HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLD-008-09•
ar.~t~ton REPORT
Leading the Way
CLERK'S DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: May 25, 2009 l~t°sD~u-~vn~~~A ~~~ ~S
Report #: CLD-008-09 File #: By-law #:
Subject: Review of Refreshment Vehicle Licence Requirements
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report CLD-008-09 be received;
2. THAT the curcent 80 metersetback as required in By-law 2004-114 be maintained;
and
3. THAT the interested parties listed in Report CLD-008-09 be advised of Council's
decision.
Submitted byf @diti L.`Barrie,Z
f Municipal Clerk
PLB*LC
Reviewedb~jy/
V
anklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-6506
REPORT NO.:CLD-008-09
BACKGROUND AND COMMENT
At its regular meeting held on April 27m 2009, Council directed staff to "review By-law 2004-
114, a By-law to Regulate and License Refreshment Vehicles with respect to the 60 metre
setback as it relates to tenants and land owners."
Currently Section 13 of By-law 2004-114 states:
"No vehicle shall be used to conduct business:
(a) within 60 meters of an eating establishment;
(b) within 60 meters of playground equipment located in any park;
and
(c) within any park without prior written consent of the Director of
Community Services in accordance with the Municipal Parks
BY-law."
This section is a carry-over from its predecessor By-law 91-95. The setback was established
to protect the viability of other businesses within the Municipality. Typically the Refreshment
Vehicles are owned by individuals who rent space on land to conduct their business. The
property must meet Zoning requirements to allow for an eating establishment.
The case that brought this matter forward was that of Mr. Domenic Forsellino. The Forsellinos
had applied to place a "hot dog cart" in the parking lot on the East side of their property at 98
King Street West in Bowmanville. The proposed location placed the cart within 24 meters of
the Village Inn (91 King St W.) to the south and 19 meters of Rose's (84 King St W.) to the
east.
The Forsellinos' application was unique in that they are the landowners. Their argument was
that as property owners the By-law was unfairly penalizing them by prohibiting them from using
their property as they saw fit. This is not an unusual situation. Many Municipal By-laws restrict
what an individual is permitted to do with their property. By making an exemption for
individual property owners Council would be negating part of the Municipality's ability to restrict
REPORT NO.:CLD-008-09 PAGE 3 OF 4
the locations for any Refreshment Vehicle. This would include the setback from the parks thus
allowing owners of C1 zoned land adjacent to any parkland to setup a Refreshment Vehicle.
OPTIONS
Refreshment Vehicles can be a temporary or transient business. They may last for a few
seasons and disappear. Their presence can undercut the business of property owners and
merchants who have invested a considerable amount of money in developing their business.
The result of exempting property owners could be a concentration of Refreshment Vehicles in
the downtown core and increased levels of litter and debris resulting from the increase in
pedestrian traffic. The potential intensification of use of lands within the commercial areas
could result in further problems of litter in the downtown core.
If the landowner is allowed to put his Refreshment Vehicle on his own property then why
cannot a landowner rent out a place on his own land for a vehicle owned by another
individual? In both cases the landowner is making money from the use of his property. Staff
believe that granting this exemption to landowners places them at an unfair advantage over
the other Refreshment Vehicle applicants. An owner could, if the exemption were to be
granted, purchase and set up on his land directly across from a current eating establishment
while his next door neighbour would be barred from allowing another applicant to set up.
Where, if anywhere, does one draw the line? The Municipality could retain the 60 meter
setback but allow for the applicant to obtain the permission of the businesses which are
located within the 60 meter setback. Since they are the ones directly affected by the issuance
of the licence they would be able to say whether or not they feel it is a possible impediment to
their business. This would place pressure on the permanent business owners to allow a
refreshment vehicle to set up near them. In extreme cases the owners may feel intimidated
into giving their permission.
REPORT NO.:CLD-008-09
PAGE 4 OF 4
The 60 meter setback also applies to other Refreshment Vehicles. There must be 60 meters
between each "eating establishment". It is quite possible that one or more vehicle owners
could be vying for the same location and again a possible harassment or pressure situation
could exist with the permanent business owners.
In reviewing options staff have consulted with neighbouring Municipalities. The Town of
Whitby has a 30 meter setback regardless of ownership of the land. The City of Oshawa's
setback is 60 meters, with the same conditions as Clarington. The City of Peterborough has
no setback to other eating establishments but a 75 meter setback from any school, park,
hospital or other public area.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff neither require nor prohibit ownership of land as a condition of licensing; only permission
of land owner. But ownership does not trump other considerations. Staff do not believe it
serves the best interest of the Municipality as a whole to remove or mitigate the 60 meter
setback restrictions. Based on the foregoing, staff therefore recommends that the 60 meter
setback as required by By-law 2004-114 be maintained.
INTERESTED PARTIES
Mr. Domenic Forsellino