HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-119-81 fV ll
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1.10 TEL. (416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 22,
1981.
REPORT NO. : P-119-81
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning - Part of Lot 9, Broken Front
Concession, former Town of Bowmanville
E. Gingell - Our File: Z-A-2-13-3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the Planning and Develop-
ment Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. That Report P-119-81 be received; and that
2. Application for rezoning Z-A-2-13-3 affecting part of
Lot 9, Broken Front Concession, former Town of Bowmanville,
I
be approved conditional upon the applicant entering into
the attached agreement; and that
3. The Clerk be directed to prepare the necessary by-law
authorizing execution of the required agreement, to be
forwarded to the Council Meeting of June 29, 1981; and that
4. The attached by-law be forwarded to Council for approval at
such time as the required agreement has been executed by the
applicant.
- 2 -
BACKGROUND & COMMENTS:
On April 27, 1981 the Planning Committee considered staff
report P-70-81 (copy attached), in respect of the above-noted appli-
cation for rezoning. As a result of their consideration, the Committee
recommended to Council the following:
"1) That report P-70-81 be received;
2) Application for rezoning, file Z-A-2-13-3, affecting
part of lot 9, Broken Front Concession, Town of Bow-
manville be not approved at this time;
3) Said application be reconsidered by staff at such time
as the applicant satisfies the requirements of the Central
Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the Regional
Municipality of Durham;
4) That the applicant be so advised."
These recommendations were adopted by Council on May 4, 1981.
On June 8, 1981, the applicant, Mr. Gingell provided staff
with a copy of correspondence from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority, which indicated their conditions of approval for the applicant's
proposal. These were as follows:
"1) That the house be setback a minimum of 12.2 metres
(40 ft.) from the front property line to provide a
margin of safety from the 100 year erosion limit;
2) That all openings in the proposed dwelling be at an
elevation of 78.69 metres (258.2 ft.) C.G.D. or higher;
3) That detailed plans for the project be submitted to the
Authority including the requirements of conditions 1 and
2 above;
4) That prior to any additional construction or filling on the
property, the necessary permits be obtained from the Authority;
5) That the applicant enter into a Save-Harmless Agreement with
the Authority."
3 -
Planning staff have reviewed the Authority's conditions
and feel that the Town should apply similar conditions to the rezoning.
Staff note that items 1 and 2 of C.L.O.C.A. 's conditions of approval can
be incorporated within the provisions of the necessary by-law; however,
items 3 to 5 inclusive may not. In that regard, staff suggest that as
a condition of rezoning, the applicant be required to enter into an agree-
ment with the Town, to be registered on title, which would incorporate
items 3 through 5 of C.L.O.C.A. 's conditions and at the same time "save
the Town harmless" from actions or causes of action arising from the Town's
approval of the rezoning.
With respect to Council's further proviso that the requirements
of the Regional Municipality of Durham be met, we note that the applicant
met with Regional staff and has been advised of the servicing requirements
and charges payable prior to or at the time of issuance of a building permit.
Staff are reasonably satisfied that both the requirements of the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the Region of Durham have
or can be satisfied by the applicant. However, in the absence of written
confirmation from said Authorities that these duties have been performed;
and the fact that it appears to be Mr. Gingell's intent to market this
property as a building lot, and not to develop it himself; the Town should
require assurances that subsequent owners will be equally bound by and aware
of the lot restrictions; thus our suggestion that an agreement be entered
into and registered on title.
Staff have prepared a draft agreement which we believe will
adequately provide these assurances and have attached same for Council's
r
- 4 -
review. If all parties are agreeable, then said agreement should be
executed and registered on title prior to or concurrent with approval
of the zoning by-law, also attached.
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the foregoing, staff have no difficulty in recommen-
ding approval of the requested rezoning subject, of course, to the afore-
mentioned condition.
Respectfully submitted,
f i
a,
TTE:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
June 15, 1981 Director of Planning