Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-96-79 0) CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D. N. Smith M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF June 11, 1979. REPORT NO. : P-96-79 SUBJECT: Application for Rezoning Number Z-A-1-12-1, Scugog Street, Hampton - H. Urbanowicz BACKGROUND: The subject application requests an amendment to the Darlington Zoning By-law to change the zone designation of a parcel of land on the west side of Scugog Street in Hampton from "Greenbelt" to "R3". Such an amendment would reflect the actual location of the floodplain limits on the lot, thereby permitting the construction of a single family dwel- ling on the tableland portion of the site. Report Number 185, which was considered by the former Planning Advisory Committee on January 12, 1976, spoke to the subject application. The recommendation contained in that Report, as approved by the Planning Advisory Committee and amended by Council, follows: "That the portion of the subject lot which lies above the 542.6 foot contour be rezoned to R3 upon payment of the usual lot development charge ($600. local, if necessary, and $300. regional) and upon submission of a survey giving the precise location of the lot and showing the above contour". (We note that the Town's Development charges have subsequently increased to $1500, and the Region's to $610.) a U) - 2 - The requested survey was submitted in August of 1976. However, immediately following the receipt of the survey, the Town Clerk received a letter from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, advising that the applicant had requested permission to move the proposed dwelling exactly to the floodplain limits, (instead of allowing a minimum separation of 5 feet) in order to accommodate an adequate septic tank system. In view of the proposed location of the dwelling, and the fact that the Authority was considering the eventual acquisition of the subject lands for open space purposes, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority requested the Town to care- fully re-consider its approval of the application. Council concurred with the contents of the said letter, which is attached for your infor- mation, on September 7, 1976. The applicant subsequently advised this Department by telephone that since it did not appear possible to locate a dwelling on the site to satisfy the concerns of both the Health Unit and the Conservation Authority, he did not wish to take any further action on the application at that time. In April of this year, Mr. Gust approached this Department on behalf of Mr. Urbanowicz and requested that the application be reopened. The applicant has subsequently obtained permits from the Durham Health Unit and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority to locate an aerobic sewage disposal system and to construct a single family dwelling on the site, in the location originally proposed. - 3 COMMENTS: The proposed rezoning complies with the policies of both the Darlington Official Plan and the Region of Durham Official Plan. Both of these documents allow the Municipality to determine the exact limits of hazard lands in the implementing zoning By-law, in accordance with such detailed floodplain mapping as is available. Moreover, since the applicant has managed to satisfy the concerns of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority by proposing an aerobic sewage treatment system, staff has no objection to the approval of this application, provided the dwelling is located no closer than 5 feet from the floodplain limit, in accordance with the permit approved by the Authority. It is noted that the original approval of this application was conditional on the payment of a lot development charge of $600 to the Town and of $600 to the Region. This requirement was originally imposed because of the policies established by the Region of Durham and the Town of Newcastle, to the effect that a landowner should be required to share in the cost to the municipality and the Region of any increase in the number of dwelling units permitted on his land which occurs as a result of an amendment to the zoning By-law. However, since a portion of this site is presently zoned R3, and since the proposed rezoning would only relocate the zone boundary of the Greenbelt zone to reflect actual location of the floodline, we can see no justification for the imposition of such a lot development charge. - 4 - RECOMIMNDATION: It is respectfully recommended: 1. That application for rezoning Number Z-A-1-12-1 be recommended to Council for approval; and 2. That the attached By-law 79- be forwarded to Council for consideration; and 3. That all previous actions of Council in respect of this application be rescinded. Respectfully submitted, Ak - NJF:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P. June 4, 1979 Director of Planning. THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE By-law Number 79- 56 A By-law to Amend Restricted Area By-law Number 2111, as amended, of the former Township of Darlington. WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle DEEMS it advisable to amend Restricted Area By-law Number 2111, as amended, of the former Township of Darlington; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle ENACTS as follows: 1. Section 13 of By-law 2111, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following subsection (q) : "(q) Part of Lot 94 and Lot 95, Perry's Plan of Hampton (Lot 18, Concession 5) Notwithstanding any provision of this By-law to the con- trary, that part of lots 94 and 95, Perry's Plan of Hampton, designated "R3-Special Provision By-law 79-56" on Schedule "A" hereto, may be used in accordance with the provisions of the R3 zone, provided that no main wall of any structure or building on the site, may be erected closer than 5 feet from the floodplain limits, as determined by the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority." 2. Schedule "A" to By-law 2111, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing to R-3-Special Provision By-law 79-56 , the zone designation of the lands indicated as "ZONE CHANGE 2 - TO R3- Special Provision By-law 79-56" on the attached Schedule "X" hereto. 3. This By-law shall become effective on the date hereof, subject to receiving the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. BY-LAW READ a first time this 18 day of June A.D. 1979. BY-LAW READ a second time this 18 day of June A.D. 1979. BY-LAW READ a third time and finally passed this 18 day of June , A.D. 1979. G. B. Rickard, Mayor (seal) J. M. Mcllroy, Clerk SCHEDULE Y SIL-OUGOG ROAD N 370 25 30 W 88 00 OF: HAMPTON f : o _G .. ". .. . .... .. _ M . .fig t I Q� Zone Charge to 'R-31 SPECIAL CONDITION N 370 25'30 .39 B/L 79 -56 THIS IS SCHEDULE 'X' TO BY--LAW 79— 56 , I SSED tsEa> 7 TH,S 18th DAY OF June , A.D. 1979. C. B. RICK ARD , Mayor :,CALE 1 = 20, E.P. ReDQTI; No,, 18 :aEPORT ON APPLICATION FO -irY_ULbLL ow'Jcz , Scu-gog-Street, Hampton: I. Pu se of ADDlicati2LI On November 103 19;;3.5, an application was received for the rezoning of a 129810 square foot parcel of land comprising Lot 94 and Part of Lot 95 of Perry' s Plan in Hampton. This parcel fronts on the WE:St side of Scugog Street and backs on the Hampton Mill Pond ., The parcel, is presently zoned "Green- belt" except for a small area in the northeast corner of the lot which is zoned IIRT'. The owner is requesting an amendment to the Darlington Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a single family detachedi dwelling on the lot. 2" 0 L-.i f r — -q..ial Plan P .2y The lot is designated "Hamlet": and "Environmental Protec- tion" in the Interim District Plan. The scale of the map and the 'flexibility! clause (Section 7(1) ) of the plan require an interpretation to be made of the exact location of the boundary between these designations, The "'Hamlet" designation ,could permit the use proposed while the "Environmental Protection" designation would not. The approved Official Plan for Darlington Towns'nip desig- nates most of the site as "Greenbelt" as does the zoning by-la-w, The remainder is designated "Suburban Eesidential". However the approved Official Plan provides as follows : 5M Fi sY �.T continued) a a m n "The limits or -hr: Greenbelt area shown on the Plan are approximate only and are subject to more precise determination when large scale top- ographic maps are available. The major consid- erations in fixing their minimum location will be to contain the flood plain of the rivers and their physical limits will to 100 feet from the centre of the watercourse, the top of the banks or the flood limit as established ty an Ontario Land Surveyors - whichev:-;r is the greatest. ` In this case the flood limit would appear to be the appli- cable restriction. Large scale topographic maps are now avail- able for the area and the flood line has been established by the Conservation :authority. Thus, the portion of the lot which is above the flood line inay be considered to be designated as "suburban Residential" wherein single family dwellings are permitted . 3a, Present Zoning Provisions The Greenbelt zone does not permit any residential use. The R3 Zone permits single family detached dwellings on lots with a minimum 80 foot f rontagc, and 16 ,000 square foot area. As an existing lot of r, cord , this lot would be exempt from frontage and area requirements. 4. Circulation of A QQ!i.ca t_ion - The application w:3s circulated to the following agencies for their comments : 1. Durham Health Unit 2. Central Lako Ontario Conservation Authority NP AVOW n.yV C'4 ` s E M H { 'p�a� (continued) . . . 1HIKY hr'sMY p 3. Newcastle; Yorks Department 4. Newcastle Building Department ALL the above agencies replied to circulation. ® R sume of A encv Comments - l., The Durham. Health Unit - advised that the property has been found suitable for a private sewage disposal system, so that they have no objection to the application. 2. The Central Late Ontario Conservation Authority - advised that they had no objection to the proposal from a flood man- agement point of view provided that no opening to a building t., be at an elevation below 5+2. 6 feet above sea level and that no fill be placed below that elevation. . The Newcastle Building Department - advised that they had refused an application for a building permit on this lot. A map drawn by Merrill Brown, O.L.S. , on instruction from Council , at taxpayers expense , had confirmed the Building Department ' s interpretation. They suggested that Mr. Brown' s map should be shown to the P.A.C. 4. The Newcastle Works Department - advised that they had no objection to the proposal. 4 (.�o continued) . . m m p 6m Staff Comments This proposal aiipears to conform to both the approved and proposed Official Plans covering this area. We can see no objection to the approval of the proposal provided that the flood plain is not infringed upon. In order to draft a suit- able zoning amendment we will require a survey of the lot showing the location of the 5+2. 6 foot contour, Recommendation We recommend that the portion of the subject lot which lies atove the 542. 6 foot contour be rezoned to R3 upon payment of the usual lot development charge ($600 local and $300 regional) and upon submission of a survey giving the precise location of the lot and showing the above contour. Respectfully submitted . George F. Howden; Planning Director, r AAA G��T 20 alfi36 18 LOT 60 N215'}8 T �N2i2d�\3t � � ' "•'��.126 ,.C�.,2 i \20 j' N23�15 5,a6.V6 �`o,\36 \20.\25 1'10•` 39 112.1.5 4 492 6\0 20 > 0 yl m N \34 N \p_ N , avb t� tiB 20 t13 t2©962 \4 NgZ642 N Z . .' \9 Ao 49`� to \p•\3'� co y 49 33 40 W :a. 202`2t '� 20-g9gt9 �" _yw lo a t2 a 41 44 N O � !• � r a m 8'p9 f is -�,°^^�FpR•,.�.. , t ,120_,20 \5 �� t20- �, -= •���� 6iN N o ao 20�o R g' � , ' XQ-taL �w iiS c \8tat y .' 0 c ' 1 N'J4`914 c a p� Ng23�68 t [nom ti t> r ta�.p2 ��� Z� - 20 60 r Q tA4 113 �{y�•! .^� a @. N a N G` 4 ` ) , �'04'S 10 �9 N c'+ �O�•N ''a - r ,��p4 -��°�> ,�-•. � 4Q py�5 t?+'a ..,, S,, r I \ • t20" 50A\4 22 . pst66gS 20',x2 y^ rr w X20 \\' 41.\2 \5 4 0 J \j4 Na* c 9 !70 \ t2 2 0 _ ' �:}^yr 1l •� `^� t $5A IOF+ 'd•r 4,Sq .ir �a' ,L'�` , art tl j •1.'' 14 I1;�{ I,�Jf{f� J('' �,h'',O'1 i2Q ,. �,. :� - ..Yi toe 10' Nu t\ �a' 'ft 4t' {tom. o ai - 1. �3-'�`.�''� ,;, '� .�^•" to `"FAA 'I'y r'.-7' p' CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO C01\1SERVATION AUTHORITY A R E A C O D E 4 16 m 5 7 9 - 0 4 1 1 1850 DLJNDAS STRE.= ET EAST l/VHIT6Y , 0NTARI (0 L1N 2K8 1 7.r, �° � AU I-j I�iCC ST or TOWN OF NEWCASTLE Re:Re: Applzcatio:i to Amen,", Zoning creamy a rc,,it:G S.' c z 2 t. ^t 1,� ;onces sioa a? Cdr 4 zue?.s t.3ndiLiL, Z.i3t i;.!%iitt LUV: — Oteil dpplf cation will C':CS:_, DCfcre Council in Septe%a.<_r, fwTe"iACwl., if apprL7vet, `im'G'Ul .serve Lo rezone t:id properly to res.i_.. aLi.4_> y ;I ;b La.tted cOi;hments. Char-etl L^:;Ce;bear Ctp 3C $lv2riliclrtiitti A: re< ri`'P IC iL3F3iC3tiQr12 a C1at t1 :t 'L`ii C `drat _?t d1 ao e3 0.�eCt�i;13 L.hC YL?GO hSii_ from 3 clflsid C._ View :ai:.ib�jecr to ics cvhfG;rw.�. w udit±l. t,Ie }1fiCie-i. Plan imia witd a—J AU y ' ]U11L3+.:ruCL3:on L.EL,.l ciC @.L C�.✓.. �'J ,'JCltelETujrS t �ictC2C?A. i�. rC C°Li'1t CL'f.:..P;:S:{.t ts�,V ald 'be—taeen our stasi, ::.`1.e i,,ier5:., a�13:.�. ca, d,3;3 .z7... (,c:;:,ncil.tta.: 01 tiae' 'f®w-,a of ;yewc�istle, at pica the acquisltioA of the Llliczt ?:C P. rty, wlich is situate:l to the ia'aeciate South of the ssub4ect prasperty Was As a resqult of this i etia& aad discussion the Authority now :iL-'_,13 ri1 z' .ii: would be in the best interest 01 the 'town, the Authority, and t1la genera pug _i_i.c. �a3 rIaIintain the subject prop?+_rt.; in its present zoning and des.LSnazioa. '.t.:iv woa -",d Li c �:iaa mate tQ iZe ncc�rporatact at son a later date into a park- .chore row ,:Jis eca to include a :su6Stzi;.htiai porti,,.)n, of the iaAds bordering the :iazpt:o.1 ?0n�.. 'Iu fLIi:Z:t-Vier SUDSr311ticLe tlii: view,, the a, }.'icalit !las recently found i.t necessary t+.) This plm sucl that t1iza propose,,,:,,, structure extends exactly to the i:lOOdptai a change which shifts the loca.tiocl Of the structure to the nilid.le Of the lot and at least 15 feet towarL'S t-11 - pond. Apparently the applicant has wvis,ed that to incorporate a nor-cal "~>uildin�, setback frOZI the floodplain limit 3s LC uIrC3 by the Authorl.ty wiou!i Jie3d3 that ta+"1e septic till systei"`'.', would have to be :3:i�.tuated +�...�t.ong the side of tt7ce iD ��S.Lei i�`7.o 3.u, LaW2�._L c'�^ at ta�'IG fl''QSlt Of tx`lf' la t, e7:i:i Ci? �a+:,a lu result � pQten dal pollution of the polid. 2 C;EIJTRA,L" -r- ONTARIO CONSERVATION A[17HORR'( _ 2 _ ire C�e::rk, Tom of r,iewcas tle August �; 1976 ct iS tile r'Iut-iorityls! Ccn"teatic.l Liar: if r structure cannot be on 'at iizi hoot encrv&tC.4incy onto tE3c�, f1,Qc)taliije or C!, L`3.'..i.'j'sfdiCtOi;�y CCU a:lOCe�`L;.�� se.�t�.c systerl, then � tiu:iliing ;3ar.-.i>t S7.L) 1Lci i.Ot ',z)E' �,=Sizv{d. con tha foregoing coz=ents„ the 'Central Lake Ontario Co, sei:-vpt-,an gut 1orit requests the Town of je)wrcast:Le to carefasll;� re-ex ainc. the a" , Cat on 310pefully find merit in, tae staca:men ts> hCre1n. Zours very truly, :)rail J. doward, ,�Ianaaer. y > s�f -Suilding Inspector, a.Q Of 1,1,, 'CZ2S3 t f � f J ti tz ti�Z> 1 � 4 I I