Proposal: The revised proposal affects several parcels of land totalling 4.44 hectares (10.97 acres) located at south -east corner of Highway #2 and Solina Road but is more formally described as Part Lot 24, Concession 2, in the former Township of Darlington. PAPER° ECYCnt THIS IS PRIMED W RECYCLED PAPER REPORT NO.: PD -16 -94 PAGE 2 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 On February 26, 1993, the Planning and Development Department received an application to amend Zoning By -law 84 -63 in order to permit the development of one (1) additional single family dwelling lot through the consent process. 2.2 A Public Meeting was held on May 3, 1993 at which time the applicant's solicitor addressed Committee in order to answer any questions the Committee may have had. Although no other area resident addressed Committee at the Public Meeting, staff did receive one (1) telephone inquiry from an abutting property owner who requested more detailed information regarding the proposal. 2.3 On Monday, September 13, 1993, Council resolved to refer the application back to staff following a recommendation of denial from the Planning and Development Department. Staff noted that in order for the proposal to be considered, Council would need to be satisfied that the subject property and the surrounding properties formed a rural cluster. Subsequently, the applicant revised the application to include several adjacent existing dwellings to make up a rural cluster in order to facilitate the creation of one (1) lot within the cluster. 3. PUBLIC NOTICE 3.1 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. In addition, the appropriate notice was mailed to each landowner within the prescribed distance and staff included a letter of explanation to those owners of the subject lands. 3.2 As a result of the public notification process, the Planning and Development Department has not received any written submissions or inquiries with respect to the proposal. t i` REPORT NO.: PD -16 -94 PAGE 3 4. OFFICIAL PLAN CONFORMITY 4.1 Within the 1991 Durham Regional Official Plan, the subject property is designated Major Open Space. The 1991 Regional Official Plan discourages the development of new non -farm rural residential dwellings within the Major Open Space designation. However, the 1991 Regional Official Plan does permit the creation of new non- farm rural residential dwelling lots on an infilling basis between two (2) existing dwellings in a rural cluster recognized in the zoning by -law. Therefore, the creation of the proposed lot could be considered to be in conformance with the 1991 Regional Official Plan if Council were to pass an implementing zoning by -law recognizing the existing cluster. 5. ZONING BY -LAW COMPLIANCE 5.1 Within Comprehensive Zoning By -law 84 -63, as amended, of the former Town of Newcastle, the subject properties are zoned Agricultural (A) which requires a minimum of 100 metres of lot frontage and 40 hectares of lot area for newly created lots. As the applicant intends to recognize the existing rural cluster in order to facilitate the creation of a new lot on an infilling basis, the applicant has applied to amend the zoning by -law accordingly. 6. AGENCY COMMENTS 6.1 In accordance with departmental procedures, the application has been circulated in order to obtain comments from other departments and agencies. The following provides a brief synopsis of the comments received. 6.2 The Regional Health Department reviewed the application in April of 1993 and recommended denial. However, upon further review and consultation with the applicant, the Regional Health Department has advised that they have no objections to the proposal. 6.3 The Ministry of Transportation reviewed the application in May of 1993 and noted that it appeared that there was insufficient room in order to accommodate an entrance onto Solina Road due to an earlier J0 REPORT NO.: PD -16 -94 PAGE 4 widening by the Ministry. Therefore, the Ministry objected to the proposal. However, after reviewing more detailed drawings prepared by the applicant, the Ministry has advised that they no longer object to the proposal. 6.4 The Ministry of Agriculture and Food advise that they have no objections to the application. However, the Ministry notes that a letter of "no objection" does not indicate support for the application and the Ministry further acknowledges that other agencies may have planning concerns. 6.5 The Municipality of Clarington Public Works Department has no objection to the proposal subject to the applicant providing a lot grading and drainage plan satisfactory to the Director of Public Works. 6.6 The Municipality of Clarington Community Services Department has no objection to the proposal subject to the applicant providing 5% cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication with the funds realized being credited to the Parkland Reserve Account. 6.7 The only other agencies to provide comments with respect to the proposal were the Municipality of Clarington Fire Department and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. Neither of these agencies provided objectionable comments with respect to the proposal. The Regional Planning Department has yet to respond to the revised circulation. 7. STAFF COMMENTS 7.1 In consideration of the comments contained within the report and in consideration of the outstanding comments, it would be in order to have the application referred back to staff for further processing. 10 REPORT NO.: PD -16 -94 PAGE 5 Respectfully submitted, a t, Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning and Development WM *FW *df 8 February 1994 Attachment #1 - Key Map Attachment #2 - Survey Recommended for presentation to the Committee Mw�ie Marano, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Interested parties to be notified of Council and Committee's decision: Wayne Chaskavich 61 Prospect Avenue Bowmanville, Ontario. L1C 3G9 L - * 1 t �1 LOT 24, CONCESSION 2 J � _ 0 a 0 a z_ J O HIGHWAY N2 R _USTER