Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-124-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE r REPORT File # > o . Res. i -' By-Law # (STING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Tuesday, May 20, 1986 REPORT #: PD-124-86 FILE #: 86-17/D SUBJECT: APPLICATION TO AMEND DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN RICHARD DUBEAU PART LOT 6, CONCESSION 1., FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON FILE: 86-17/D RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-124-86 be received; and 2. THAT the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that Official Plan Amendment application 86-1.7/D submitted by Mr. Richard Dubeau be denied; and 3. THAT a copy of Council ' s decision be forwarded to the Region of Durham, the applicant and the interested parties listed hereto. BACKGROUND: On March 14, 1.986, the Town was advised by the Region of Durham of an application submitted by Mr. Richard Dubeau to redesignate a 3.23 hectare (8 acre) parcel of land in * Part of Lot 6, Concession 1., former Township of Darlington (see key map) to permit the creation of four (4) residential building lots, each with an area of 0.1 hectares (2 acres) . The subject parcel is part of a 7.8 hectare (19.27 acre) property owned by the . . .2 REPORT NO.: PD-124-86 Page 2 applicant and which supports one (1) single family dwelling. The subject lands are designated "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" by the Regional Official Plan and are zoned "A-1 Agricultural " by By-law 84-63. In accordance with departmental policy, the subject application was circulated to various agencies and departments for comment. As well , the Region of Durham provided copies of comments provided through their circulation of the application. The following is a summary of the major comments received: Ministry of Agriculture and Food "Staff of the Ministry have reviewed the subject development proposal . Consideration has 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. Accordingly to the Canada Land Inventory, soils in the area have an agricultural capability rating of 70% Class 1 and 30% Class 3. the surrounding uses are all agricultural in nature. To the west the field was planted in corn in 1985. There is also a barn just across the road, however, it is in poor repair and does not appear to have housed livestock for some years. The present uses on the other three sides of the proposed development are all apple orchards. On the 19 acre subject lands the present use is orchard except for a 4 acre gravelly knoll towards the rear of the property. Section 3.12 paragraph 3 of the Foodland Guidelines states that estate residential uses should only be permitted in areas of soils with low agricultural capability well removed from agricultural activities. As the proposal is in an area of prime agricultural land, bounded on 4 sides by agricultural uses including specialty crops on three sides, we conclude the proposal is very clearly contrary to the Foodland Guidelines and do not recommend it be approved." A preliminary soils investigation was also submitted in support of the application, as required by the Regional Official Plan. The report indicated that sub-surface drainage is considered to be fair to good and that the site is suitable for ground absorption of sewage effluent. The . . .3 REPORT NO.: PD-124-86 Page 3 report also states that a review of Ministry of the Environment Well Water Records indicates that adequate groundwater resources exist in the area to provide suitable potable water supplies . * Three letters (copies attached) with a total of sixteen (16) signatures were received from area residents objecting to the proposed development. The concerns as expressed by the residents are as follows: - the precedent established by allowing residential development on agricultural land; - loss of agricultural land; - availability of residential land in designated urban areas; - the demise of the family farm; - increased demand for urban services from rural residents; - possible pollution of area wells through addition of new septic systems. The applicant has indicated in support of his proposal that the subject site is unsuitable for agriculture , with the exception of the southerly and easterly portions of the lot which are to be maintained as orchard. He also states that the topography of this site should reduce the impact of the new residences on local agriculture. COMMENT: The property subject of the Official Plan Amendment application is designated "Permanent Agriculture Reserve" by the Durham Regional Official Plan. The Official Plan states that the use of land within this designation for any purpose other than agriculture and farm-related uses shall not be permitted. The Official Plan does provide for estate residential development and outlines criteria (Section 10.3.2.1) by which such developments are to be evaluated. Some of the criteria identified by the Plan are as follows: . . .4 �Cc) REPORT NO.: PD-124-86 Page 4 - the proposal maintains the character of the natural environment and is located in a scenic well-vegetated area of rolling topography; - the proposal is not located on lands having high capability for agriculture, conservation and recreation, forest production or mineral extraction; - the proposal shall not unduly restrict the use of adjacent properties for agriculture, conservation and recreation , forest production or mineral extraction; - the proposal complies to the Agriculture Code of Practice as amended from time to time. The Plan (Section 10.2.3.2.2) also requires an applicant to submit certain information in support of an estate residential development application. The information required includes a preliminary analysis of the soil and groundwater conditions, which the applicant has provided, and a preliminary analysis of the landscape features of the site and adjacent properties which indicates the suitability of the site for estate residential uses. S taff note that such an analysis was not submitted by the applicant. However, a site inspection conducted by Town Staff indicates that there are no significant topographical or vegetative features in the area or on the site which would make this site particularily suitable for estate residential development. Staff also reference the comments from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which indicates that the subject site is presently used for agricultural purposes and is located within an area of prime agricultural land, bounded on four (4) sides by agricultural uses. Based on the above considerations, Staff are of the opinion that the subject application is not in conformity with the Regional Official Plan , and if . . .5 cc REPORT NO. : PD-124-86 Page 5 approved, could seriously 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. With respect to the objections to the proposed amendment submitted by area residents Staff note that many of the concerns cited, for example, the precedent established by allowing agricultural land to be developed residentially, the presence of agricultural uses in the immediate area , and the potential for increased demand for urban services from rural residents, are in keeping with the concerns of Planning Staff with respect to this application. It is therefore recommended that the Region of Durham be advised that the Town of Newcastle recommends that Official Plan Amendment application 86-1.7/D submitted by Mr. Richard Dubeau be denied. It is further recommended that each of the residents who have made submissions with respect to this application be forwarded a copy of Council 's decision. Respectful mitted, T.T. Edwards, M.C. I.P. Director of Planning JAS*TTE*j ip *Attach. April 29, 1986 Applicant: Mr. Richard Dubeau R. R. #4 BOWMANVILLE , Ontario L1C 3K5 Mr. Klaus Holz R.R. #4 BOWMANVILLE , Ontario L1C 3K5 REPORT NO.: PD-124-86 Page 6 cc: Mr. & Mrs. Gordon Barrie R.R. #4 BOWMANVILLE , Ontario L1C 3K5 Ms. Wanda Ball R.R. #4 BOWMANVILLE , Ontario L1C 3K5 Ms. Linda Grabowski 8 The Bridlepath BOWMANVILLE , Ontario L1C 3W1 C. RR 4, Bowmanville Ontario, L1C 3K5 A,3ril 15, 1986 ?lanni.ng Department egion of Durham lUUuliAM Note and `''° 105 Consumers t Drive JSy REGION Diacuu with .11hitby, Ontario please Answer Canada, UH 6A3 RECEIVED Note 6 Return to MP T t- iptjS TO n T 2 7 Investigate 6 Rep- Attention: 1�1r. L. Kotseff, .": 3 ---- 1ake Appr°Miut, T, Dtrategic Plannin B --:-j COWMISSIONER areparc.eetY t Gentlemen: OF r PLANNING :refer ,nce . File ::o. 8S-17/D ~T Pro-osa.l by ::;r. R, Dubeau to build four residential dwellings bet;reen lots six and seven on east Slue Of Lamb t s RoQ,1 , north of Highway 2 The residents on and around Lambts Road object strongly to the above-mentioned application. Firstly, hundreds of acres of land are owned by land speculators in this area. ,1`hz_t would stop them from building houses once this application is approved? :Moreover, how could y.;u --tor an individual from separating his farm? it#. 1 r. a has happened to the law of ten-acre lots in agricultural lard? (The typist tried to obtain the "plan" today for tine zoning of this area but was told that it was at the printers and would not be available until the end of the week at a price of X15. She once, free of charge , li�A a booklet and map co_icerning the former D-rli.ngt n township 1 It is the understanding that at the mo,.ent, shirty acres of land must accompany an "agricultural" dwelling. Just to aice a "fast buck" . He moved into this The applicant fast wants prime agricultural land less than a y-.r a;;o. His intentions demonstr:Ate admirably his unconcern for the welfare of his neighbours,, the community or the nation. The disregard and negligence on the part of the a :plicant is amply demonstrated as he did not c-_-result with neighbours with respect to his intent. The addition of several septic tarO:s will undoubtedly pollute the water :his neighbours have in their wells. No study has been ima%de of the many springs which are in the ground in the im::edia:te vicinity. -2- Farm land of good quality is bein,_ covered with concrete at an alarming rate in Ontario. There are hundreds of lots available in the town of Bowmanville-Ilvlearns Avenue, Concession Street, behind Liberty and Concession so that prime agricultural land need not be vi.6timized. Allowing this application will pave ways for any,;ne within the neighbourhood to subdivide and the results will be ominous for Ontario, yea, Canada with respect to agricultural self- sufficiency. 'Ve are not against progress but is it progress when ( a) the bottom line is : dour much money can I make? (b) how many acres of prime agr icultizral land can we cover with concrete so ti-IL it ­v;e are in the position of importing food? ( c) how soon can we provide sewers, street lights and all the accommodations of CITY living? (d) only corporate farming exists--cheap food and extensive variety? Should you require signatures of those opposed, we would gladly accommodate. We trust that you will consider the wishes of those who have lived at least fifteen years in the neighbourhood and have contributed to the quiet rural life which they desired when they moved into this area. Sincerely, �f2 ZHolz (on behalf of the resider s c.c. Planning Department Town of NewcastlE :I<) The Barrles ��rund l eri�J arms /� R.R. 4, Bowmanville, Ont. 11C 3K5 April ly, 1980 sia, ,col, .Yiw Notc and iii'' tvir. Larry Kat se f f,1 K 1 i E l a+tt Vis<uss With Phase Answer Planning Dept. , �_ _. .____ RECEI���:L) Note 6 Rqnn t,M: 105 Consumers Drive;'�,ts, , Ap�� I }fnvestlgmabk(pr•t r...._�.._....r.� O rape Apprnt-tet- 4hitby, Ont . LlN OA3 _6. --��' COMMISSIONER ProparerePly}, OF rear air: PLANNING_ Fide ,4e , the undersi our objections to the enclosed application to amena the Durham He�ion Official Plan. tine site is located on Drime agricultural land, plantea in orch�wra Ana surrounded by orchard. i To put houses on tnis property does not comply with aecti.on 0.l A 2 of the Town of Newcastle s Ir official Plan 84-e3• a We own prime agricultural land in lots L` nseh 2, 3, 4. in the second concession of Darlington and St, be -;,oulQ strongly sug;�est to the Com:-nittee •that no ' Ap housing east of the vreenbelt created oy aoper Pie Creek should be a long ways in the future. sub Mar -ha Yours truly, i 'A .� ��t j G�YI tit /)CC41Iu-a- ',larch 1,_...198e- . The Pla;,nin g Departments Discus With Town of Ne::castle Picqu Answer Region of Durham REGLIVEI? Note b Return tr,Abs COPIES i u APR ' lnrestigare b Z, Pp .-t — ''eference : La=mb t s Road., East Si _ V V lake Appropd,u-4c.;, Gentlemen: Comm SSIJVE prepare reply/a.-r"t , ✓ , Jentleme n: OF .... �•'s Isntt it remarkable that free en r P t 00min un the above-mentioned road yesterday I .noticed that apl>licution had been ma.dc by the occupant ( is it ;,pet a yeL:r since he moved the=se?) to sub-divide . Vvhat a wonderful idea--I 'll i-,alter the previous owner and occupant of over half a century never thought of th-st I--: good way to pay off one t s debts and make a fast buck. I was ,Teased that my tax :Honey had been used to advertise the fact that you are will ing to entertain sach temerity. It is` ;;ood to kno„ that the taxes paid to pla-nners who zoned this land with their infallible expertise are willing to contravene their own regulations,, After all, whatts a democracy--only the rule of the majority and that must be wrongI I can see many advantages to having this prime agricultural land covered with concrete ( as Itm sure that many of our elected representatives c:,n) : ( a) The way will be opened for many poor souls to subdivide so that they may pay their taxes. ( b) In fifty years, with wall. -to-wall concrete from the Golden Horseshoe to Kingston, we can all buy imported food from Mexico or California or wherever. ( c) It ' s one of the best ways I know to hasten the demise of the family farm'. Letts get on with corporate farming--the prices to the consumer iii.11 be so cheap, and the variety extensive .?? ( d) The housing shortage will be reduced--there are so few lots available in the town of Dor,,manville. Forty-eight exist on the south side of Concession Street, innu:.�erable on '.earns Avenue and between the north sides of Concession and Liberty Streets, to mention a few. ( e) Rural areas whose roads are lined with homes will soon be clamoring for street lights and sewers. That will be an enhancement of the tax base? ( isntt that what I hear when promoting industrialization of our area?) Now should you be so foolhardy as not to accede to the applicantts request (whatever his sphere of i=uenee ) , he could always go on a hunger strike--it's the democratic way Sincerelyp c. c. Canadian Statesman � LAMBS ROAD BENNETT ROAD 4,RICKARD RD. BRAGG ROAD ToWNLINE RD S, REGIONAL ROAD 42 BR. M.''CON . CONCESSION I CONCESSION 2