HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-179-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
t�? REPORT File #
Res.
By-Law #
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, July 7, 1986
REPORT #: PD-179-86 FILE #: DEV 86-32
SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - MARTIN AND SIDONIA PR AZIENKA
PART LOT 10, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON
OUR FILE: DEV 86-32
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
I. THAT Report PD-179-86 be received; and
2. THAT the application for rezoning in Part of Lot 10, Concession 3, former Township
of Darlington submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Prazienka to permit, through the recognition
of a Node/Cluster, the development of one (1) additional residential lot be denied
without prejudice.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
On May 8, 1986 the Planning Department received an application for rezoning submitted by
(vIr. & Mrs. Prazienka to permit, through the recognition of a Node or Cluster, the
development of one (1) additional residential lot.
Within the Region of Durham Official Plan the subject property is located within the
"Major Open Space" designation. Staff would note in accordance with the provisions of
Section 10.2.1.2 of the Durham Regional Official Plan the development of new non-farm
. . .2
REPORT NO.: PD-179-86 Page 2
residential uses shall generally be discouraged. However, limited non-farm
residential dwellings may be allowed in the form of infilling within the
"General Agricultural" areas and "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
i
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 (2) 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-law.
Staff would note for the Committee' s information that pursuant to Council 's
resolution of July 26, 1982 and the requirements of the Plannng Act the
appropriate signage acknowledging the application was installed on the
subject lands., Staff would note that no objection to the proposal was
received at the writing of this report with respect to the amendment
requested. Staff would note, however, general enquiries as to the notice
advertising the Public Meeting were received by Staff.
i
In accordance with departmental procedures, the application was circulated
to obtain comments from other departments and agencies as noted within Staff
Report PD-141-86. Staff would note the following departments/agencies, in
responding, offered no objections to the application as filed:
1. Town of Newcastle Building Department
2. Ontario Hydro
3. Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and
Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board
4. Town of Newcastle Fire Department
5. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authori ty
6. Town of Newcastle Works Department
7. Town of Newcastle Community Services
I
The Durham Regional Health Unit, in responding, noted that the application
had been investigated by the Health Department and insofar as health matters
were concerned there were no objections to its approval .
. . .3
REPORT NO. : PD-179-86 Page 3
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food - Foodland Preservation Branch, in
responding, noted that the proposed site was located less than 150 metres
(492 feet) from an existing livestock facility. Staff would note the
livestock operation is located on the west side of Liberty Street directly
opposite the applicant' s residence. The Department of Agriculture and Food
noted within their comments that the property was level in terrain and
consisted of Classes 1 and 4 in respect of the Canada Land Inventory Soil
classes. It was recommended that approval not be ranted inasmuch as the
Pp 9
application would not comply with the Foodland Guidelines. Furthermore,
Ministry Staff indicated that approval would create an incompatible non-farm
use in an agricultural area and approval would contravene the minimum
distance separation requirements as established by the Agriculture Code of
Practice.
i
The Region of Durham Planning Department confirmed, as previously noted
within said report, that the subject property was designated "Major Open
Space" within the Durham Regional Official Plan. In consideration of same,
Staff was advised of the following provisions within the Durham Regional
Official Plan . . . in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.2.1.2 of
the Durham Plan the development of new non-farm residential uses shall
generally be discouraged. However, limited non-farm residential dwellings
may be allowed in the form of infilling within 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 in Section 10.2.4.1 is defined as situations where one or more
non-farm residential dwellings are to be located between two buildings j
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. . . . Section
10.2.2.2 non-farm residential uses shall comply with the Agricultural Code
of Practice as amended from time to time.
. . .4
ii
i
REPORT NO.: PD-179-86 Page 4
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."
"Section 13.2.9 . . .. a Type "B" arterial road shall have a right-of-way
width of 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
shall 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
i
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.
One of the criteria within the Town' s guidelines for identifying rural Nodes
or Clusters requires that rural Nodes or Clusters shall not be permitted in
in areas located adjacent to active agricultural operations and
additionally, must comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice and the
applicable provisions of the Town' s Zoning By-law. As noted by the Ministry
of Agriculture and Food, the subject application is located less than 150
metres from a livestock facility. Additionally Staff would note 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
REPORT NO.: PD-179-86 Page 5
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, the intent of the
provisions of By-law 84-63, nor the Durham Regional Official Plan policies
as commented on by the Region of Durham. Accordingly, Staff are not in a
position to support said application.
Respectfully b ' ted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P.
Director of Planning
LDT*TTE*j i p
June 25, 1986
i
cc: Mr. & Mrs. M. Prazienka
R.R. #5
BOWNANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 3K6
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
I
CONCESSION ROAD 4
1
I I
1 �
I 1
1 I
GOLF COURSE ORCHARD
I '
I I
I �
� I
LOT I I LOT 10
I I
' � I
I �
' p
I ® o I --
o
Q i W
= I U
LIVESTOCK OPERATION MEXISTING DWELLING I 0
-LANDS rO BE SEVERED j
1
I
I
BARNQ EXISTING DWELLING
I
EXISTING DWELLING
I
I
12 I ( IQ 9
i__ CESSION_ R 0 _
Q
I U i 1
a
a
BA(iN—
10USE—Y-u
0
w
1 i
® AREA OF PROPOSED REZONING
® OTHER LANDS OWNED BY APPLICANT
16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5
TAUNTON ROAD REGIO AL RJOAD 4 It
C6
I I I
f 3
AT I Z
Il I I; I 1 0
A I V
�. w t Z
EP I I O
- -- '-I. -.CONC. ROAD 4- --1--- - L_
,A.1 A q,g _ I 1
A
ci
A
M3
x I A
I > I 1
A gip. i II Ep• ! , , A-1 I cn
RE-41
' w ' I ' ' ;iI U
mA;IA ; 'E P ' � � z
i o
0 250 500 1000M
KEY MAP 50ofn 00 �