HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-11-82 i
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON, ONTARIO LOB 1 JO TEL. (416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
OF JANUARY 25, 1982.
REPORT NO. : PD-11-82c
ed
Subject: Application for rezoning ( A. Sokoljuk,
Part of Lot 30, Concession 2, geographic Township of Clark
Our file: Z-A-3-3-71
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:-
1. That Report PD-11-82 be received; and
2. That application for rezoning Z-A-3-3-7ibe denied and
the applicant so advised.
Background:
The subject application for rezoning requests an amendment to
Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 1592, as amended, of the former
Township of Clarke to rezone a 1393.5 sq m (15,000 sq. ft.) parcel of
land located in Lot 30, Concession 2, Clarke. The proposed amendment
i
would recognize an existing private kennel as an accessory use to the
existing residence located on the property and would facilitate j
issuance of a kennel licence for this use.
The subject lands are designated 'Permanent Agricultural Reserve'
by the Durham Regional Official Plan. The existing use of this property
as a residence is permitted under the land use designation of the
Report No.: PD-11-82 . . . .2
Regional Official Plan, as would be uses accessory to the residential
use. Therefore, the proposed rezoning would appear to conform with
the policies of the Regional Official Plan.
The site is presently zoned 'A - Agricultural' by Restricted
Area (Zoning) By-law 1592 of the former Township of Clarke. A kennel
would be a permitted use within that zone, only on a lot having a
minimum area of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) .
In accordance with departmental procedures, the subject
application was circulated to various departments and agencies for
comment. The following comments were received:-
Region of Durham Planning Department:
"Please be advised that the Durham Regional Official Plan
policies would not be applicable to the subject proposal
for the continuation of an existing private kennel which
is accessory to a residential use."
Durham Health Unit:
I
"no objections"
i
Newcastle Public Works Department:
"no objections"
Newcastle Building Department:
"The existing Agricultural use was evidently established
illegally sometime since 1975 when the building permit was
issued for the dwelling now on the lot."
i
Comment:
i
Staff have reviewed the subject application for rezoning and
i
note that although kennels are restricted to parcels of land having
a minimum area of 0.4 hectares (1.0 acres) there is no definition
Report No. : PD-11-82 . . . .3
of kennel contained within the by-law. There is, therefore, some
uncertainty as to whether or not a kennel, as intended within the
by-law, would include a dog run for domestic pets or whether it is
strictly intended to mean a kennel where dogs are raised, bred, boarded
or kept for commercial purposes. In any event, it is clear that the
intent of the by-law is to prevent individuals from keeping a large
number of dogs on properties of a residential nature, that is lots
having an area of less than 0.4 hectares. This is further reinforced
by the provisions of By-law 80-43, which establishes licencing fees
for the registration of dogs. Said By-law, by virtue of the fee
schedule, provides further discouragement to property owners who
wish to keep more than two dogs on their property, especially properties
that are of a residential nature. In Mr. Sokoljuk's case, the annual
licencing fee for his four dogs could be as high as one hundred
and five dollars. Recognition of this use under the Zoning By-law
would make him eligible for a reduction in licencing fees, since a
kennel licence could then be issued at an annual cost of only $25.00
(twenty-five dollars) . It is for this reason that Mr. Sokoljuk
has submitted the subject application. A review of both the
I
Zoning By-law and the Dog Licencing By-law clearly indicated
an intent on the part of the Town to prevent the keeping of large
numbers of dogs within residential areas, thus minimizing any possible
nuisance which might be created by a kennel operation. In this
instance, although zoned 'A-Agricultural' , the subject property is
located within a grouping of non-farm related residential properties.
i
i
i
I
Report No. : PD-11-82 . . . .4
To approve a rezoning to permit a kennel on the subject lot would,
in our opinion, be contrary to this intent and we are unable to
recommend approval of the subject application. We note however,
that as a result of our circulation, there has been some question
raised about the legality of the existing use of the subject pro-
perty. In that regard, it is our opinion that the by-law would not
prohibit the keeping of dogs as domestic pets and it is not uncon-
ceivable that a dog run of the type existing on the subject property
may be required to house those pets. We are therefore not recommending
that any action be taken to have the applicant refrain from keeping
dogs on the subject property provided of course that he continues to
comply with the Town's licencing regulations.
Respectful�lyf submitted,
T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. ,
TTE:cc Deputy Director of Planning.
r
I