HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-201-84 4
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1J0 TEL.(416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 1984
REPORT NO. : PD-201-84
SUBJECT: LD 71/84 and LD 72/84
PT.LT. 29, CONC. 4, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the
following :
1 . That Report PD-201-84 be received; and
2. That Staff take no further action relative to
decisions LD 71/84 and LD 72/84.
I
i
i1
REPORT NO. : PD-201-84 Page 2
BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS:
Applications LD 71 /84 and LD 72/84 were received by Staff
for review on February 6, 1984. The purpose of the
applications as noted on the application forms was "to
adjust boundary lines , giving land-locked rear lands
access." The comments prepared by Staff, to the Land
Division Committee dealing with conformity to Official Plan
policies , were as follows :
CONFORMITY WITH OFFICIAL PLAN
"The subject lands are designated "Permanent Agricultural
Reserve" and "Environmentally Sensitive" by the Region of
Durham Official Plan. The Regional Plan stipulates that the
predominant use of lands under the Permanent Agricultural
Reserve landuse designation shall be for agricultural and
farm-related purposes. The proposed boundary realignment
would create a situation whereby the applicant could
possibly obtain building permits for two (2) separate single
family dwellings instead of the present situation of
possibly receiving one building permit. As a result, the
applicant would be using the separate parcels of land for
non-farm related residential purposes.
Staff' s general interpretation of a request for a boundary
realignment would apply in a situation whereby no additional
building lots are being created as a result of such
severance and generally, where an applicant is wanting to
enlarge an existing agricultural or residential parcel of
land having an existing structure located theron.
With respect to frontage requirements, Staff note that the
present 7.8 acre parcel of land is fronting on a Type 'A'
arterial road, Regional Road No. 34, which at present,
provides for the possibility of limiting the number of
access points to one (1 ) . The approval of applications LD
71/84 and LD 72/84 thereby creating an additional building
lot and having frontage on Regional Road No. 34 would be in
conflict with Section 16.9.11 of the Regional Official Plan
which stipulates that the creation of lots fronting on
arterial roads shall be discouraged. In addition, Section
13.2.14 of the Regional Plan stipulates that a maximum
number of private accesses onto a Type 'A' arterial road
shall be limited to two (2) access points per side per mile
...3
i
I
REPORT NO. : PD-201-84 Page 3
in rural areas. Staff note that Registered Plan 637
(registered in 1954) consists of eleven (11 ) single family
dwellings which abutt the lands in question, having
individual accesses on to Regional Road No. 34.
Since the proposed boundary realignment would ultimately
create an additional building lot in a "Permanent
Agricultural Reserve" landuse designation , Staff do not
consider the subject application to be in conformity with
the policies of the Region of Durham Official Plan.
We note that the application has been forwarded to the
Regional Planning Staff for review. Where there is a
conflict regarding interpretation of the Official Plan, the
Regional Planning Staff' s comments shall prevail ."
i
It was also noted that the subject lands are located in the
vicinity of Farewell Creek and that there is a large portion
of the designated floodlands on the parcels of land involved
with this application.
In that regard, confirmation from the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources
and the Durham Regional Health Unit , on whether or not
buildings would be restricted in this particular area, was
requested.
i
Staff would note that the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority in reviewing the application noted, that in
consideration of their policies and regulations , the
Conservation Authority could not support the approval of
applications LD 71/84 and LD 72/84.
Staff recommendations within the Land Division comments
noted denial due to the non-conformity with the Region of
Durham Official Plan policies.
. . .4
REPORT NO. : PD-201-84 Page 4
The Land Division Committee, at their February 27, 1984,
moved "That application LD 71 /84 and LD 72/84 be tabled for
two (2) months to enable the applicants to contact the Town
of Newcastle Planning Department, the Region of Durham
Planning Department and the Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority." Subsequently, at the Land Division
meeting held on April 16, 1984, applications LD 71/84 and LD
72/84 were tabled for a further two (2) month period at the
request of the applicant' s solicitor, at which time a
decision would be made.
The above-noted applications were scheduled to be heard at
the June 25, 1984 Land Division Committee meeting. Mr.
Laskowsky, Solicitor, on behalf of the applicants, advised
Committee that the application dealt with an abnormal
situation and that the children of Mr. V. Coscarella owned a
land-locked parcel and wished to adjust the lot lines
between their property and their father's, in order to have
access to their property. The Committee noted that part of
the lands was Hazard Lands , as such the creation of a new
building lot did not conform with the Durham Regional
Official Plan. The Committee moved "That applications LD
71 /84 and LD 72/84 be denied as such would not conform to
the policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan".
The decisions of the Land Division Committee have been
appealed by the applicants. Notice of a hearing date has
been received from the Ontario Municipal Board - January 21 ,
1985. Following discussions with Regional personnel , it is
Staff's understanding that the Region of Durham will be in
attendance at the hearing in defence of the Regional
Official Policies. Furthermore, it is Staff's understanding
that the Region has requested the Conservation Authority's
...5
REPORT NO. : PD-201-84 Page 5
attendance in support of the Official Plan policies and the
environmental aspects of the property.
Staff would note for Committee' s information that, following
the decision of the Land Division Committee, Zoning By-law
84-63 wa approved. No objections to the zoning
("A-1 "-Agricultural Exception (A-1 ) Zone) proposed and
approved, pertaining to the subject lands, was received
pursuant to the circulation of By-law 84-63.
Section 6.2(a) - Regulations for residential uses states
. ...residential buildings and structures on lots which are
created by severance in accordance with Durham Regional
Official Plan, shall comply with the zone requirements set
out in Section 9.2 (Residential Hamlet). Staff would note
that the subject lands would comply with the provisions of
Section 9.2.
Accordingly, it is Staff' s opinion that Staff's preparing
for and appearance at such a hearing would not be warranted
in consideration of the Region's position re: the Official
Plan and policies thereof.
Respectful d,
° T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
r
Director of Planning
LDT*TTE*jip
December 5, 1984
i
AREA OF PROPOSED SITE
LOT LOT LOT, LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT
35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24
to
'Ad Ad '
EP I I i 44
A REGI NAL N�4
RC ; ' C61 (n r
SEE
I SCHEDULE 16' o
d I (MITCHELLS CORNERS) 0 I I
1
E IA-� , ,
Z^ A ; w I i EP
z ' i EP I I 1
I X
tNn o I n I I
W` Ov I I i
EF
U A-8 I
EP A I A EP I I I A
I i
t I
A '
1 '
1 I
M
Z
A-5
O I
v �
' M ;
f I
SEE �v i EPi
SCHEDULE 14, �A
(COURTICE)
1 A
2 IOOOm
KAY MAP �„ ,00
i