The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD-161-85 i u_ Cgs TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File # ��>,' r Res. # �. By-Law # (SING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: November 4, 1985 REPORT #: PD-161-85 FILE #: DEV 85-29 and Pln. 30.5 SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - DAVID SHEVCHUK PART LOT 27, CONCESSION 2, DARLINGTON OUR FILES: DEV 85-29 and PLN 30.5 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. THAT Report PD-161-85 be received; and 2. THAT an application submitted by Mr. David Shevchuk to rezone a parcel of land in Part of Lot 27, Concession 2, .former Township of Darlington to permit the development of Node/Cluster, be received and referred to Staff for processing and a subsequent report and public hearing. 1 REPORT NO. : PD-161-85 Page 2 U q J J BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: At its meeting of September 23, 1985, Council received a pesentation from Mr. D. Shevchuk in respect of Nodes and Clusters. Mr. Shevchuk * submitted the attached brief in support of his presentation. As a result of Council 's consideration, the following resolution was passed. "THAT the delegation of Mr. Shevchuk be acknowledged and that Staff address and prepare a subsequent report regarding the questions and concerns raised by Mr. Shevchuk re: strip development, and the Nodes/Cluster Policy." The issue of nodes/clusters and their designation in the Town's Zoning By-law was first raised formally as a result of the Town' s consideration of an Official Plan amendment submitted by Mr. M. Pedwell . As a result of Council 's consideration of that application, the Region of Durham was requested to review the provisions of the Regional Plan relative to nodes and clusters. In addition, Town Staff prepared, for Council ' s approval , a policy in respect of nodes/clusters. Said policy to form the basis for assessing individual proposals for rezoning and was based upon criteria utilized by Staff in preparation of the Town' s Comprehensive Zoning By-law. This policy statement was forwarded to the Region of Durham for their consideration as part of the requested policy review. On November 13, 1984 the Regional Planning Committee considered Commissioner's Report 84-201 which basically concluded that the existing Official Plan policy was flexible enough to accommodate various infilling situations while, at the same time, protecting high priority agricultural areas and not proliferating strip development. Subsequently, Staff met with Regional Staff to discuss the Town' s policy statement as well as the various areas which the Town had zoned as clusters in its Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Certain revisions to the policy were agreed upon and these were considered by Council in January of this year (Report PD-1U-85 and * PD-21-85) . A copy of the existing policy is attached hereto. . . .3 REPORT NO. : PD-161-85 Page 3 This policy was successfully utilized and defended by Staff during the course of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held in respect of the Town' s Zoning By-law. Staff are satisfied that the existing policy statement, in respect of nodes and clusters, is based upon sound planning principles and conforms to the intent of the Durham Regional Official Plan. With respect to the submission of Mr. Shevchuk, Staff would offer the following comments. 1 (a) Nodes and Clusters is not a new terminology. Reference to such a designation has been in the Regional Official Plan since it was originally approved in 1976. The definition of node or cluster is based upon common English language usage as contained in any dictionary and are not terms coined by Planners. For the information of Council these definitions as contained in Webster's are, in part, as follows: "Node. . . . a point at which subsidiary parts originate or centre. . ." "Cluster.. . . a group of buildings and especially houses built close together on a sizable tract in order to preserve open spaces. . ." The implication of the policy, based upon these definitions is abundantly clear. Rural residential development should have definite limits in order to preserve land capable of sustaining agricultural operations and to prevent further land use conflicts through outward expansion of existing non-farm related residential development. (b) Opportunity for public input to the existing Official Plan policy was provided through the approval process for the Regional Official Plan. That document is currently the operative planning policy document in respect of rural development. The Town's policy is not an Official Plan . ..4 REPORT NO. : PD-161-85 P age 4 policy and, therefore, is not subject to any of the normal requirements for public involvement. The Town's policy is intended merely to provide Staff with Council ' s direction as to the definition of a node or cluster. Notwithstanding this, public input was made through a presentation made to Council in November of 1984. These submissions were considered, action initiated, and in the final analysis, rejected as being inconsistent with the intent of the Official Plan. (c) Staff are of the opinion that the present policy is flexible and allows the consideration by Council of each case based on its own merits. This was successfully tested at the Ontario Municipal Board when the Region attempted to take a rigid interpretation of the policy. Regional submissions were rejected in favour of Town Staff' s more permissive interpretation. 2. Mr. Shevchuk states that Urban Courtice was defined on September 10, 1984 and that Hancock Road South should have been included within that defined area. The earliest reference to the boundaries of the Courtice Urban Area is contained in the Darlington Official Plan and the Darlington Zoning By-law approved in 1960 and 1959 respectively. These documents identified almost all of the present urban area as "Urban Residential ". The area of Hancock Road South was designated "Deferred Residential " and restricted to agricultural uses until such time as additional lands were required for residential development. With the onset of Regional government and approval of the Regional Official Plan (1976) , substantial policy changes occurred. Primarily, those areas designated as "Deferred Residential" were redesignated as "Agricultural " or "Major Open Space". The intent of this shift in policy was to restrict further rural development and redirect this development to urban centres or .. .5 i � v REPORT NO. : PO-161-85 Page 5 Hamlets. The definition of the Urban boundaries occurred in 1976 and was also subject of prescribed public notification and input requirements. Extension of urban services to south Hancock Road is not intended and would be unlikely within the life of the Official Plan. Houses being built in this area are on existing lots of record or lots created by Testamentry Devise which is the case of the most southerly lots on the east side of Hancock Road. Lots created in this manner are not currently subjected to the severance procedure or subject to local planning policies. This apparent loop-hole in the Planning Act is currently under review by the Province due to its many implications. Taxes in this area are based upon market value assessment which is applied equitably across the Town. Definition of this area as a node or cluster will , therefore, not affect taxes since the market value is determined by the use, or potential use of a piece of land and its improvements. (3) Mr. Shevchuk's interest in this issue stems directly from an application for severance submitted by himself in December, 1984 (LD 10/85). Staff have recommended denial of the application based upon its non-conformity with the intent of the Official Plan in that it would further extend existing strip development. The application for severance has been tabled until January 7, 1986 in order to permit the applicant an opportunity to have this area designated as a cluster. On October 21, 1985, Staff received an application for rezoning from Mr. Shevchuk which seeks to have his lot zoned "Residential Cluster". This application has been circulated in accordance with departmental procedure and will be reported on at such time as the circulation is complete and all necessary public notification provided for the required public meeting. . . .6 � uCg REPORT NO. : PD-161-85 Page 6 Staff note that the diagram submitted in support of this application * (copy attached) mis-represents the distribution and configuration of existing lots in this area. In addition, those lots identified as having recently been created by severance were, in fact, created by Testamentry Devise. An extract of the cadastral map, based upon updated assessment maps, is included to properly illustrate the relationship and configuration of lots in this area. In summary, Staff are of the opinion that the present policy/ guideline is adequate to serve the Town and is sufficiently clear and flexible for use by Staff. The Town has, in the past, initiated a review of Regional Policy on behalf of the ratepayers and this review concluded that a change in policy was not required. Respectfully_su- i ed, f T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P. Director of Planning TTE*j ip *Attach. October 22, 1985 Applicant: Mr. Dave Shevchuk R.R. #6 BOWMANVILLE, Ontario L1C 3K7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 TO REPORT TOWN OF NEWCASTLE CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING RURAL NODES AND CLUSTERS 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 and contain 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. A rural Cluster shall be defined as areas bounded on, at least, three (3) sides by natural or physical boundaries such as watercourses or public streets. A Node shall be defined as an area having a main focal point such as a school , community centre, church or general store. In addition to the foregoing, rural Nodes or Clusters shall not be permitted in areas designated as "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" by the Regional Official Plan. In other designations Nodes or Clusters shall not be permitted in areas located adjacent to active, agricultural operations. Where a Node or Custer is designated, it must comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice and the applicable provisions of the Town's Zoning By-law. i, 23 /qe5 ,Gt r .,g4 A lams exj 16?w -,j4lz�l �e 9 �91��, /mtt,&� 1�mj-"e-& laillry d' ' Zel- &2 �/ e ,Cr > � � '' -gin AW pa x� p S IUC� ) �G(/� �HGC�'- C�r12CFiL'Yl y`�`/.JULUY�'10 ,C��r� ,C-dyne /1'✓us�cea , Awl,Alr-&A ,fie AL 2t 1�,Oooe ht 'C' 4;e4�"41 --lott t) i ,g lad 1W ,�)et),Aw- Awe 4&1140 � g �)6,ek Cla) C3 ) We #vw�- , �r J Loa 44- ALIr � i APPENotx T I PROPOSED DESr!jPTIOh AtAD USE nF T}AE- - PRt�pF R T Y J H I G H WAY 2 D D D Q D d D Q t] = D o � ❑ V) p Q D 0 49M4TOR 5 v RESIDENCE p El�! Z II � D 5Lo0R STREET l C-G EN O : RECENT SEVERED LOTS IN LATE 1983 PLANNED HOUSE5 IN ►DEAR !FUTURE --..GRANTOR'S HOLDINGS ff"t"AREA To BE SEVLPEo O CURRENT 140QSES v l � C fA O Q Y U O Z Q 2 ❑ N z ❑ O O RESIDENTIAL UNIT O ❑ f r1 ■ APPLICANT'S RES. SUBJECT PROPERTY O ' I ❑ U D ❑ z 0 ° U ❑ ❑ ❑ ' O LOT 27 ` ` LOT 26