HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/1970MEETING
of the
COMMITTEE Off` ADJUSTMENT
Tuesday, October 20, 1970, at 7:00 p.m.
Council Chamber
Present: E.R. Lovekin, Chairman,
K. Schoenmaker, Member,
E.F.R. Osborne, Member,
Mrs. Ellen M. Yeo, Secretary -Treasurer t
The minutes of September 22, 1970 were approved on motion
by K. Schoenmaker and seconded by E.F.R. Osborne. Carried.
Application 265-70 Joseph C. Victor B.A. LL.B. Agent,
Application 266-70 Creighton, Drynan, Murdoch &
Application 267-70 Victor, Barristers & Solicitors,
5 Simcoe Street North,
Oshawa, Ontario.
Leo Joseph Boisvert .
Bella M. Boisvert Owners,
R.R. 41 Newtonville, Ontario,
for part of Lot 9, Con. 11,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No.
Submission No.
Submission No.
+s business arising from minutes of the past meeting,'these
applications were brought forward for further consideration.
No .person appeared in support of or in opposition to these
applications.
The Secretary -Treasurer presented the following material to
the meeting:
1. Corresnondence from Joseph C. Victor B.A. LL.B.,
I`lessrs. Creighton, Drynan, Murdoch & Victor,
Barristers ,& Solicitors, Oshawa, Ontario, returning
copies of the Plan of Survey duly executed by M.D.
Brown, Ontario Land Surveyor, as requested by the
Committee at their meeting on September 22, 1970;
2. Correspondence from A.G. Low, Secretary -Treasurer,
Clarke Planning Board, dated October 17, 1970.
The Committee noted the contents thereof.
As a matter of record the entire Committee visited the property
on Saturday October 17, 1970 and accompanied by Pairs. Boisvert the
subject land was inspected.
The following facts were noted:
1.
Survey pins were located in the
ground for exact
points of reference;
2.
Construction signs erected on the
indicating
road, were observed,
reconstruction of the
bridge on the road
at the north east corner of the
property;
3.
The property fronts on the road
the Hamlet of Newtonville to the
that runs north of
Hamlet
of Kendal;
4.
A cloverleaf at Newtonville gives
11401
access to Highway
so this is a well travelled
north -south road;
5. The site. lines for entry
and, if anything, will be
construction.
T
to the road are presently adequate
improved by the new bridge
here being no one present to discuss these applications, the Secretary
was instructed to notify the agent Joseph C. Victor B.f,. LL.B., the
date of the next meeting and these applications mere adinurn..a
CL'
tSSIFIC,,T10N SECTILN 10 Fi ��r
Page 2
Meeting Committee of adjustment, October 20, 1970;
Application File No. 268-70
Ross McComb, Owner,
291 Marland Avenue,
Apt. 310,
Oshawa, Ontario,
for part of Lot 30, Con. 111,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "A"268-70-28
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption from
provisions of sub -division control by-law 1592 and amendments
thereto to permit a minor variance from the required side yard
of 25' to 15' (ref. Appendix 1 (1) (f).
The Secretary reported that 16 notices of the said hearing
had been mailed in accordance with Item 4 of The Rules of
Procedure.
Mr. Ross McComb, the applicant, appeared in support of this
application. No other person appeared in support of or in
opposition to this application.
The Committee were aware that this application would be
presented atthis meeting and as a matter of record visited the
property at 12:45 on Saturday, October 17, 1970. The following
facts were noted:
1. To reduce side yards too much in this area would
bring the homes on either side of the proposed
site too close together for a rural area;
2. The Committee noted that the house across the road
has ample side yards;
3. Some reduction is possible, but the exact amount of
reduction of side yardswould have to depend on the
particular facts;
4. The Committee also noted that this property had been
dealt with at their meeting on June 20, 1970
(ref. File No. 251-70-208);
Mr. McComb was sworn and the following submissions were made:
1. This application is"submitted to permit the reduction
of side yard reru_rements from the minimum of 25'
required under the by-law to 15' on each side of
the proposed dwelling;
2. There is no opportunity to purchase additional land
due to the fact that the lots on either side are
already built upon;
3. The homes on either side of the proposed dwelling
are "Ranch" style homes with side yards of 10'-15'
and he wishes to build a similar type home. If
required to conform to the by-law requirements of a
25' side yard on either side, his proposed home,
would of necessity, be much smaller and would detract
from the appearance of the immediate area;
The Committee were of the opinion t'r.at a reduction from the required
25' on each side of the house to 15' on each .side of the house
would be a 40% variance of side yards and such a wide variance
would' nbt'maihtaih the general intent and purpose of the by-law;
Reference was made to a previous decision dated November 24,1969
Page 3
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, October 20, 1970;
(ref. "A"226-69-6) the facts of which were similar in an area
close to the area under discussion.
"'+fter considerable discussion, Mr. McComb requested the
Committee to consider the amendment of the application to read a
side yard of "twenty" feet on either side rather than "fifteen"
feet as applied for. The Committee agreed to this request and the
application was amended and initialled accordingly by Mr. McComb.
The Committee considered the following facts:
1. It was impossible to obtain land on either side
of the property; houses had been built on both
abutting lands before the advent of the by-law
and were quite close to the lot line;
2. The houses in the area were all of the long bungalow
type and gave particular weight to the applicant's
submission that the construction of a different type
of home would make such a home appear out of character
with the general area;
3. The home was a pre-engineered home and it was possible
to reduce it to a single car garage which in all cir-
cumstances appeared to be a reasonable compromise;
Mr. McComb was :informed that the decision of the Committee of Adjustment,
when not appealed does not become final and binding until 14 days
have elapsed after the date shown on the typed copy of the decision
as required by subsections (10) and (11) of Section 32b of the Act.
Application granted on motion by Mr. K. Schoenmaker and seconded by
i1ir. E.F.R. Osborne that this applicatiombe granted, subject fo the
following conditions:
1. TAKL ✓1ARNING that this decision for a minor variance of the
Clarke Township Committee of Adjustment.IS NOT FINAL ANDVBINDING
until. the time for appeal b�7 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 y
Affairs of the Province of Ontario.
2. 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 signed by the concurring members, and shall forthwith
thereafter forward to the Secretary of the Committee a duplicate
Certificate of Deposit or a Notarial copy thereof;.
3. 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 ZONED 10 "A" - Appendix 1 = 1 (f)
Page 4
Meet;ng Commit=tee of Adjustment, October 20, 1970;
Application File No. 269-70
W. Kay Lvicett B.A., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
Mrs. Edna Williams, Owner,
R.R. #1, Orono, Ontario,
for part of Lot 28, Con 111,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "A"269-70-30
An was made for exemption or partial exemption from
provisions of sub -division control by-law No. 1592 and amendments
thereto for permission to - extend and expand present non -conforming,
but, pre-existing highway commercial use of subject lands by way of
approval and direction for issuance of building permit for erection
of commercial building - for the reduction of the set back for`such
extension from centre line of Township road from 931 to 831.
The Secretary reported that 15 notices of the said hearing had
been mailed in accordance with Item 4 of The Rules of Procedure.
Mr. and Mrs. Percy Williams accompanied by their agent, W. Kay
Lycett B.A., Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, 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 W. Kay Lycett B.A., Barrister
& Solicitor, Orono, Ontario. The Committee noted
the contents thereof•,
2. A Plan of Survey prepared
Land Surveyor, Port Hope,
#55048;
by J.L. Sylvester, Ontario
Ontario, dated August 6, 19557
The Committee were aware that this application would be presented at
this meeting and as a matter of record visited the property at
12:00 noon on Saturday October 17, 1970. Mr. Williams, husband of
the applicant accompanied the Committee on their tour of the property
which is known as the "Twin Oaks" Motel.
The Committee noted the following facts:
1. The motel is located on a section of road that
was Highway lk35 and is now part of High 4115;
2. The "Twin Oaks" motel" has been in continuous
operation since prior to August 1955;
3. Although Mr. & Mrs. Williams took possession of
the property on or about April 1965, they were
unable to obtain the deed to the property until
January 8th, 1968 Awaiting settlement of the
estate of the former owners;
4. The parking requirements were inspected and they
appeared adequate. The septic tank disposal bed
location in relation to the creek was also discussed
and suggestions made to the owner;
Mrs. Edna Williams was sworn and the following submissions were
made:.
1. She is the owner of part of Lot 289 Concession 3,
on which she carries on a motel business under the
'name of "Twin Oaks". While it had been originally
intended to add 6 units to the existing motel, it
`had been decided to delete 1 unit and this had the
effect of decreasing the encroachment on the set back
from a 30' to a 10' encroachment;
Page 5
Meeting Committee of :adjustment, October 20, 1970;
The Committee:
1. Perused the Plan of Survey presented;
2. Referred to their inspection of the property on
October 17, 1970;
3. Stated that while they would have found the 30'
encroachment extensive, they were of the opinion
that the 10' encroachment would be acceptable under
the circumstances of this particular case;
4. In regard to any problems that might arise over building
permits, it was the opinion that this was an extension
of an existing non -conforming use which was acceptable
and that the business will be carried on in the same
manner and for the same purposes as it was previously;
5. The proposed addition does not change the character
of the property;
Basically then, the application is for permission to expand a non-
conforming use located in an :agricultural Zone. It is difficult
to see why the land use by-law of the Township failed to zone this
location "Highway Commercial". It would appear to be an oversight
as generally existing land uses were spot zoned along this highway.
It is noted that in the original zoning survey plan this area was
designated "Highway Commercial". No objection has been received by
the Committee to date from any,abutting owner or from the Planning
Board in regard to this application for a minor variance.
Mrs. Williams was informed that the decision of the Committee of
Adjustment, when not appealed, does not become final and binding until
14 days have elapsed after the date shown on the typed copy of the,
decision as required by subsections (10) and (11) of Section 32b of
the Act.
Application granted on motion by E.F.R. Osborne and seconded by
K. Schoenmaker this application is granted subject to the following
conditions:
1. TAK ','ARId1NG 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.
2. This decision should not be registered on title until
the said time for appeal ha.s lapsed when the applicant
shall then register on title by way of Deposit, a copy
of the Form of Consent signed by the concurring members,
and shall forthwith thereafter forward to the Secretary
of the Committee a duplicate Certificate of Deposit or a
Notarial copy thereof;
3. 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. CARRI'D.
CLASSIFICATION Sec. 10 "A"; Sec. 12.; Appendix 1 Sect "G" Sec. 3-3.11
Page 6,
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, October 20, 1970;
Application File No. 270-70
Ken Soper Owner,
R.R. #1,
Newtonville, Ontario,
for part of Lot 3, Con V1,
Township of Clarke,
Submission No. "A"270-70-31
Application was made for exemption or partial exemption from
provisions of sub -division control by-law No. 1592 and amendments
thereto to permit the erection of an accessory building in the
front yard and exemption from rer._uired set back on the applicant's
land under Section 3-7 "B" appendix 1 Sec. "G".
The Secretary reported that 25 notices of the said hearing had
been mailed in accordance with Item a of The Rules of Procedure.
Mr. Ken Soper, the applicant, appeared in support of this application.
Mr. and Mrs. Leslie K. Hathway, R.R. #1 Newtonville, Ontario also
appeared. No other person appeared in support of or in opposition
to this application.
The Secretary-Tre.asurer presented the following material to the
meeting:
1. A photostat.copy of a sketch of the subject land
showing the location of the proposed garage-,
The Committee were aware that this applicFition would be
presented at this meeting and as a matter of record visited the
property on Saturday, October 17, 1970.
Mr. and Mrs. Soper accompanied the Committee on the site
and stated that they had lived on the property approximately 33
years.
The Committee noted the following facts:
1. The house and barn were located on top of an
outstanding elevation giving a commanding view of
the surrounding area for several miles in all
directions; it is a general farming operation of
approximately 160 acres with a frontage of approximately
1 mile;
2. The application was for permission to build a garage
close to the road, since the laneway going down to
the house fills with snow in the winter months;
3. From the Committee's knowledge of the area; weather
characteristrics, particularly snowfall and wind
in this area known as "The Kendal Hills", drifting
snow could completely block the laneway;
Mr, Soper was then sworn and verified, under oath, that the
reason he wished to construct the single car garage 6'from his
property line was because in the wintertime he has a_severe problem
with regard to snow filling his laneway.
Mr. Leslie K. Hathway was sworn and submitted:
1. His property was directly East of the road allowance
fronting Mr. Soper's property;
?. -He would object to the proposed building if used for
any other purpose than a garage and he would expect it
to be of sound construction;
Page 7
Meetinq Committee of ;adjustment, October 20, 1970;
3. 'He would prefer to see that a culvert be erected
in front of the proposed garage in order that the
normal flow of water would be directed to the south
to avoid any possible flooding of his property.
The Committee noted that there was no topographical reason why
the garage would have to be located so close to the road allowance
which meant that the snow problem was the only grounds for encroach-
ment on the set back requirement of 60' from the fence line.
The Committee were of the opinion that to permit the
construction of such a building for the sole reason of a snow
problem in oven country would be to establish a precedent so wide
that everyone would be entitled to construct a garage too close to
the road.
While the entire approximately 825' of laneway from the edge
of his property to his house would present a -formidable snow removal
problem, the Committee felt that if the applicant were to build
a garage 60' in from the edge of the road and the proper placing
of snow fences would keep the approach to this building clear of
snow and serve the purpose of the applicant in avoiding an
extensive snow removal problem.
This application was .refused on motion by K. Schoenmaker and
seconded by Z.F.R. Osborne. Carried.
CLASSIFICATION Sec. 10 "A" Sec. 3-7 "B" appendix 1 Sec. "G"
Application File No. 264-70 _
Mrs. Marie T. Micklash, Owner,
75 Tecumseh Avenue,
Oshawa, Ontario,
for part of Lot 15, Con. Vll,
Township of Clarke,
Submission NO. "A"264-70-32
As business arising from minutes of the past meeting, this
application was brought forward for further consideration.
The applicant's husband Mr. :?.L, iiicklash, accompanied by
his anent, 'w. Kay Lycett B.A., Barrister & Solicitor, Orono, Ontario,
appeared in support of this application. Also appearing were
the following persons. Mr. & Mrs, Eric Kelter, 1450 Finch Avenue,
Pickering, Ontario and Mrs. Roy Spry, R.R. 41, Orono, Ontario. 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 H. DeWith, Clerk, Township of Clarke
with regard to the status of the road as follows:
"It wss the Decision of Council in meeting on
_October 6, 1970, that the right-of-way in Lot 15,
Concession 71 Clarke Township, is a private road."
(sgd.) "H. DeWith^Clerk.
As a me:tter of record the entire Committee visited this
property on Saturday, 17 October, 1970 and the following facts were
noted:
1. The gate facing onto the Township road was chained shut
but not locked and bore the following signs - "keep closed"
"private road keep out." - Kelter - J. White - "no trespassing."
The Committee travelled up a laneway a few hundred feet to
a gate which was locked and chained. access had to be gained over
an existing rail fence which had several strands of barbed wire
on'it also.
Page 8
Meeting Committee of Pdjustment, October 20, 1970;
On the property itself three buildings were found:
(a) A small building used as a tool shed;
(b) A conventional earth pit privy;
(c) A small flat roofed cottage of largely plywood
construction;
The grounds were well kept. A flowing stream crossed by a bridge
was in front of the cottage;
The property could well be defined as a "summer retreat" property.
Mr. Micklash was sworn and the following submissions were made:
1. He wishes to erect a cottage of 800' to 900' square
feet on his property and put it on a cement foundation.
This would replace three existing buildings, being
a small cottage, an outhouse'and a tool shed. He
would like to put in a septic tank and has sufficient
room to keep 100' from the stream.
Mrs. Roy Spry, an abutting owner, stated that she had no objection
to Mr. and Mrs. Micklash enjoying their property, but would be
concerned that if sanitary conveniences were installed, there would
be pollution to the creek. The Committee stated that this would
be dealt with by The Haliburton Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health
Unit of Cobourg, Ontario.
Mr. Eric Kelter, an abutting owner to the north, stated that he
too had no objection to Mr. and Mrs. Micklash enjoying their
property, but he would object if the private road allowance passing
his home, to which he has title, was varied by the adding of
material on its surface and he would also object to any snow plow-
ing which would divert the snow onto his land.and the land of Mr.
and Mrs. Spry.
The Committee noted that the Corporation of the Township of Clarke -
did not see fit to treat the abutting road to this property as a
public road but have clearly stated in their letter dated October
13, 1970 that they regard it as a private laneway. This is, of
course, not in accordance with the Committee's previous impression
(ref, to decision dated January 13, 1969 No. "B"158-68-140) at
whiO time the applic.ition was granted in accordance with Section415
of The Municipal Act RSO 19607 the relevant section of which reads
as follows: "4415 except insofar as they have been stopped up
according to„law......... all roads on Ulhich public money has been
expended for opening them or on which statute labour has been
usually performed.”
In the view of the -Committee this .means that the land owned by the
applicant does not meet the definition of the word "lot" as defined
in amending by-law 1653 (ref."Sec. 2.14 Lot:: means a parcel of
land, which fronts on a public highway which has been assumed for
public use as a public highway, whether or not such a parcel is
described in a registered deed or shown on a registered plan of
subdivision, including any of its parts which are subject to
right-of-way or easement-")
In order that the decision of this Committee shall be defined beyond
doubt: they wish to make it abundantly -clear that their decision
turns solely on the question of the definition of the word "lot" in
the by-law.
Page 9
Meeting Committee of Adjustment, October 20, 1970;
The Committee are o?f the opinion that their function is to "adjust"
and they cannot, therefore, make a decision which is directly against
a specific provision in the by-law. The Committees' reading of the
by-law is quite clear that a residence must be on a "lot" and a "lot"
must be on a public road. On this specific point the anplicEation,
in our opinion, must be refused.
j
In the event that this decision is appealed the Committee thought
the appellate tribunal would be interested in their observations:
1. The Committee agree that the re -building of the
buildings in the new location would improve the property;.
2. The Committee agree that the re -location of the building
Would be an improvement as the present building is now
near the bank of a stream and it should be moved back
to comNly with the 100' from the edge of a stream rule;
3. To allow a minor variance in floor area is difficult as
"summer residence" is not now covered in the present
by-law;
It appears ludicrous that a by-law designed to improve the quality
and type of buildings in the Township sho.ihd have exactly the
reverse effect and encourage the continuation of buildings which by
the nature of their construction are bound to become substandard
with the passage of time (e.g. the rotting of wooden sills sitting
on the ground).
The Committee regret that they cannot deal with this matter in a
positive way but the case brings up issues which can, in the -opinion
of the Committee, only be re -made by amendments to the existing by-
law or otherwise by the direct authority of Council.
Application refused on motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by
E.F.R. Osborne. Carried,
General Business The Secretary presented a pamphlet to the
Committee re the Annual Conference
Association of Ontario dousing Authorities
to be held at Hotel London, London, Ontario,
October 18-20, 1970. The Committee noted
the contents thereof.
The Committee indicated that they were
unable to attend.
At the conclusion of the meeting the following persons were interviewed:.
Mr. Odes Jordan of R.R. 42 -Newcastle, ontario, with regard to a
proposed erection of a detached garage on his residential property;
Mr. George Van Dyk of 2 Summerfield Court, Bowmanville, Ontario,
with regard to a proposed minor variance to be presented at the
next meeting to be held on November 16, 1970.
Meeting adjourned at 1,
t_Cc �i
Secretary-Trea u er