HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-168-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT File #
Res. f ��► �h
By-Law #96 -
METING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, June 16, 1986
REPORT #: PD-168-86 FILE #: DEV 86-26
SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - WYLMA ALLIN
PART LOT 20, CONCESSION 1, CLARKE
OUR FILE: DEV 86-26
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-168-86 be received; and
2. THAT the application submitted by Mrs. Wylma Allin to rezone a parcel of land
located in Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, former Township of Clarke to permit the
development of a Node or Cluster be considered.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENTS:
On April 18, 1986 the Planning Department received an application submitted by Mrs. Wylma
Allin to rezone a 0.69 hectare ( 1.72 acre) parcel of land in Part of Lot 20, Concession 1,
* former Township of Clarke (see attached map). The purpose of the rezoning would be to
rezone the subject lands to "Rural Cluster (RC)" to permit the severance of two (2)
residential building lots.
Within the Region of Durham Official Plan the subject property is located within the
"General Agricultural " designation. Staff would note in accordance with the provisions of
. . .2
L �
REPURT NO.: PD-168-86 Page 2
i
Section 10.2.1.2 of the Durham Regional Official 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 "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 (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.
i
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 si gnage 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.
i
In accordance with departmental procedures the application was circulated to
obtain comments from other departments and agencies as noted within Staff
Report PD-119-86. Staff would note the following departments/agencies, in
providing comments, offered no objections to the application as filed:
1. Town of Newcastle Works Department
2. Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and
Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board
3. Town of Newcastle Building Department
4. Newcastle Hydro Electric Commission
5. Town of Newcastle Fire Department
6. Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority.
i
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications, in responding, noted that
the Ministry had no objections to the proposed rezoning; advising that any
buildings erected on the subject property must be set back a minimum
distance of 7.5 metres from the Highway No. 2 right-of-way limit.
. . .3
fiv:(P)
REPORT NO. : PD-168-86 Page 3
Additionally, it was noted that the Owner should be aware that permits will
be required for all buildings prior to any construction being undertaken.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in responding, noted that Staff of the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food have reviewed the above development
proposal and in consideration of the terms and goals and objectives of the
Ministry and the criteria and policies outlined in the Foodland Guidelines
had no objection to the proposal .
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 the approval . Further clarification
was offered, however, noting this was not to be taken as a permit to install
i
a private sewage disposal system at the site involved. The requested permit
would be issued only after a proper inspection of the lands involved has
been made and said inspection carried out upon receipt of a formal
application .
Staff would note for the Committee' s information that the Region of Durham
Planning Department, as of the date of preparation of said report , has not
provided written confirmation of their comments or concerns. However, Staff
would note that verbally Regional Staff has indicated that from their review
of the application, should the residential dwelling on the lands immediately
adjacent to the proposed severed lots being located on the 70 acre parcel be
of farm purposes, then the application to extend the Node or Cluster of
non-farm residential uses would not comply with the intent of the Durham
Regional Official Plan. Regional Staff noted furthermore that consideration
of the extension to the Node or Cluster would comply with the intent of the
Durham Regional Official Plan if the dwelling on the 70 acre parcel was of
a "non-farm nature".
Staff would note for the Committee' s information that within the criteria
for a Node or Cluster development is stated that a rural Node or Cluster is
. . .4
REPORT NO. : PD-168-86 Page 4
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. Furthermore, the criteria states
that a Node or Cluster shall not be permitted in areas located adjacent to
active agricultural operations. Staff would note for the Committee's
information that the lands immediately abutting the property to the south
and west, as confirmed by the applicant on the application form, are a
portion of a farming operation actively cultivated and farmed.
Accordingly and in consideration that the proposed Cluster abuts an active
agricultural operation, it is Staff's opinion that the approval of the
rezoning application, as submitted, would not be in compliance with present
Town criteria. Accordingly, although other facts would suggest that this is
a classic example of infilling, Staff are unable to support said
application.
Staff note that there have been two applications of a similar nature
recently approved, by Council , notwithstanding the Town 's criteria in j
respect of location adjacent to agricultural operations. In view of this we
have not provided a specific recommendation in order to permit further
discussion.
If Council is inclined to approve this application, we would suggest that
Council also consider reviewing this aspect of the criteria for Nodes and
Clusters. If approved, Staff will forward an appropriate By-law amendment j
to Council and would suggest a further amendment to include two existing
i
non-farm related dwellings, to the east, within the Rural Cluster if
acceptable to the affected property owners.
Respec itted, Applicant: Mrs. Wylma Allin
Box 461
NEWCASTLE , Ontario
LOA 1HO
i
T.T. Edwards, M.C. I .P.
Director of Planning
LDT*T1-E*j ip
*Attach.
June 6, 1986
jT-��>
AREA OF PROPOSED REZONING
®
OTHER-LANDS OWNED BY APPLICANT
24 23 22 21 20 19 .18 17 16 ' 15
i CONCESSION RD. 3 ; I
I I E I
' Q Ae I i M3 EP
1 N
I & I z
I
0
I i I A A�8 �
U)
W M3 w
' I
I , I I Q U
$ 1 ° z
q I O
E 1 ° I I x U
P
c�
1 HIGHWAY 2 ,
oz z Mci v� �7111O Al a W I A m I ( z,Ao
Cfi•2 ,
E HIGHWAY 401 I (lj
. I A . I . . 1 � U
z
M2-4 Q I I Q
• i °� I I I U
CON,RD. 1
r
Q
I 0
� I �
z
' Y
LAKE ONTq RIO ~ m
0 250 S00 1000m
KEY MAP
HIGHWAY N2 2
W �
U U
Z Z
J 1 I
W ~O f-
Q° z WW w° Z
o o o O
to
x °a n. (L N
o W a_
Z Z w
a 3 U
Z
CASH CROP FARMLAND m O
U
LOT 20 LOT 19
N
_O
O 'V I
V)
W
D U
D � Z
0 O
LL V..1 Y
O 4
tJ
r •
HIGHWAY N? 2
MI T a vast $ 4 s
tl
II
CASH C z
O
LOT 2 1 ( I LOT 20 LOT 19 3 LOT 18 fr w
I , z
II O
1 , v
HIGHWAY NV- 401
Formerly TOWNSHIP of CLARKE ■EXISTING DWELLINGS
I