The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD-18-89 DN: 16 5 (d) TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File # Res. By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: MONDAY JANUARY 23, 1989 REPORT #: PD-18-89 FILE #: SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - DR. HAROLD ANFOSSI PART LOT 15, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON OUR FILE: DEV 88-107 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-18-89 be received; and 2. THAT the application submitted by David Sims Q.C. on behalf of Dr. Harold Anfossi, to rezone a 4.047 hectare parcel to permit the creation of one non-farm residential lot be DENIED, and, 3. THAT the applicant and the applicant's agent be so advised. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 On October 14, 1988 the Planning and Development Department received an application submitted by David Sims Q.C. on behalf of Dr. Harold Anfossi to rezone a 4.047 hectare parcel from "Agricultural (A)" and Environmental Protection (EP)" to permit the creation of a 1.137 hectare parcel from a 4 hectare parcel containing an existing dwelling. . . .2 REPORT NO. : PD-18-89 PAGE 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.2 The subject property is located on the east aide of Gaud Road, south of the road allowance between Concessions 2 and 3, also known as 0aob Road. Staff would note, however, that 0aab Road is an opened road allowance west of Gaud Road, but closed to the east of Gaud Road. 2. OFFICIAL PLAN CONFORMITY 2.1 The subject lands are designated as "Major Open Space" and '`8mzacd Lmudon in the Durham Regional Official Plan. The Regional Official Plan states that the predominant use of lands under this designation shall be for agricultural and farm related uses. The Plan also states that the development of new non-farm residential uses shall be discouraged within this designation unless such development proceeds in the form of iufiIliug between existing residential dwellings and provided that such development is recognized as a Residential Node or Cluster in the local municipality's Zoning By-law. The official Plan prohibits any type of development in the Hazard Land designation. ]. PUBLIC NOTICE 3.1 Staff would note for the Committee's information that, pursuant to Council's resolution of July 26, 1982 and the requirements of the Planning AnLv the appropriate aiguage acknowledging the application was installed on the subject lands. 4. CIRCULATION 4.1 In accordance with departmental procedures the application was circulated to obtain comments from other departments and agencies. Staff would note the following departments/agencies, in providing comments, offered no objection to the application as filed: Town of Newcastle Fire Department Ministry of Agriculture and Food Durham Regional Health Services. "fL 7�m) REPORT 00. : PD-18-89 PAGE 3 _______________________________________________________________________________ 4.2 The Town of Newcastle Community Services Department requested that the aDDIiaut pay 5% cash in lieu of parkland dedication. 4.3 The Town of Newcastle Public Works Department in their review of the application noted an objection to the application aioom there appears to be no legal or physical means of ancaoo to the proposed lot. Through a site investigation, Public Works Staff noted that the grade at Gaud Road is very steep and therefore, access to property may not be possible from Gaud Road. the 0aob Road frontage is an unopened road allowance and is designated as a Type ''B" Arterial Road in the official Plan. Until this road is opened, there appears no possible aooeoo to the property. 4.4 The Ministry of Natural Be000coea offered no objection to the creation of one lot, however request that the lands currently zoned as "Environmental Protection" by By-law 84-63 remain as such. In addition, the owner/applicant moot obtain written authorization from the Ministry prior to alterations of the 8nvonauville Creek, as per the requirements of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. 4.5 The Durham Regional DIauuiug Department noted that the proposal cannot be defined as a "Cluster" as noted in Section I0.2.1.3, therefore does not conform. 4.6 Staff nmoId note for the Committee's information that comments are still outstanding from the following agencies: Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority. 5. COMMENTS 5.1 Staff have reviewed the application with regards to the provisions of the Regional Official Plan. Within this document there are policies to delineate a Cluster or Node. Accordingly, a Cluster or =/J \ J( ^^ ' REPORT 0D. : pD-18-89 PAGE 4 _______________________________________________________________________________ Node must be definable as m separate entity so as not to be considered a otc' or scattered development. The entire Cluster must be recognized in the local planning documents. Once defined no further extensions may be permitted, however, minor extensions may be permitted. In addition, the existing group of dwellings must be on relatively small lots and new Clusters may not be located on Provincial Highways or Type "All Arterial Roads. Finally, the development within the cluster must be compatible with surrounding uses and conform with the agricultural code of practice. 5.3 Dpnu examination of the site and the situation of the homes on adjacent Iota, it could be construed that one (I) additional home would not be unreasonable and that in fact, m Cluster can be identified in the area. However, the actual size of the parcels in the area are substantially large, a 47 aoca parcel to the north, 20 acre parcel to the south and a 8 acre parcel to the west. Given this, and the criteria in the Durham Regional official Plan requiring all lots be of 4 hectares or less, cannot be complied with. 5.3 In addition to the Public Works Department comments, it would appear that the only suitable area for the construction of a dwelling is not aoceaible by opened public road; that being the closed road allowance between Concessions 3 and 3. 6 RECOMMENDATION 6.1 In view of the above circumstances, Staff has no alternative but to recommend that this rezoning application not be approved. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee ` -------------------------- T-7---- ----------------- Franklin Wu, yY.C.I.P. wren �otmeff Director of Planning 6 Development Chief A��{6iatrative Officer 7' CRV*FW*oz *Attach. January 13' 1989 cfJ. ��v`> REPORT 00. : PD-18-89 PAGE 5 _______________________________________________________________________________ 0C: David Sims, O.C. v Sims Brady McMackin Barristers and Solicitors 117 King Street P.O. 8mo 358 WHITBY, Ontario Ll0 534 Dc. Harold &ofVooi R.R. # 3 B0WQA0VILL8, Ontario LlC 3K4 LOT 16 LOT 1.5 LOT 14 LOT 13 NASH R0V■ : CONCESSION ROAD 3 i ■ ' i .N i � ■ „Z O ' V) B0WMANVILLE ' 'V11. , i , o : :Z o ' :O , o ' W W cr. ' OC , CONCESSION STREET EAST- ' SUBJECT SITE