Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-25-78 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE 263.2231 — HAMPTON, ONTARIO, LOB iJO TO: Chairman and Members of the RLPORT NO. P-25-78 Planning and Development Committee DATE: March 17, 1978 SUBJL'CT: Objections to By-laws 77-84 and 77-85. On Septembe�o 21, 1977, the Planning Advisory Committee approved of staff report No. 278, which recommended that part of Lot 159 Concession 6, Darlington, (Cedar Park) be re-Zoned to permit a tourist camp with a maximum of 100 camp lots. In order to permit the owner to erect the necessary accessory buildings to a tourist camp, it was also found to be necessary to change the classification of the road giving access to the lot from a Class B Public Street to a Class A Public Street. The above recommendation was subsequently approved by Co==il. To implement the above recommendation, Council passed By-laws 77-84 and 77-85 on November 21, 1977. By-law 77-84 re-zoned the site of Cedar Park to permit a tourist camp of up to 100 camp lots. By-law ?7-85 changed the road between lots 14 and 15 from the entrance to Cedar Park toConcession Road 6 to a Class A Public Street. Following passage of the above by-laws, the Clerk oirculated them in accordance with Ontario Pfu deipal Board regulations. There were nine items of objection to by-law 77-84 received vrithin the allotted time, one of which was a petition signed by 33 people. Eight of these items of objection gave no reasons for their objection, so we axe unable to respond to them in this report. One objection did contain reasons for the opposition to the proposal and the points raised in this objection are considered elsewhere in this report. IV_ � 2 .. There were also twenty-one form letters received indicating support for the by-law. These twenty-one letters of nuiPO.-Ct also stated no reasons for their support, so we are similarly unable to respond to them in this report. Twelve items of objection were received to by-law 77-85 including the same petition signed by 33 people. None of these items of objection stated wq reason for the opposition. The 21 form letters of support for by-lair 77-84 also indicated support for by-law 77--85, but again indicated no reasons for that support. One other letter of support, again without reasons, was also received. At the request of property owners in the aava, staff attended a meeting at one of their homes. Some of the objectors at this meeting outlined the reasons for their objections. Subsequently, a series of letters giving more detailed objections were received by the Department. Although the Torn is not obligated by O.M.B. regulations to consside:i: any objections other than those officially received by the Clerk within the allotted time period, we have also analyzed in this report all the verbal and written objections re- ceived following the completion of circulation. 2. nummat�-y of Objections Ile found in analysing the objections, that many points raised by one person were repeated in slightly different lanruapv by several others. TheAL,ore, to avoid repetition, we have taken the liberty of su=wxizing below the grounds for objection which were contained in all of the verbal and written cubmiosions. These objections have boon or.[,nnized under q principle headings for ease of reference. Grounds of Objection to By-laws 77 8?l and .J7!.85 1. Traffic a) Speeding on Access roads b) Danger to Children ' c) Dangerous Driving d) Traffic Violations (e.g. ignoring of Stop Signs) e) Increase in traffic due to more all Creel: use rather than primarily week-end use. 1_ < 7 - 3 - 2. N, oiee a) Loudness of noise (sterole eto. ) b) Untimely noise (late at night) c) Inareaae of noise due to more all week urge rather than primarily week-end use. 3. Unlawful or Unruly Behaviour a) Possible increased attraction of unruly persons (eg motorcycle gangs) b) Trespassing on private property o) Fence cutting d) Damage to animals and crops e) Drunkeness f) Tree cutting for firewood g) Trespassing on trail bikes h) Poaching from fish ponds t�. Pollution a) roadside litter b) litter and garbage dumping on private zropertr o) pollution of creeks d) Smoke and odours from campfires, rg bage, sewa{,b disposal facilities. 5. Fire Hazard a) Hazard to woods, vacant lots b) Hazard to homes due to spread of fire. 6. Property Values a) Depreciation due to presence of tourist camp. 7. Intensi of Use a) Possible overcrowding b) Lack of opportunity for recreation within part: leading to trespassing etc. Flo" 8. Residential Use a) Possibility of full time year round ocettpanoy of trailers. 9. Lack of Control over OooQ.ants a) Unwillingness of owner to Control patrons. b) Lack of enforcement of existing by-.laim It should be noted that most of the Problems deaoribed above arises not from the use of land an such for either a parl. or a tourist camp but from irresponsible human behaviour. 3. Alternatives Available In order to assist Council in determining its course of action from the present time onward, we have felt it natives available. advisable to describe the It is important to note that the choice is not between a tourist camp and the existing situation, but between the previous Open Space (OS) Zoning and the proposed Tourist Cam Both of these zones would permit a considerably more intensive) Zoning. the subject property thzan is use of Presently ocettriz�, Under LIht_gLZ2aIaa the following land uses are perinitted- 1. A caretaker or watchman s dwelling 2. A public park 3• A Playground 4. A ourling rink 5. A golf course 6. A shooting range 7• A commercial park A commercial park is further defined to include the following uses- sing pools pools skating rinks tennis courts bowling greens refreshment rooms camping areas -5 - picnic areas Playground areas other uses similar to above. Note that the above would permit the occupancy of the jrhole site by campers in tents, and it may also permit the occupancy of the whole site by campers in tourist trailers or tourist vehicles depending on the interpretation of the words 'Camuing areas". It would be difficult to prove in court that trailers and tourist vehicles were not allowed although because the onus would be upon the municipality or other person laying a charge to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the term 1'eamping areas" did not include the use of accommodation other than tents. 'Under the TO-1 ZonipA the following land uson would be permitted - 1 . A tourist camp having a maximum of 131 cam..) lots 2. Building and recreational facilities accessory to the tourist camp. 3. A private parlc The tourist camp lots could be occu,Aed by tents, trailers or tourist vehicles. Under the accompanying licensing by-law no tont trailer or tourist vehicle may be Occupied for more than 15,` days in any calender year. In conclusion we note that under the ;,resent by-law it is clear that the Town cannot stop increased use of Cedar 11axk, cannot stop overnight use of the park and probably cannot stop the introduction of trailers and tourist vehicles because of the uncertainties of interpretation of the present by-law. The Town also cannot control the )roblems arising from anti-social behaviour throw Zoning but raore lengthy occupancy of cam_,sites and the present more valuable quarters (i e. trailers and tents) might encourage use by oceu)ants who were more concerned about site conditions and behaviour. In addition, the rezoning would bring into play the tourist camp licensing by--law which is des3iC ed to control conditions in par:-s where cam,ling occurs. i /V- n/ 6 In short, with res;?eet to the intorosts of adjacent -i>xo;)erty owners, the choice appears to be between the leaser of two evils and we consider the full develo;.)ment of a tourist cal:ip Linder the 1110>1 :toning to be less damaging than the full development of a conwlerei.al earl; under the pxesent coning. �. Status of Road The road which is the subject of By law 'j';' ;:!; is alreadxr constructed to the Standard of a Class A Public Street, and the purpose of the by--law is to recognize this fact. It is ac nowled-,ed that no building permits for new main buildings can be issued for lots which front on a Class B Public Street. This would not e..clude further growth and development of the corn ercial ;.ar. . site, but i.iay .4)re Tent construction of additional major structures Such growth and development could be less than desirable with increased niuibers of people, tents, etc occupying the site but the of-mer unable to erect the required number of facilities (eg toilets, laundry faciliti.ea, etc, ') 5. Reoonriendation It is recommended that Council •uxoceed with the processing of by--law ?7-"4 and 77-35 as they now read and that Council instruct the Cler:: to report to the Ontario I-hmicipal Board that it has considered each objection received within the time -Prescribed by the Boards regulations and has ta'..en the position that the by lairs should be approved notwith- standing those objections. Ilea j,,cctfVlly submitted, Geor(,e I'. Howden, ToVm ).lanner.