Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-142-86 J%0) TOWN OF NEWCASTLE 0 l rum f , i� REPORT File # �°, � 46 Res.Res. # Aj' 5 _ By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, June 2, 1986 REPORT #: PD-142-86 FILE #: 86-15/D and DEV 86-2 SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN FILE: 86-15/D APPLICATION FOR REZONING FILE: DEV 86-2 VELTRI AND SON LIMITED PART LOT 35, CONCESSION 5, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-142-86 be received; and 2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that Official Plan application 86-15/D submitted by Veltri and Son Limited be denied; and 3. THAI Rezoning Application DEV 86-2 submitted by Veltri and Son Limited be denied; and 4. THAI' a copy of Council 's decision with respect to these applications be forwarded * to the applicant and the interested parties attached hereto. I BACKGROUND: i 'i On May 17, 1986, a Public Meeting was held with respect to Rezoning Application DEV 86-2 submitted by Veltri and Son Limited to rezone two (2) 4.04 hectare parcels of land located . . .2 REPORT NO.: PD-142-86 Page 2 in Part of Lot 35, Concession 5, former Township of Darlington from "Agricultural (A)" to "Rural Cluster (RC)" to permit the development of two (2) additional residential lots. The General Purpose and Administration Committee also considered Staff Report PD-64-86. The Report summarized comments received as a result of the circulation of the Rezoning Application to other departments and agencies. The Region of Durham Planning Department noted in their comments that the subject property is designated "Permanent j Agricultural Reserve" in the Durham Regional Official Plan, and that the proposed non-farm residential development is not permitted within this designation. Staff recommended in the report that the subject Rezoning Application be referred back to Staff pending Council consideration of an application to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan. Committee resolved (Resolution #GPA-255-86) to adopt the recommendation in the Report; at its meeting of March 24, 1986, Council resolved (Resolution #C-276-86) to endorse the recommendation of Committee. On May 4, 1986, the Town was advised by the Region of Durham Planning Department of an application submitted by Veltri and Son Limited to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan to permit the creation of ten (10) 0.8 j I hectare (2 acre) residential building lots on the subject lands. Staff note i that Rezoning Application DEV 86-2 proposed the creation of a total of four (4) residential building lots, each with an area of 2 hectares (5 acres). j i In accordance with departmental procedure, the Official Plan Amendment application was circulated by the Planning Department to various departments and agencies for comment. As well , the Region of Durham provide copies of comments received through their circulation of the application . Staff note that comments received through the circulation of the related rezoning application were summarized for Committee's consideration in Staff Report PD-64-86). The following is a summary of the comments received on the Official Plan Amendment application: . . .3 REPORT NO.: PD-142-86 Page 3 Town of Newcastle Public Works Department "We have reviewed the application and find we have no ohjection to this proposal subject to the following comments : 1. That all works ar-e completed in accordance with the Town of Newcastle' s Design Cr-iter•ia and standard drawings; i 2. That anv easements r•equir•ed by the Town he granted free and clear- of all encumbrances; it 3. That the developer- will have the costs (100%) of any works on Townline Road which ar-e necessitated as a result of this development (i .e. external drainage improvements); 4. That the utility distribution (hydro, hell , cable TV, etc. ) he installed under-gr-ound (secondary services); 5. That the developer- contrihute to the cost of r•econstr•ucting Townline Road in accordance with Town Policy; 6. That the Owner- meet all the r•equir•ements of the Public Works Department, financial or- otherwise; 7. That the Owner- enter- into a Subdivision Agreement with the Town , satisfactory to this Department; 8. That the developer- should be required to provide street lighting along Townline Road; 9. All of the standard r-equi r•ements r•egar•di nq lot ar-adi ng, schedules of work, Per•for•mance Guarantees, cost estimates, etr. , should he included in the Subdivision Agreement." Town of Newcastle Fire Department "No objection. Response from Station #4, located on Trulls Road and water- supply is by Fire Department Tanker- Truck. Consideration should he given to Planning Department Report 84-40, with r-egar•d to Fire Protection for- r•ur•al developments. " { Town of Newcastle Building Department i "No objection." . . .4 'i REPORT NO.: PD-142-86 Page 4 Town of Newcastle Community Services Department "Our- Department has no objection to the application. Cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication will be r•equir•ed if applicable. " Region of Durham Health Unit "Insofar• as health matters ar-e concerned, there ar-e no objections to the approval of the application with the understanding that the number- and size of lots will be determined when the Plan of Subdivision is circulated. " Cents 1 Lake Ontario Conservation Authority "No objection." Mi ni str•y of Agri cul tur•e and Food "Consideration has been qiven to the proposal in terms of the goals and objectives of the Ministry and of the cr•i ter•i a and policies outlined in the Foodland Guidelines. The site is level to gently r•ollinq and is actively farmed as ar-e the sur•r•ounding lands. Accor•dinq to the Canada Land Inventor•v the soils have an agr•icultur•al capability rating of 80% Class 1 , and 20% Class 4 with topography limitations . Although it is recognized that the lands in the area ar-e fragmented into lots f r•om 10 to 15 acres in size , we do not hel i eve the land should he further- fragmented and more non-farm uses added which would result from the proposed cluster- zoning if approved. We ther•efor•e object to the rezoning." Ministry of Natural Resources "No objection to this proposal as it does not adversely affect any Ministry policies or- p r•ogr•ams. " City of Oshawa The Council of the City of Oshawa considered the above matter- at a meeting held on April 21 , 1986 and adopted a recommendation of the Planning and Development Committee as follows: "It is recommended that the City Clerk advise the Town of Newcastle and the Durham Regional Planning Department that the City of Oshawa objects to the application to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan (86-15/D) by Veltr•i and Son Limited for- Part Lot 35, Concession 5 on the east side of Townline Road North in the Town of Newcastle." . . .5 REPORT NO.. PD-142-86 Page 5 Staff note that comments from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food were not provided in Staff Report PD-64-86 which dealt with the rezoning application inasmuch as the comments were not available at the time the report written. The Ministry's comments on the rezoning application, which were received by the Planning Department on March 10, 1986, are the same as the comments submitted with respect to the Official Plan Amendment application. Notice with respect to the proposed Official Plan Amendment was provided on the subject lands in accordance with Council policy. Two letters and one petition with 18 signatures was submitted to the Town by area residents objecting to the proposed Rezoning and Official Plan Amendment. The i concerns of the residents are as follows: i - suitability of soil for septic systems - lot drainage - increased taxes - increased traffic volume - impact on availability of well water - loss of rural atmosphere. COMMENT: The property subject of the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications was designated "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" by Amendment No. 141 to the Durham Regional Official Plan which was approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs on April 24, 1986. Amendment No. 141 deleted Special Study Area No. 8 from lands within the Town of Newcastle. The lands are currently zoned "Agricultural (A-1)" by By-law 84-63, as amended. Staff processed the rezoning application as a request for a "Rural Cluster (RC)" zoning. The Town ' s criteria for identifying Rural Clusters defines such areas as rural non-farm related residential development which exhibits similar lot characteristic 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. Staff note that the two lots immediately to the south of the subject lands are equal in depth to the subject lots and have areas of 0.8 hectares each. Both lots support single family dwellings. The two (2) . .6 v<d> REPORT NO.: PD-142-86 Page 6 lots directly to the north of the lands subject of the application are also owned by the applicant. The zoning of these properties would permit the issuance of b ui1ding permits for single family dwellings. These lots however are both considerably deeper and larger in area than the new lots as proposed by the applicant. It would appear therefore that the lands subject of the application do not lie within a cluster of rural non-farm related residential lots which exhibit similar lot characteristics. As well , the applicant has proposed the creation of an additional eight (8) residential lots while the Town' s criteria specifies a maximum of three (3) additional lots. The Town' s criteria also specifies that a Rural Cluster must be bounded on at least three (3) sides by natural or physical boundaries such as watercourses or public streets. Staff note that no such boundaries exist with respect to the subject lands. I The Town' s criteria further stipulates that Rural Clusters shall not be designated in areas located adjacent to active agricultural operations and must comply with the Agricultural Code of Practice. Staff reference the comments of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food objecting to the proposed development. Staff have discussed the Official Plan Amendment application with Reqional i Planning Staff who advised that the application is not being processed and as an application to designate Estate Residential development. They noted that the proposed development constitutes strip development along an existing public road and that the topographical and landscape features of the subject site do not comply with the Regional Official Plan 's requirements with respect to Estate Residential development. It must therefore be considered as an amendment to General Agricultural in order for us to deal with the proposed rezoning. As noted earlier, the subject lands are designated "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" by the Regional Official Plan. As indicated by the Region in their comments on the Rezoning application , non-farm related residential development is not permitted within this designation. It is Staff's opinion i(a) REPORT NO.: PD-142-86 Page 7 y that the subject Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to pe mit non-farm residential development are not in conformity with the intent of the Regional Official Plan. Approval could undermine one of the basic tenets of the Durham Regional Official Plan - that is, the preservation of agricultural areas of the Region and in particular, land designated as prime agricultural land unless it can clearly be demonstrated that the existing designation is inappropriate. Regional Staff have only recently completed a review of the designations in this area and concluded that the Permanent Agricultural Reserve designation was appropriate. Staff also note the objections of local residents with respect to the p proposed development. Regional Planning Staff did not require the applicant to submit a Soils Analysis or Hydrogeological Study inasmuch as the proposal is not being processed as an Estate Residential development. In the absence of same, Staff are unable to address the concerns of the area residents with respect to suitability of soil for septic systems and the impact of the proposed development on the availability of well water. An amendment would be premature in the absence of same. Concerns regarding lot drainage would be addressed by the Town, through conditions of approval , should the subject applications be approved. Staff concur with the residents' concerns with an increased volume of traffic associated with the proposed development, agiven the present road conditions and impact on rural character. The concern related to increased taxes lies outside the considerations normally addressed by Planning Staff. In the absence of the necessary by drogeological information and in view of the comments of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Staff are unable to i support approval and would recommend that the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that Official Plan Amendment application 86-15/D submitted by Veltri and Son Limited be denied. It is further recommended that Rezoning Application DEV 86-2 be denied and that a copy of Council ' s decision with respect to these applications be forwarded to * the applicant and the interested parties as attached hereto. Respect mitted, .T. Edwards, M.C.I .P. Director of Planning JAS*TTE*j ip *Attach. May 15, 1986 D PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO REPORT NO.: PD-142-86 (d� LIST OF INTERESTE P S / Aitchison, Starzynski Evans & Bolotenko Barristers & Solicitors 115 Simcoe Street South P.O. Box 978 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7N2 ATTENTION: Mr. A. BolotenkoN The Vel tr•i Group 1038 Pinetree Court OSHAWA, Ontario L1K 1P40 Maryanne & Gary Vander•Heuvel R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5N Mr. Pat Docimo R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5N Victor & Anne White R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5N Margaret & Ian Lee R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5N i Fred & Violet Anderson R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5N Walter & Krystyna Gandera R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5N Guy & Colleen Dennis R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5N Lynda & Brian Lee R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 7K5N City of Oshawa 50 Centre Street South OSHAWA, Ontario L1H 3Z7N AREA OF PROPOSED REZONING 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 1 TIEP 1 (D '� U)co � z�I t ;A1t I U Z I I; EP 3 'A TAUNTON RD, , Pc I SEE I SCHEDULE 6' I (MITCHELL'S CORNERS) Al QED Z I I Al I 1 O co 1V , EP ' I t IW . A z 0 1 A-8 1 I I EP A A EP A � 0 230 300 Iwo KEY MAP t i �r Townline Rd. N. R. R. 5, Oshawa, Ont. L1H 7K5 Mar. 14, 1985. Commissioner of Planning, 105 Consumers Dr., Whitby, Ont. LIN 6A3 Re: File No. 86-15/D Dear Sir: 1 object to this property being divided into 10 lots at this tir«e. About 25(?) years ago Last Whitby Township (now Oshawa) and Darlington Township (now the town of Newcastle) raised the Townline Rd. in front of these lots and installed a culvert diagonally from N.W. to 3.E. During spring run-off and heavy rains this brings the water from Oshawa onto these lots and then on to ours. At this time when the fields are covered with wnow this isn't apparent but if you will take a look at the snow piled on the west side at the north end of the Townline and keep in mind that a very large portion of this will be channelled through these lots Itm sure you will agree that this heavy clay soil will not absorb all these septic beds. In previous AdMk years this was a sod furor and some top soil has been removed. MW At any time of the year the signs of erosion are here on our property even though we installed 2 catch basins and drain the water back to the ditch. I think before allowing more housing the Town should change the culvert, do a soil test and consult CLOCA who became _ involved when we added fill to our property under Ont. Reg. 824/73. I would suggest that you defer making a decision at this time and see for yourself what happens in the spring. Yours truly, Mrs. F. H. Anderson, Lot 34, Con. 5 7�Z6 DURHAM Neft and Me i REGION wfll �- RECOVED Ohem AMwav _ R�a''w�rti�lpp�' Nei*`�aMwn N N I:pPItS (V �V RNYW�e�R.�pr: COMM&IMER April 2, 1986 f, i I Town of Newcastle, Planning Department. ATTENTION: Mr. T.T. Edwards Dear Sir: With regards to the application of Veltri and Son to have parts of Lot 35, .Con. 5, Darlington Twp. (better known as Oshawa/Newcastle Towline. I wish to object to the application for the following reasons: Less than a year ago, June 1985, we purchased a ten acre estate lot which was part of lot 35 (we are section D) for the sum of $69,000. with the stipulation that since this was an Estate Lot we must build a minimun 2000 square foot house on this lot. As you know this is a very large house for a couple with only a 21 year old "child" at home. However, we proceeded with thoughts of the joys of living in the country, a small barn, a few heads of livestock, no heavy traffic and neighbours close by but not next door. Imagine after spending this amount of money and planning to make your dreams come true the disappoint- ment we feel each time we drive down our road and see a sign applying for smaller lots directly to the south of us with possibilities of the neighbours on each side of us applying for the same right to subdivide their lots. Imagine the thoughts that we have of heavy' population growth all around us along with the traffice increase. The lot directly south of us has not been built upon yet , will the owner also apply for the right to subdivide? The lot directly north of us is for sale at present, will a speculator snatch it up when he hears Mr. Veltri is subdividing his acreage into smaller parcels? I dread to think what could happen to what was a hay field last year and our dreams for our future. Will we be able to still afford the taxes when we are large property owners in the middle of a subdivision with the costs that will be incurred? A short drive down Townline Rd would be self-explanatory as to what would be required to make this road safe for a high volume traffic flow. Next we could envision sidewalks for the children and an increase in the number of school buses required. There would no longer be room for the people who enjoy riding their horses down the road. I i Please do not laugh at what I write as we all know how many houses can be build by a builder, on 100 acres of land. Even 50 houses are too many. If this land can be rezoned from 1110 Acre Estate Lots" one year to 2 Acre building lots ten months later, what can we expect in five years? . . . . .2 . . . .2 One more thing to consider is the water supply. At present our well is adequate for us, but will there be enough for ten or possibly twenty new homes? Please, let's leave the country for the people who choose to live in the country and build up the cities for the people who wish to have next- door neighbours. As you can see by the attached petition, others in the neighbourhood feel the same aS We do. Please, consider this when you are contemplating your decision for Mr. Veltri . Sincerely, Maryanne Vandenheuvel Pat Docimo R.R. #5 OSHAWA, Ontario 1.1H 7K5 P.S. Please let us know the happenings of your decision. i j'�`(f�:f•" ��,.. 1 •' `v .l is . Town of Newcastle Planning Department — THE-UNDERSIGNED ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROPOSAL TO REZONE OR TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS LOT 35, CONCESSION 5, DARLINGTON TOWNSHIP SHOULD NOT j BE APPROVED. 1,. NAME, ADDRESS. PHONE DATE 2G4ri ?� (,tj , 45 eshawv 7cp gpj9 31F( 14- 0.3 2.k (/ 915 1 1 ' .. ...E .. .. .. .. !