HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-195-88 DN: 195-88 REPORT #3
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
File #
Res. # �t
---- By-Law #
MEETING: Council
DATE: Monday, September 26, 1988
REPORT #: PD-195-88 FILE #: LD 520/88
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE DECISION
APPLICANT: JOHN HOOEY
PART LOT 10, B.F.C., FORMER TWP. OF CLARKE
FILE: LAND DIVISION LD 520/88
I
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-195-88 be received; and
2. THAT Land Division Committee's decision on LD 520/88 (John Hooey) be
appealed as the conditions of approval as requested by Town were not
incorporated in the decision, and the proposed land severance does not
conform to the Town's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63; and
3. THAT the appeal and a copy of the Report be forwarded to the Secretary-
Treasurer of the Land Division Committee on or before September 28, 1988.
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 On August 3, 1988, copies of Land Division Application LD 520/88 were
received by Staff for review and comment for Land Division Committee's
consideration at its meeting on August 29, 1988.
1.2 The application involves the severance of a 4.5 acre lot containing an
existing dwelling and barn from a 100 + acre parcel of land located in
Lot 10, Broken Front Concession, former Township of Clarke (see
attached sketch) . The retained land will be consolidated with the
abutting farm to the east.
. . .2
REPORT NO. : PD-195-88 PAGE 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CONFORMITY WITH OFFICIAL PLAN:
2.1 The subject property is designated "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" in
the Durham Regional Official Plan which does not permit non-farm
residential uses save and except for farm related severances or
infilling within a rural cluster zone. The proposed severance was
submitted under the provisions of a farm related severance (surplus
dwelling) .
2.2 Town Planning Staff would note that Section 11.2.6(b) of the Durham
Regional Official Plan states that farm-related severances are
permitted in the following situation:
"(b) For an existing farmhouse from a farm, which farm is to be
acquired for farm consolidation purposes subject that such
a use is not needed for a farm employee's dwelling or as a
farmer's retirement dwelling."
2.3 It is noted that the Official Plan is silent as to whether or not a
barn can be kept in conjunction with a dwelling on the same lot.
3. CONFORMITY WITH ZONING BY-LAW:
The subject property is zoned "Agricultural Exception (A-1)" and
"Environmental Protection (EP)" in the Town's Comprehensive Zoning
By-law 84-63, as amended. The By-law would allow the existing
dwelling to be considered as non-farm residential use. However, the
retention of the barn within the same lot would not be permitted.
4. COMMENTS:
4.1 Town Planning Staff, in their comments to the Land Division Committee,
advised that the proposal to retain the barn on the severed lot does
not conform to the Zoning By-law and requested the removal of the barn
from the severed lot.
. . .3
'
REPORT 0O. : PD-195-88 PAGE 3
_______________________________________________________________________________
4.2 The Laud Division Committee decision made no reference to the Town's
conditions as provided, specifically the request for the removal of
the non-residential structures; in this instance, the barn.
4.3 The Ministry of Agriculture and Fond advises Staff that, since the
barn and the dwelling are located on the same lot, it would not comply
with the FoodIaod Guidelines. In addition, the Ministry also expressed
concern as to eventual uses of the barn and conpatabiIity with the
aucDloo dwelling.
4.4 The decision of the Laud Division Committee has in effect, created an
/
illegal non-conformity use. In circumstances such as this, the future
owner of this lot will have difficulty in securing mortgage financing.
4.5 Staff is of the opinion that it would be to the beat interest of the
applicant to pursue rezoning mud, if and when Council is satisfied
that the retention of the barn is justified through the rezoning
process, the appeal can be withdrawn.
' 5. RECOMMENDATION:
In view of the above comments, it is therefore prudent that an appeal
' be lodged by the Town against the decision of the Laud Division
Committee.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the ite
_
-------------------------- '-r _�_ - ------------------
Franklin Wu Lawrenc Rotaeff
Director of Planning & Development Cbief jm8uiotcative Officer
IJ}T*FW* '±p
*Attach.
9aDtenA»ec IS, 1988
HOUSE HOUSE
CONCESSION ROAD I
0
HOUSE Q
O
Ir 104 m
z z
BARN
LOT 10
BARN
E BROKEN FRONT
CONCESSION
SHED CLARKE TOWNSHIP
WELL O SLOPE ?-
rl GARAGE
F] HOUSE
z z
104 m
Q
J
m
i
I
L.D. 520-88
i