Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/25/1973Page 13, Meeting Committee of Adjustment, April 24, 1973: Mr. Best indicated that the policy is to adopt an attitude similar to a sub -division agreement where persons are applying for special use .roads. Mr. and Mrs. Stanley J. Weyrich and the members of the ski club, Messrs. McGrath and Rutherford were asked if they wished to discuss this application and they replied that they had no objection and their interest was mainly in the proposed use of the land. A general discussion followed and Mr. W. Kay Lycett Q.C., agent for the applicant suggested that the Committee inspect the site and have Mr. Carscadden point out the exact location of the property which it is proposed to sever. Application adjourned to enable the Committee to inspect this property. CLASSIFICATIGN 10 "A" Interview granted to Messrs. Charles & Everett Stapleton. The Committee having heard all oral representations from the applicants and their agents, this meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. on motion by E.F.R. Osborne and seconded by K. Schoenmaker to be re -convened at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, Apr' S, 1973. Secketary-Treasurel MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Wednesday, April 25, 1973 at 7:30 p.m. Council Chamber, Orono, Ontario. Present E.R. Lovekin B.A. LL.B., Chairman K. Schoenmaker, Member E.F.R. Osborne, Member Mrs. Ellen M. Yeo, Secretary -Treasurer The meeting of the Committee of Adjustment re -convened on Wednesday April 25, 1973. The applications presented and oral representations on same, made at the meeting held on Tuesday, April 24, 1973 were reviewed. Application File 11B117-73 Application File "B"8-73 Robert Manina and Owners, Alma Manina, P.O. Box 532, Acton, Ontario, for part of Lots 3 & 4, Con 4, Township of Clarke, Submission No. "B"7-73-7 Submission No. "B"8-73-8 As business arising from the meeting held on March 26, 1973, these applications were brought forward for further consideration. No person appeared in support of, or in opposition to these applications. As a matter of record the whole Committee inspected this property on Thursday, April 19, 1973 and noted the following facts: 1. Three or Four modern houses had been built on Page 14 Meeting Committee of Adjustment, April 25, 1973: 1. cont'd - the east side of the north -south road that runs up the east side of the property; 2. This land is stony in spots with some very large boulders in the fence line; 3. The land is high and light and ,vell drained; 4. Excellent building sites could be selected from the land available; 5. The property is rented to one James Phillips, but there was no one at home; Following a discussion the Committee were of the opinionihat they should not grant multiple severances, but in the absence of the applicants the matter was adjourned until the next meeting of the Committee to enable them to make further representations or amendments to their applications as they may, upon reflection, deem advisable. Application adjourned and the Secretary was instructed to send a copy of these minutes to the applicants and to inform them the date of the next meeting, when it has been decided on by the Committee. CLASSIFICATION 10 "A" Application File "B"10-73 Mrs. Margaret Allen, Owns, Mill St. Orono Ontario, Merrill D. Brown OLS.,Agent, 121 Queen Street, Bowmanville, Ontario, for part of Lot 9,10,11 Block 7, 10,11 Block Z Police Village of Orono, Lot 28, Con 5, C.G. Hanning's Plan, Township of Clarke, Submission No. "B"10-73-10 As business arising from the minutes of March 26, 1973, this application was brought forward for further consideration. Mr. Elgin Heard, the proposed purchaser, appeared in support of this application. Merrill D. Brown OLS., Bowmanville, Ontario, also appSAred. No other person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application. As a matter of record, the whole Committee inspected this property on Thursday, April 19, 1973 and the following facts were noted: 1. Mr. Elgin Heard, the proposed purchaser showed the Committee the property and the various survey stakes; 2. Several property lines were involved and the existing road is obviously a forced road, not exactly within its proper allowance; 3. A lot of valley land or hazard land is involved; Page 15, Meeting Committee of Adjustment, April 25, 1973: Mr. Heard, under oath, confirmed that the parcel he wishes to purchase will increase the size of his lot. Through some error in description it appears that his dwelling is not within his lands and he wishes to correct this. Merrill D. Brown OLS., under oath, indicated the area to be conveyed to Mr. Heard.(ref. Plan of Survey 72149 meeting Mar 26/73) The Committee reviewed the minutes of Meeting March 26, 1973, noting the many facts presented at that time and following further discussion, were of the opinion that the rectification of the property lines concerned were in conformity with the relevant section of the by-law and sound planning practice. Application for severance of an area of approximately 0.92 acres to an abutting owner granted on motion of K. Schcenmaker, and seconded by Q.F.R. Osborne. CARRIED. CLASS IFIC.TION" R1" Application File "B116-73 Thomas G. Atkins, Owner, Orono, Ontario, W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent, Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario, for part of Lot 9, Block "R", pt. Lot 28, Con 5, Hanning Plan, Police Villac:e of Orono, Township of Clarke, Submission No. "316-73-6 As business arising from former minutes, this application wFs brought forward for further consideration. W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario, agent for the applicant, appeFred in support of this application. Merrill D. Brown OLS., Bowmanville, Ontario also appeared. No other person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application. Mr. Brown OLS., under oath, presented the following material to the meeting: 1. Certified Plan of Survey dated April 24, 1973, dated April 24, 1973, file 73021-B annotated - "this plan is not a plan of subdivision within the meaning of sections 29,32, or 33 of the Planning Act" "Reference plan of the Village of Orono, County of Durham". Following perusal of the Plan of Survey, the Committee noted that the frontFge on Church Street which was previously thought to be below the requirements for the area of 751, namely 661, was now shown to be 82.71. Therefore, it is assumed that an application for a minor variance for frontage requested by one Joseph Leschak, Box 207, Orono, Ontario, has been improperly brought before the Committee and will be disposed of under a separate decision. The 4)plication before the Committee, therefore, becomes solely one of a severance of land from one deed and adding the said land so severed to another deed. That part of the plan designated as part "1" and fronting on Church Street as evidenced by the Plan of Survey meets both frontage and area requirements for a lot in the Village of Orono. The addition of the part severed from this lot, namely part 112" will increase the area of the lot referred to as part "4" and is a benefit to those lands. Page 16 Meeting Committee of Adjustment, April 25, 1973: The Committee: 1. Reviewed the minutes of meetings February 21; March 28, 1973; 2. Recalled their inspection of this property on March 17, 1973; and 3. The Committee were satisfied in regard to the historical search of title; Moved by E.F.R. Osborne and seconded by K. Schoenmaker that this application for severance be granted. CLASSIFICATION"RI" Application File "A"12-73 CARRIED . Joseph Leschak, proposed purchaser, Box 207, Orono, Ontario, W. Kay Lycett Q.C., agent, Orono, Ontario, for part Lot 9, Block "R" in part of Lot 28 Concession 5 of the Township of Clarke, Police Village of Orono, Ontario. Submission "A"12-73-12 Application was made for exemption or partial exemption from provisions of sub -division control by-law 1592 as amended by by-law 1653 for a reduction of required frontage of residential lot from 75' to 661. No person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application. This This matter was adjourned until the next sitting of the Committee to be dealt with at that time. Since it would appear that a Plan of Survey has revealed that the lot has sufficient frontage to meet full requirements, this application is unnecessary and will probably be adjourned sine die at the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment. (ref Submission No. "B"6-73-6 Thomas G. Atkins, decision dated April 25, 1973). CLASSIFICATION "R1" Application File "B"13-73 William Vooys, Owner, R.R. 42, Orono Ontario, W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent, Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario, for part of Lot 29, Con 6, Township of Clarke, Submission No. "B"13-73-13 As business arising from former minutes, this application was brought forward for further consideration. W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario, as agent for the applicant appeared in support of this application. No other person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application. As a matter of record the whole Committee inspected this property on Thursday, April 19, 1973 and the following facts were noted: Page 17 Meeting Committee of Adjustment, April 25, 1973: 1. The property is situated on the north side.of the Taunton Road, north of the Police Village of Orono. The Taunton road is quite heavily travelled as an east=west artery connecting north Oshawa to Highway #115; 2. The whole area is on a knoll commanding a very scenic view to the south with Lake Ontario, some 4 or 5 miles away, being clearly visible and quite attractive; 3. Previous minutes indicate this is a case of a gardening enterprise with two dwellings for the operators of the gardening centre; 4. The Committee also recalled that the Ontario Municipal Board approved a by-law of the Township of Clarke allowing the issuance of a building permit for the erection of a second house on this ten acre holding. (ref. Mar. 28/73 at which time all the facts of the re -zoning by-law were duly recorded); 5. The Committee wish to point out that the lands herein are used in a specialist agricultural enterprise which is a family operation.; M.D. Brown OLS., appeared at the meeting and, under oath, referred to the Certified Plan of Survey, dated July 10, 1972, file 72103 on which is outlined an area of 1 acre and the proposed buildings. Mr. 7rown indicated the position of the house on the lot and stated that the house could be built in such a way as to meet all relevant requirements. Council and OMB approved the building of two buildings on one lot and the application before us is for these two houses on two lots for mortgage purposes. The Committee perused the minutes of meeting I -larch 28, 1973 and intimated to agent, W. Kay Lycett, that they would require a restrictive clause be included in the deed. Moved by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by E.R. Osborne that the application for consent to severance of 1 acre be granted permitting two singled family dwellings as set out in restricted area by-law No. 1737, passed and approved on the 1st. day of August, 1972 and entered as "O.B. No. 91, folio 385, January 11, 1973 "K.C. Andrews" Secretary Ontario Municipal Board" SUBJECT TO THE FCLLO",`ING CONDITION: 1. SUBJCT to the restriction, limitation and condition that the lands herein described shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed, or any equity therein, with the exception of a mortgage, be sold, transferred or conveyed to any person, firm or corporation other than to a person who is an immediate member of the family for a period of five (5) years from the date upon which the decision of the Committee of Adjustment for the Township of Clarke to the within conveyance becomes final, such date to be as shown on the copy of the decision of the said Committee which is attached to and forms part of this Deed. CARRIED. CLAS5IF IC1_=_ N "A" 4" Page 18 Meeting Committee of Adjustment, April 25, 1973: Application File "B"12-73 Donald Gorden Henry, Owner, R.R. =,2, Orono, Ontario, W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent, Barristcr & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario, for part of Lot 31, Con 6, Township of Clarke, Submission No. "B"12-73-12 As business arising from the minutes of March 28, 19739 this application was brought forward for further consideration. Mr. Donald Gordon Henry, applicant, accompanied by his agent W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario, and Mr. Michael Bevan, proposed purchaser, appeared in support of this application. No other person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application. The Committee allowed a previous severance on this property at the instance of this same applicant about 6 years ago. Mr. Donald Gordon Henry, under oath, stated the following facts: 1. He purchased this property approximately 10 years ago; 2. The septic tank is directly to the north-west of the house; 3. The subject land is a corner lot and, in his opinion, this should be considered an "infilling" application; bearing in mind the number of houses built along the Leskard Road, on the East side of the Road; and the Ochonski sub -division across Taunton Road to the South; 4. The proposed severance is slightly higher land than the appellant home with better drainage. The road in front has been re -ditched since he owned the property and there is no drainage problem. There is no trouble with the water supply which is supplied by an overflowing well; 5. Mir,. Henry advanced the argument that something should be done with this lot, as it was too large and was becoming a weed lot; 6. There are two houses on the Leskard Road, immediately to the north of the property, one abutting the lot to be sold and another home on a 5 acre parcel; Mr. Michael Bevan, the proposed purchaser stated, under oath, that he did not have house plans to present at this time. He said it was his intention to build a house fronting on the Leskard Road. Mr. Bevan was informed that,if this severance were granted, he would be required to apply for a minor variance as 40 acres is the lot requirement in an Agricultural Zone. It was explained to him that he could find himself in the position of owning a piece of land for which a building perreit was not oNtainable. This application is to divide a rather large corner lot in the north-west corner of the Taunton-Leskard Road into two lots, one to contain the applicant's existing dwelling and one to be sold. The two arguments advanced by the applicant's agent W.K. Lycett Q.C., that impressed the Committee and which we have taken the liberty to paraphrase were: -Page 19 Meeting Committee of Adjustment, April 25, 1973: 1. This application should be treated as an "infilling operation". The lot to be separated is a corner lot and it would be a larger lot than many other in the area. It is admittedly an "isolated" situation; 2. The lot to be severed is on the north-west corner of the Taunton Road and the Leskard Road. The east side of the Leskard Road, running north from the Taunton Road is designated as Lot 30, Concession six, Township of Clarke. The land to the west is Lot 31. In Lot Thirty (30) there is a ribbon development along the said East boundary of the Leskard Road com- prising 53 lots. With housing pressures being what they are in the area; this will soon be 53 houses within 1.2 miles. It is indeed difficult, in the realm of pure logic, to say that it is acceptable to have 53 lots on the East sideof a Road but one extra lot increasing the estimated (by observation only, not by title search) number of lots for houses on the west side from 8 (2 old farm houses, 6 more modern types) to 9 is bad planning. It is, of course, quite true that there are historical reasons for this gross discrepancy on two sides of a Road which topographically are identical. Those people who were prepared to take advantage of what the Planners would, in retrospect, regard as a "legal loophol@"created 53 lots legally. The applicant cannot create even one lot, legally, at this time, if the Committee do not give their consent. For the Committee to sit back and simply say to the applicant "it doesn't have to make common sense, its policy" is obviously insufficient. For the Committee to give as a reason that it was the laxity of various Governing Bodies who permitted these improper multiple severances, is to lean on a weak reed and does little to kindle public confidence and respect in public administration. It is all very well to say to a local Committee that they should stay in their own little bailywick and not concern themselves. The draughtsman who drew the Planning Act, thought it both advisable and worthwhile to constitute a Committee of Adjustment whose structure bears all the earmarks of a properly constituted semi - judicial (as opposed to administrative) body with rotating member- ship, independence from Council and whose decisions are subject to judicial review. It is surely commonly accepted law that it is incumbent on any person or body charged with a judicial function to act judicially and the judicial process is a logical self monitoring function. It is not the slavish function of attempting to please administrative officials, local or urban by rendering decisions that are solely designed to court favour with such administrative officials. It is exceedingly difficult, in particular cases, to observe both the letter and spirit of the relevant duly enacted legislation and yet to give to the individual applicant that type of equitable relief which the legislation envisages. This Committee is prepared, at all times, to give any applicant the widest latitude in presenting its case and to resolve any reasonable doubt in favour of the applicant. It should also use somejudicial discretion in making remarks or criticisms of other groups or bodies who have their own problems unknown to the Committee. Vlhile these general remarks do little to assist the C Committee or an appellate autharity in deciding this particular case; the rather comprehensive discussions held by the Committee in considering this case gave rise to some particular thoughts which really should be set down for whatever light they may shed on the difficult role faced by local Committees of Adjustment and Land Division Committees as seen through the eyes of one particular Committee. It is wise to remember that individuatl property rights are unknown in a Communist Society. Page 20 Meeting Committee of Adjustment, April 25, 1973: To deal with specifics; this Committee noted the following facts in this case: 1. This particular applicant applied for a previous sever;,nce when the Township By -Laws where not as rigid as they are at the present time. The Committee granted the severance but were careful to connect remaining lands by a narrow land corridor so the granting of the severance did not create three separate lots. This action should have provided the applicant with a clear indication that the Committee felt that single as opposed to multiple severances was their function; 2. The Committee have refused neighboring applicants severances of lots of this size or larger as these lands are now zoned "agricultural" a zoning which requires 40 acre lots;.. 3. The proposed severance is an internal land division; it cannot be classified as truly "infilling" situation; 4. The errors arising from a situation where lack of planning encouraged speculators to develop lands in a most irresponsible fashion cannot be used as a precedent for further development,where such development flies directly in the teeth of the by-law; 5. The function of the Committee of Adjustment; is to adjust existing laws and regulations; not to create policy or to bend existing laws to the breaking point. The problem here is not one wit0the jurisdiction of the Committee; 6. The Committee feel that while the applicant may,on the grounds of pure logic based on the general character of the area, have a very good reason for requesting a severance; the proper method of granting such a severance would be by way of re -zoning the area to take full and proper cognizance of existing factual conditions; 7. The redress sought by the applicant can only be properly granted by a policy making body, namely, the local Council acting on the advice of the Planning Board; 8. It would be presumptuous for this Committee to suggest what the outcome of an application to the Council would be; but with this reservation it may be stated that the Committee feel that the applicant's request is not without merit. Application refused on motion of K. Schoenmaker, seconded by E.K. Lovekin. CARRIED. CLAS=IC .TICK 10 "A" GENERAL BUSINESS - The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material to the meeting: Correspondence - Ministry of Treasury Economics and Intergovernmental ..ffairs, dated April 4, 1973 signed "(Miss) J.A. Darrell; Senior Planner, Chairman E.R. Lovekin B.P•. LL.B., dictated a reply; dated April 5, 1973 signed "D.F. Taylor" Executive Director Local Government Services Division; concerning "Regulation made under The Planning Act"; dated April 16,1973 signed "G.L.Farrow" Director, Plans Administration Branch concerning amending by-law 210; dated March 1973 - Newsletter concerning "Ontario Flanning" Budget This matter was discussed and on motion by K. Schoenmaker J and seconded by E.R. Lovekin the budget for the Committee of Adjustment was estimated to be $9,735.00 with an estimated revenue of $3,000.00 Carried. The Secretary was instructed to inform Treasurer H. DeWith of their decision regarding the budget. This being all the business at this time, the meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Secretary-Treas 10&er C ?rman