HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-120-83 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL.(416)263.2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1983.
REPORT NO. : PD-120-83
SUBJECT: 0.3 METRE RESERVE AS CONDITION OF LAND DIVISION
COMMITTEE - FARM-RELATED SEVERANCES
RECOMMENDATION:
I
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the
following:
1 . That Report PD-120-83 be received; and
2. That staff be directed to require a rezoning,
r
to restrict residential uses, as condition of
severance where the application involves a con-
solidation of non-contiguous parcels of agri-
cutural land for farm purposes; and
3. That the Region of Durham be requested to
review the intent of the Regional Official Plan
as it relates to farm consolidations and dis-
posal of surplus dwellings and bring forward
an amendment which will provide sufficient l
clarification and directio for the Durham
Regional Land Division committee in their
deliberation of such applications.
G�
REPORT NO. : PD-120-83 Page 2
BACKGROUND A COMMENT:
Council , at their July 25, 1983 meeting, passed the
following resolution :
#C-618-83 "That the Planning Director bring forward a
report to the General Purpose and Administration
Committee on the matter of one (1) foot reserves
applied by Land Division Committee in the course
of farm land severances with possible Zoning By-
law and/or Official Plan Amendments to clarify
process."
This report is brought forward in response to this request.
The Durham Region Official Plan provides the following
policies in respect of consents:
Section 16.9.9 "All proposed lots shall have frontage upon
and access to a public road which is main-
tained by the appropriate authority as
opened to traffic on a year-round basis and
is of a standard of construction adequate
to provide for the additional traffic gen-
erated by the proposed development."
Section 16.9.10 "Notwithstanding Section 16.9.9, a land-
locked parcel unrelated to a land assembly
for future subdivision proposal may be
created, provided that there is an overall
plan indicating the appropriate extent of
the land assembly and provisions for
further access."
.. .3/
Iv.-a�a
REPORT NO. : PD-120-83 Page 3
Section 16.9.18 "The Land Division Committee may attach such
other conditions as may be authorized under
the Planning Act, not to be limited to the
following: . . .. .
(a) . .. ..
(b) .. . . .
(c) Where applicable, the dedication of ap-
propriate road widenings or 0.3 metre
reserves across the frontages of all
proposed lots."
As indicated to Committee and Council on previous occasions,
it is staff's opinion, as concurred with by Town Legal
Counsel see that the Land Division Committee through the
imposition, as a condition of consent, of a 0.3 metre
reserve along the frontage of "retained lands" effectively
land-locks the parcel . Not only is the application of
conditions to the retained lands questionable, but the
application of this particular condition may restrict the
Owner's "rights", under the appropriate Zoning 8y-law
provisions, with respect to the issuance of a building
permit (ie,) farm house , accessory buildings, barn, etc.) .
Furthermore, it prohibits any legal access to the "retained
lands", in most cases farm land, thus precluding even the
use for "farming purposes only". The Land Division
Committee has indicated through their actions that when
dealing with a farm consolidation application, and the
dwelling on the property is the only dwelling, it is their
intention to impose as a condition a 0.3 metre reserve for
the frontages of the retained lands. It is staff's
opinion, given Section 16.9.9 of the Regional Plan, that the
inclusion of such a condition would be in contravention of
i
(
.. .4/
i
REPORT NO. : PD-120-83 Page 4
of the Durham Official Plan..."all proposed lots shall have
frontage upon and access to a public road." Notwithstanding
the provisions of Section 16.9.18 (C) , Staff
respectfully submit that the term "where applicable", as
used in this section, is not a condition intended to be
applied by the Land Division Committee in these types of
applications. Furthermore, staff would suggest that the use
of Section 16.9.18(C) re: 0.3 metre reserves, is intended
for situations where an application results in the creation
of a parcel having "double frontage", such as a corner lot,
or a through lot and where access restrictions are
appropriate, desirable and specifically through the comments
of the Town or Regional Staff as determined through the
circulation of the application.
The use of a "0.3 metre reserve" clause is not a matter
which is dealt with in Town Zoning By-laws, nor should it be
included within same. All of the Town's existing Zoning
By-laws contain similar provisions which provide that no
persons shall erect any building or structure in any zone,
unless the lot upon which said building or structure is to
be erected, fronts onto an assumed and/or maintained public
street. Staff note for the Committee's information, that
all land division applications received by staff are
commented on as to their conformity with the applicable
zoning provisions. Accordingly, when the Land Division
Committee considers the imposing of a 0.3 metre reserve,
conformity with the intent of the Zoning By-law, is in
staff's opinion, not satisfied. Zoning by-laws regulate
land use and if it is Council 's desire that this type of
farm consolidation be accommodated, it would be necessary to
.. .5/
REPORT NO. : PD-120-83 Page 5
include provisions which would restrict the use of such
lands or require a rezoning should a building permit for a
residence be sought. This type of provision is next to
impossible to apply except on a site specific basis and
would more than likely be unacceptable to a majority of farm
owners. If zoning restrictions are acceptable to Council ,
staff would suggest that it be applied on a site specific
basis as a condition of severance as opposed to general
application across the Town. If however, Council wishes to
make this a matter of general application, we would suggest
that separate frontage requirements be imposed for
agricultrual and residential purposes in the Agricultural
areas. Such an inclusion could be made in the comprehensive
by-law which will be considered by Council in the next month
or so. If this approach is preferred an appropriate
resolution of Council is requested confirming same. Even
so, staff still feel that the crux of the problem lies with
the Durham Regional Official Plan and the fact that there is
no clear indication as to whether the use of the word
"consolidation" relates only to contiguous parcels of land.
If not , and recent Ontario Municipal Board rulings would
support this interpretation, then the Regional Plan should
be amended accordingly to reflect this.
The problem which the Land Division Committee has attempted
to deal with through the use of 0.3 metre reserves , centres
around the need for "consolidation" of farms to take place
and yet still be in conformity with the Official Plan. It
would appear that the Land Division Committee considers
consolidation of non-contiguous parcel of farm land to be in
conformity with the general "intent" of the Official Plan.
If this is the case, then the use of the 0.3 metre reserve,
to restrict the construction of any further dwellings on the
retained lands, while in the Committee's opinion , is
i
. . .6/
i
REPORT NO. : PD-120-83 Page 6
justifiable, is in staff's opinion an unnecessary
application, even to dispose of an excess farm-dwelling
unit. If an application does not comply to both the
provisions and intent of the Regional Plan, approval should
not be granted. However, if applications of this nature are
to be considered for approval , an amendment to the Regional
Plan clarifying the use of farm consolidation, be it a
consolidation of ownership rather than consolidation of
lands, is perhaps warranted as suggested above.
Respectful ubmitted,
T.T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
TTE*ssp
I
i
i
i