HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/02/1968Page 4,
Meeting of Committee of :adjustment September 30, 1968:
Thc. ;ecret r e rel-,orted th,st 50 -notices o' th said hearing
had be_n m_.il>d'in 4cccrdance .:ith Itcm 4 of The Rules of Procedure,
Mr. Willi:1.1n. Purvis Proctor, the applicant, appeared in sup�,-;ort
of this application. Mr. & Mrs, Vander Spruit, R.R. -1#29 Orono, Ontario
sp-->oared as observers. No other person appeared in support of, or
in opoosition to this application.
The 3ecreta.ry-Treasurer prc-sentr>d ti!e following material to
the meetin.:
(1) Corresr ondence from John D. ilcLaughlin Esq.,
Barrister & Solicitor, 36 Kina Street E,st,
Oshal,!a., Oni-ari_o. The Committee duly noted the
c:itents thereof;
(2) A Plan of Survey ret ar. d by Donevan & Fleischmann,
Lane Surv-yin� & Engineering, 11 Ontario Street,
Osha.Ja, i:ntarin, dated Scntrmber. 10, 1968, Nob No.17115.
I°ir, Proctor t!as in-rited to make his submissi .rns and h,; stated:
(1) He i.n` ndcd to buy a 10 acre parcel of land but
had to tak 19.8 acres in order to complete the
transaction, which took place in the first week
of May, 1963.
(2) H_ ha? ohtained permission to build a single i=amily
dwelling on 19.3 acres i_sued by Arthur G. Lows
Zoning Administrator, dated August 20, 1968 and
numbered 55.
(3) The full acre:. -e of 19.8 i:= too much ].and for his
rcq;irements and h requcsLed scver,nce of the two
5 acre lots.
Mr. Vanderspruit, an abutting land owner, stated that the
southern portion was covered with water in the Spring, but a good
culvert would correct this situ::tion. In fact thete is a nc.tural
watt -3 -course across the southerly portion of the 19 acres of land.
Z.s a matter of record this property was visited by the Committee
on September 26th, 1968.
The Committee iaere of the opinion that the matter of the enter
course was not critical in thi; c,?se ,,s the anplicstinn is property
dealt with on other grounds.
This applic-tion eras set over for written reasons and judgement.
'CLASS]:FIC_,TION
I-lceti.ng adjourn:=d at 12:00 p.m.
aecretiry-Troasu`rer
October 2, 1968:
A decl� .;az _iven on the following aq_C11c '.tion:
146-68
p} 1i_ca'.ti n F _le IQo. 1,7-68 John D. McLaughlin Esq.,Agent,
Barrister & Sold.citor,
35 -'King Street E.,
Oshawa, Onta.r_i_o,
Wi.11i:lm Purvis Proctor Owners,
Fern Proctor,
325 Kent Street,
Whitby, Ont.rio,
for part of Lot 31, Con V1,
To,;lnshi r of Cl_.r1-e,
Submission No. B146-68_127
Phe acplic•_Mts _viilliarn Purvis Proctor and Fen; P�oetor urcBTsed68-128
pro::erty being part of Lot 311 Concession 6 on the Leskard Road,
Page 2
October 2, 1968:
in the Townshi_p'of Clarke, containing approximat.cly 19.8 acres.
They presently h>--vc before the Committee of -'adjustment two
separate applications to sever 5 acre parcels from this property.
Since the Committee could not see any difference in the properties
to be severed the same reasons for judgement shall a,ply in both
cases.
The applicant stated that he had originally int^nded to buy
a 10 acre lot but the only It°.nd that he could find which suited
his renuirements is the subj_ct lend. The basic reason for his
applic_-tion, therefore, would appear to be that he wished to sell
land surplus to his needs. It is noted that the lands to be severed
are shown on the survey prepared by an OnL-aria Land Surveyor, Donovan
& Fleischmann, 11 Ontnrin Street, Oshawa, Ontario, September 10,
19687 Job No. 17115. Thcre is no allegation, therefore, that the
-ropos,�d severance had been commenced before it was prohibited by
legislation and that unregistered deeds or similar_ documents were
in e,i_stence. As the result of the evidence presented, the Committee
concluded that the applicant knew or ought to have known that legally
he could not subdivide this land as of right. He was aware that
consent would be necessary and hoped that this consent would be
forthcoming.
In the absence of any special circumstances to grant the applicant
permission to divide the land as he wishes would be to create a
situation where a ,:person with less than 20 acres would be given con-
sent to create 3 separate parcels of land.
In the opinion of the Committee this is directly in conflict
with the present policy regarding land seharatioh'as laid down by
relevant Provincial Legislation 'which would require an application for
a Plan of Subdivision.
The only real argument advanced by the appli_'tant was that the
property opposite this property had been subdivided into small lots.
This does not, in the Committee's opinion justify further division
of land.
Application refused on motion by K. Schoenmaker, seconded by E.R.
Love -kin. Carried.
CLASSIFIC:=.II0N "C"
Secretary -Treasurer
_rman
October 5, 1968 A Decision was given on the following application:
Applicat'_on File No. 140-68 W. Kay Lycett B.A., Agent,
Barrister & Solicitor,
Orono, Ontario,
Hilda Hazel Coatham, Owner,
R.R. 41, Orono, Ontario,
for pestof Lot 28, Con. V,
being Lot 9, Block "Y",
in 1-olice Village of Orono,
Townshir_• of Clarke,
Submission No. "B" 140-68-125
0
As business arisin fro,n minutes of past meetings this application
was reviewed.
The Committee perused the Plan of Survey received from
hIr. Coatham on October 1, 1968, prepared by M.D. Brown, OnL-.rio
Land Se vevor, $owmanville, Ontario, dated September 27, 1968
number 8086 and were on the opinion that the applicant had complied
with the conditions imposed as evidenced in former minutes.
Application granted on motion by K. Schoenm.-=ker, seconded by E.F.R.Osborne.
Carried.