HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-66-86 REPORT #3
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
i REPORT File
#ZLI
Res. #
-- --___-- By-Law #
i
hEETING:
Council
i
DATE: March 10, 1986
REPORT #: PD-66-86
FILE #: DEV 85-39
i
SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - I . PERUN & M. KUZEMCHUK
PART LOT 29, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
OUR FILE: DEV 85-39
l
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-66-86 be received; and
i
2. THAT the application for, rezoning of Part of Lot 29, Concession 3, former, Township
of Dar1 i ngton, submitted by Mr,. I Per-un and Mr•. M. Kuzemchuk, to permit the
development of one (1) additional residential lot, be denied without prejudice.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
I
At the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting of March 3, 1986 Staff Report
PD-56-86, in consideration of Mt,. Per•un' s and My,. Kuzemchuk ' s rezoning application, was
received by Committee and refer•r•ed back to Staff for, further' discussion with the
applicant, in respect of the proposed severance.
My,. Per•un has indicated to Staff that he o
w ul d have no objections to r•estr•i cti ng the
severance to those lands presently occupied by the existing single family dwelling, and
fur•ther•mor•e, acknoweldged to Staff that he would be willing to accept a lot of no less
than 25m x 60m. Given the lack of urban services, Staff ar•e of the opinion that a larger,
lot may be necessa►•y if approval is granted.
. . .2
i
REPORT NO. : PD-66-86 Page 2
Staff would acknowledge however, that, although the severance of the most
easterly portion fronting Cour•tice Road would be a more pr•efer,able
alternative in terms of future development of the balance of the lands , in
consideration of the provisions and intent of the Durham Regional Official
Plan, Cour•tice Urban Area Official Plan and Cour•tice North Neighbourhood 3B
Plan as contained in Staff Report PD-56-86, Staff cannot recommend approval
of the rezoning application without specific r,estr•ictions on the retained
lands.
Should Council wish to approve the subject application, we would recommend
that such approval be conditional upon conveyance of a 0.3 metre r-eser,ve
across the frontage of all but 10 metres of the retained (vacant) parcel to
prevent issuance of a building per•mi t for, r�esi denti al purposes.
Respect ,- itted
I
i
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P.
Director of Planning
LDT*TTE*jip
March 4, 1986
i
cc: Mr. I. Per•un
R.R. #1
HAMPTON, Ontario
LOB 1J0
i
i