Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-116-82 4 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAMPTON, ONTARIO 1_061J0 TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 12, 1982 I REPORT NO. : PD-116-82 i SUBJECT: LAND DIVISION APPLICATION LD 430/81 WALTER AND JOSEPH FRACZ - PART OF LOT 31 , CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON . I RECOMMENDATION: i I It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1 . That Report PD-116-82 be received for information. BACKGROUND: On June 28th, 1982, Mr. Fracz appeared before the General Purpose and Administration Committee to request their support in his application to the Land Division Committee for a severance. As a result of the Committee's consideration, the matter was referred to staff for a Report. I i I PD-116-82 . . ./2 * On November 6th, 1981 staff received the attached application for severance submitted by Messrs. Walter and Joseph Fracz. As may be seen from the application, the applicants were proposing the creation of a non-farm related rural residential lot, having an area of 20,000 square feet. It is also indicated on the application that the retained lands were to be used for farm related rural residential purposes, but that they were presently vacant. On November 9th, 1981 , staff forwarded comments on the proposed severance to the Regional Land Division Committee * (copy also attached) indicating that the site is designated "General Agricultural area" by the Regional Official Plan, and the proposed severance did not conform. It was also indicated that Trull 's Road is a designated Type "B" arterial road, and subject to Section 13.2.15 of the plan, which limits the number of private accesses on such a road, within rural areas, to six points per side per mile. The proposed severance would not conform. Our comments also indicated that the proposed lot did not conform with the lot frontage or lot area requirements of the existing "D-Deferred Development" zone. It was noted, however, that an application had been submitted to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance. Based on the foregoing considerations, our staff recommendation was for denial , due to non-conformity with the Regional Official Plan and the Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law. I On November 18th, 1981 the Town of Newcastle Committee of Adjustment considered application A 103/81 , requesting a minor variance in the lot frontage and area requirements to permit the severance of the subject lot. The application was denied by the Committee as not being in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan for the Region of Durham. i PD-116-82 . . ./3 On November 30th, 1981 , the Regional Land Division Committee tabled the application for severance to permit the applicant to resolve such matters as the non-conformity with Official Plan policies and zoning requirements. Following therefrom, on December 18th, 1981 , staff received * the attached letter from Mr. David Thomas, solicitor for Messrs. Walter and Joseph Fracz. The letter is fairly self-explanatory and indicates that in the opinion of the Region of Durham, this severance would not constitute infilling as defined in Section 10.2.1 .4 of the Regional Plan, inasmuch as the property is not identified in a zoning by-law as a node or cluster. Mr. Thomas goes on to request confirmation of this fact, and if so, whether or not there is any by-law identifying any such nodes or clusters within the Town of Newcastle, and if so, the location of same. Mr. Thomas is also requesting a general comment as to whether or not the area of his clients' lands could be considered a node or cluster. In response to Mr. Thomas ' enquiry, staff responded that we concur with the comments of the Region of Durham and confirmed that the present zoning of the property did not identify it as part of a node or cluster. We further indicated that only areas such as Maple Grove, Taunton, specified hamlets and one registered plan, located in a rural area, were identified by the Zoning By-law as nodes or clusters. It was also indicated to Mr. Thomas that the i matter of identifying further nodes and clusters would be considered by the Town during the preparation of the comprehensive zoning by-law, and notwithstanding this, some staff consideration had previously been given to the matter. PD-116-82 . . ./4 Based upon our review, it did not appear that there would be too many situations where such identification is warranted or in keeping with the intent of the Durham Regional Official Plan. That intent being to prevent further non-farm related strip residential development. It was indicated that it is staff's intention to only recommend identification of a node or cluster in situations where existing non-farm related development is limited in scale and can clearly be identified as a node or cluster which implies a grouping around a common focal point. As can be * seen from the attached map the proposal submitted by Mr. Fracz would tend to perpetuate strip-development and does not fall within any clearly identifiable node or cluster. It was also pointed out to Mr. Thomas that Trull 's Road is a designated Type "B" arterial road, and therefore subject to access restrictions. On February 3rd, 1982, staff received a further letter from Mr. Thomas, explaining that the intended use of the property was for a hobby-farm only, and enquired as to whether or not the severance of the house and lot could be obtained, in such a way as to not offend the concerns outlined in staff's earlier letter relative to strip development and access to a Type "B" arterial road. On February 11th, 1982, staff responded to Mr. Thomas ' j enquiry, indicating that our comments must remain unchanged. 'i On or about May 20th, 1982, Mr. Fracz attended at the i Hampton Office to discuss our comments, at which time the j background and planning reasoning related thereto was explained, and the applicant again advised that we would not i be changing our comments. I I PD-116-82 . . ./5 On May 31st, 1982, the Regional Land Division Committee considered application LD 430/81 , which had been tabled from the meeting of November 30th, 1981 . A copy of the minutes * of that meeting are attached for the Committee's information. As can be seen from the minutes, Mr. Thomas advised the Committee that he had approached the Town of Newcastle regarding the recognition of the area as a node or cluster with no success (he did not, however, submit an application for rezoning), and that as a result of the denial of their application for minor variance, they were requesting that the application be amended to conform with the present requirements of the Zoning By-law relative to lot frontage and area. The minutes also record a statement by Mr. Fracz, that while the retained parcel was to be farmed by his father, it was his and his brother's intention to retain that parcel for development when services became available. As a result of the Land Division Committee's consideration, the application was denied and the last date of appeal set as July 8th, 1982. This action on the part of the Land Division Committee resulted in Mr. Fracz 's attendance at the General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting of June 28th. COMMENTS: As can be seen from the background of this application, the proposal to sever a parcel of land is typical of many situations throughout the Town of Newcastle where non-farm related residential strip-development has been permitted along existing road allowances. However, the approval of the Durham Regional Official Plan and the Land Use Policies contained therein, was intended to prevent further i i PD-116-82 . . ./6 development of this nature from occurring, except in cases where this type of use could be clearly identified as a node or cluster, in which case infilling could be, permitted on the same side of the road between two existing non-farm related residential dwellings which are separated by a distance of not more than 300 feet. As the map submitted by Mr. Fracz indicates, this area of T rull 's Road already contains numerous other non-farm related dwellings. What Mr. Fracz's sketch does not show is the full extent of abutting lands and the fact that lands to the south comprise 76.4 acres, representing a viable agricultural unit. It is not inconceivable that at some time in the future Mr. Fracz's holdings, or others similar to it in this area, could be returned to agricultural purposes. In that regard, it was noted from the minutes of the Land Division Committee, that it is Mr. Fracz's intent to hold this land for development purposes at such time as services are available. Staff note that this land is well removed from the urban area, and that it is not the intention of the Region of Durham to provide services to these lands, therefore precluding any development potential at this time or in the near future. Given the circumstances and site characteristics, staff cannot recommend recognition of this area as a residential node or cluster pursuant to the provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan, inasmuch as the proposal would tend , to perpetuate the existing strip-development along Trull 's Road and could result in the introduction of a further non-farm related residential use in a designated agricultural area. i PD-116-82 . . ./7 For the Committee's information, staff will continue to recommend denial of such applications for severance until such time as the Durham Regional Official Plan is amended, an action which staff do not feel would be in accordance with good planning principle, or the Restricted Area (Zoning) By-laws are amended to identify such areas as residential nodes or cluster, again, an action which staff feel would be contrary to good planning principles. Resp tfu jr submitted, T. T. Edwards, M.C.I .P. Director of Planning TTE*mjc , ne 29, 1982 i i i i