The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWD-91-86. ",' m„K, - ,.' r-- L1i¢ TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File #o- "2L Res o ' -/? 16 Sy -Law # / 6 )' MEETING: THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1986. REPORT #: WD -91 -86 FILE #: SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY ACCESS NO. 1590 MR. & MRS. HARLAND ELLIOTT RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended: 1. That Report WD -91 -86 be received; and, 2. That staff be authorized to process the application for property access only if: i) the maintained portion of the travelled road is extended northerly from the point where it presently terminates far enough to permit access; or, ii) a perpetual right -of -way is registered across the property immediately to the south giving access to the maintained portion of the existing travelled road; and, 3. That a copy of this report and subsequent Council resolution be forwarded to Mr. & Mrs. Harland Elliott for their information. ....2 Page 2 Report No. WD -91 -86 REPORT: An application for property access has been received from Mr. & Mrs. Harland Elliott for Part Lot 11, Concession 8, former Township of Clarke. (Attached is a survey of the property in question). Originally, the request was for an access onto the maintained portion of the concession road between Concession 7 and Concession 8 at the south limit of the thirty -three foot wide strip of land labelled "travelled road ". Upon ' investigating the status of the travelled road" it is staff's opinion that the 33 foot wide travelled road running along the west side of the property in question was a Town road allowance by virtue of the evidence that public funds had been spent on the road many years ago. The Town currently does maintain the south end of the "travelled road" to serve two homes. The Elliotts require an access onto a maintained roadway in order to be eligible for the building permit which they are seeking and they do not wish to upgrade the "travelled road" north from the maintained section to the logical location of their entrance to Town standards as required by Town Policy. The Elliotts who own both properties on the east side of the travelled road" have undertaken to register, on title, a right -of -way over their south property and wish to have their application for property access for the north property approved to this basis. In anticipation of obtaining a building permit for the north property and while intending to access the new house via the "travelled road" rather than by way of the right -of -way registered on the southerly property, the Elliotts enquired about the possibility of obtaining permission to brush the "travelled road" in order to gain access with larger vehicles and they indicated that eventually they would want to install hydro and bell services on this "travelled road" ....3 Page 3 Report No. WD -91 -86 Over the past few years, staff and Council sounding requests from property owners wisl their expense for access to their property hydro line to serve his property. The one the Elliott's request is to carry out work to an unopened road. qf have continually denied similar ling to clear a road allowance at and in one instance to install a fundamental difference is that on an unimproved road as opposed The dilemma that presented itself is one of allowing a building permit for a year round residence under the assumption that access will be via a right -of -way over the property to the south (which makes sense when considered in isolation); of allowing brushing to take place on the unimproved road at the expense of the abutting property owner for purposes of access for larger equipment (which makes sense when considered in isolation); and of allowing the construction of a hydro line on the road allowance to serve the new building (which also makes sense when considered in isolation). Although each individual step seemed logical it was feared that some years from now after owners changed or after a similar scenario had taken place on the west side of the 33 foot wide "travelled road ", the Town would find itself in a difficult position of denying requests to upgrade and maintain the "travelled road ". Subsequently, staff brought forward a report to G.P.A.C. on October 20, 1986 to seek the Committee's direction in processing the application. On Council's direction, the firm Sims, Brady & McInerney was contacted for a legal opinion of the options open to the Town in handling the application for property access. Their reply is attached. The two options outlined by Mr. D.J.D. Sims appear to afford the Municipality adequate control over accessing the Elliott's northerly property (i.e. access onto the "travelled road" can be legally prevented by the placement of a one foot reserve). ...4 Lff Page 4 Report No. WD -91 -86 In light of the protection which either alternative offers the Municipality, it is recommended that the Elliott application for property access be processed only if one of the alternatives laid out by Sims Brady & McInerney is pursued by the applicant. Respectfully submitted, --6 2C /-- 6- e Gordon J. Ough, P. Eng., Director of Public Works. GJO : j co November 10, 1986. o U V IV6190 50,50,46 CPO 64 BETWEEN CONCESSIONS 7 AND 8 CHARLES ONMR10 Po 190'r X7, - : / H,) F RILEY PENG.,O.L.S. LAND SURVEYOR C, 0 Q �1! WI J J1 J I� N G' J� 3 ti h O m v":` +^ +,�K!.e•.:' d +Y+s.... •,.,1�'•b€'i. °+�, T STORY " ,o FRA WE DWELLING �,•t: PART ` ry' AREA = 5.956 ACRES;;` 1 4' _ 5 W ANGL E tOrn,con 6 CONCESSI O N t V w on eft tV • Y' Y , 2Y�- aw • `. .. c. O N M M W U z W L& 3 Qi a 3 nl O 0 z FENCE sa 0106; 1. Wit 0.595 __ -11 SD. ,I c.. 1. ra to `) PL a N69`50* 50 "E 677 64 1 ROAD ALL0kYA1VCE BETWEEN 1•'O/VCESSIO 7.,4 IVD B A NOTES Denotes I" scuore Iron Bor. SURVEYORS ('FRTiFir ATF�{ �.,�. r A t t- .'i..p. Fatah: U, i OF t_Ul 11 CONC E SSJ O TOWNSHIP OF THE CLARE dx1� County of Durham SCALE I inch = 100 feet N.DBRbWN 0 L.B. ;} • 1973 ` ,'4 r; 214 `..(►.` ' C �t _ 77046-C PL 4F a P 94.pp' PLO OST 6 wiRE FENCE p F «.. CID PL 0 Q �1! WI J J1 J I� N G' J� 3 ti h O m v":` +^ +,�K!.e•.:' d +Y+s.... •,.,1�'•b€'i. °+�, T STORY " ,o FRA WE DWELLING �,•t: PART ` ry' AREA = 5.956 ACRES;;` 1 4' _ 5 W ANGL E tOrn,con 6 CONCESSI O N t V w on eft tV • Y' Y , 2Y�- aw • `. .. c. O N M M W U z W L& 3 Qi a 3 nl O 0 z FENCE sa 0106; 1. Wit 0.595 __ -11 SD. ,I c.. 1. ra to `) PL a N69`50* 50 "E 677 64 1 ROAD ALL0kYA1VCE BETWEEN 1•'O/VCESSIO 7.,4 IVD B A NOTES Denotes I" scuore Iron Bor. SURVEYORS ('FRTiFir ATF�{ �.,�. r A t t- .'i..p. Sinis Brady & Mdnerncy BARRT.SI'F:RS k- SOLICITORS PC_ lduRKS << October 28, 1986 Mr. Gordon J. Ough, P. Eng., Director of Public Works, Corporation of the Town of Newcastle, Municipal Building, Hampton, Ontario. LOB 1J0 Dear Mr. Ough: Re: Application for Building Permit Part Lot 11, Conc 8 former Township of Clarke I confirm my advice at our meeting on October 27th, 1986 as follows. I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Elliott own a parcel of land, part Lot 11, Conc. 8, of the former Township of Clarke which lot does not front upon an improved municipally maintained road. Mr. and Mrs. Elliott seek a building permit for a home on the property. I understand that the property in question abuts a 33 foot travelled road but the road is not maintained or improved along any portion of the Elliott's frontage. By virtue of the provisions of section 3.7 (a) of By -law 84 -63 the Elliotts would not be entitled to a building permit because the property does not front upon an improved public street maintained year round unless they fall within one of the exemptions. The only applicable exemption would be under provision section 3.7(c)(ii), which provides an exemption for a lot created prior to the date of the enactment of the by -law which does not have frontage on an improved public street but has access to private perpetual right -of -way. In order for a building permit to be issued for the Elliott property either of the following two courses of action would be required: W The maintained portion of the travelled road would have to be extended northerly . Sims, Q.c. J. F. Brmiy R. D. Scm i 117 King Street, Box 358, lVhitby, Ontario, LIN 5S4 Telephone 668 -7704 d Li from the point where it presently terminates far enough to permit access, or; A perpetual right of way across the property immediately to the south giving access to the maintained portion of the existing travelled road. If the first course of action is followed I understand that you will require an agreement from the property owner requiring the extended portion to be developed at the owner's expense to municipal standards. In this regard, I recommend that you acquire an additional 33 feet from the property owner for traditional width road allowance and take a one foot reserve on the balance of the owner's property where it abuts. the unmaintained portion of the travelled road. If the second alternative is followed an application will have to be made to the Land Division Committee and, if the Town wishes to support the application, I recommend that the following conditions be imposed, namely: (i) A road widening of 33 feet on both the owner's lands and the lands across which the right -of -way is to be obtained; A one foot reserve along the boundary between the owner's lands and the travelled road for the full extent of the owner's property. If you have any further questions concerning the foregoing please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. Your ly, David D. Sims