HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/04/1972MEETING OF THE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, July 4, 1972 at 7:00 p.m.,
Council Chamber,
Orono, Ontario.
Present: E.R. Lovekin B.A. LL.B., Chairman,
tK. Schoenmaker, Member,
E.F.R; Osborne, Member,'
c t Mrs. Ellen M. Yeo, Secretary -Treasurer
The minutes of. meeting held on June 12, 1972 and meetings
in Committee held on June 21, 1972 and June 27, 1972 were
approved on motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by E.F.R. Osborne.
Carried.
Application File No. "B"19-72 Austin Turner, Owner,
Newcastle, Ontario,
(R.R. #21) ,
Part Lot 28, Con 3,
Township of Clarke,
Submission NO,0B1f19-72-13
As'business arising from minutes of former minutes, this
application was presented for further consideration.
As a matter of record the whole Committee inspected the
site on Highway 4115 on June 21, 1972 and the following facts
were noted:
1., This property on the combined highways of 435 and
#115 is in an area where the Department of Highways
permitted Commercial Development on the reasoning
that, since at this,point, old Highway #35 and the new
Highway #1i5 occupy the same right-of-way;
2. In such areas commercial development was permitted;
3. In those areas where Highway #115 occupies a "new"
right-of-way, no development was permitted. Such_a policy
is difficult to understand on a "Planning" or "logical"
basis, but perhaps comprehensible on a technical legal_
construction in regard to the laws governing Highway
access in Ontario;
4. This policy gave birth to what is commonly referred to .
locally as "gasoline alley" on Highways #115 and 435 in
the vicinity of Mr. Turner's property;
5. This application is clearly.an "infilling" application in
a row of almost solid "commercial development" in the
so called "gasoline alley";
6. The whole of "gasoline alley" raises problems,.planning
wise;
At the conclusion of the inspection tour, this matter was
adjourned to check the Plan of Survey to ensure zoning is either
Highway Commercial or Agricultural for all or part of the property.
Mr. Austin Turner, applicant, and Mr. Merrill Brown OLS.,
Bowmanville,` Ontario, appeared at this meeting in support of this
application. too other person appeared in support of or in
opposition to this application.
Mr. M. Brown scaled the large Land Use Map and informed the Committee
that the land was in a Highway Commercial Zone.
Mr. Turner,gave oral evidence under oath stating that this is
all the land he owns between two existing commercial properties
namely Fina Station and Spur Station. Mr. Turner also indicated
that he intended only to sell 200•' ,deep, not 250' deep as this
would keep an even line with existing properties and he al°so
intends to retain a farm right-of-way 20' in width in order to
give himself access to the agricultural lands at the rear and to
combined Highways #115 and #35.
,Application granted on the basis of an infilling operation in
a Highway Commercial Zone, on motion by E.F.R. Osborne, seconded
by K. Schoenmaker. Carried. CLASSIFICATION HC
Page 2
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 4, 1972:
' c
Application File No. "B"12-72
"B"13-72
"B"14-72
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
Bernard Callan, Owner,
Orono, Ontario,
for part of Lot 29, Con 5,
Village of Orono, Ont.
Township of Cdlarke,
Submission No. "B"12-72-10
Submission No. "B"13-72-11
Submission No. "B"14-72-12
As business arising from minutes of past meetings these
applications were presented for further consideration.
No person appeared in support of or in opposition to these
applications.
r
The Committee reviewed the minutes of May 23, 1972, at
which time -lengthy correspondence from Robert A. Edmunds P.
Eng., Counties Engineer and Road Superintendent, Cobourg, Ont.,
and from Edward R. Woodyard, Secretary, Police Trustee Board
of the Village of Orono had been received. In the letter from
the Counties Engineer it was pointed outi'that the three lots
should not be separated." and concern as to entrances was
mentioned along with certain conditions to be met, if these
applications were granted. In the letter from the Police
Trustees while there was"no objection to residential lots being
created this area should be related to a master plan: Mr. Callanan
had been'made aware of the comments in this correspondence.
Mr. Merrill Brown OLS., Bowmanville, Ontario, acting on
behalf of the proposed purchaser Mr. Kostrzewa, 249 Hillside Ave.,
Oshawa, Ontario, informed the Committee that Mr. Kostrzewa-now-
wished to relinquish his interest in these properties as there -
were,,
too many extenuating circumstances involved.
The Committee informed Mr. Brown that they were of the
opinion that to grant multiple ..1 severance's in this case would a4°
be improper as it would be tantamount to creating a plan of
subdivision by means of individual severances.
These applications for separation of parcels of land
(a) 94.5'x125' 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 were refused on motion by K. Schoenmaker,
seconded by E.F.R. Osborne. Carried.
CLASSIFICATION"RI"
Application File No. "B" 4-72
Branislav Bogdanovic,Owner,
R.R. #1 Newtonville, Ont.,
Lot 6, Con 7, Township
of Clarke,
Submission No. "B114-72-9
As business arising from former minutes, this application
was brought forward for further consideration.
Mr. Branislav Bogdanovic, applicant, appeared in support
of this application. No other person appeared in support of,
or in opposition to this application.
Mr. Bogdanovic presented to the Committee a certified
Plan of Survey, prepared byM,Z. Kostic OLS, dated 22nd June, 1972
Job No. A-13 with typed descriptgon of the subject land attached
thereto. Mr. Bogdanovic indicated to the Committee that part 2
with an area of 40.131 acres was the subject land and/the property
he wishes to sever from his land. is
Page 3
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, July 4, 1972:
The Committee:
1. Referred to the minutes of meeting March 27, 1972;
and April 11, 1972;
2. Recalled their inspection of the property on April
5, 1972; "
3. Perused the Plan of Survey presented at this meeting
and following further discussion were of the opinion that the
applicant had complied with the conditions imposed as evidenced
in former minutes.
Application granted to sever 40.131 acres in an agricultural
zone on motion by E.F.R. Osborne, seconded by K. Schoenmaker.
Carried. '
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "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 -
As business arising from past minutes, this application
was presented for further consideration.
Mr. and Mrs. Percy GIm. Allin appeared in support of
this application. No other person appeared in support of, or
in opposition to this application.
Mr. Allin presented the following material to the
meeting:
1. Correspondence from Department of Veterans Affairs,
_480 University Avenue, Toronto 101, Ontario;
"We have for acknowledgement your letter of May 26th,
1972, wherein you advise you have made application
to sever a lot 150' by 232' in depth in order that
your son will have . -a building site.
This Administration has no objection to you
severing this parcel of land fromyour property,
provided you will obtain the approval of your local
Committee of Adjustment. If approval is given,
however, it will be necessary that you provide us
with Survey plans and legal land description in
triplicate of the area to be severed as well as
survey plans and legal land description in triplicate
of,the remaining area.
This sale will be processed under Section 13 of the
Act. The Director will convey directly to your son
provided you give us your official consent and we
are p forwarding the appropriate foams for completion
if the severance is approved.
Application,to the Severance can be made by yourself
and your authority to do so comes under Revised Statute
of Ontario 1960 Chapter 249 Section 4.
(sgd.) "L.A.Churcher" Acting Superintendent
Property & Securities Division.
2. Report of soil examination, Ontario Agricultural
College and Ontario Department of Agriculture &
Food, University of Guelph, Department of soil Science
dated 5th May, 1972;
Mr. Allin presented the soil report as evidence that his land
with an areae of 2 acres is not suitable for agriculture.
Mr. Allin, under oath, stated that he has owned his property
under VLA for approximately 11 years ; 2 acres were required
by VLA at the time he purchased the property; his son is
apprenticed with him as a carpenter and his request for the
severance of 150'x232.32" is for a building lot so that a
single family dwelling can be built for his son. . . . . . .
Page 4
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, July 4, 1972:
Mrs. Allin then stated, that although they are zoned agriculture
there are houses across the road from their property - 7 houses
to the-south;and a golf course and 3 houses to the north.
Immediately to the north of their property is Brown's School,
now closed. As far as any agricultural use for their land, they
cannot grow crops and the land is useless. It would seem reasonable
to be allowed to build a house for a member of the family. '
Chairman E.R. Lovekin informed Mr. and Mrs. Allin that he
had been approached by the Municipal Board to arrange a meeting
with the Committee of Adjustment in the near future and he
suggested that if Mr. Allin cared to defer this application
until after this meeting, which will also include Council, this
matter could be `adjourned. Mr. Allin verbally agreed with this
suggestion and this application was adjourned until a later
date.
CLASSIFICATION 10."A"
Application File "B"18-72
Kaspar Hollen, Owner,
R.R. Newtonville, Ontario,
for part of Lots 3 & 4, Con 1,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No.
As business arising from former minutes, this application
was presented for further consideration.
Mr. Kaspar Hollen, applicant, appeared in tupport of this
application. No other person appeared in support of, or in
opposition to this application.
Mr. Hollen, under oath, stated that he has his farm
listed for sale and he wishes to retain a lot with an area
of 145 acres on which to build a home.
The Committee informed Mr. Hollen that he would come
under,Appendix 1 sub. sec. (j) Farmer Retaining Lot " may
retain a lot from the, sale of his farm". It was explained to
Mr, Hollen that to cgmply with this section of the by-law
he would have to lead evidence that he had a sale for, or was
selling his farm; a certified Plan of Survey by an Ontrio
Land Surveyor would be required and there is a further question
about the road in front of his property as to whether this has
been designated as a "public road."
Mr. Hollen suggested that he would contact his solicitor
M.B. Kelly Esq., Barber & Kelly, Bowmanville, Ontario for the
required material and this application was adjourned.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "A"18-72
(Cowanville School)
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 No. "A"18-72-15
As business arising from former minutes, this application
was brought forward for further consideration.
Mr. Jack Hayden, Assistant Business Administrator,
accompanied by Mr. Lawrence Greenwood, Board Member, Northumberland
& Durham County Board of Education appeared in support of this•
application. No other person appeared in support of, or in
opposition to this application. .
Page 5
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, July 4, 1972:
The Secretary --Treasurer presented the following material
to the meeting:
1. Correspondence from M.L. Ross, Road Superintendent
for Township of Clarke, dated June 19, 1972.
"Re: Application Cowanville School, Lot 17,
Con 4, Twp of Clarke This building should not
be allowed to be renovated in its present location.
As it now stands, the wall of the building is 17'
from the property line. If and when the road is
widened to a 100' right-of-way, this would put the
wall of the building on the property line. It is,
therefore, my opinion that this application should
be denied and the building demolished.
Yours truly,
(sgd.) "M.L. Ross"
The Committee:
1. Referred to the minutes of May 23, 1972 at
which time this application was presented along
with applications for Leskard, Enterprise and
Browns School. •There was a letter of objection
to the Cowanville School application from one
John Fonk and since that time another objection
from Mr. M.L. Ross, Road Supt. The Committee
took particular note of these objections;
2. The Committee recalled their inspection of
this property on June 10, 1972, at which time
they noticed that there was no basement in
the building.
3. On the whole of the evidence submitted, the
Committee concluded that the building was not
worthwhile salvaging and that it should be
demolished and the lot sold as a building lot
for a single family dwelling, it being a lot
of record under Sec. 3.15 of the by-law.
This application refused on motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded
by E.F.R. Osborne. Carried.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "A"12-72
Wolfram H. Klose, Owner,
R.R. #1, Orono, Ontario,
for part of Lot 25, Con 5,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "A"12-72-16
As business arising from former minutes, this application
was brought forward for further consideration.
Mr. Wolfram H. Klose, applicant, appeared in support of this
application. No other person appeared in support of, or in
opposition to this application.
The secretary -Treasurer presented thefollowing material
to the meeting
/- 1. Correspondence from Clarke Planning Board,
l Dated June 15, 1972, signed "Horace R. Best%
The Committee noted the contents thereof;
Mr. Klose was reminded that he was still under oath, if
he had any more submissions to make. Mr. Klose indicated that
he did not wish to speak at this time and the Committee proceeded
-with their decision.
Page 6
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 41 1972:
The Committee have reviewed this application with some care
as it presents some specific prgb�ems and note that the original
application in connection with this building was for a permit
to build a dog kennel. At the time of that application, the
present applicant owner lived outside the Municipality of the
Township of Clarke in the Pickering area. His dog kennel
business has apparently prospered and he now finds it increasingly D
difficult to properly care for these animals. when he is not J
properly living on the property. In essence, what the applicant
is asking is that he be permitted to construct living accommodation
and to join that accommodation to existing buildings without side -
yard requirements separating two separate land uses.
The Committee during its` ipspection of the property noted
that obviously an area designated as an administrative area in
the original application was being used temporarily for human
habitation.
The Committee wish to make it perfectly clear that nothing
in this decision is deemed to be authorization for such use of
the administrative area of the building. ,The Committee assume
that this application has been brought in order to rectify the existing
situation.
It is not unusual for a farmer to spend a night in the
barn with a valuable animal such as a horse or a cow which is
giving birth, or some other serious physical ailment. Such
isolated incidents would not establish or justify human habitation
in an area primarily designed for animals.
The Committee are prepared on the veryspecial facts of this
case to permit a house to be attached directly to the administrative
area at the north end of the existing building. The Committee
feel that, in effect, the "administrative area" would form an
effective buffer zone between the area for human habitation and
the dog kennels. Properly constructed, such a building would be
analogous to a situation where a,veterinary surgeon is allowed to
treat small animals in a veterinary hospital attached to living
accommodations.
The decision of the Committee, therefore, is that if the
applicant wishes to construct another area for human habitation
on his property, he may do so, provided the access from such
habitation is into the present administrative area of the dog
kennel building 'and the provisions of the by-law requiring side
yards separating different land uses are hereby waived.
All other requirements of the building inspector shall be
met in regard to the specific unit to be constructed. It is
repeated that this permission in regard to side yards is granted
as a minor variance and is not to be construed in any way as
approving any previous improper use of the building which may or
may not have occurred.
The Committee referred to the minutes of June 12,'1972;
recalled their inspection of this property on June 10,
1972; reviewed the photostat sketch of the proposed
addition to the dog kennel and discussed with Mr. Klose
the fact that the proposed addition should also include
a kitchen�in that the present building is still a "dog.
kennel". the so called "kitchen" presently part of
the "dog kennei" could certainly,be used for the preparation
of food etc. for the dogs and pups, the room adjoining
as.a "living room" could be converted into a"waiting room"
or "office". The., building as it presently stands is not
to be used„for human habitation.
Page 7
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 49 1972:
The Committee in referring to their inspection of this property
stated that they had been duly impressed by the construction
throughout, the heating system, built in sanitary disposal
system; paved yards for exercising the dogs etc., ,
Mr. Klose was asked if he wished to amend his application
from`the original request and if so the following amendment
was suggested: "amended to attach a single family dwelling
to the existing administrative area of the dog kennels. Relief
is sought from the side yard provisions of residential uses and
non residential uses in an agricultural zone". Mr. Klose
indicated his willingness and the application was amended accord-
ingly, initialled by Mr. Klose and witnessed by the Secretary -
Treasurer.
Application granted on motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by
E.vF.R. Osborne subject to the following conditions.-
1.
onditions:
1. Application amended to read," to attach a
single family dwelling to the existing
administrative area of the dog kennels. Relief
is sought from the side yard provisions of
residential uses and non residential uses in
an agricultural zone";
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 21 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 applicants shall then register on title by
way of Deposit a copy of the Form of Consent
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"
Page 8
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 49 1972:
Application File No. "A"11-72
Roderick & Susan Marie
MacDonald, Owners,
818.Central Park Blvd. W.,
Oshawa, Ontario,
Spencer Real Estate,
137 King St. E.,
Bowmanville, Ontario,
for part of Lot 30, Con 4,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "A"11-72-17
As business arising from minutes of former minutes this
application was brought forward for further consideration.
Mr. R.B. Spencer, Real Estate Agent, Bowmanville, Ontario,
accompanied by the proposed purchaser Mr. Perry 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 Committee inspected this
property at 6:00 p.m. Wednesday June 21, 1972, during a heavy
thunderstorm. The following facts were noted:
1. The two houses to the south ire both under
construction;
2. Neither of these two houses had any water in
the basement, although the house farthest to the
north had puddles of water lying on the plywood sub -
floor because of the rainfall;
3. The Committee would assume, therefore, that the
basements must be properly drained and the water
table in the area is not dangerously high;
Mr. R.B. Spencer, under oath, stated that he was the
duly authorized agent to act on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. .
Roderick MacDonald and he will send a copy of this authorization
to the Secretary for the records.
The Committee:
1. Reviewed the minutes of their meeting held
on June 12, 1972;
2. Perused the Plan of Survey as presented
at the aforesaid meeting. The subject land
is outlined in "red" and the watercourse is
indicated in outline. Also shown on this
Plan of Survey are the two lots to the south
on which the Committee had granted minor variance
from the watercourse (ref. "A"352-71-62-Nov.29/71)
and ("A"353-71-63,Nov 29/71.) These applications _
were granted subject to conditions regarding the
watercourse.
On all the facts of the particular case, and bearing in
mind that a set back to the existing building line brought the
rear of the house near the watercourse, this application for
a minor variance from Sec. 3.8 of amending by-law 1653 was
granted on motion by E.F.R. Osborne, seconded by K. Schoenmaker
subject to the following conditions:
1. that the reduction of set back from water -course
be 40' as applied for;
2. that the ditch shall be sodded as per Building
Inspector's requirements and sodding to be
completed in 1972;
Page 9
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 4, 1972:
3. TAKE WARNING that this decision for a minor
variance of the Clarke Township Committee of
Adjustment IS NOT FINAL AND BINDING until the
time dor 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;
4. 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 Consent and shall
forthwith thereafter forward to the Secretary of
the Committee a duplicate Certificate of Deposit
or a Notarial copy thereof;
5. 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.
CLASSIFICATION 3.8
Application File No. 11B'20-72
CARRIED.
Evelena Berniece Clysdale,Owner,
Newtonville, Ontario,
Mr. Charles Ewert, Agent,
Box 9, Newcastle, Ontario,
for part of Lot 9, Con 1,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "B"20-72-14
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 100'x 121to correct a boundary
error revealed by a recent Plan of.Survey.
The Secretary reported that 19 notices of the said hearing
had been mailed in accordance with Item S of The Rules of
Procedure.
Mrs. E.B. Clysdale, accompanied by her husband Lloyd
Clysdale appeared in support of this application. No other
person appeared in support of, or in opposition'to this application.
As a matter of record Mr. Lovekin, Chairman, disqualified
himself from the hearing of this application, having previous
knowledge of this matter and Mr. K. Schoenmaker senior member
conducted the hearing on this case.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material
to the meeting:
1. Plan of Survey prepared by M.D. Brown OLS.,
dated August 16, 1971, File 71116 deposited
as Plan 93, September 14, 1971.
Mr. Clysdale, under oath, stated the following facts:
1. This property has been owned approximately 20 years;
2. It is proposed to seil the property to one
purchaser;
3. "Part 11, as shown on the Plan of Survey containing
a 1 story frame dwelling was sold to his mother
several years ago. The dimensions of the land
conveyed was 100'x 50'. After the house was
built land was added of approximately 19' deep
on the north side and approximately 12' wide
on the east side and is shown on the Plan of
Survey as "part 2"
Page 10
Committee of Adjustment Meeting July 4, 1972
3. cont 'd
This part was added in approximately 1955
or 1956 but was never deeded or surveyed.
4. He now wishes to sell his property and the
boundaries will have to be corrected before
he can do this.
The Committee were aware that this application would be
presented at this meeting and an inspection was made of
the property on June 29, 1972;
The Committee concluded that this application was occasioned
by the fact that the applicant is selling his property in
Newtonville, Ontario, and a Plan of Survey revealed that
established lines of occupation as established by a cedar
hedge and other clear boundary markings do not follow the lands
as legally described.
In order to clarify this apparent discrepancy, a Plan of
Survey was prepared and the applicant Mr. Clysdale will sell
his property, properly described and surveyed so that the
overlap legally owned by him, but not occupied, will not be
conveyed to the purchaser, thus removing a cloud from the
neighbour's title.
Application for consent to a conveyance to correct a boundary
error revealed by a recent survey granted on motion by E.F.R.
Osborne, seconded by 'K. Schoenmaker. Carried.
CLASSIFICATION "R1"
c
Application File "B"21-72 Robert Morton, Owner,
R.R. #1, Kendal, Ontario,
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
for part of Lot 18 Con 6,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "B"21 -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 290' x 150' from the
applicant's land.
The Secretary reported that 21 notices of the said hearing
had been mailed in accordance with'Item 5 of The Rules of
Procedure.
Mr. Robert Morton, applicant, and W. Kay Lycett Q.C.,
Barrister & Solicitor, 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 W. Kay Lycett Q.C.,
Orono, Ontario, dated June 20, 1972
"Mr. Morton proposes and forsees future
retirement from the farming business and he hopes
to enter into an agreement with his son whereby
the business of the farm property will be transferred
to his son. Towards this end he is also planning to
erect for himself on the farm property a dwelling
house for himself and his, wife to continue residing
in the same area. He is, therefore, making
application to your Committee for severance of a
building lot from the farm property which is shown
on sketches which he has prepared and which is
attached to his application enclosed herewith.
Page 11
Committee of Adjustment meeting July 4, 1972
Theproposed lot is to contain not less than one
acre and is to have a frontage on two Township
roads, one of 150' and the second of 290111
Mr. R. Morton, under oath, stated that his son Gordon
who is presently 23 years of age has assisted him on the
farm on a full time and part time basis since childhood
as he was born and raised on the farm. .He now wishes to be
granted a lot so that he will be in a position to transfer
the family farm to his son Gordon.
The Committee were satisfied from local knowledge and sworn
testimony that the applicant is a well known bona fide farmer
in the area whose chief source of income is from agricultural
operations.
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., referred to amending by-law 1653,
appendix 1 sub. sec. (j) Farmer Retaining Lot, and specifically
to "may retain a lot from the sale of his farm". Mr. Lycett
stated that to require the applicant to first sell his farm
before seeking approval for a severance would put an unfair
hardship on the applicant.
This application was adjourned to enable the Committee to
inspect the property.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No. "B"22-72 Joseph G. Stephenson,Owner,
R.R..#2, Newcastle, Ontario,
for part of Lot 23, Con 1,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "B"22-72
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 100' x 150' being approximately
15,000 sq. ft. from the applicant's land.
The Secretary -Treasurer reported that 25 notices of�the
said hearing had been mailed in accordance with Item 5 of The
Rules of Procedure.
Mr. Joseph G. Stephenson, applicant, appeared in support
of this application. No other person -appeared in support of,
or in opposition to this application.
The Secretary presented the following material to the
meeting:.
1. A photostat copy of a Plan of Survey prepared
by J. Sylvester dated 30th August 1961, #61099
Mr. Joseph G. Stephenson, under oath, stated the following
facts;
1. He has owned and operated his farm on the
eastern outskirts of the Village of Newcastle
south of Highway #2 for approximately 40 years;
2. For the past 21 years his son has operated the
farm and he, himself, has travelled for a firm
l selling John Mansville products;
3. He and his wife live in the main house on the
farm and his son Robert has lived in a second
house on the same property which is on the edge
of the Township road for 21 years.
Page 12
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 42 1972:.
4. The south end of the farm was severedy by
Highway #401 but that section of the farm lying
between #401 and #2 Highways is approximately
78 acres;
5. There is a pending application before the Planning
Board to re -zone a lot in the north west corner
of the property. ,
6. The house in question which is to be severed with
a suitable lot is approximately midway between
#2 and #401 Highways on the west side of the
Township Road.Since this Twp. .side road dead ends into
#401, no serious traffic problem has been created.
7. Across the road from the applicant, multiple severances
were created before zoning and the entire east
side of the road from #401 to #2 Highway is ribbon
development comprising,,approximately 30 individual
si4gle family homes.
Mr. Stephenson further stated that his existing home and
the 78 acres are listed for sale; there is a 80' drilled well
and a septic system on the property approximately 27 years;
an inspection was made of the property by the Health Unit
within the last 10 days or so.
This application adjourned to enable the Committee to inspect
this property.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
Application File No.
Charles Wesley Lemon, Owner,
R.R. #22 Newcastle, Ontario.
W. Kay Lycett Q.C., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
Lot 9, Con 2,
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 - reduction of side yard from 25' to 22' on the
west and 15' on the east of the proposed dwelling and a reduction
of set back from 93' to 631.
The Secretary -Treasurer reported that 24 notices of the
said hearing had been mailed in accordance with Item 5 of the
Rules of Procedure.
Charles Wesley Lemon, applicant, Harold Lambert, proposed
purchaser, both of Newtonville, Ontario, accompanied by their
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. Lena Winnifred Graham, R.R. 02 Newcastle,
accompanied by her husband also appeared.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material
to the meeting:
1. Correspondence from W. Kay Lycett Q.C.,
Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario, dated
June 19, 1972: "My client, Charles Wesley
Lemon wishes to make application for minor variance
in respect of his lot comprising part of lot 9
concession 2 in the Township of Clarke which has a
side frontage of 66 feet by a depth of 165 feet
fronting on Hill Street within the hamlet of
Newtonville. 'He has a proposed purchaser for this
lot who wishes to erect a single family dwelling
house thereon having a width of 29 feet and a
depth of 51 feet more or less and having regard to
r
Page 13
Meeting Committee of Adju�stment,July 4, 1972:
theprovisions of the present Zoning By-law applying
to this, he finds it impossible to erect this house
on the lot without making application for a reduction
of the sideyard requirement cf 25 feet. The proposed
house can be erected on the lot with a 'sideyard
reduction of 'the west from 25 feet to 22 feet and
a side yard reduction of the east from 25 feet to 15
feet. In view ofthefact that other houses in the
immediate area are located within less than 93 feet
of the centre line of the road, he hereby makes
application also to have the set back requirement of
93 feet reduced to 63 feet so that the dwelling may
be erected at not a lesser distance but a slightly
greater distance from the centre, line of road than
the other houses in 'the area and that it may be in
keeping with the general requirement of houses in
the area."
Mr. Lemon, under oath,, stated.that he has owned the lot
since approximately 1959. .
Mrs. Lena W. Graham,, an abutting owner, asked why a reduction .
in set back would be made from 93' to 63' apd.the,applicant
replied that this was necessary to bring his house up to the
established building line. Mr. Graham wanted to know how the
sideyard requirements related to the area necessary for a
private sewage disposal.system. To his knowledge there has
never been a house on this property.
-�4�r-Gnaw-Ftarr ec -t-o k -hew-*I-re-gi[�eparel-��� rrtg-
��(F� r-shat-ad-t-o-�l�-afea-�rr��-€c3e-a-pr}Mate-sc�crtaga-a}spasal ,
-sus. He was told that only on rare occasions was a septic
tank located in the sideyard area and, therefore, there is no
direct relationship between septic disposal requirements and
sideyard requirements.
The applicant was advised that a certificate of -inspection
should be obtained from the-Haliburton Kawartha Pine Ridge
District Health Unit, Cobourg, Ontario.
. 1
Application,adyourned to enable the Committee to inspect the
property.
CLASSIFICATION "RR"
Application File No. "A"21-72
Clarke Fish & Conservation
Club; Owner, 378 King St.W.,
Oshawa, Ontario.
J.B. McMullan, Agent,
378 King•St.,W..Oshawa, Ont.,
for part of Lot 32, Con -7,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No.."A"21-72.17
As business arising from minutes of former meetings this
application was brought forward for further consideration.
• J
Irving Gleibermam Esq-., Sandler,Gordon & Gleiberman,
Barristers & Solicitors, 464 Yonge St. Toronto, Ontario, c
accompanied by three members of the Club - Mr. Robert Hann;
Mr. C. Potter; and Mr. Wm. Torino, 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 Clarke Planning Board, dated
June 20, 1972 signed "Horace R. Best" Secretary
'.'Please be advised that during the regular meeting
. . . . . . on June 15, 19729 the following motion with regards
to Application 21-72 was passed,, as filed by Clarke
Fishing & Ctanservation Club for relief from Section 3,
Page 14
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 4, 1972:
10 cont'd
sub -section 8 requiring a separation of 100' from
the bank of a stream, "F. Gray moved that the Secretary
be instructed to submit the following comments to
the Committee of Adjustment (1) In view of the area
of the subject land and the fact that the recently
constructed pond was man-made, the Planning Board
are of the firm opinion that it would have been
reasonably possible for the owners to plan the
location of the pond and the proposed single family
dwelling in such a manner as to maintain the required
100' separation. (2) Every attempt should be made,
whenever possible, to safeguard the ecology of the
Wilmot Creek rather than permit variances that would
improve the aesthetic,value of the proposed dwellings.
(3) in respect of the foregoing the Planning Board
are of the opinion that this application for variance
should be rejected." Seconded by E.,R. Woodyard sand
carried." Yours truly (sgd.) "Eorace R. Best"
2. Correspondence from Irving Gleiberman,, dated ,
June 28, 19729 enclosing photostat copy of letters
patent;
3. Photostat copy of Letters Patent incorporating
Clarke Fish and Conservation Club, dated June 1, AD 1971,
recorded this 8th day -of June A.D. 1971 as Number 243114.
Before proceeding with their decision the Committee requested,
Mr. Gleiberman to amend the application to agree with the
name of the Club as in the Letters Patent "Clarke Fish &
Conservation Club'.' Mr. Gleiberman agreed to this suggestion
and the application was amended, initialled by Mr. Gleiberman
and witnessed by the Secretary -Treasurer. At the same time
the application was amended to " or such setback as Committee
deems reasonable." This was initialled by Mr. Gleiberman and
witnessed by the Secretary -Treasurer.
The following is the decision of the Committee of Adjustment:
This is an application by "Clarke Fish & Conservation Club"
a body corporate under the Laws of the Province of Ontario.
This body Corporate is without share capital and is the type of
incorporation used where a group of persons band together to
hold property or conduct some enterprise among a very restricted
,membership on a non-profit basis, but for business reasons wish
to be incorporateO.
' The Solicitor for,this Corporation, who is also a member
of the C1ubl.Mr. Irving_ Gleiberman, has informed the Committee
that there are approximately 10 persons in the Company. Some of
the aims of the Company are to establish and maintain a fish club
and --to engage in actively promoting conservation and the like.
It is common knowledge, among solicitors, that before such
a club is incorporated, the prospective members of such clubs
are investigated by the Ontario Provincial Police to ensure
the bona fide nature of their activities. The fact that such a
charter -has been granted the applicants is, therefore, to a
degree, rima facie evidence of their good character and bona
fide intentions.
The Committee review6d the minutes of the meeting held
on June 12, 1972 and met on the property June 27, 1972 at
12:45 p.m. with Mr. J.B. McMullan,,Mr. Robert Hann, Mr. C.
Potter and Irving Gleiberman Esq., Solicitor.
The location and orientation of the proposed one large
single building on the site was the main point of the discussion.
Originally several small chalets were suggested for this site
but for reasons that are not relevant, as they are not within
the prerogatives of this,Committee, the present proposal is for
one large building.
Page 15
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 4, 1972:
The applicants are represented by a Solicitor and they
are aware that this Committee's decision has no effect on
matters pending before the Planning Board or on building permits
etc. The sole question before this Committee is whether the
building set back can be changed as a "minor variance".
The Committee wish to make it perfectly clear that they have
taken into account all the oral evidence presented, the written
communications filed and -the physical conditions noted during
'- their trips to the site. The topography of the land is very
important in this case and written or oral presentatiops cannot
easily illustrate the very particular topography involved herein.
The Committee frequently find site inspections useful, but in
this case such an inspection proved essential to an understanding
of the proposal.
The Committee noted the letter dated the 20th of June,1972
signed by "Horace R. Best" Secretary of the Planning Board was
very concrete and clearly suggested that this application should
be completely rejected. The Committee thank the Board for making
their recommendations so concrete as this facilitates the Committee's
work. They reject this recommendation for the reasons stated
herein.
The Committee is well aware that the primary planning
function lies with the Planning Board and the execution of specific
measures is the prerogative of Council. They are also aware that
the Department of Municipal Affairs has made it clear that Official
Plans and By -Laws are to be followed in spirit as well as in
specific requirements. The Committee, however, is a body legally
constituted under the Planning Act charged with exercising a
semi -.judicial function that of "adjusting" general rules to
specific cases. Its members are appointed and not elected in
order to insulate them from any kind of social or political
pressure; whether this comes from Government Officials, Civil
Servants, Municipal Officials or members of the.public at large
by way of the Press or by individual comment. It is noted that
no brief was presented in opposition to this application nor did
anyone appear to make oral representations on the multiple occasions
that this matter was heard. Rumours and grumbling are ignored
by this Committee; written or oral representations are given.every
consideration.
The Planning Board letter of the 20th of June 1972 states
that "every attempt should be made to safeguard the ecology of
Wilmot�Creek% This is a true statement and one heartily agreed
in by this Committee. The question raised herein, however,, is
whether this particular suggestion endangers the ecology of
Wilmot Creek. This is a subjective opinion judgment that must
be made on the specific facts.- Generalities are dangerous. The
very presence of any human being in the Township of Clarke creates
a possible threat to the ecology of Wilmot Creek since that
human being generates sewage by his very existence. Such a danger
is, of course, minimal and acceptable by normal standards and any
so called "danger" is fanciful. No one would suggest that the
whole population of Clarke Township be evacuated to some other
place in Canada to protect the -ecology of the local watershed.
If such action were necessary or advisable it would require
special legislation. Lands are taken for cities and airports
(to the West a few mile s Pickering Townships If, for ecological
reasons a safe zone is required in Durham, that action will be
taken.
One must remember that the individual citizen has rights
as well as the public. The use of all real property has to be
regulated for the general welfare but the private citizen also
has rights to develop his property if he observes the law of
the Realm. Control is not complete prohibition. Organized'
society requires that its members pay taxes and obey the law;
in exchange, Society agrees to physically protect the citizen
from international violence (war) or personal violence (assaults)
and guarantees his property rights (against thieves, robbers
etc.)
Page 16
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 42 1972:.
There is only one social organization where there are no
individual property rights and that is a Communist Society.
It need hardly be pointed out that Canada is a Democracy.
This -Committee does not have among its members, persons
qualified as professional engineers, public health authorities
or qualified ecologists. Their decision must be based on the
Professional evidence presented to them. Our decision should not
be based on our own whims or prejudices or in response to outside
pressures.
There is no law that the Committee knows of that totally
prohibits the construction of any buildings whatsoever in the
Wilmot Creek watershed or that totally prohibits construction
of any building within a stated number of feet from that creek.
The provision with which we are dealing is a general provision
which reads as follows: "Section 3.8 Lands Subject to Flooding:.
In all zones the erection of buildings or structures for
residential or commercial purposes shall be prohibited
on land that is subject to flooding or on land where by
reason of its rocky, low-lying, marshy or unstable
character, the cost of satisfactory waterworks,sewage, or
drainage facilities is prohibitive. Nor shall any building
or structure or appurtenance thereto (other than conservation
or flood control projects) be installed within (1001)
one hundred feet of any stream or river bank, or in the
flood plain of any water course, as determined by an Ontario
Land Surveyor."
It is to be noted that primarily this section is not dealing with
ecology problems but rather with "flooding" situations. At the
present time large sections of the United States are experiencing
flooding problems and persons in Ontario recall the effects of
"Hurricane Hazel". To forestallsuch disasters is the primary aim of
such provisions. It is of importance to note the exact wording
of this section since the location of the building proposed by the
applicants is on the highest piece of land in the whole property,
namely, on top of the "borrow"that came out of the pond. The
applicant, therefore, is complying with the basic spirit of the
by-law in placing his building on the proposed site out of an
area where flooding is a danger.
In practical. application this section is obviously being
used not only to keep buildings out of flood plains so that
future owners of this building will not be "flooded out", but it
is also being.used to prevent possible contamination of the streams
in the Township by structures that are so close to the creek that
they present a real and dangerous source of contamination and
endanger the ecology of the area., In this specific case the
real and apparent danger would appear to be that the flooding
by surface water or run off would flow over a septic tile bed
and carry human waste into the stream and thus contaminate
the ecology of the creek or stream.
In determining whether or not they should exercise their
discretionary power, the Committee look to general policy and
the particular facts of the case. In this regard, the Committee
asked the applicants why they had located the pond where they
did on their property and why they were now suggesting that the
building be so,close. The location of the pond, the Committee
were told, had been determined in conjunction with the Dept. of
Lands and Forests. The whole pond was constructed without
cutting down a single tree. This would appear to be a commendable
decision.
To the east of the existing pond is the creek. To locate
the proposed chalet to the east, any builder would have to go
100' from the creek which is 50' to 150' east of the pond.
The land dug out to make the pond was placed on the west
side of the pond with about a one in seven gradient to the top
of a plateau. In effect the applicants are asking to place
their building on top of this plateau. To locate the building
further to the west would locate it on the low marshy ground
the tither side of the ridge of land created by the "borrows'.
•
Page 17
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 4, 1972:
The Committee were told that the Health Unit would rather
see any septic disposal bed located in the gravel ridge rather
than on the low lying land to the West as any tile bed would
be subject to surface run off and flooding which is not a
desirable state of affairs.
The Committee have on file a copy of a "Lot Inspection
Application" marked "approved" and dated 31st May, 1972 issued
by the local Health Unit. The Committee must accept this
document as evidence that the applicants have done all things
necessary to meet the health requirements laid down by this
authority and there appears to be adequate logical grounds for
such a decision.
The applicants stated that originally they had planned to
locate the pond to the north of its present location where the
land was lower and spring fed. To build both the pond and the
parking lot to the north would have involved the cutting down
of a solid cedar bush and the destruction of hundreds of fair
sized trees. This action would have been disapproved by the
Dept. of Lands and Forests and -the applicants stated the pond
was re -located because of this reasoning.
In a letter from the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests
Fish and Wildlife Branch dated at Lindsay on 4th April,1972,
the writer signing on behalf of the District Forester stated
that "The reason for this visit was the inherent responsibility
of this Department to ensure that any development associated
with a natrual water course will not have deleterious effects
on the water course itself." It was noted that your pond will
be a true by-pass and therefore does not require approval from
this office." The writer goes on to make suggestions which the
Committee understands have all been complied with. This letter
seems to suggest that the creek is the watercourse and in such
a case the building proposed in this application would be far
more than 100' away from the watercourse.
In regard to the creek, the pond and the height of land
in the area, the following figures are relevant. This summary
goes -from east to west 1 (1) creek to east side of pond -'50'
to 100' (2) pond up to edge of bank about 66' (3) east side of
plateau to west side of plateau 56' (4) down bank from top of
plateau to marshy ground 401.
In summary the applicants are saying that because of the
topography of the surrounding land and the location of the pond
a variance is necessary. They also say that the building will
have the 'septic tank to the rear of the building so that the
distance from the building to the pond is not the same as the
distance from the pond to the septic tank. The building is
approximately 56' square. The proposed building could not be
located farther east because of the creek; farther north with-
out destroying trees and being on low land; farther west as the
"plateau" is only so wide. If the building was farther south,
it would..be on low land behind the south bank of the pond. The
building must be located on the "plateau" made by the "borrow"
so that it will be elevated where the septic tile system can _
also be located on the plateau farther away from the pond.
The Committee thought it advisable to give extensive
reasons in this case as it seems to be one that has invoked
special interest although the absence of formal briefs appeared
unusual if interest ran so high.
The Committee:
1. reviewed the minutes of meetings - May 23,
_May 26, June 12, 1972;
2. recalled their inspections of the property
on May 26, June 27, 1972;
3. Referred to Mr. Gleiberman's request at this
meeting for a set back of 501;
and this application was granted on motion by K. Schoenmaker,
seconded by E.F.R. Osborne, sugject to the following conditions:
1. The Committee are prepared to grant a minor
variance in this matter, but not the variance
requested. Basically the reason for granting
this variance is that the man made plateau
constructed from the "borrow" is the only
feasible location for a building in the whole
area. . . . .
Page 18
Meeting Committee of Adjustment July 4, 1972:
2. Set back from the pond edge shall be 551; this
figure represents the maximum distance the
building can be from the pond and still -be
properly located on the plateau and remain
convenient to the approved feptjc system;
3. Septic tank to remain over 100' from the pond;
4. It is understood that the building to be
erected is not a "commercial" property and
this decision in no way recognizes the property
as anything but a private fishing club and the
persons frequenting it shall be part time or
non permanent residents with the possible
exception of a caretaker;
5. 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 21 DAYS FROM THE DATE that the minutes of
this decision have been mailed to the Minister
of Municipal Affairs of the Province of Ontario;.
6. This decision should not be registered on title
until the said time for appeal has lapsed when
the applicants shall then register on title by
way of. Deposit a copy of the Form of Consent
and shall forthwith thereafter forward to the
Secretary of the Committee a duplicate Certificate
of Deposit or a Notarial copy thereof;
7. AND FURTHER that upon receipt by the Secretary of
the aforesaid document, the appropriate administrative
officials of the Township of Clarke shall be
authorized to issue any and all necessary permits
or to take any steps necessary to implement this
decision.
CLASSIFICATION 10 "A"
CARRIED.
General Business - Decisions were signed; correspondence
dictated; the dates for the next
two meetings were agreed upon
being;
August 24, 1972
September 11, 1972
and this meeting then adjourned
Cc- <
Secretary-Treasu r
at 12:3b a.m.
Chairman