HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/1972MEETING OF THE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, May 23, 1972 at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chamber,
Orono, Ontario.
Present: E.R. Lovekin B.A. LL.B., Chairman,
K. Schoenmaker, Member,
E.F.R. Osborne, Member,
The minutes of meeting held on April 24, 1972 were approved
on motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by E.F.R. Osborne. Carried.
Application File No. "B"1-72 W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
Vaclav Prosek & Agnes Prosek,
R.R. #1,, Orono, Ont, Owners,
for part of Lot 12, Con 3,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "B111-72-2
As business arising from minutes of past meetings, this
application was brought forward for further consideration.
The Committee reviewed the presentations made by Mr. R.
Spencer and W. Kay Lycett Q.C., at the meeting held on April
24, 1972 which may be summarized as follows:,
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor Orono Ontario
as agent, Mr. R.B. Spencer, Real Estate Broker, Bowmanville,
Ontario appeared in support of this application. Mr. B. Passant,
Real Estate Agent with R.B. Spencer, Real Estate Broker,Bowmanville,
appeared as an observer. No other person appeared in support of,
or in opposition ,to this application.
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Solicitor for the applicant informed
the Committee that Mr. Roland Spencer, Real Estate Agent of
Bowmanville had prepared some material, following inspection of
the site and that Mr. Spencer wished to present this material to
the Committee and that he was doing so with the consent of the
Solicitor Mr. Lycett, acting in the matter.
Mr.
R.B. Spencer, under oath, presented the following
material
to the meeting:
1.
Authorization to act on her behalf signed by
"Mrs. Agnes Prosek";
2.
Photographs of the property, taken from different
directions, to illustrate that although this
property is zoned "agriculture", the land is
not suitable as such. There is.evidence of a
wrecking yard, a gravel,pit, bush land, fields
interspersed with swamp land, scattered flat land.
The photographs.were numbered and illustrated
by corresponding numbers on a pen sketch of the
property so that the Committee would have a better
idea of the evidence given by Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Spencer continued to present further facts as follows:
_1. The former lots that existed in the area, with
title to the Proseks had, in fact, been acquired
over a period of time by separate deeds;.
2. The land was all originally owned by one Mr. Wm.
Hale Sr. and Mrs. Prosek is his daughter. Mr. Hale
Sr., her father has given her different pieces of
land over a period of years. The present proposed
division of the land does not follow any of these
previously existing boundaries.
Page 2
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
3. Mr. Spencer indicated on a Plan o£ Survey,
prepared by M.D. Brown OLS., dated December
-280 1970, #70156, that the 1.982 parcel and
the 2.08 parcel plus some lands immediately
to the south of the two parcels being part of a
large area of 24 acres should all be incorporated
in one large parcel fronting�on road allowance
between concessions 3 & 4. He then indicated
that the Proseks would be building a house at
the south west corner of the area described on
the Plan of Survey as 24.71 acres which house
would then be -fronting on the road allowance
between lots 12 and 13. The net effect of this
would be that there would be two parcels of lands,
one of approximately 20 acres and one of approximately
6 acres. The dividing line between these two
properties to follow a relatively straight line so
as to square two properties off. The land to the
south is owned by Mr. Wm. Hale Sr. and his brother
Mr. John Hale. The land to the East, formerly
owned by Walter Hale Jr. has been sold to Canadian
Rubber Dealers and Brokers, Ltd., Bowmanville,
Ontario;
4. Mr. Spencer stated that -there is no cultivation
of the land; some veal cattle had been raised;
there was a barn on the property but admitted
this property will not support an agricultural
operation;
Mr. Spencer suggested the applicant deserves some consideration.
There are three separate parcels and the subject land was
a separate piece of property in the beginning. Mr. Spencer
further submitted that Mrs. Prosek has a legal, valid reason
for asking for this application. She needs a larger house,
the present home is too small, the costs are too high to move,
buy land and build, and it seems reasonable to her to make
use of what she already owns. This is not a speculative application,
she wishes to build a larger house on a larger lot thus eliminating
an undesirable small -property.
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., submitted the following facts: -
1. Mrs. Prosek had acquired property from her father
under 3 separate deeds;
2. The proposed division of the lands as now suggested
in evidence by Mr. R. Spencer would put all the -
frontage on the road allowance between concessions
3 & 4 in one parcel and all the property fronting
on the road allowance between lots 12 & 13. Each
parcel -would be made more regular in size and shape;
Mr. Lycett also pointed out that the 1.982 acre lot was not a
completely desirable residential lot and that increasing it in
size created a sounder and better rural residential unit from
an area standpoint. Also that the lot fronting on the road
allowance between lots 12 & 13, not being 40 acres in area and
being in an agricultural zone, no residence could be constructed
thereon withoutan application for a minor variance being filed
and the Committee could impose conditions, if they saw fit.
The Committee, after a complete review of all the facts, felt J
that this particular case brings squarely before them a
basic question of policy, and for that reason the fullest
type of consideration has been given the matter.
When this Committee first came into existence there was little
municipal le'jislation that could be interpreted as establishing
a guideline for the Committee and each particular case was decided
Page 3
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
principally on the broad principles of Planning as set out in
Provincial Legislation. Over the years Planning Policy through-
out the Province as,a whole has been further defined and refined
by Statutes of the Province of Ontario. The Plan for the Toronto
centred region and Oshawa centred region have been discussed and
disclosed to the public. Further By -Laws have been passed by
the Township of Clarke and an Official Plan for the Township
has been discussed publically and definite proposals made.
From comments made in various decision of the Ontario Municipal
Board in decisions published in the Municipal World it has become
increasingly obvious that Committees of Adjustment in Land
Division matters should look to the overall spirit and intent of
local and provincial legislation in matters of land division.
Indeed the trend to the establishment of Land Division Committees
and to reMove this.authority from the,Committees of Adjustment,
leaving them matters of adjustment only, is clearly,in this
Committee's opinion, an indication that Land Divisions that do
not comply with overall Planning Policy are not viewed sympathetically
by those whose duty it is to set down policy guidelines to Planning
in Ontario in general and to this area in particular.
This Committee feels,, therefore, that as a general guideline, land
divisions should,only be granted in cases where explicit, specific
overriding considerations in that particular case justify such
action. The onus is clearly on the applicant to fully prove his
case.
While this Committee does not believe that the legislation
establishing the Committee binds the Committee to the formal rule
that they are officially bound by former decisions, they are of
the opinion that the Committee is not a policy making elected
body, but a quasi-judicial tribunal who must exercise their function
within the general guidelines and principles laid down by the
Courts in Ontario and Canada in -well established principles of
administrative Law. ,
The Committee feels that in accordance with these general
principles (1) It should give clear written reasons for its
judgments in order that any person will know,
the reasons why his application was refused and
he or any other interested party will be able to
frame their appeal, if they decide to appeal,
on known facts and principles so that the Ontario
Municipal Board will have all the facts before
them;
(2) That the`Committee should consider itself bound by
its former decisions, bearing in mind the fact
that subsequent changes in legislation both
provincial and local will necessarily affect
decisions made subsequent to their enactment.
This Committee is well aware that other Committees of Adjustment
in this Province, from time to time, give very terse, succinct
and incomplete reasons for their decisions. That is their concern.
This Committee feels that it is limiting the property rights of
the citizens of this area and that the fullest reasons should be
given where the property rights of a taxpayer are being restricted.
With these general principles in mind, may we turn to the con-
sideration of this specific case*
The applicant wants to divide a lot from her property so that she
can build a new home, because her old home is too small. There is
no professional evidence to the effect that the house cannot be
enlarged, it is apparently only inconvenient:
The applicant acquired various parcels in the past from her family
but these were added to the existing lands already owned.
There is not sufficient evidence of farmingti
for a "farmer retaining a lot". to justify an application
Page 4
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
This is not a sale to an abutting owner and it is not, therefore,
a rectification or adjustment of boundaries with the same
number of parcels of land before and after.
There is no rectification of boundaries or severances because
of a change in zoning or land use.
The applicant has failed to establish a case for a severance of
a parcel of less than 40 acres. If a re -zoning to an "RR"
classification had been processed through the Planning -Board,
then a specific severance might well be granted.
In conclusion the Committee cannot see that the applicant has
presented sufficient evidence to justify the severance requested
in an Agricultural Zone and this application was refused on
motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by E.F.R. Osborne. Carried,
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. 11B115-72
WA
Konwald Investments Limited,
c/o Adams,Fraser,Smith Owner,
& Shaver, 200 University
Ave., Toronto, Ontario,
Lot 29, Con 3,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "B115-72-3
As business arising from minutes of past meetings, this
application was brought forward for further consideration.
The Committee reviewed the presentations made by Mr. Oswald
Konzelman and Donald Vincent Thomson Esq.,at the meeting held
on April 24, 1972 which may be summarized as follows:
The proposed purchasers Mr. & Mrs. Oswald Konzelmann,
R.R. 41 NewtonvI1191 Ontario, accompanied by -Donald Vincent
Thomson irisq., Law Student articling with Adams,Fraser,Smith &
Shaver, Barristers & Solicitors, Toronto, Ontario appeared in
support of this application. No other person appeared in support
of, or in opposition to this application.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material
to.the meeting::
1. Correspondence from Department,of Transportation
and Communications, Downsview, Ontario, dated
March 29, 1972. The Committee noted the contents
thereof.
The Committee heard further evidence from Mr. Konzelmann,
under oath, who stated that in his opinion in the not too
distant future this area could be zoned "Commercial".There
are several gasoline stations in the vicinity as well as "Clarke
Highschool". At the time this property was purchased in 1969
this area was zoned for "development" and for this reason Mr.
Konzelmann invested a considerable amount of money in the
property.
Mr. D.V. Thomson then directed argument to the Committee
pointing out that at the time of the purchase of the property
under the by-law then existing the lands abutting Highway #115
were designated as a"development zone". The Committee felt
that such a circumstance might be relevant in an argument
before the Planning Board for re -zoning, as clearly the.plan for
the area had been changed from one by-law to another.
The Committee, after a complete review of all the facts,
felt, however, that as far as they are concerned they are bound
by the existing by-laws in force at the time of the application
to,tbe Committee and noted that the application for severance
was not collateral to any re -zoning application.
Page 5
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
If the severance requested was one which added land to an
abutting owner's property so that the application was in effect
notmore than a re -adjusting of boundaries then further consideration
might be given to such a case. The effect of the severance
requested in this case, however,, would be to leave agricultural
lands with no buildings on them.
The Committee were of the opinion no case had been made
out for the applicant which would bring them within the spirit
and intent of the existing by-laws and justify the severance of
a property of less than 40 acres in lands now designated
•"agricultural".
Application refused on motion by E.F.R. Osborne, seconded
by K. Schoenmaker. Carried.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "All
Application File No. "B"7-72
W. Kay.Lycett Q.C., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
Grace Luella Manders, Owner,
Kendal, Ontario,
for part of Lot 5, Con 6,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. 11B"7-72-4
As business arising from meeting of April 24, 1972, this
application was brought forward for further consideration.
Mrs. Grace L. Manders, applicant, accompanied by her
husband Mr. Martin Manders and her agent W. Kay'Lycett Q.C.,
appeared in support of this application. No other person
appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application.
Mrs. Manders presented the following material to the
meeting.
l.° A certified P1'an of Survey, prepared by
M.D. Brown OLS., 1106, dated May 19, 1972
File -64037 A;
Mrs. Manders under oath confirmed that the subject land
as outlined on the Plan of Survey was the way she wished the lands
to be divided. Mrs. Manders also agreed to attach the parcel
referred to as 8.48 acres to her abutting farmland so that this
parcel would not be severed as a separate entity. The sole
severance would then be the 23.90 acres which land was necessarily
severed in order to transfer tobacco marketing rights.
The Committee:
1. Referred to the minutes of meeting April
24, 1972;
2. Recalled their inspection of the property on
April 20, 1972;
3. Perused the Plan of Survey presented and noted
that the parcel to be severed was of a more
regular shape, as recommended by the Committee
to the applicant during their inspection of
the property;
and following further discussion were of the opinion that the
applicant had complied with the conditions imposed as evidenced
in the minutes.
Application granted on motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by
E.F.R. Osborne, subject to the following condition:
1. That no dwelling unit will be erected on the
property for a period of 5 years from the
registration of the Deed.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Carried.
Page 6
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
Application File "B" 9.72 W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
John and Marion McKelvey,Owners,
R.R. North, Ontario,
for part of Lot 20, Con 7,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "3^9..72-5
As business arising from meeting of April 24, 1972 -
this application was brought forward for further consideration.
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., 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
the property on Friday May 12, 1972 at 3:00 p.m. and noted
the following facts:.
1. The property is in the immediate vicinity of the
"Oshawa Ski Club";
2: The Committee noted that the well was located
to the north and west of the house;
Miss Marion McKelvey, sister of the applicant, accompanied the
Committee on their inspection tour and upon completion of
same"the Committee advised that it would be wise to include
the well and the entire septic tile field in the property
being retained. Also adequate front, side and rear yards
should be retained do that no violation of the by-law would
be created. A small shed adjacent to the well should also
be shown on the plan.
Mr. M.D. Brown OLS, on behalf of the applicant presented
a certified Plan of Survey dated May 172 1972, file 72069
on which is outlined the dwelling house, well and shed. This
Plan of Survey is not yet signed and registered as Plan '10R
but could be registered as it is in suitable forma
Following further discussion the Committee perused the
Plan of Survey, referred to the minutes of meeting April 24,
1972 and on all the facts presented concluded that this
application be granted under Appendix 1 (j)'"Farmer Retaining
Lot", amending by-law 1653 on motion by E.F.R.'Osborne,
seconded by K.'Schoenmaker. Carried,
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "B'11072 E.S. Cobbledick, Owner,
R.R. #29 Newcastle, Ontario,
for part of Lot 32, Con 1,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "B"10-72..6
As business arising from meeting of April 24, 1972, this
application was brought forward for further consideration.
No person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this
application.
As a matter of record the whole Committee inspected the
property on Friday, May 129 1972 and noted the following facts:
1. An existing driveway gave access to what was
obviously a former gas station. A pump island
was clearly in evidence in the form of a concrete
base in the driveway. No building foundations were
in evidence;
Page 7
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
2. The applicant was apparently not applying to sever
this former apparent commercial site from his
farm land and he has not made any application
for re -zoning to the Planning Board.
The Committee referred to the minutes of April 24, 1972 and
in conclusion considered the following facts:
1. The applicant is a bona fide farmer and upon proof
that he was selling his farm he might well come
within the category of a "Farmer Retaining Lot"
Appendix 1 (j) amending by-law 1653;
2. No evidence has been submitted that the
applicant was selling his farm;
3. The land taken by the Department of Lands and
Forests for "green belt" adjacent to the creek,
bed of Wilmots Creek does not sever the property
now sought to be used as a building lot according
to the evidence submitted;
4. There was no evidence submitted that this severance
could in any way be considered as an "infilling"
operation;
On all these facts, the Committee were of the opinion that
this application did not justify the request for a severance.
Application refused on motion by E.F.R. Osborne, seconded
by K. Schoenmaker. Carried.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "A1110-72
Gary & Marilyn Hancock, Owners
R.R. ¢#2, Orono, Ontario,
for part of Lot 30, Con 5,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "A1110-72
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption
from"provisions of sub -division control by-law 1592 as amended
by by-law 1653 to allow relief from Sec. 3.7 in order to erect
a detached garage 4' from main building, and located partly
in the side yard.
Mr. Gary Hancock, applicant, appeared in support of this
application. No other person appeared in support of, or.in
opposition to this application.
The Secretary -Treasurer reported that 17 notices of the
said hearing had been mailed in accordance with Items of the
Rules of Procedure.
Mr. Hancock, under oath, stated as follows,
1. He purchased this property approximately 5 years ago;
2. He now wishes to build a detached garage. He
does not wish an attached garage to the house
as it is of brick veneer construction and it
j would be impossible to match this veneer after
5 years;
3. He cannot locate a garage faither back on the
property because this would interfere with the
tile bed and for this reason he is requesting
permission for 41 from side lot line, or a
variance of 211;
. . 0 0 0 0 0 .
Page 8
Meeting Committee of Adjustment May 23, 1972:
4. To the south of his property there is located
one garage, built approximately 2 years ago
on the same size lot.
This application was adjourned to enable the Committee to
inspect the property.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "A"8-72
Winnifred Margaret McKay,
R.R. #1 Nel::tonville, Owner
Ont, Part Lot 10, Con 5,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "A"8-72-9
As business arising from minutes of mL-eting April 24, 19729
this application was brought forward for further consideration.
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., 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 Friday May 12, 1972 and noted the following 'facts:
1. This is a typical country school house with one
room and of brick construction;
2. The eavetrough on the west side of the building had
comeoff and some of the glass in the windows was
broken;
3. The building was in a state, that if some maintenance
was not soon completed, deterioration would quickly
set in;
4. This application was deemed reasonable and practical
to the Committee;
The Committee reviewed the minutes of their meeting held on
April 24, 1972 and following further discussion this application
was granted on motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by E.F.R.
Osborne, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be permitted to use this
former school house asan art studio for week -ends
only;
2. TAKE WARNING that this decision, for a minor
variance of the Clarke Township Committee of
Adjustment IS NOT FINAL AND BINDING until the
time for appeal by any interested party has lapsed
under the terms of the Planning Act of the Province
of Ontario. THIS TIME FOR APPEAL IS 14 DAYS FROM
THE DATE that the minutes of this decision have
been mailed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
of the Province of Ontario;
3. This decision should not be registered on title
until the said time for appeal has lapsed when the
applicant shall then register on title by way of
Deposit a copy of the Form of Consert, and shall
forthwith thereafter forward to the Secretary of
the Committee a duplicate Certificate of Deposit
or a Notarial copy thereof;
4. AND FURTHER that upon receipt by the Secretary of
the aforesaid document, the appropriate administrative
officials of the Township of Clarke will be authorized
to issue any and all necessary permits or to take any
steps necessary to implement this decision. CARRIED.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
T
C
Page 9
Meeting Committee of Adjustment May 23, 1972:
Application "A"17-72 - Brown's School
Lot 21, Con 2._Twp of Clarke
Application "A"18-72 - Cowanville "
Lot 17, Con 4.,Twp of Clarke
Application "A"19-72 - Enterprise "
Lot 23, Con 9, Twp of Clarke
Application '!A"20-72 - Leskard
Lot 31, Con 8.,Twp of Clarke
Northumberland & Durham Owner,
County Board of Education
Mr. Jack Hayden, Assistant
Business Administrator, Agent,
D'Arcy,Street N.,
P.O. Box 470, Cobourg, Ontario,
Submission Nos. "A"17-72
"A"18-72
" "A"19-72
"A"20-72
Four applications were made for exemption or partial exemption
from provisions of amending by-law 1653 to allow minor variances
on four abandoned school houses.
Mr. Jack Hayden, Assistant Business Administrator of the
Northumberland & Durham County Board of Education, accompanied by
W. Grant Brooks B.A., Honey, Brooks & Harrison, Barristers &
Solicitors, Port Hope, Ontario, appeared in support of these
applications.
Mr. W.G. Brooks B.A., on behalf of N & D County Board of
Education stated that these applications apply to all four schools
which are no longer in use as school houses. The Board are interested
in finding an alternative use for these schools. Three applications
are for permission to convert to single family dwellings and one
application for permission to convert to a two family dwelling.
The Secretary -Treasurer reported that 53 notices of the
said hearing had been mailed regarding these applications, in
accordance with Item.S of the Rules of Procedure.
The Committee noted that there are four applications for
minor Variances and the facts being identical these will be considered
at the same time:
Brown's School - request for set back relief of 25.3 feet, front yard
relief of 15.3 feet with renovations as a two family dwelling.
The fallowing persons appeared in opposition to this application,
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Simpson, Mr. T.W. Wilson, Mr. & Mrs. Percy W.
Allin, all of R.R. #2 Newcastle, Ontario.
Mr. Robert Simpson, under oath,,stated that he would object to
this school being renovated as a two family dwelling. This area
is not zoned for multiple dwellings. He would be agreeable to
a single family dwelling. Messrs. Wilson and Allin agreed verbally
that they too would not object to a single family dwelling.
Cowanville School - request for set back relief of 44.5 feet,
front yard relief of 34.5 feet, side yard relief of 8.55 feet and
floor area relief of 376 square feet.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the followipg material to
the meeting, regarding this application, from one "John Fonk" . The
Committee instructed that this be included in these minutes.
"Dear Sir: In regard to your letter dated May 11/72 concerning
Lot 17 Con.4 you stated set back relief of 44.5 feet, front yard
relief of 34.5 feet and side yard relief of 8.55 feet. I feel front
yard relief is not 34.5 feet from existing fence line facing road.
It is approximately 8_10 ft. from steps to fence line. I feel that
front yard relief be rechecked. I feel that the existing building is
not suitable to be renovated to meet Township regulations and be an
asset to surrounding property or said property. I feel that additions
cannot be added to existing building without dropping land value
considerably as floor area now is only 376sgft.sgd. "John Fonk"
No other person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this
application.
Page 10
Meeting Committee of Adjustment May 23, 1972:
Enterprise School - request for front yard relief of approximately
18 feet, floor area relief of 382 square feet, rear yard relief of
2.6 feet.
Mr. Lloyd Ransberry, R.R; #2 Orono, Ontario, appeared and stated
that he had no objection to this application. No other person
appeared in support of, or in opposition to this application.
Leskard School - request for rear yard relief of approximately 14 fee, J�
and floor area relief of approximately 90 square feet. No
person appeared in support of, or in opposition to this
application.
Mr. Jack Hayden, as agent, under oath gave a short resume' on
the aforementioned applications an4 presented certified Plans of
Survey all prepared by M.D. Brown OLS., 121 Queen Street, Bowmanville,
Ontario, as follows:
Brown's School - 'Survey dated May 61 1972 #72064 - existing building
was erected in 1957 and used as a public elementary school until recently.
This is a rather large building of almost 250 square feet, with
a double entrance and the lot has an area of approximately 2 acres.
For this reason the Board were of the opinipn that this would be
suitable for a two family dwelling, subject to permission from
the Committee. -in view of the objections raised by abutting
property owners the Board will be advised and possibly this
application can be amended to a single family dwelling unit to conform
with existing dwellings.
Cowanville School_- Survey dated May 6, 1972 472063 - existing
building was erected in 1897. With regard to the letter from
Mr. Fonk questionning the floor area of 376 sq.ft. The Committee
requested Mr. Merrill Brown OLS., also present at this meeting,
to explain the measurements of this building. Mr. Brown stated that
the building would be measured from the foundation and therefore
the area would be approximately 835 square feet with approximately
376'required for a 1200' dwelling .
Enterprise School- Survey dated August 18, 1971 #71117.- existing
building was erected in 1954 and used as a public elementary school.
This school was moved from original location in Lot 24, Con 9, to
0.448 acre parcel expropriated for school board use in 1954 on Lot
23.
Leskard School - Survey dated May 8,1972 #72065.- existing building
was erected in 1922. The Committee perused this Plan of Survey
and noted that"the septic bed may infringe on the watercourse.
Mr. Hayden concluded his submissions by stating that the School
Board wish to dispose of these properties by public auction or
tender and wish to advise any prospective purchasers as to the uses
and restrictions to which these buildings and properties may be
subjected.
These applications were adjourned to enable the Committee to
inspect the properties.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A" and "RR"
Page 11
Meeting Committee of Adjustment May 239 1972:
Application File No. "A"21-72
Clarke Fishing & Conservation
C1ub,,Owner, 378 King St. W.,
Oshawa, Ontario.
J.B. McMullan, Agent,
378 King St. W. Oshawa, Ontario.
for part of Lot 32, Con 7,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No.
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption
from provisions of amending by-law 1653 sec. 3 sub.sec.8 requiring
that buildings shall be a minimum of 100' from Wilmot Creek.
Mr. J.B. McMullan as agent ^and Secretary of the Clarke
Fishing &•Conservation Club and Mr. Mr. Wm. Tonno member of the
Club appeared in support of this application. No other person
appears in support of, or in opposition -to this application.
The Secretary -Treasurer reported that 19 notices of the
said hearing had been mailed in accordance with Item 5 of the Rules
of procedure.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material
to the meeting:
1. Correspondence from Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority Box 328, 56 Queen St. Port Hope,•Ontario,
dated May 18, 1972 as follows: "This is to advise
you that we have examined your property in Lot 32
Con Vll, Clarke Township. The location of the proposed
building site on the west side of the Pond as shown
on Donevan & Fleischmann Drawing, Feb 9, 1970 revised
Apr. 28, 1972 is high enough above the flood plain of
Wilmot Creek to be safe from flodding.
In order to reduce surface erosion of the exposed
earth on the pond embankment, we would suggest it'be
vegetated immediately after final grading.
There appears to be no reason for the Conservation
Authority objecting to the Municipality waiving the
100 foot set -back from a watercourse as set down In
the By -Laws. Yours very truly (sgd.) "S.B. White"
Resources -Manager
2. A Plan of Survey, prepared by Donevan & Fleischmann,
Land Surveying & Engineering, 11 Ontario St. Oshawa,
Ontario, dated February -9, 1970, Job No. 18970,
outlining thereon a pond, tile bed and proposed
,building.
Mr. J.B. McMullan, under oath, stated that for esthetic
reasons and to make use of high ground we wish to have a set back
of 251. The septic tank, however, would be over 100' away from
the pond. There is nothing built on the grounds at_present.
The sketch presented shows in outline the proposed building. The
pond was small and shallow and -we have enlarged and made it deeper.
We are working with the Lands and Forests to set up this pond, to
protect the creek and to raise fish.
Mr. Wm. Tonno, under oath, stated that professional members
belonging to this club have the technical knowledge required to
set up this pond. There will be no thermal pollution to the Wilmot
Creek, adequate measures to prevent this have been taken. This
area was chosen because of high ground and the area for the proposed
septic tank is the preferred location.
Application adjourned to enable the Committee to inspect this
property.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Page 12
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
Application File No. "A"22-72
Elmer Harris, Owner,
Mill St.,
Orono, Ontario,
for part of lots 16 & 17,
E. side Mill St.,
Village of Orono,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No.
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption
from provisions of amending by-law 1653 for the following
minor variances: (a) sec. 2 subset. 14 to permit a single
family dwelling to be constructed on a lot which frgnts on an
unopened road allowance; (b) append. 1 sec. 1 sub. sec. g to
permit a setback of 40' from centre line of street allowance;
(c) append. 1 sec. i sub. sec, a to permit.a rear yard of 30' in
depth.
Mr. Elmer Harris, appliceint appeared in support of this
application. Mr. and Mrs. John Wellman, Orono, Ontario,
appeared. No other person appeared in support of; or in
opposition to this application.
The Secretary -Treasurer reported that 22 notices of the said
hearing had been mailed in accordance with Item 5 of the Rules
of procedure.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material
to the meeting:.
1. Correspondence from Horace R. Best, Building
Inspector, Orono, Ontario, dated May 16., 1972. The
Committee noted the contents thereof;
2. A photostat copy of an undated Plan of Survey
showing in outline a garage and wooden frame
building, gas pumps, lh story building;
3. A photostat Sketch Plan showing part Lot 28 Con 5
Block 4 and part of Block 3 east side Mill St.
Village of Orono;
Mr. Elmer Harris, under oath, stated that he wishes tp
build a house to the rear of the garage on his property. When he
applied for a building permit Mr. Best, building inspector informed
him that under the present by-iaw 1653 the subject land is designated
for "RI" uses, a garage is not permitted in an "RI" zone, a dwelling
unit is not permitted to be located in a service station or public
garage, the existing buildings"are a non -conforming use in an "RI"
zone and a non -conforming structure is not permitted to be
enlarged. In view of these facts he withdrew his application for
a building permit to enlarge the dwelling unit and is now applying
to the Committee for minor variances so that he may build a house
as close to the garage as possible.
Mr. and Mrs. John Wellman, under oath, stated that they
were concerned about the unopened street allowance which runs
a short distance beyond Mr. Harris' property and continues between
their property and his,terminating at their boundary line. They
would have no objection to street being opened tq give access
to the proposed new dwelling but no farther.
The Secretary was instructed to write to Mr. E.R. Woodyard,
Secretary -Treasurer, Orono Police Trustees, Orono, Ontario enquir-
ing as to the status of the unopened street allowance and this
application was adjourned to enable the Committee to inspect
the property.
CLASSIFICATION "RI"
J
Page 13
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
Application File "B1111-72
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
Robert Allison Cowan, Owner,
8.7 Fenn Avenue, Willowdale, Ont.,
for part of Lot 31, Con 5,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No.
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption from
provisions of the Planning Act so as to permit the separation
of a parcel of land approximately 200' x 200' being approximately
40,000 square feet in area from the applicant's land.
The Secretary reported that'15 notices of the said hearing
had been mailed in accordance with Item 5 of The Rules of Procedure.
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario,
on behalf of the applicant appeared in support of this application.
Mr. and Mrs. Al Duesbury of St. Marys, Ontario, also appeared.
No other person appeared in support of or in opposition to this
application.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material
to the meeting:
1. Correspondence from W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Barrister
& Solicitor, Orono, Ontario. The Committee noted
the contents thereof - "I enclose herewith on behalf
of my client Robert Allison Cowan his application
to sever the final lot from his property compriding
part of Lot 31 Concession 5, You will remember that
Mr. Cowan has in the past had a series of applications
before your committee all of which have been granted
and at the present time he has one further building
lot still remaining fronting on the road allowance
between lots 30 and 31, concession 5 Clarke. These
subject lands have a frontage of 200 feet and a depth
of 200 feet and this lot lies between the lot formerly
sold to Haas and another lot sold to Kimmet and I
feel quite sure that your committee members will
remember these applications.
I am quite aware of the fact that these lands lie
within an agricultural zone and that the applicant or
•the proposed_ purchaser of the lot will require a
further application before the Committee for a minor
variance from 40 acres to 40,000 sq.ft. in order to
.obtain a building permit. I am nonetheless advised
that there are a series of decisions from courts or
boards having jurisdiction indicating that a Committee
such as yours has jurisdiction to grant such relief.
I would adise that the subject lands in this
application have been sold conditionally to a Mrs. Al
Duesbury of St. Marys, Ontario, and it is her intention
if she is able to purchase this property to erect a
single family dwelling house thereon. I hope that she
will be in a position to attend the meeting�wherf this
application is cansidered."
2. A photostat copy of part of an original Plan of
Survey, as prepared by Donevan & Fleischmann, Land
surveying and Engineering, Oshawa, Ontario under
Job #8780, dated August 26, 1960 on which is
outlined in "red" the area of the land in this
application and annotated "Duesbury";
Mrs. Al Duesbury under oath stated that she and her husband
propose to purchase this property and build a house with an
area of approximately 2000 square feet. Mrs. Duesbury presented
a copy of the proposed home from a building magazine and stated
there will be plans drawn by an Architect. Following further
discussion this application was adjourned to enable the Committee
to inspect the property.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A" . . . . . .
Page 14
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
Application File "B"15-72
Percy William Allin, Owner,'
R.R. #2, Newcastle, Ontario,
for part of Lot 21, Con 2,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "B"15 -72 -
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption
from provisions of the Planning Act so as to permit the
separation of a parcel of land approximately 150' x 232.32'
being approximately 349850 square feet in area from the
applicant's land.
Mr. &`Mrs. Percy William Allin, applicants, appeared
in support of this application. Mr. & Mrs. Robt. Simpson
and Mr. T.W. Wilson all of R.R. #2 Newcastle, Ontario appeared
as observers. No other person appeared in support of or in
opposition to this application.
Mr. Percy Wm. Allin,under oath, stated as follows:
1. He purchasedthis property approximately 11
years ago and under the terms of the Veterans'
Land Act he was required to purchase 2 acres;
2. He now wishes to sever a building lot which he
proposes for future use of his son James
Russell Allin;
3. Mr. Allin further stated that he is a building
contractor and his son is apprenticed to him
as a carpenter and will attend a trade school
to obtain his papers qualifying him as a carpenter;
and it is hoped that they can work together.
This application was adjourned to enable the Committee to
inspect the property.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "B"12-72
"B"1372
"B"14-72
W. Kay Lycett Q.C.,- Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
Bernard Callanan, Owner,
Owner, Ontario,
for part ofLot 29, Con 5,
Village of Orono, Ontario,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No's. "B1112-72
"B"13-72
IIBrr14-72
Three applications were made for exemption or partial
exemption from provisions of the Planning Act so as to permit
the separation of parcels of land as follows:: (a) 94.51x125'
approx. 11,750 sq. ft.; (b) 95' x 125' approx 11,875 sq. ft.;
(c) 100' x 125' approx. 12,500 sq. ft.; in area from the
applicant's land.
The Secretary reported that 22 notices of the said hearing
had been mailed in accordance with Item 5 of The Rules of
Procedure.
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario,
on behalf of the applicant and Merrill D. Brown OLS., Bowmanville,
Ontario appeared in support of these applications. No other
person appeared in suppor,t of or in opposition to these applications.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material
to the meeting:
1. Direction signed "Kostrzewa" 249 Hillside Ave., Oshawa,
Ontario authorizing Mr. Merrill Brown to act on
his behalf before the Committee;
0 . . ..
Page 15
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
2. Certified Plans of Survey, prepared by
M.D. Brown OLS., Bowmanville, Ontario,
466121A dated May 312 1971 annotated "Parcels
1 to 14 added Apr. 18, 1972 Proposal only", each
parcel applied for outlined in "Red" as (1) (2)
and (3);
Mr. Bernard Callanan then appeared and under oath identified
the 3 Plans of Surveys showing the proposed severances.
Mr. W. Kay Lycett advised that Mr. Callanan had entered into
a proposed sale of three severances facing the road allowance
known as Main St., in the Village of Orono, Ontario.
Mr. Merrill D. Brown, under oath, stated that he represented
the°proposed purchaser one I�Ir. Kostrzewa who owned and
operated under the firm name and style the "Lorraine Excavating",
249 Hillside, Oshawa, Ontario. In reply to a question from
the Committee as to.the feasibility of constructing entrances
to the proposed lots, if severances were granted, Mr. Brown
stated that Mr. Kostrzewa intends to cut down the bank so the
entrances will be set back farther than the normal 601.
Visibility from the north would be within the acceptable limits
if a car proceeded at a speed of approximately 30 miles. The
reason for 3 severances in an "RI" zone is that these'lots are
the only ones in this zoning. A proposeddevelopment is shown
behind these lots and in the draft official plan 'this develop-
ment is shown as "residential". -1-1r. Brown was then questionned
re septic tanks, water supply etc., and he replied that water
is available, and Mr. Kostrzewa proposes a massive earth mov-
ing operation so that these lots will be suitable for septic
tanks and all other requirements.
these applications were adjourned to enable the Committee to
inspect the property.
CLASSIFICATION "RI"
Application File No. "B"16-72 Andrew Sutch, Owner,
R.R. 431 Pontypool, Ontario,
for part of Lot 182 Con 10,
Township of Clarke,
Submission It. "B"16 -72 -
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption
from provisions of the Planning Act so as to permit the separation
of a parcel of land 480' x 455' -being approximately 5 acres
in area from the applicant's land.
The Secretary reported that 14 notices of the said hearing
had been mailed in accordance with Item 5 of The Rules of
Procedure.
Mr. Andrew Sutch, applicant, appeared in support of this
application. No other person appeared in support of, or in
opposition to this application.
Mr. Andrew Sutch, under oath, stated the following facts:
1. He has owned this property approximately 25
years and conducted a tobacco farming operation;
2. There are two parcels of land divided by an
unopened road allowance. The parcel to the West
contains 69 acres (lot 19) and the parcel which
is the subject of this application contains
65 acres (lot 18);
•3.• He now wishes to retain approximately 5 acres
on which are situate his dwelling house, barn,
and tobacco kilns; He will sell the remainder;
being lot 18;
4. He is presently retaining the tobacco rights
Page 16
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
4. cont'd
but proposes to sell them in the near future.
This application mal adjourned to enable the Committee to
inspect the property.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "B"17-72 Mr. William Storsbergen,Owner;
R.R. North, Orono, Ontario,
for part of Lots 13 & 141
Con 8, Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "B"17_72
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption
from provisions of the Planning Act so as to permit the separation
of a parcel of land 6601x2640' being approximately 40 acres in
area from the applicant's land.
The Secretary reported that 17 notices of_the said hearing
had been.mailed in accordance with Item 5 of The Rules of
Procedure.
Mr. William Storsbergen, applicant, appeared in support of
this application. Mr. Garland Cathcart, R.R. #1 Kendal, Ontario',
also appeared. No other person appeared in support of, or in
opposition to this application.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material
to the meeting:
1. Sketch of Survey on which is shown the subject
lands with an area of 40+ acres;
Mr. Storsbergen, under oath, stated the following facts:
1. He is the owner of approximately 228'h acres;
2. He now wishes to sever a 40 acre parcel which
would have the effect of being a centre lot
in that the remainder to the north would have
an area of 148'h acres and the remainder to the
sduth would have an area of 40 acres;
3. He proposes to convey the 40 acre parcel to
a member of his family.
The Committee intimated to Mr. Storsbergen that they would
require a condition be inserted in the deed if this severance
was granted to which Mr. Storsbergen verbally agreed.
Mr. Garland Cathcart was then interviewed and he stated
that he had no objection to this severance; but he was concerned
about the boundary lines between his property and Mr: Storsbergen.
Following further discussion the Committee suggested that it
might be well to have Mr. Merrill Brown OLS do some surveying to
establish the boundary wherein Mr. Cathcart is concerned•and it
appeared obvious that the present deed descriptions are not
accurate.
Application adjourned to enable the Committee to inspect the
property. 1
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
. . . . 0 . . 0
Page 17
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, May 23, 1972:
Application File No. "B" 6-72- A.G. Perrin, -Owner,
R.R. #2 Newcastle, Ontario,
for part of Lot 17, Con 32
Township of Clarke,.
Submission No. "B"6 -72 -
As business arising from former minutes, this application
was brought forward for further consideration.
As a matter of record the whole Committee inspected
this property at 3:00 p.m. Friday 12th May, 1972 and noted
the following facts:
1. -The northern limit of property goes to abandoned
right-of-way;
2. There was a small barn on the property and some
beef cattle running in the yard. The applicant's
wife stated that they ran cattle until last year.
The cattle presently on the premises were being
"ranched" by a third party.
The Secretary was requested to advise the applicant to submit
a certified Plan of Survey prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor
and this application was adjourned awaiting presentation of
the required material.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Mr. Merrill Brown OLS., referred to application 11B113-72
A. Garfield Heyes and requested the Committee to_hold this
application pending varification by Mr. Heyes of the dimensions
of the land as surveyed. The Plan of Survey reveals one parcel
to have an area of 50.02 acres and the abutting parcel to have
an area of 54.44 acres. Mr. A. Garfield Heyes is to confirm
this by letter•.
This application was adjourned awaiting instructions from
Mr. Heyes.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
General Business:
The Secretary presented the following material to the meeting:
1. Clarke Planning Board Meeting minutes under date of April 20,
and May 109 1972:
2. Correspondence from Clarke Planning Board, dated May 5,
1972 and signed "Horace R. Best". The Committee noted
the contents thereof and it was decided that Mr. Lovekin
Chairman, and Mrs. Yeo, Secretary -Treasurer attend this
special meeting to be held by the Planning Board.
Decisions were signed, minutes were discussed, correspondence
dictated and this being all the business at this time, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Secretary-Treasu r ' Chairman