HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-228-86 I:""'K"" TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT
File
Res.
---- ¢ -�. By-Law #
(SING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, October 6, 1986
REPORT #: PD-228-86 FILE #: DEV 86-46
SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATION - A. HOFSTEDE
PART LOT 17, CONCESSION 1, FORMER TWP. OF DARLINGTON
OUR FILE: DEV 86-46
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-228-86 be received; and
• r Township of
Darlington, submitted by Mr. A. Hofstede, to permit the development of one (1 )
additional residential lot be denied without prejudice.
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT:
On August 15, 1986 the Planning Department received an application submitted by Mr. Andy
Hofstede to rezone a parcel of land located in Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, former
Township of Darlington. The submission of the rezoning application was to permit the
development of one (1) additional residential 1 of.
As Committee may recall , Mr. Hofstede previously submitted a rezoning application (DEV
85-17) in June, 1985 requesting approval to permit the development of two (2) additional
residential lots, one (1) to the east and west of Mr. Hofstede ' s present home. Staff, in
. . .2
REPORT NO.: PD-228-86 Page 2
reviewing the application comments submitted and appropriate Official Plan
policies, provided a recommendation for consideration that the application
be denied without prejudice. The General Purpose and Administration
Committee, in consideration of same, provided the following recommendation
to Council :
"THAT Report PD-131-85 be referred back to Staff to review the
application for rezoning with the applicant."
Staff accordingly met with Mr. & Mrs. Hofstede to review their proposal and
at that time it was indicated to Staff that they would have no objection to
any modification to the proposed lot lines necessary to permit the requested
rezoning and severances. At the Committee meeting some concern was
expressed about the fact that the original proposal would create three (3)
long narrow lots and Staff interpreted this as being a request to examine
alternative lot configurations. In that regard, Staff noted that it would
be possible to create three (3) lots, two (2) of which would be roughly 100
feet by 330 feet in depth and the third lot containing the applicant' s
existing residence occupying the remainder of the property without
necessarily restricting the future development potential of the rear portion
of the lands. Furthermore, it was noted that in addition to the concerns
expressed by Members of Council , a concern was identified by Mr. Watson, the
abutting property owner to the west, relative to noise and the effects of
spraying as required in his present agricultural operation. While Staff
feel that these are valid concerns which support our original recommendation
for denial , it was noted that should Committee wish to approve the
application, it would appropriate to specify an increased sideyard in an
attempt to reduce any possible impacts.
The General Purpose and Administration Committee, at their meeting of
October 7, 1985, endorsed the following recommendation:
"I. THAT Report PD-140-85 be received for information; and
2. THAT application for rezoning of Part of Lot 17, Concession 1,
former Township of Darlington submitted by Mr. A. Hofstede to
permit the development of two (2) additional residential lots
be denied without prejudice."
. . .3
i
REPORT NO.: PD-228-86 Page 3
Subsequent to the above, Council , at their meeting of October 15, 1985
endorsed a resolution amending the General Purpose and Administration
Committee' s recommendation to the effect that approval be given to the
development of one (1) lot on the east side of the lot owned by Mr. & Mrs. A.
Hofstede in Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, geographic Township of Darlington.
Subsequent thereto, By-law No. 85-121 was approved to permit the development
of one (1) lot and circulated subsequent to the requirements of Section 34 of
the Planning Act. Staff would note additionally in consideration of the
by-law amendment, a Land Division application (LD 411/85 ) was submitted for
approval to permit the severance of the lot in question. Staff would note
that the necessary approvals pursuant to the Land Division application were
obtained by the applicants and permitted the registration of the appropriate
deeds.
In consideration of the most recent rezoning application (DEV 86-46), Staff
would note that a Land Division application (LD 383/86) requesting
permission to sever one (1 ) lot, was received by Staff for comment on July
20, 1986. The Land Division Committee was notified through comment that the
present application was not incorporated within the by- law, as approved by
the Town of Newcastle, being By-law 85-122. Additionally, it was noted for
the Land Division Committee' s consideration that the rezoning application
previously submitted, requested Council 's consideration to permit the
severance of two (2) lots; one on either side of the existing dwelling.
Inasmuch as Council , in approving By-law 85-122, approved a rezoning
application to permit the development of one (1) lot east of the existing
dwelling, Staff's recommendation was denial inasfar as the application did
not comply with the Town of Newcastle's Zoning By-law. The Land Division
Committee at their meeting of July 14, 1986, approved a motion of the
Committee that Application LD 383/86 be tabled for a period of one (1) year
in order that the applicant apply for appropriate rezoning. In consideration
of the above-noted application, the most recent rezoning application was
filed for consideration.
Inasmuch as the most recent application does not, in Staff's opinion,
substantially alter the intent of the previous request (to permit the
. . .4
REPORT NO.: PD-228-86 Page 4
severance to the west of the applicant's existing home) Staff did not
recirculate the application but, note for Committee' s consideration, the
comments as submitted with Application DEV 85-17.
Staff would note, however, for the Committee' s information , that pursuant to
Council 's resolution of July 26, 1982 and the requirements of the Planning
Act, the appropriate signage ackowledging the most recent application was
installed on the subject lands. Staff would note that as a result of the
posting of said signage, an enquiry was made as to the intent of the rezoning
application. The individual was advised of the application and purpose of
same and furthermore, informed of the date of the Public Meeting for
consideration of the application.
The following departments in reviewing DEV 85-17 provided no objections:
I. Town of Newcastle Fire Department
2. Town of Newcastle Building Department
3. Town of Newcastle Works Department
4. Town of Newcastle Community Services Department
a. Ontario Hy d-rn
6. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
7. Region of Durham Health Unit.
Staff would note that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, in responding,
stated that:
"In consideration of the terms and goals and objectives of
the Ministry and the criteria and policies outlined in the
Foodland Guidelines, the Ministry had no objections to the
proposal ."
The Regional Planning Department, in responding, noted that the subject lands
are designated "Residential " in both the Durham Regional Official Plan and
the Bowmanville Urban Area Plan. Furthermore, it was noted that the
municipal water supply and sanitary sewer systems are not available to the
site and the Region has no plans within their Capital Budget to extend
services to this area. The development as a result may only proceed on
private services in accordance with Section 3.1.3.1 of the Durham Regional
Official Plan.
. . .5
REPORT NO.: PD-228-86 Page 5
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications noted that the application
(UEV 85-17) to allow two (2) new lots to be created from a parcel with some
400+ feet frontage would contribute to the deterioration of this route as a
Regional/Local traffic carrier. Such approvals could ultimately cause speed
reductions and lower the level of service. It was noted that Highway No. 2
in this area performs a more Regional /Local function in that Highway No. 401
carries the bulk of the through traffic. As noted previously, the Ministry
expressed that, although they do have concern over the addition of the two
(2) new entrances on Highway No. 2 being a "lower profile highway" , the
Ministry has not, in the past, taken such a firm position as to refuse new
applications for entrances.
STAFF COMMENTS:
As confirmed by Regional Staff, the subject lands are designated
"Residential" within the Durham Regional and Bowmanville Urban Area Official
Plans. Within the Region's response to Staff reference is made only to the
servicing aspects applicable to the application . Staff noted that in
addition, Section 16.9.11, 16.9.12 and 13.2.4 were applicable and due
consideration of same was warranted in the review of the application.
Section 16.9.11 states that "generally the creation of lots fronting arterial
roads should be discouraged. However, the provisions of Section 13.2.14
should be used as guidelines". Section 13.2.14 states "the maximum number of
accesses to Type "A" Arterial roads shall generally be as follows and regard
shall be had to the provisions of Section 13.3.3:
a) two (2) access points per side per mile in rural areas; and
b) 600 feet between adjacent access points in urban areas."
Staff note that Section 13.3.3 as addressed above re-affirms the provisions
of 13.2.1.4 in that they shall generally apply to arterial roads shown on Map
"B" but, if the intent of this Plan is adhered to and following adequate
study to the effect that such provisions are impractical and cannot be
implemented precisely, the authority having jurisdiction on such roads may
alter the provisions without amendment to the Plan. Staff would note the
general property is located within "Neighbourhood 30 as designated in the
Bowmanville Urban Area Official Plan for which a Neighbourhood Plan has yet
. . .6
REPORT NO. : PD-228-86 Page 6
to be prepared. Staff note that among such items of concern, the question of
access onto arterial roads mentioned in the Regional Plan, Section 13.3.3
would be addressed in the review and preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan.
Accordingly, Staff were of the opinion that the approval of additional
entrances, in consideration of Section 13.3.3, would be premature inasmuch as
"adequate study" has not been completed.
Section 16.9.12 within the Regional Plan provides for similar consideration
that, where having regard for the provision of this Plan, an access to an
arterial road is considered necessary and appropriate. Such access must be
constructed in accordance with the requirements of the authority having
jurisdiction. It was Staff's opinion that in view of the provisions of the
Regional Official Plan as noted, the approval of the rezoning application to
permit two (2) additional residential lots would be premature and would
prejudice the future development of the Neighbourhood Development Plan for
Neighbourhood 3C as denoted in the Bowmanvil le Urban Area Official Plan.
Furthermore, Staff noted that the appropriate provisions within the
Bowmanville Plan substantiate the Regional policies. . . .Section 2.9.2( iv) (a)
and (c). . . .a) Arterial roads shall primarily facilitate inter-area or through
traffic within the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Municipality
. . . . .C) In maintaining the traffic carrying functions of arterial roads, the
provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan shall apply.
Section 2.1-200(a) states that low density residential shall be generally
located at the interior of the residential neighbourhoods on local or
collector roads.
Notwithstanding Mr. Watson's previous concerns with respect to the compatibility
of a new residential lot adjacent to his agricultural operation - strawberry
farm, it is Staff' s opinion as previously provided in consideration of application
DEV 85-17, the approval of the rezoning application would not be in the best
interest of good planning, would be premature and could prejudice the future
. . .7
y
REPORT NO.: PD-228-86 Page 7
development of Neighbourhood 3C as denoted within the Bowmanville Urban Area
Official Plan.
Respectful tted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I .P.
Director of Planning
LDT*1'TE*j i p
*Attach.
September 22, 1986
cc: Mr. A. Hofstede
R.R. #6
BOWMANVILLE , Ontario
L1C 3K7
N.E.CORNER
LOT 17,CON.I I A
Highwpy No ;
2 1p�
3q'l4 �,p R
z
NgSogB,E
o ° I
d O 3 0
O pO W 02 �Jp
O_ p 0
_ J Z W -
z �Q> -r
O N z
LOT T 3q.,q 17 0
CON, 30.E 1
z
w
w
® PROPOSED LOT
0 25 50 100m
25m 5 0
31 30 29 28 27 126 '25 ,,2.4 123 22 21 20 19 18 17 16
I
SUBJECT SITE
I 1 I
'A
I N
—I EP P •A i 0 ..
V
NAyI 1 I
M2 M11 I I ' ►-
(h)M2 ' '0(�J IaRa
EP (N)M I �i Al`l lL
A I A �H EP
E I Y
I I I
1 i 1 i � �•
A
I
I � ,
EP,
0 250 500 IOOOm -
Former Township of DARLINGTON
I
�s�