HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-51-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
' REPORT File # p j:�
Res. #
By-Law #
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: March 3, 1986
REPORT #: PD-51-86 FILE #; DEV 85-37
SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - MICHALSKI
PART LOT 15, CONCESSION 6, DARLINGTON
OUR FILE: DEV 85-37
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-51-86 be received; and
2. THAT application for rezoning of Part of Lot 15, Concession 6, former Township of
Darlington, submitted by Mr. Paul Coath, agent, on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Michalski ,
to permit the development of a Node/Cluster, be denied without prejudice.
BACKGROUND:
On November 5, 1985, the Planning Department received an application, submitted by Mr.
Paul Coath, agent, on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Michalski , to rezone a parcel of land located
* in Part of Lot 15, Concession 6, former Township of Darlington (see attached) . The
purpose of the submission of the rezoning application was to permit the development of
additional lot(s) within a Node or Cluster.
Within the Regional Official Plan, the subject property is designated "General
Agricultural ". New non-farm residential uses are generally discouraged within this
designation. However, Section 10.2.1.2 of the Durham Plan stipulates that a limited
number of dwellings may be allowed in the form of infilling with the "General
Agricultural " area if it is deemed desirable by the respective area municipality and it is
. . .2
r1✓
REPORT NO. : PD-51-86 Page 2
recognized in the Zoning By-law.
Staff would note for the Committee' s information that, 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. Staff would note that, resulting from the filing of the
application, three (3) adjacent property owners requested further
clarification of Staff with respect to the intention of the application.
Staff will expand upon their comments further, within said report.
In accordance with departmental procedures, the application was circulated
to obtain comments from other departments and agencies as noted in Staff
Report PD-183-85. Staff would note that the Town of Newcastle Fire
Department and Building Department offered no objection to the application
as filed.
The Durham Regional Health Unit, in responding, noted that the application
for rezoning had been investigated and, insofar as health matters were
concerned, there were no objections to its approval . Further clarification
was offered, however, noting that this was not to be taken as a permit to
install a private sewage disposal system at the site involved. The required
permit will be issued only after a proper inspection of the lands involved
has been made and said inspection carried out upon receipt of a formal
application.
The Region of Durham Planning Department provided the following response:
"Further to your request for comments we note that the subject
site is designated "General Agricultural " in the Durham Official
Plan. New non-farm residential uses are generally discouraged
within this designation. However, Section 10.2.1.2 of the Durham
Plan stipulates that a limited number of dwellings may be allowed in
the form of infilling within the "General Agricultural " area if it
is deemed desirable by the Council of the respective area
municipality and is recognized in the Zoning By-law. Infilling is
defined in Section 10.2.1.4 of the Durham Plan as . . . . "situations
.. .3
REPORT NO. : PD-51-86 Page 3
where one or more non-farm residential dwellings are located
between two buildings located on the same side of a public road and
within a distinct node or cluster of non-farm residential dwellings
in such a manner as not to contribute to strip or ribbon development
and subject to such a node or cluster being identified in the
respective zoning by-laws."
From our review of land uses in the area, it appears that proposed
residential uses along Cedar Park Road frontage of the subject
property would meet the infilling criteria as defined in the Durham
Regional Plan, whereas proposed residential uses along the 6th
Concession Road frontage, would not."
The Town of Newcastle Works Department, in reviewing the application,
indicated no objections to the proposal subject to the following comments:
"1. That the Owner contributes to the upgrading of Cedar Park Road to
the satisfaction of the Works Department.
2. That the Owner provides street illumination for the proposed lots.
3. That the Owner provides a lot grading and drainage plan for the
proposed lots.
4. That the Owner provides any ditching on Cedar Park Road that may be
required as a result of their grading and drainage plan.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in responding, noted that a mink ranch
was located on the south side of the 6th Concession Road frontage,
immediately abutting a portion of the 10 acre lot. Accordingly, it was
noted that, pursuant to the Agriculture Code of Practice, the calculated
minimum separation distrance from the agricultural operation, being the
area/arc of influence was 111 metres (367 feet) . This separation distance
would impose an impact on the frontage of the 10 acre parcel on the north
side of the 6th Concession Road.
COMMENTS:
As noted briefly, three (3) adjacent property owners, one being the owner
and operator of the mink farm, requested, of Staff, further clarification of
the rezoning application. In discussing Mr. Michalski ' s request with each
individual , the following concerns were made apparent:
. . .4
REPORT NO. : PD-51-86 Page 4
1. The potential impact of such a rezoning, on the adjacent lots . . . .
i .e., the potential number of lots through subsequent rezoning
applications and severance procedures.
2. The impact of services; i .e. , wells and septic systems individually and
collectively for the immediately surrounding area. . . . additionally in
consideration of the natural southern drainage of the lands north of the
6th Concession.
Within the Town' s Criteria for identifying rural nodes and clusters, a
node/cluster is defined as an area of rural , non-farm related residential
development which exhibits similar lot characteristics and contains 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 would note for the Committee' s consideration that the predominant lot
size, along Cedar Park Road, is ten (10) acre parcels. Staff would note
that along the west side of Cedar Park Road, five (5) ten acre lots and a
twenty-seven (27) acre lot exists. Additionally, along the east side of
Cedar Park Road are five (5) ten acre lots. Staff would note that on each
of the lots as noted, a single family dwelling exists.
The Michalski property, similar to the surrounding lots, is ten acres in
size, however, fronts on both Cedar Park Road and the 6th Concession.
Located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cedar Park Road and
the 6th Concession, are three (3) lots each ranging in size from .344 acres
to .517 acres. The most westerly lot ( .344 acres - 100 foot frontage) is
presently vacant.
Staff would note that a building permit would be entertained upon submission
of same for said lot inasmuch as the property is held under distinct and
separate ownership from adjacent lands.
It is Staff' s opinion that, given due consideration of the comments received
and the Town' s Criteria for identifying rural nodes and clusters, the
proposed rezoning would not be appropriate. Within the Criteria, is stated
. . .5
REPORT NO. : PD-51-86 Page 5
"for the purposes of this policy, rural nodes or clusters are defined as
areas of rural non-farm related residential development which exhibit
similar lot characteristics..."
As Staff noted previously, the majority of lots abutting Cedar Park Road and
the 6th Concession are ten acres in size with the exception of the three (3)
lots at the northwest corner of said intersection.
It is Staff' s opinion that the creation of lots along Cedar Park Road would
not be consistent, in character and size, with the existing lots. Using the
"RC" zoning provisions of By-law 84-63 (minimum frontage of 30 metres - area
of 3,000 square metres) and dependent upon the exact location of each home
on each of the present 10 acre lots, the potential "redevelopment" of the
area would increase by approximately 20 lots. As Committee is, no doubt,
aware, a submission of a development of similar size through the procedure
of draft plan approval , would require the submission of the appropriate
technical information which would provide further clarification as to the
effect or influence of additional services (wells and septic systems) on the
existing development.
Notwithstanding the comments of the Region of Durham Planning Department and
prior to the receipt of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food comments,
Staff, in reviewing the proposal in consideration of the Node/Cluster
Criteria, could only concur in principle with the possible development of
additional lots to the west of the three (3) existing lots on the north side
of the 6th Concession. However, upon receipt of the Ministry of Agriculture
and Food comments, it was determined that this portion of the Michalski
property is within the arc of influence as calculated for the mink farm
operation on the south side of the 6th Concession. Furthermore, Staff would
draw to the Committee' s attention that, within By-law 84-63, Section 3.19
(c) states that a non-farm related residential building shall not be located
within 300 metres of an existing agricultural building housing livestock,
located on an adjacent lot.
. . .6
REPORT NO. : PD-51-86 Page 6
In consideration of the above-noted comments and concerns, it is Staff's
opinion that the approval of the rezoning application as submitted would not
be in compliance with the present Town Policies. Accordingly, Staff is not
in a position to support said application.
Respec ubmitted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P.
Director of Planning
LDT*TTE*j i p
*Attach.
February 14, 1986
cc: Coath, Livingstone & Johnston
Barristers & Solicitors
P.O. Box 327
101 Dundas Street West
WHITBY, Ontario
L1N 5S4
Mr. M. Michalski
R.R. #1
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K2
Mr. Timothy Coffey
R.R. #1
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K2
Mr. Eric Eckl
R.R. #1
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K2
LOT 15 LOT 14
co
300m(1000')LIMIT
BY-LAW 84-63—� Z
r C�)
--
0
/ 4.051 ha. Q C6
(10-010 ac.) (n
/ w
/ EXISTING HOUSE-} \
[a Z O 0
/Illm(367')LIMIT
AG,and FOOD �� `
CONCESSION ROAD S
EXISTING
MINK FARM —�
LOT 16 LOT 15 LOT \14
27 ac,
t0
10 ac.
10 ac. f 0 ac z
O
10 ac N
10 ac. 10 ac'.
10 ac W
100C. 10 ac. V
z
SUBJECT O
10 ac. SITE— 10 ac. V
10 ac.
10 ac. 10 ac.
•
MINK
FARM
U)
z
V
TOWN of NEWCASTLE Forme!!X TOWNSHIP of DARLINGTON