Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-99-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE r REPORT File # �� . �7. -� Res. # By-Law # 'k �:4o�' MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DAIS: Monday, April 21, 1986 REPORT #: PD-99-86 FILE #: PLN 30.5 SUBJECT: RURAL RESIDENTIAL NODES AND CLUSTERS OUR FILE: PLN 30.5 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-99-86 be received; and 2. THAT the Regional Municipality of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends adoption of an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan in respect of Nodes and Clusters which incorporates the revisions suggested by Staff Report PD-99-86; and 3. THAT a copy of Staff Report PD-99-86 be forwarded to the Regional Municipality of Durham for their consideration. BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS: On March 20, 1986 Staff received a copy of a proposed amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan in respect of rural residential Nodes and Clusters. The proposed amendment arises from the increased incidence of rural severances and difficulties currently encountered with the interpretation of the policies of the Regional Official Plan relative to the definition of Nodes and Clusters. The Durham Regional Official Plan presently . . .2 REPORT NO.: PD-99-86 Page 2 contains policies intended to guide the development of Nodes and Clusters of non-farm related residential development within the Region. These policies generally discourage new non-farm residential development, but permit limited non-farm residential dwellings in the form of infilling within the "General Agricultural " and "Major Open Space" designations of the Official Plan subject to such infilling being deemed desirable by Council and recognized in the Zoning By-law. The policies also identify a number of residential clusters across the Region within which limited non-farm residential development may occur in the form of infilling. For the purposes of this policy, infilling has been defined by the Regional Official 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. Over the past number of years there have been a number of interpretations applied to this definition as well as some experience with implementation of the provision before the Ontario Municipal Board. This has all resulted in adoption of criteria by the Town for evaluating applications for rezoning to "Residential Cluster". A copy of the Town's current * criteria is attached herewith for the information of the members of the Committee. The intent of these criteria and the policies of the Regional Official Plan are primarily aimed at discouraging the creation of new non-farm related residential building lots within rural areas of the Region. As a result of the manner in which municipal staff have interpreted the Official Plan policy and our own experience before the Ontario Municipal Board, as part of the preparation of By-law 84-63, Staff have identified certain instances where the strict interpretation of the Regional policy is not, in our opinion, entirely reasonable. . . .3 i REPORT NO.: PD-99-86 Page 3 Firstly, we believe that it is unreasonable to prevent infilling unless there are two existing buildings between which the infilling is to occur. Where an existing lot exists that is vacant, municipal staff have been treating this as a building for the purposes of interpreting the Official Plan policy. We base this interpretation on the fact that we do not feel an eligible land division should be denied on the basis of whether or not a building permit has been issued for one of the lots abutting the subject application. Obviously, a strict interpretation would prevent infilling unless the building were physically on the lot. However, where there is nothing within the Zoning By-law to prevent issuance of a building permit for that lot, the potential for a building does exist and it should therefore be treated as if it were an existing building. Secondly, this policy has given Staff some difficulty in that it clearly does not limit it to residential buildings, but would permit infilling between any type of building, be it a barn or otherwise. We do not believe that this was the intent of the policy when first formulated. The Region 's proposed amendment suggests that there are certain situations where minor extension to an existing Node or Cluster would appear to be warranted. Staff feel that this is not the issue and would suggest that the real problem lies with providing a clearer definition of infilling and more strict parameters for providing guidance as to where a municipality can define a Node or Cluster within their Zoning By-law or preferably require that Nodes and Clusters be defined within the local Official Plan. This approach is suggested by Regional Staff who feel , as do local Staff, that it is more appropriate to identify such clusters in the District Plan or local Official Plan. The proposed policy would require that the entire node be identified, but also allows, under certain circumstances, limited extensions to Nodes or Clusters. The proposed policy still , however, provides for the identification of Nodes . . .4 REPORT NO. : PD-99-86 Page 4 or Clusters in the Zoning By-law as an alterative to identification within the District or local Official Plan. Staff would therefore suggest that, to require identification of Clusters in the Official Plan, really has no effect since a Council may decide not to identify them in the Official Plan and only identify them through the zoning by-law. Staff would suggest that this not be an and/or situation, but simply worded to require that such Clusters must be identified in the District Plan or local Official Plan and the Restricted Area Zoning By-law. The proposed amendment would also require definition of an entire Cluster within the Zoning By-law and/or Official Plan and suggests that once defined no further extensions to the Cluster shall be permitted. Staff note that in the past we have recommended limiting the Cluster zoning to those lands subject of an application to avoid adverse impacts upon assessed value of adjacent lands; the Owners of which may not be interested in obtaining a severance. However, in view of the fact that the intent of the proposed amendment seems to be to identify residential Nodes and Clusters within the Official Plan , i t would seem to make sense to, therefore, appropriately identify them in the Zoning By-law in order to avoid the need for subsequent applications for rezoning. The proposed policy also provides further guidance relative to defining a Cluster and requires that such Clusters consist of an existing group of dwellings on relatively small lots, must be compatible with the surrounding uses and conform to the Agricultural Code of Practice. These proposed revisions are similar to the criteria that have been adopted by the Town of Newcastle. Based upon our review of the proposed amendment and bearing in mind the intent of the Official Plan to discourage new non-farm related . . .5 REPORT NO.: PD-99-86 Page 5 residential development, Staff feel that the proposed policy would carry a little more weight and serve as a greater deterrent to this form of development if the policy were amended to require the designation of such Nodes or Clusters in the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law not and/or as proposed by the Regional Staff and would suggest that the proposed policy be amended accordingly. The net result, of course, would be that any individual wishing to sever a lot for the purposes of infilling would be unable to do so unless the area in which the lot is proposed is located within a Node or Cluster as defined by the Official Plan. If it is not and the individual wishes to pursue the severance, they would be faced with the prospect of applying for an Official Plan amendment which would require substantiation that the area does, in fact, qualify as a rural Node or Cluster. As presently written, the need for an Official Plan amendment would be left to the discretion of Council and, in Staff's opinion, would not substantially change the situation therefore questioning the usefulness of the amendment. Staff's position on this issue is based primarily upon the established planning principle of discouraging incompatible landuses from locating adjacent to one another and our support for the preservation of agricultural land which is capable of food production is consistent with the policy statement being proposed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Respectfully b 'tted, �r T.T. Edwards, M.C. I.P. Director of Planning TTE*j ip *Attach. April 9, 1986 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.