Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-275-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE r REPORT File R _ -- -__ By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, November 17, 1986 REPORT #: PO-275-86 FILE #: DEV 86-58 SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - SUSAN HARKER-SCHARBACK PART LOT 18, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON OUR FILE: DEV 86-58 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-275-86 be received; and 2. THAT the application submitted by Susan Harker-Scharback to rezone lands in Part i of Lot 18, Concession 2, former Township of Darlington, to permit the development of one (1) additional residential lot, be denied without prejudice. ! i i BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: I On September 29, 1986, the Planning Department received an application from Susan Harker-Scharback to request a zoning change to permit the development of one (1 ) additional residential lot. I Planning Staff circulated the application to various agencies and departments for comments. The application was also circulated to the public and notice was posted on the site. . . .2 REPORT NO.: PD-275-86 Page 2 The following agencies have submitted their comments and have no objection to the proposal : 1. Town of Newcastle Community Services 2. Town of Newcastle Fire Department 3. Town of Newcastle Public Works Department 4. Northumberland & Newcastle Board of Education 5. Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland & Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board 6. Regional Health Unit 7. Ontario Hydro 8. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Staff have raised concern on previous applications regarding the impact which development in the area is having upon the Maple Grove forest block. This area is recognized by C.L.O.C.A. and is considered as an "Environmentally Sensitive" area. The Regional Official Plan has this area designated as "Major Open Space" and "Environmentally Sensitive". At this time the Zoning By-law does not have any of the block set aside as an "Environmental Protection" zone. The Regional Official Plan permits limited non-farm development within the "Major Open Space" provision, provided the area municipality deems such development to be desirable. The "Environmentally Sensitive" designation provides a similar format und( which development can occur. It is possible that development on this site could be carried out, provided the C.L.O.C.A. Staff can be satisfied that suitable conditions exist for the creation of a building envelope. Planning Staff do not feel that such a Study needs to be completed at this time. The approval by C.L.O.C.A. of the proposed building locations would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Staff has received no positive or negative comments other than the possible impacts which the development may have upon the forest block. The Regional comments were directed towards an amendment which was recently approved regarding Nodes and Clusters (Amendment No. 155). The Regional Planning Staff were concerned whether this development fits the new criteria. With Amendment No. 155, it is now necessary to determine the extent of a Node or Cluster, and once this is done, only one (1 ) lot can be added to the Node or Cluster. Staff has examined this proposal and are of the opinion that . . .3 REPORT NO.: PD-275-86 Page 3 the creation of a Cluster in this location is not desirable. The Cluster would have to be set to include all of the lots from this point north to an existing "Rural Cluster (RC)" zone. The applicant has about 51.8 metres (170 feet) of frontage whereas the current Rural Cluster requirement is 30 metres (100 feet) per lot. It would be possible to create an exception clause for this site; but such a zone would apply to all lots which must be encompassed by the by-law. Such a reduction in minimum requirements is not considered to be good planning for this area. The most obvious impact which such a reduction in frontage would have is to increase the possibility for further development along this road. As noted previously, such an increase could lead to degradation of the Maple Grove forest block. C.L.O.C.A. would request that a secondary plan be developed should more development be planned for this area. By-law 84-63 was created with a zone set up for "Rural Clusters". This zone was intended to provide lots with at least 30 metres ( 100 feet) of frontage. In this concession, there are at least fifteen (15) existing residential lots on each side of the road with frontages exceeding the 30 metre minimum requirement. There is only one lot on each side which is less than the minimum. In each of these cases, the lots were created prior to the current Zoning By-law. The average lot width in this area is well over 45 metres (150 feet) and this proposal is to create two (2) lots each of which would have approximately 26 metres of frontage. The character of this area has been developed over a number of years and this proposal does not appear to reflect a similar character. The lot, as it exists today, is more in keeping with the image of this area. Staff would note that the rezoning for Col1iss, which was approved, created lots with the 30 metres of frontage. Any rezoning would extend from the subject lands to the Col I i s s property. . . .4 REPORT NO.: PD-275-86 Page 4 The creation of a Cluster zoning on this site will also have impacts upon the adjacent land owners. Due to the recent change in the Regional Plan, it would be necessary to rezone six (6) properties and not just one (1) . This would require a recirculation to technical agencies as well as to a larger number of residents. The number of residents which would have to be informed is greater due to the increased area which would be included in the rezoning. The rezoning would require that the minimum frontage be reduced so that development could take place on the subject lot. If the minimum frontage requirement were to be reduced in this area, it is possible for additional development to take place. As noted above, this would create a problem for the Conservation Authority as well as changing the character of the area. Staff is of the opinion that the creation of a "Rural Cluster" in this area is not warranted due to the insufficient frontage of the proposed lots and due to the possible impacts which could result from the approval of undersized lots. WRespectfultted, r T.T. Edwards, M.C. I .P . arry ots f Director of Planning Chief Adm' i' trative Officer TFC*TTE*jip *Attach. October 31, 1986 Applicant: Ms. Susan Harker-Scharback R.R. #3 BOWMANVILLE , Ontario L1C 3K4 �0 AREA Of PROPOSED REZONING LOT 19 LOT 18 LOT 17 .............................. NASH ROAD «` A i i i 1 t O i Q CII Q 1 C O i � 1 � Z i W Wt J ii of � a P N EP e A 0 W V Z V A 0 50 ioo 300 300"' KEY MAP 90.,