Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/1971Page 14, Meeting Committee of Adjustment, July 13, 1971: General Business - The Secretary -Treasurer presented the minutes of the regular Monthly Meeting of the Clarke Planning Board for meetings June 17, 1971 and June 23, 1971. There being one more app 14cati.n to be considered necessitc,l,ing a lengthy review, on motion by K. Schoenmaker and secondee' E.F.R. Osborne, this meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. t be re -convened on Thursday 22nd July, 1971 at 7:. in Committee. L Secretary-Treasu er i MEETING IN COMl`iITTEL" The meeting,of the Committee of Adjustment re -convened on Thursday, 22nd July, 1971 at 7:30 p.m. in the office of , the Chairman, E.R. Lovel:in B.P.. IL,.B., Newcastle, Ontario with the Chairman and two members present. Application File No. 294-71 W. Kay Lycett B.A., Agent, Barrister & Solicitor.,, Orono, Ontario, David Nancekievill, Owner, Orono, Ontario, for part of Lot 28 Con 5, Police Village of Orono, Township of Clarke, Submission No. "B"294-71-245 As business 4rising from minutes of past meetings this application was brought forward for further consideration. Mr. David Nancekievill, applicant, appeared at the meeting held on July 12, 3.971, in support of this application. Also appearing were Messrs. Bruce and von Tennant and Mir. Merrill Brown QLS., as observers. No other person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application. From the Committee's general discussions it became apparent that this was a difficult case and under the circumstances, as Chairman I requested each Committee member to prepare his own written reasons. The applicant's agent W. Kay LycetL- B.A., Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario and the applicant himself were completely fair and open with the Committee and made no attempt to conceal facts or to allege they were mislead by third parties. The complete candor of their presentation was appreciated by the Committee. Comments by Chairman, E.R. Lovekin: This particular case has caused the Committee considerable concern because of the factual situation involved. The applicant purchased the property when the laws as they presently exist were in force and he is, of course, deemed to know the law. He seeks a severance of a lot with 60' frontage in the centre of 180' frontage so that the net effect will be that 3 lots with slightly more than 60' frontage each will be created; not one lot. If he subdivides this frontage into 2 lots with 75' frontage each he will, of course, be left with 30' overage. He could create 2, 90' lots if he so desired, but he has declined to amend his application to encompass 2 lots. The facts in favor of the applicant are as follows: 1. He has an overage in lot area even when 3 lots are created; 2. The lots"dead end" into a low lying "green belt" type area whic} abuts a semi -controlled access hi hway `Highway F,115) makina the street a "dead end' and, therefore, highly desirable from a residential viewpoint; Page 15 Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 22, 1971:. 3. This land is the last "open land" on the street; 4. The lots are pie shaped and, therefore, in overall configuration they are adequate since they would have 75' "frontage" if the street were to the south and not to the north of the lands concerned; 5. The soil is of a sandy nature, particularly well drained which appeared desirable for the installation of a sewage disposal system; 6. .A�school is situateat the rear of the lots and this ocombined with the greenbelt area to the east makes for a low density population situation in the overall area; As against this the relevant facts are: 1. In effect the applicant is asking for 3 lots with a little over 60' frontage each, when the frontage requirement is 75' (accurate survey measurements indicated a surplus footage and the by-law allowing measurement of 25' into the lot increases the frontage because of the lots "pie shape" (ref. sec. 2.17) ; 2. The applicant purchased the lands recently when the law was precisely the same as -it is now; 3.. Directly across the street is a lot with 180' frontage; One smaller frontage lot was created by the Committee (ref. File 11B'216-69-185) immediately to the west- of the lands now under discussion. The Committee relies on the reasons given in that judgment and points out that one lot only was created, not three and the land it was severed from was built on long before the severance was sought. While economics is not a primary concern of the Committee; it is apparent that the applicant is pressing his case as three 60' lots are probably more valuable than two 90' lots. He does not rely formally on any such argument; rather stating that his proposition of three 62' lots is sound planning on the particular facts, mainly the "dead end", low density, pie shaped lots, good drainage, area characteristics argijments etc. The Committee were of the opinion That economic aspects of the case were completely irrelevant to�its deliberations. Whether or not the land was bought..for speculation and whether three smaller fruntage lots were of greater value than two larger lots is irrelevant. The sole consideration was whether the scheme suggested by the applicant could be said to fall within the intent of the by-law and whether it could properly be considered as a "minor variance". After a most minute review of the particular facts, I am of the opinion that the land area requirement for each lot being much greater than the 7500 sq. ft. minimum required by the by-law and the lots being "pie shaped" surrounded by open areas, the reduction in frontage requirements would not violate the intent of the by-law. I wish to make it perfectly clear that this decision is not a precedent that 300' frontage,if available, can in the Village of Orono be divided into 5 sixty foot lots instead of 4 seventy-five foot lots or indeed that any lot can automatically be reduced from 751 frontage. The specific facts that the neighbours did not object to the proposal and that the lots were slightly over 60' and were surrounded by "Green Belt" were key matters in their decision as were all the facts heard and discussed by the Committee. Page 16 Meeting Committee of adjustment July 22, 1971: I have read with interest the decision of my fellow member Mr. K. Schoenmaker who is dissenting in this case. In order to clarify matters, I balieve I should comment on those reasons to clarify the issues involved. He is pro:;erly concerned over the question of jurisdiction of the Committee of Adjustment. The facts of this application make it a borderline decision and a difficult Problem. I believe, however, that Mr. Schoenmaker underestimates the provisions in the legislation regarding appeals. There is a maxim that "justice delayed is justice denied." The applicant herein has applied to the Committee to seek solution to a specific problem. I believe that, if at all possible, the Committee should deal with the problem. If the Planning Board or any other body or person is of the opinion that the Committee have gone beyond the proper ambit and scope of their powers, the Legislation has provided a legal safety valve by way of an appeal. In all Planning Legislat'_cn there has to be adequate notice to all parties and the amount of administrative preparation is unavoidably extensive:. The scope of the Planning Board is to plan on a very wide scale and they should not, in my opinion, be bothered with relatively minor problems. In my respectful opinion this particular problem is of a minor nature in the overall scheme of things and should be dealt with and disposed of one way or the other at the Committee of Adjustcent level. Admittedly the number of lots being created is three because of the position of the land being severed, but such a situation or possibility must have been envisaged by those who framed Che legislation as it is elementary logic that a severance in the middle of a strip of land creates three- parcels. Mr. K. Schoenmaker. Sr. 1�lember - I have had the opportunity of reading the decision of the Chairman E.R. Lovekin in this case and I dissent therefrom. While I agree with the logic of many of the points raised therein, in my opinion, this decision is governed solely by the question of jurisdiction of the Committee. I cannot agree to th.o creation of three lots with approximately 62' frontages where 75' is required by the by-law. I do not think the Committee have the jurisdiction to vary so greatly from the requirements of the by-law. I would also point out that such a situation should be treated as a subdivision problem and referred to the Planning; Board for their action. Mr. E.F.R. Osborne, Jr. Member - I have read the decision of the Chairman and the decision of my fellow member Mr. K. Schoenmaker. I agree with that decision of the Chairman E.R. Lovekin, primarily on the grounds that the lots to be created have an area of approximately 2,500 square feet in excess of the 7,500 square feet minimum required by the by-law. The Secretary is hereby instructed that this is the final decision in this matter, but she is to notify the applicant that the necessary deeds will not he approved until sufficient copies of an amended Plan of Survey duly certified by M.D. Brown OLS are filed with the Committee. The Committee have on file a Plan of Survey prepared by M.D. Brown OLS, dated June 8, 1971, 471072 and the. old Perrin Plan taken from the Hanning Flan. This plan shows three lots in this area. As the Committee are standing down for holidays, they do not wish to delay thn processing of this application and the Plans of Surveys submitted arc accepted for present purposes, but the deeding will require an amended survey. The amended Plan of Survey will be forwarded to the Department of Municipal Affair:, upon r.eceiptfor their information. The Committee assume that th__, applicant has refrained from applying for a minor variance on the land to be severed and on the remaining portions in _regard to frontage reduction on the basis that he .is awaiting the outcome of this application in order to save himself time and money. Rage 17 Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 22, 1971: The applicant would not be issued a building permit on the basis of this severance but would have to apply for and be granted minor variances of the frontage requirements before any permit can issue. Following further discussion the Committee: 1. Referred to meetings April 5, May 10, May 31, July 5, July 12; 2. Recalled their inspection of the property on April 24, 1971; 3. Perused the Plans of Surveys presented; and :;ranted this application for a severance on motion by E.F.R. Osborne, seconded by E.R. Lovekin, Carried. CLASSIFICATION "R1" ZONE Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Secretary -Treasurer MEETING of the COMMITTEE OP ADJUSTMENT Monday, August 9, 1971 at 9:00 p.m. Council Chamber, Orono, Ontario. Present: E.R. Lovekin B.A. LL.B., Chairman, K. Schcenmaker, Member, E.F.R. Osborne, Member, Mrs. Ellen M. Yeo, Secretary -Treasurer The minutes of the following meetings were approved on motion by K. Schoenm:ker and seconded by E.F.R. Osborne - July 12, 1971; Meeting in Committee July 13, 1971; Meeting in Committee July 22, 1971. Carried. Application File No. 328-71 Mrs. Julia M. Eardley, Owner, Box 63, Newtonville, Ontorio, for part of Lot 109 Con 11 Township of Clarke, Submission No. "A"328-71-49 Application was made for exemption or partial exemption from provisions of amending by-law 1653 to permit a minor variance from the requirements of :appendix 1 (b). The Secretary reported that 28 notices of the said hearing had been mailed in accordance with Item 4 of The Rules of Procedure. Mr. J.R.K. Erdley, husband of the applicant, appeared in support of this application. No other person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application. The Chairman of the Committee, E. Richard Lovekin, stated that he hod previous knowledge of this applicnti_on as he had represented Mr.. Eardley when the land had been purchased. He, J therefore, withdrew with the members' consent and Mr. K. Schoenmaker, as senior member assumed the chair.