HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-96-93
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
DN: CTT-ADJ.GPA
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #
Date: Monday, June 7, 1993
#
Report #: PD-96-93 File#: A93/012 and A93/014 to A93/016
Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 27, 1993
FILE: A93/012 AND A93/014 to A93/016
is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-96-93 be received;
2. THAT Council concur with the decision of the Committee of
Adjustment made on May 27, 1993; and
3. THAT Staff be authorized to appear before the ontario Municipal
Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment in the
event of an appeal.
1. In accordance with section 45 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, all
applications received by the Town for minor variance are scheduled
to be heard wi thin 30 days of being received by the Secretary
Treasurer. On May 27, 1993, the Committee heard and APPROVED three
(3) applications for minor variance, and dismissed one (1).
Details of each application and decision of the Committee is
attached for information.
2. Application A93/015 was filed as a result of a by-law complaint.
The owners of the subj ect property have a shed which has been
constructed with no setback from the side yard property line, as
opposed to the 1.2 metre minimum required by the Town's
Comprehensive Zoning By-law 84-63, as amended. Through the
circulation and review process, it became apparent that the
accessory structure pre-dated the Town's by-law and is therefore
considered to be a "permitted non-complying" structure. As a
result the Committee dismissed the application and refunded the
--------appitcatton--r-Effi-i:n-fu+J::~------
5~.~.
RECVCLED PAPIER
PAPER RECYCLE
THIS IS PRiNTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
REPORT NO.: PD-96-93
PAGE 2
3. Application A93/014 proposed the construction of an attached one
and half car garage which would reduce the required side yard
setback from 3.0 metres to 1.2 metres. Staff did not support the
proposed variance as it appears the applicant could construct an
attached single car garage in compliance with the by-law minimum
2.75 metre (width of parking space) and maintain the required 3.0
metre side yard setback. The Committee approved the aplication
allowing a 1.2 metre side yard minimum.
Staff have reviewed this decision and as no one appeared in
objection to the application; the approved reduced side yard (1.2
metre) does not appear to impact on drainage, access to the rear
yard and provision of maintenance to the dwelling and in
consideration of the legal cost to the Town of an appeal to the
ontario Municipal Board it is recommended not to appeal said
decision.
4. Staff have reviewed the balance of the Committee's decisions and
are satisfied that the decisions conform to the general intent of
the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.
5. Council's concurrence with the Committee of Adjustment decision is
required in order to afford Staff's official status before the
ontario Municipal Board in the event of an appeal of the decision
of the Committee of Adjustment.
Respectfully submitted,
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
o
A
/ I.
~?7~",~~Ul{(
Lawrence E. K
Chief Adminisj
Officer {
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
CP*FW*df
28 May 1993
1)65
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A93/012
********************
APPLICANT: 909423 ONTARIO LTD.
AGENT:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
1 FEWSTER STREET, COURTICE, ONT.
PART LOT: 28 CONCESSION: 2
TOWNSHIP: DARLINGTON
PLAN NUMBER: 40M-1675 -70R
ZONING: R1
HEARING DATE: 27-May-93
APPEAL DATE: 26-Jun-93
DECISION: APPROVED
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT A SEMI/LINK HOME ON A LOT
HAVING AN EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 5.35M (17.5 FT.), MINIMUM
REQUIRED 6M
REASON FOR DECISION:
THAT APPL. BE REVISED TO PERMIT AN EXTERIOR SIDEYARD SETBACK OF
5.40M AS THIS WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH THE INTENT OF THE O.P. AND
ZONING BY-LAW, BE IN BEST INTERESTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDS
AND BE MINOR IN NATURE AND BE APPROVED AS REVISED.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A93/014
********************
APPLICANT: DONALD & JOHN ROXBOROUGH
AGENT: JOHN R. ROXBOROUGH
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
133 COVE ROAD, BOWMANVILLE, ONT.
PART LOT: 11 CONCESSION: BF
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANV,ILLE
PLAN NUMBER: 10M-198 -6
ZONING: RS & EP
HEARING DATE: 27-May-93
APPEAL DATE: 26-Jun-93
DECISION: APPROVED
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE ADDITION ON A LOT
HAVING AN INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 1.2M (4 FT.), MINIMUM
REQUIRED 3M (10 FT.)
REASON FOR DECISION:
THAT AS THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE
GENERAL INTENT OF THE O.P. AND ZONING BY-LAW, IS IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANDS AND IS MINOR IN NATURE, THE
APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR
r~
i.) ,,;.
. J
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A93/015
********************
APPLICANT: JACK & JACQUELINE HAMPSEY
AGENT:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
56 ASHDALE CRES., BOWMANVILLE .
PART LOT: 9 CONCESSION: 1
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANVILLE
PLAN NUMBER: 10M-698 -141
ZONING: R1
HEARING DATE: 27-May-93
APPEAL DATE: 26-Jun-93
DECISION:
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO LEGALIZE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING SITUATED ON A LOT HAVING A SIDE
YARD SETBACK OF OM, MINIMUM REQUIRED 1.2M
REASON FOR DECISION:
THAT AS THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED TO BE UNNECESSARY, THE
APPLICATION BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND THE APPLICATION FEE
BE REFUNDED TO THE APPLICANT
.- :)
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A93/016
********************
APPLICANT: SUSAN & LARRY DICKINSON
AGENT: DIAMOND & FISCHMAN
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
7605 LESKARD ROAD, ORONO, ONT.
PART LOT: 32 CONCESSION: 7
TOWNSHIP: CLARKE
PLAN NUMBER: 10M-2934 -3
ZONING: RH4
HEARING DATE: 27-May-93
APPEAL DATE: 26-Jun-93
DECISION: APPROVED
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING LOT HAVING A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 6.45M
(21.16 FT.), MINIMUM REQUIRED 7.5M (24.60 FT.)
REASON FOR DECISION:
THAT AS THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED TO MAINTAIN THE GENERAL INTENT
OF THE O.P. & ZONING BY-LAW, IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AND IS DEEMED TO BE MINOR IN NATURE, THE
APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR.