Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-23-86 +°,^~ TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT . Fi}� � c� Res. # By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: January 20, 1986 �^ �YK� 8^ REPORT ^ ^ ' ~~� ^ ^ DEV 85-14 SUBJECT: OBJECTION TO BY-LAW NO. 85-125'^ BEING 8 BY-LAW TO REZONE CERTAIN LANDS IN PART OF LOT 31" CONCESSION 5, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON CLERK'S FILE: 60.35.249 PLANNING FILE: OEV 85-14 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully r8cO008OdSd that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: l. THAT Report PD-23-86 be received; and y. THAT the following resolution he adopted by Council and forwarded t0 the Ontario Municipal Board, together with O copy of By-law 85-125; "WHEREAS the Council of the Town Of Newcastle has approved By-law 85-125 to amend Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, being the Town' s Comprehensive Zoning By-law as a result Of their consideration Of an application for such an amendment, submitted by the property owner; AND WHEREAS the effect Of By-law 85-125 was t0 change the I0De designation Of the land SUb'8Ct to By-law 85-125, from "Agricultural Exception (A-l)// t0 "Agricultural Exception (A-6)o Z0D8 to permit the use of the SUb'8Ct lands for a farm implement dealership; AND WHEREAS By-law 85-125 has been approved in conformity with the applicable policies Of the Durham Regional Official Plan; and BE IT NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT the Town Of Newcastle hereby r8qU8St8 the Ontario Municipal Board t0 COOV8Oe any required public hearings in respect Of By-law 85-125 at the earliest possible opportunity" ; and REPORT NO. : PD-23-86 Page 2 3. Furthermore, hereby authorizes Town Staff and/or the Town Solicitor to represent the municipality at any such hearing that may be convened. BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: On May 8, 1985, the Planning Department received an application, submitted by Mr. Walter Rebot, to rezone a parcel of land located in Part of Lot 31, Concession 5, within the former Township of Darlington. The submission of the rezoning application was to permit the development of a farm implement dealership. In accordance with departmental procedures, the proposed rezoning application was circulated to all affected Town Departments and outside agencies for their comments and/or concerns. By correspondence, the Region of Durham Planning Department advised that the site was located within the "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" designation. A farm implement dealership may be permitted within this designation, by local Council , if it is deemed that the proposed facility is compatible with surrounding uses and is not located on productive agricultural lands and, is appropriately zoned. Staff would note for the Committee' s information that, at the General Purpose and Administration Committee of October 21, 1985, Staff Report PD-149-85 was scheduled for the Committee' s consideration. Additionally, a public meeting was scheduled and notification provided to adjacent land owners acknowledging Council ' s intent to consider the rezoning application. At said meeting, on behalf of herself and her husband, Mrs. Lynn Ewtushik, read a written submission for Committee' s consideration. Briefly, their concerns involved the removal of waste from the Rebot property, the hours of operation, and the size and lighting of signs. They indicated furthermore, that they would like an aesthetic barrier erected between their property and all buildings, outdoor storage areas, and parking lots associated with the * proposed business. A copy of the written submission is attached for . . .3 REPORT NO. : PD-23-86 Page 3 Committee' s information. Additionally, Mr. Roy Connelly stated that his concerns were identical . He questioned the possibility of the property being rezoned back at a future date, should this endeavour not succeed. Following due consideration of the Staff Report and the proceedings of the public meeting, Committee endorsed the recommendation as contained within Staff Report PD-149-85. Staff would note for the Committee' s information that Mr. & Mrs. Ewtushik's submission did not state "an objection" to the rezoning, but was a prepared statement submitted for Committee' s consideration respecting their comments and concerns. ". . . .As the owners of the property abutting the southern boundary of the area under consideration for rezoning, I have no direct objection to this rezoning and subsequent establishment of tie business as, and only as described in the application for rezoning; except as follows; . . . . " (underlying as submitted by Mr. Ewtushi Furthermore, it is noted that the five (5) items listed in the statement * ( see attached) , in Staff' s opinion, could and would be included within the provisions of the Site Plan Agreement required pursuant to Section 40 of the Planning Act prior to the establishment of a farm implement dealership and the issuance of any required building permits, pending the approval of the by-law amendment. In consideration of the above, Council , at their meeting of October 28, 1985, approved By-law 85-125. As noted within the Clerk' s circulation letter accompanying a copy of By-law 85-125, any appeals to said by-law must be filed with -the Clerk's Department by December 2, 1985. Staff, by memo dated December 5, 1985, was advised that an appeal was lodged on December 2, * 1985 by Mr. & Mrs. Arthur Ewtushik. (see attached) The applicant has been made aware of the objection filed and advised by Staff to the requirements as noted within Staff Report PD-149-85, that a site plan agreement is required prior to the establishment of a farm implement dealership. Furthermore, the agreement itself was to address the issues raised and provide the necessary means of control . Additionally, the . . .4 REPORT NO. : PD-23-86 Page 4 applicant was advised that should an agreement not be obtainable to the satisfaction of all parties involved, Staff' s support of the zoning may be questionable in consideration of the requirements of the Official Plan. Staff have been advised by the applicant that the services of an Engineering firm have been retained for the preparation of a site plan agreement. In consideration of the above comments, Staff would, therefore, recommend that By-law 85-125 be forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing. Respec bmitted, T.T. Edwards, M.C. I .P. Director of Planning LDT*TTE*jip *Attach. January 8, 1986 cc: Mr. Walter Rebot R.R. #1 HAMPTON, Ontario LOB 1JO cc: Mr. & Mrs. A. Ewtushik R.R. #1 HAMPTON, Ontario LOB 1JO f R.R.#l, Hampton, Ontario, October 18, 1985. To: Members of Council of The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle Re: File: 60.35.249, - Application For a Zoning Change of Part Lot 31, Concession 5, Former Township of Darlington In regard to an application by Walter Rebot requesting rezoning of his property from an "Agricultural (A-1)" to an "Agricultural (A-6)" zone to permit the location and operation of a "Farm Implement" dealership on this property, I submit for your consideration my comments and concerns in this matter. As the owner of the property abutting the southern boundry of the area under consideration for rezoning, I have no di= objection to this rezoning and subsequent establishment of the business as, and only as, described in the application for rezoning,except as follows: 1) I obtain legal assurance from all principals of any business in this location that no waste of any kind infringe upon my property and that in the event of such an occurance all principals as described shall be responsible for immediate removal of this waste and rectification of any degredation of my property as the result of such infringement. 2) 1 obtain a legal assurance from all principals of any business in this location that the conducting of any business beyond the confines of any buildings on that property, will be limited to "normal" working hours. 3) Mr. Rebot erect an esthetic barrier between any and all buildings, outdoor storage areas, parking lots, etc. associated with any business which may be allowed as the result of any re-zoning, and my property. 4) The establishment of any business does not detract from the rural nature of this location. 5)The size and lighting of any signs indicating the location of the business and nature of products sold be limited so as not to detract from the rural nature of this location. It has been my observation and experience that too little is considered as to any future problems which may arise as the result of the establishment of any business in a location previously devoid of same. The intent of any concerns expressed by myself are not to limit or prevent anyone from enjoying free use of their own property, as allowed under existing by-laws. The same APP-lies to all adjoining proper try owners, I fully realize that my concerns may be beyond the scope of the authority of Council to deal with. If this in fact is the case and I do not recieve the assurances requested above, then I have no alternative than to totally object to any rezoning. My objections at this point are based on considerations such as noise generated by the normal operation of this type of business, increased traffic and as a result more noise,possible increased taxes on my property, a possible decrease in the real value of my property, and pollution generated by the operation of this type of business. Arthur Ewtushik Lynne Ewtushik SUBMISSION AT PUBLIC MEETING LETTER OF OBJECTION R.R. #1, Hampton, Ontario, November 29, 1985. To: David W. Oakes, u <• Town Clerk, Corporation of The Town of Newcastle. Re: Zoning By-Law No. 85-125, Your File No. 60.35.249, Sir: Consider this letter as a formal appeal indicating the reasons for our total opposition to the passing of By-law No. 85-125, as follows: Item 1) The area in question lies directly north of and abuts our property. A natural drainage path passes through the rear yard of both properties. This drainage path originates on the east side of Regional Road 34, and is partially diverted via a concrete barrier into a 42 inch culvert under this road.The water passes under the road, in a westerly direction along the north boundary of the subject property for approx. 250 feet, were it turns south into the rear yard of both properties. This drainage path is upstream and considerably upgrade from our property. The drainage path is the extreme low point on both properties. In 1980, the Region of Durham rebuilt Road 34. At that time major disagreement about the natural drainage path existed. Water drainage problems on Road 34 could only be alleviated by diverting water away from the road and into this natural path. The problem was finally resolved by the Region undertaking to upgrade this path to prevent damage to our property, as a result of the increased water flow generated by the diversion. The ensuing water flow resulted in two major washouts of our rear yard before the problem was controlled. During heavy or prolonged rains, this path is impassable by humans on foot. At no time would the Region entertain the idea of altering this path. It was not physically possible nor could it be justified economically. The erection of any new structure or addition to existing is limited by the location of the drainage path, and existing buildings, septic beds, and oil and natural gas pipelines on the subject property. The area available for future construction of buildings, storage areas,parking lots etc. is therefore very limited and would infringe upon this drainage path. As Regional engineering staff deemed it unfeasable to alter this path in the past, it can be noted that it cannot be altered now. Attempting to do so would require an additional engineering study, at considerable cost, the result of which is already known. Item 2) The operation of any business requires people. Sanitary facilities are needed. This will require the installation of a septic system. As mentioned in Item 1), every item borders on the drainage path. High ground water conditions exist to the point that this water migrates to the surface in the subject area. Existing residential septic facilities are already at their limit and any increase in utilization or expansion would result in greater expulsion of fecal bacteria to the surface. The topography of the land allows downstream migration of pollutants. We use our property for personal use gardening and our children play in this area. Increased introduction of pollutants of human or commercial origin will have a detrimental effect. In other words these pollutants have nowhere else to go. We cannot and will not allow this to happen. Item 3) We are concerned that the location of any commercial enterprise in the area will result in decreased property values. Our concern is not without justification. The present assessment structure in place in the Town of Newcastle does not consider probables. That is, the value of property is based on an arbitrary cross section of similiar properties and an average is derived. No consideration is given to the marketability of real estate in relation to assessment. True property value is governed by market conditions e.Q. the buyer's sense of value based on locale and surrounding conditions. Once a property has been assessed, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to re-assess. Would the Town of Newcastle be willing to reduce the assessment of our property if in fact its value did decrease ? We think not. Would anyone associated with the passing of this by-law be willing to relocate next to a commercial site without considering the future? We doubt it. Added value can only be judged if and when we attempt to sell our property. We will not entertain being given the opportunity to find out. Item 4) The purpose of the initial re-zoning request on the part of the applicant is to open a farm implement dealership. One of the pre-requisites required for consideration of the application were letters of intent from various manufacturer's to the applicant indicating their willingness to allow the applicant to promote and sell their products. No such letters were available nor presented at the original hearing. If in fact, this was the case why was the initial hearing allowed to progress ? The present economic state of the farm machinery industry is total chaos. The future of such a venture is therefore an extreme gamble and the possibility of success, considering much more well financed and established dealerships are in trouble, is doubtful. In our discussions and questions to various officials since the original hearing, it has been strongly suggested that once a tract of land has been re-zoned it is much easier to repeat this process leading to"the door has been opened" syndrome, now let's.do what we really wanted in the first place. We feel that this will happen. Item 5) The operation of powered equipment, of tine type proposed, generates a considerable amount of airborne polludon.We are not concerned whether this pollution is of the toxic or just plain nuisance variety. It will exist. The prevailing winds in our area are from the north west. The wind will carry any and all airborne pollution directly from the applicant's property, to our residence. It will happen and has happened due to previous activities on the part of the applicant. Noise is also a major concern and needs no further explanation at this time. Item 6) This item is addressed directly to members of council who sat in on the original hearing. No malice is intended. It is an expression of our opinion on how we viewed the entire process. Since moving to this location some 7 years ago, We have expended considerable time and personal effort to improve our property in order to make it more useable. To dispel any argument in our case about"outsiders" moving into the Town of Newcastle to the detriment of long time residents, consider the following: Of the ten acres on our property, approx. 2 acres was a virtual swamp, 7 acres was non-productive, and the remainder contains our residence. To date, the "swamp" has been reclaimed and turned into a garden and the "non-productive" land is being used by a local farmer to grow cash crops. The only result of our efforts has been increased taxes, the increase amounting to approx. 135 %. We are also including with this letter, a copy of the statement which was read at the original hearing. It now appears to us that presentation of our concerns at this hearing was a wasted effort. Although a copy of this statement was left with the recording secretary,no person present asked for or indicated that this statement be retained for consideration prior to passing of this by-law. Further, we have since been informed that our concerns should have been on file prior to the hearing. This was to allow Town staff to prepare a report on this application. If the report was generated initially without any hint of opposition, we feel that the issue may have been decided beforehand. At the original hearing, 2 parties voiced opposition to this re-zoning. No one other than the applicant supported this action. Of the total number of residents in the immediate area who are directly affected, only 2 chose to participate. The remainder chose to ignore the situation. They were given the opportunity but neither supported nor opposed re-zoning. As a result, there is only total opposition to this re-zoning on the part of all who chose to participate. What concerns and facts must be expressed and by how many affected citizens before action is taken by council ? We suggest that the entire hearing process be restructured in a format that would explain the method of approach to the presentation of agreement or opposition to any such application. In conclusion, we state that there are many valid reasons against and none for the passing of this by-law. An existing commercialized area would be more applicable to this business venture. We are directly affected by the passing of this by-law, physically and economically and are totally opposed, without exception, to the passing of same. Lynne Ewtushik \ Arthur Ewtushik / r� THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE BY-LAW NUMBER b5- 125 beiny a by-law to amend by-law 84-63, the Comprehensive Zoning by-law of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle. WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle deems it advisable to amend 8y-law 84-b3, as amended, of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle enacts as follows: I ' 1. Schedule "1" to 8y-law 84-63, as amendea, is hereby further amended by changing the zone designation from "Agricultural Exception (A-1)" to "Agricultural Exception (A-b)" zone as shown on the attached Schedule "X" hereto. 2. This by-law shall come into effect on the date of passing hereof, subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act. 8Y-LAW read a first time this 28th day of October 1985 8Y-LAW read a second time this 28th day of October 1985 8Y-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 28th day of October 1yb5, MAYO RK i I I • I • -law 85- 125 This is Schedule "X" to By , passed this 28t1, day of October , y 9$5 A.D. LOT 31 I i — �O 10 i 1 1 # � 396•203 ' n N TI°37'00"E ' 3046--/ N 71°36'00°E , CONCESSION 5 1 0 'N ,O j S.E.ANGLE—\� LOT 31,CON.6(I T I ® ZONE CHANGE TO "A-6 " % " o ze oo Iw IDOp � ��:• Mayor 20" ° Clerk 135 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 SEE 1 EP 3CNEOULE '4' 1 , l]OLINAI , EP 1 SUBJE T' TE ' W) '� ' 1 1 q•I; 0 A� � A-I _ Z O 'A 1 U ! 11 Ac � ][E i + A'' I EP ; ; z 1 1 1 0 , � a I I 1 I � 33 1 q i A' �A'�i i PP , Z l i 7 A-6 1 ( ' 1 0 r 1 I ' EP p A tP 1 1 I , !J IA 1 _ _ t 1 1 I , 0 t50 S00 DOOM Former Township of DARLINGTON $0000 'r BY-LAW 85-125 PURPOSE AND EFFECT The Purpose and Effect of By-law 85-125, is to amend Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended, of the Town of Newcastle by changing the zone designation of the lands identified by Schedule "X" hereto from "Agricultural (A-1 )" to "Agricultural (A-6)". The subject By-law would permit the use of the subject lands for a farm implement dealership.