Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-226-86 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT r File # Res. By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, October 6, 1986 REPORT #: PD-226-86 FILE #: StRECT: ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TOWN OF NEWCASTLE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-226-86 be received for information and discussion. BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: Planning Department Staff wish to bring to Council 's attention, the situation with respect to the number of estate residential subdivisions being proposed for development within the Town of Newcastle. Staff are also seeking input from Council as to their perception of the appropriateness of present policy and their comments relative to the proposed approach to estate residential development. As shown by Table 1 attached hereto, Staff are currently processing 6 official plan amendment applications which propose the creation of 229 estate residential lots. As of the writing of this report, there are already 14 registered estate residential plans of subdivision within the Town with a total of 216 lots; 104 of these lots are still vacant. Another 2 subdivisions with a total of 34 lots are presently in the subdivision review stage. . . .2 REPORT NO. : PD-226-86 Page 2 Estate residential proposals are submitted under the provisions of Section 10.3 of the Durham Regional Official Plan which states that "a limited number of estate-residential subdivisions on large lots may be permitted by amendment to this Plan". Of the 24 amendments for estate residential developments which have been approved to date, 9 are located within the Town of Newcastle. The intent of the policies of the Regional Official Plan is to encourage new residential development to locate within designated urban areas and hamlets. Estate residential development is to proceed on a limited basis only. Staff are of the opionion that the approval of further estate residential subdivisions could draw development away from the urban areas and hamlets contrary to the intent of the Official Plan. In addition an increasing estate residential population results in greater pressures on the municipality for the extension of urban type services to rural areas and places pressure for development on existing agricultural areas. This is contrary to the intent of both the Official Plan and the Ontario Foodland Guidelines. In this regard, Staff note that 4 of the official plan amendment applications currently being reviewed by Staff propose the creation of at least 40 lots, and that many of the existing and proposed developments tend to be located in the same areas. The collective populations of some estate residential development will exceed the population of many of the hamlets within the Town . This in itself could result in pressure for facilitite and services not normally provided to these areas. Staff being cognizant of this have, in practice, tended to support proposals in close proximity to existing hamlets or urban areas which can provide such facilities and services. Although the Regional Official Plan states that only limited estate residential development shall be permitted, the Plan does not provide a definition of what constitutes "limited" development. The Plan does outline criteria by which proposals are to be assessed. Some of these criteria are quite specific - for example, a proposal must conform to the Agricultural Code of Practice as amended from time to time. Other criteria however are quite vague - for example, a proposal should not require the undue expansion or extension of services provided by the Region or the local municipality. Past experience has indicated that, unless a specific agency such as the . . .3 REPORT NO.: PD-226-86 Page 3 Y Ministry of Agriculture and Food objects to an estate residential proposal on the basis of a well-defined objective. Denial of a particular application has not been considered despite other planning rationale which would support same. As well , the criteria do not address the assessment of the collective impact of a number of estate residential proposals on the ability of the Town to provide services to these more rural locations. Staff feel that the potential for such impacts and pressures was the reason why the Region chose to limit such development. The Regional Commissioner of Planning recently advised Regional Planning Committee that, in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, the Region will shortly be undertaking a review of the Regional Official Plan . The suggested areas of concentration for the review process include the Plan 's rural policies. The current policies of the Regional Plan relating to estate residential proposals will be reviewed in the context of this review of rural policy. Although, from an economic standpoint, this type of development is capable of generating significant assessment, from a Planning viewpoint, it should be controlled and directed to ensure that the more important objectives of the Official Plan, relative to preservation of a non-renewable resource such as agricultural land, are adhered to. Similarly, we must consider the investments made in servicing urban areas and the economies to be realized by the Town in directing residential development to designated settlement areas. Staff are therefore reluctant to recommend approval of any new estate residential development if it appears that such approval will further extend such development into established agricultural areas, could potentially interfere with adjacent agricultural operations, might result in requests for service levels beyond the ability of the Town to provide at this time, or is located on lands which cannot physically support the proposed development. . . .4 REPORT NO.: PD-226-86 Page 4 This report is intended to put into context the issue of estate residential development within the Town and highlight the rationale for Staff recommendations which may be made, from time to time, relative to such proposals. Respectfully bmitted, T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. t Director of Planning JAS*TTE*j i p *Attach. September 24, 1986 ATTACHMENT I TO REPORT PD-226-86 TABLE 1 PROPOSED AND APPRO ED ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TOWN OF NEWCASTLE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS DRAFT APPROVED REGISTERED PLANS OF SUBDIVISION PLANS OF SUBDIVISION PROPOSED APPROVED No. Lots No. Lots No. Lots Built Vacant Townline Estates 51 Hotze Pei 12 Zurba 22 *M-748 8 3 (File: 85-30/D) (File: 85-53/D) (File: 18T-81023) (Sucee, Burketon) Schwarz 23 M-749 23 23 (File: 86-11/D) (Rills of Liberty North) Devecseri 18 M-751 , M-774 20 15 (File: 86-22/D) (Gearing) Perun 50 *M-753, M-765, M-770 20 23 (File: 86-41/D) (Burketon Hills) 667433 Ontario Ltd. 41 M-755, M.763, M-780 25 13 (File: 86-52/D) (Van Andel & Gust) Clarke 46 M-758 3 4 (File: 86-54/D) (Newcastle Shoreline) M-768 9 8 (Craig) M-771 , M-778 4 15 (Luverme) TOTAL 229 12 22 112 104 * The Zurba subdivision is located in the Hamlet of Enniskillen, and he Sucee and Burketon Hills subdivisions are located in the Hamlet of Burketon. However, they have been included as Estate Residential S bdivisions because their lots are larger and more heavily treed than a \ normal hamlet lot. \`