HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/1968Page 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.
Page 2
October 5, 1968;
The Following ApQic.tgon was raviewed:
Ap plicati:;n Fila No, 142_68
Sunnydene Estates Ltd., Owner,
(In Trust)
P.0. Box 141,
Toronto -Dominion C--_ntre,
TOrnnto 1, Ontario,
for part of Lots 9 a lO,Con.v,
Township of Cla_ke,
Submission
The "pplicant is a Corporate Entity unser the Laws of the
Province of Ontario and P"ter Caspari F.R.I.B.A; N.R.A. _T.C.,
ppearad as acent for the Corporntion.
The applicant requests permission to sever a lot containing_ a
Hardwood Bush from a farm property and the following stat=istics are
relevant: Total acreage owned in this parcel 129.23;
acreage to be severed 16.02
Another applicLtion for severance of 10.02 acres of Cedar Bush on
the same property is also §ending before this Committee.
As a prroliminary matter the Chairmen E.R. Lovekin pointed out
to the Ap;; icant's Agent that the junior PIembcr was unavoidably absent
although h, h.nd been ;resent at the last meeting held on Seitember 23,
1968 when this matter was scheduled to be heard. Hr. Caspari apologized
for not vp;sLrin_ at the last meeting but explained that he was unable
to be pr:sent- then as he was absent from the Country.
Tho Chairman exploined that s, ce only two persons were sitting
and as the application had unique aspects the Committee would grant
an adjournment to enable the matter to be disposed of before the
whole Committoo if the uppli cunt so desired. The ap_,linant elected to
proceed forthwith.
The Chairman then pointed out to the a_.plic:,.nt that he had, as
a Solicitor, represented predecessors in titre and had been the
Vendor's Solicitor when this property was sold to the applicant
Corporation. The Chairman stated that'he felt personal knowledge of
the Property did riot ;rejudice him and he was nrepered to sit and
U7.S OSr' of the matter as soon as Possible or to entertain any 'rcpre;en-
taticOs Ch_.t he should stand down should the applicant- care to make
such an apolic=.tion. The applicant's agent elected to proceed forthwith
to present his a_Plication.
The apl i c._nt pr_os ontod a lucid case for severance mainly along
the line that land should seek its hion st and best use and he pointed
out the suitabiiit_y of this prcyo ty as an "est te" lot suitable for
a .relatively lorge country home.
The Senior Member asked the applicant if he was relying on the
argument that the wood lot was not part of the arable farm land and
was therefore different in specie and constituted a natural severance
area? if this was an argument he stated he would like to have professional
opinions on Lice point. The argument on thisoint was
by the applicant.p , thereby abandoned
The aMic7nL volunteered to "POSuPca Ln_ 1 no a coalition
that a home exceeding Clarke Township area s,eci=isitions would ba built
u_un the savored lands and such stipulations would in fact cOm,ly with
the higher rcquircAents of the neighbouring Township Of Darlington.
The Committee accepted this voluntary undertaking in the good
C,
ith in whic� it was aper ently m,,, de and took the position that if
the af,';xing of co--idiniOns would cause
then they i- them to grant the applic Lion
on -rant the a_plic nt
or not h:' the 0 Pcrtunity Of stating whether
was %r pared to meet specific conditions.
Page 3
Octoo r 52 1968
The Committee were favourably impre<,scd tvit:. the candor,
clari.Lv anc'i fairn:_ss of the argum-ants presented to tthcm by
the air;7.icant's agent <:nd notedt' e agent's ,ro-essional
�qualificaticns to state opinions in regi --d to housing and lots
etc.
The Committee adjourned the matter to consider their decision
and reached the following interim decision:
(1) That the application presented to them was in fact
an invitation t. them. not to "adjust" anything \
,but to legislate concerning lend use in the J
Toi,znship. The land was located in an Agricultural
Zone and not in an arca where the Committee could
determine in any way that the Planning Hoard
would desire or encourage this type of development.
That it was their tentative opinion that to grant
such an applic:'tion as it was presently frimed
would be to exceed the spirit of tI_ relevant
legislr_L-ion and would be an im roi:= exercise of
their power;
(2) l'r? t since the import of this decision would by
implication apply to the other applic:tiun to be
further argued by Mr. Caspari, in spite of his
agreeing to present his case to a two man quorum
he should have the opportunity to re -argue this
applicatidn before the whole Committee along
with his othor application.
(3) The Zoning By -Law passed by the Township of Clarke
has not been formally approved by the Ontario Piunicipal
Board and the he, -,ring being originally scheduled for
-
8 October, 1968 has been adjourned. l:ny amendment
made at th-t r;eesing, iF it indicated a .change in
Planning Board intenLions in this ares, could well
be a relevant consider tion in the disposition of
this m^_tier by the Committee. The applicant should
be given the opportunity of considering his position
from this viewpoint.
B -cause o these unique considerations the Committee
instructed the Secretary to mail to the Applicant the minutes
of this interim decision and asked her to request of the
applicant whether:
(1) Ho wished the Committee to render a final judgement
. forthwith;
(2) He wished to appear before the whole Committee on
October 23, 1968 and present further argument;
(3) He wished to have his application further adjourned
pending the outcome of the A.unicir:al Board Hearing
or for any other valid reason to ba argued i1
October, 1968. >>
/
Jecretary-Treasurer L n