HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-96-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
�( REPORT File #
Res. # ' °YK,
�¢ �• By-Law #
(STING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: April 21, 1986
REPORT #: PD-96-86 FILE #: DEV 86-10
StRECT: REZONING APPLICATION - 434367 ONTARIO LIMITED
PART LOT 11, CONCESSION 4, DARLINGTON
OUR FILE: DEV 86-10
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-96-86 be received; and
2. THAT the application submitted by Mr. Bob Craig on behalf of 464367 Ontario Limited
to rezone a parcel of land located in Part of Lot 11 , Concession 4, former Township
of Darlington to permit the development of a Node/Cluster be denied without
prejudice.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
On February 24, 1986, the Planning Department received an application for rezoning,
submitted by Mr. Bob Craig, to permit the development of a Node/Cluster.
Within the Region of Durham Official Plan, the subject property is located within the
"General Agricultural Area" designation. The development of non-farm residential uses are
generally discouraged within this designation. However, Section 10.2.1.2 of the Durham
Plan states in part that "limited non-farm residential dwellings may be allowed in the
. . .2
Ca�
REPORT NO.: PD-96-86 Page 2
form of infilling within the General Agricultural areas and the Major Open
Space System as designated on Map "A" 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 where one or more non-farm residential dwellings are to be
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".
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 no objections to the proposal were
received at the writing of this report with respect to the amendment
requested.
In accordance with departmental procedures, the application was circulated
to obtain comments from other departments and agencies as noted in Staff
Report PD-61-86. Staff would note the following departments/agencies, in
providing comments, offered no objections to the application as filed:
1. Town of Newcastle Building Department
2. Town of Newcastle Community Services Department
3. Town of Newcastle Fire Department
4. Ontario Hydro
5. Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and
Newcastle Roman Catholic School Board
6. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
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 would be issued only after a proper inspection of the lands
involved had been made and said inspection carried out upon receipt of a
formal application.
. . .3
REPORT NO.: PD-96-86 Page 3
The Town of Newcastle Works Department, in responding, offered no objection
to the proposal subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Owner is responsible for any ditching on Concession Road No.
4 that may be necessitated for drainage of the proposed future lots.
2. That the Owner contribute to the reconstruction of Concession Road No. 4
at the rate of $30.00 per foot for the frontage of the proposed lots.
3. That the Owner provide street illumination to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
4. That all works constructed are in accordance with the Town's Design
Criteria and Standard Drawings.
The Region of Durham Planning Department provided the following response:
"In response to your request for comments we note that the subject
property is designated "General Agricultural Area" in the Durham
Regional Official Plan. The development of non-farm residential uses
are generally discouraged within the designation. However, Section
10.2.1.2 of the Durham Plan states in part that limited non-farm
residential dwellings may be allowed in the form of infilling within
the General Agricultural areas and the Major Open Space System as
designated on Map "A" 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 as situations where one or
more non-farm residential dwellings are to be 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.
The proposal to identify a residential cluster may be permitted if,
through detailed investigation of the area, it can be demonstrated
that the proposal meets with the above provision of the Durham
Regional Official Plan. "
. . .4
REPORT NO.: PD-96-86 Page 4
In consideration of the above response, Committee may recall that Staff
previously requested the Region's interpretation of this document and a
clear indication from Regional Staff as to the Official Plan designation for
similar applications in consideration of a Node or Cluster zone. Staff was
accordingly advised that, inasmuch as the determination of the Official Plan
conformity would require detailed site specific investigations, Regional
Staff would rely on the Town of Newcastle's analysis and Staff's
consultation with Town Council to determine if the proposal meets with the
infilling criteria as defined in the Durham Regional Official Plan.
In addition to the above-noted comments the Region of Durham, by
correspondence dated April 3, 1986, noted as follows:
"Further to our letter dated March 10, 1986, we wish to add that the
additional access onto Regional Road No. 14 will not be permitted from
the subject property and we request that in your consideration of the
proposed Node/Cluster, new entrances be allowed only from the road
allowance between Concession 3 and 4."
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food - Foodland Preservation Branch in
reviewing the application noted that consideration had been given to the
proposal in terms of the goals and objectives of the Ministry and of the
criteria and policies outlined in the Foodland Guidelines. It was noted
that there is a barn across Liberty Street that has a minor impact on the
site. Any new home permitted must be at least 354 feet (107 metres) from
the barn to comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice.
Staff would note for the Committee's information that inasmuch as the
proposal fronts a Regional Road, Regional Staff has requested that access be
prohibited onto Liberty Street in consideration of the provisions of Section
13.2.7, 13.2.9 and 13.2.15 within the Durham Plan.
"Section 13.2.7 . . . .arterial roads shall be designated primarily as
limited access roads to facilitate traffic movement between major
landuse activities and Region."
. . .5
REPORT NO.: PD-96-86 Page 5
"Section 13.2.9 . . . .a Type "B" arterial road shall have a right-of-
way width ranging from 86 feet to 120 feet. . . . "
"Section 13.2.15 . . . . the maximum number of private accesses to Type
"B" arterial roads shall generally be as follows and regard shal l be
had to the provision of Section 13.3.3:
a) six access points per side per mile in rural areas. . . ."
As noted above, Section 13.3.3 states that the provisions of the above-noted
subsections shall generally apply to arterial roads shown on Map "B".
However, if the intent of this Plan is adhered to and following study of the
effect of such provisions are impractical and cannot be implemented
precisely, the authority having jurisdiction on such road may alter these
provisions without an amendment to this Plan. Staff would note in this
particular instance the authority having jurisdiction on such roads would be
implemented at the Regional level . Accordingly and as noted above, the
Region has asked that access onto Liberty Street be prohibited.
Within the Town's Criteria for identifying rural Nodes or 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
which building permits would be available and within which infilling may
occur to a maximum of three (3) additional lots .
As noted on the schedule, the lots in the vicinity of the north/west corner
of Liberty Street and Concession No.4 totalling four (4), vary in size from
1.9 acres to 11 acres. The criteria for a Node/Cluster development states
that a rural Node or Cluster is defined as an area of rural non-farm
related residential development containing a minimum of three (3) and a
maximum of six (6) existing lots which exhibit similar lot characteristics.
It is Staff's opinion that the existing lot development would not satisfy
this requirement.
. . .6
C�
REPORT NO. . PD-96-86 Page 6
In addition to the foregoing, the criteria requires that rural Nodes or
Clusters shall not be permitted in areas located adjacent to active
agricultural operations. Staff would note for the Committee' s information
that the 79 acre lot due west of the subject properties, the 64 acre lot on
the east side of Liberty Street and the 11 acre lot on the southeast corner
of Liberty Street and Concession Street are involved in an active farming
operation.
In addition to the above, Staff would note that it is Staff's understanding
that the rear portions of the most westerly part of the subject lands are
presently used for the growing of nursery stock materials in conjunction
with a landscaping business.
Staff would note additionally, for the Committee's information, that Section
3.19 within the Town' s Comprehensive Zoning By-law requires that any
non-farm related residential buildings be set back from existing
agricultural buildings housing livestock, but not located on the same lot at
a distance of 300 metres. The intent of the above-noted provision being to
provide a separation distance between existing agricultural operations
housing livestock and non-farm related residential dwellings.
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 present Town Policies nor the intent of the provisions
of By-law 84-63. Accordingly, Staff is not in a position to support said
application.
Respect ed,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P.
Director of Planning
LDT*TTE*jip
*Attach.
April 8, 1986
cc: Mr. Bob Craig
R.R. #5
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K6
LOT I I , CONCESSION 4 j
EXISTING HOUSE-
I �
IO ac. r 1-_- -----_
I
I &-BARN
1 11 ac.
; Q
I I I [1-(-:BARN C7
2 6 ac.l 1 9 oc. i 1 [}(- SHED
EXISTING HOUSES j
1 I
r I i ii-EXISTING HOUSE
CONCESSION ROAD 4
EXISTING GARAGES
EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE
------ PROPOSED PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE
LOT 12 LOT II LOT 10
30 ac.
33 ac.
10 oc d
12 a 4°C
`t 64 ac. 0
� 79 ac. `�
G \ to
�G�P 10 ac a C�O(�O` U
o �� P z
, �
w�voQ
3 Oc.
CON. ly ROAD 4 11 a o
ILO.6oc `' e
M
I �
I o
I
in
130 ac. I 0tr50c� o
— Z
77v
2 oc. 0
U
I
TOWN of NEWCASTLE ' Formerly TOWNSHIP of DARLING
i