Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-9-86— 6 ( � � TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File # /tN Res. # By -Law # MEETING: THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE DATE: JANUARY 6, 1986. REPORT #: WD -9 -86 FILE #: SUBJECT: STATUS OF MONROE STREET EAST OF MILL STREET, NEWCASTLE VILLAGE RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended: 1. That this report be received; and, 2. That a by -law be passed by Council which achieves the following: i) repeals By -law 742, April 10, 1961, of the former Village of Newcastle; ii) makes such repeal conditional on there being no obligation on the Town to upgrade or reconstruct a road on the Monroe Street road allowance; iii) stipulate that year -round maintenance will be provided on the Monroe Street road allowance only to a point not greater than 300 feet east of the east limit of Mill Street. ....2 Page 2 Report No. WD -9 -86 3. That Irwin A. Hamilton be advised of Council's decision in this matter. REPORT: In November 1985, a building permit application and application for property access was made for a lot at the southeast corner of what would be Beaver Street and Monroe Street indicated on the attached maps. Beaver Street is unopened north of Andrew Street, and through a review of the entrance application it was found that Monroe Street had been closed by By -law 742, dated April 10, 1961. The property vendor and purchaser and respective solicitors were advised of those findings with an indication that neither permit could be issued since the lot did not have frontage on a road. Subsequently, the attached letter was received from the law firm of Hamilton & Bellefontaine pointing out what that firm considered relevant fact and suggesting that By -law 742 be repealed. By -law 742 reads as follows: "A By -law to close Monroe Street in the Village of Newcastle on the east side of Mill Street to facilitate the installation of the Municipal water system tank ". Read a first and second time April 10, 1961. Read a third time and finally passed April 10, 1961. Reeve: J.J. Cunningham Clerk: T. Lennard .....3 Page 3 Report No. WD -9 -86 Aside from the information provided by Mr. Hamilton other questions arise. Was sufficient notice provided to allow for objection from individuals who might be affected or was the by -law passed unilaterally by the municipality? Was there ever a travelled road on the road allowance? Can a municipality land -lock a legal lot? From a review of the area, it would seem that the road was once and still is i travelled. The property owner at the southeast corner of Monroe and Mill Streets has a driveway to the road and the apple storage business to the north has at least two entrances to it. The road surface is in quite good condition and within the limits indicated in the recommendations of this report would not impose a maintenance burden. In view of the above, and the fact that the water tower for which closure seemed to be initiated is no longer in existence, it would not be unreasonable to proceed as recommended. Respectfully submitted, R.G. Dupuis, P. Eng., Director of Public Works. RGD:jco December 31, 1985. BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS IRWIN A. HAMILTON B.COM., LLB. PAUL L. BELLEFONTAINE BA., LL.B. November 26, 1985 'Ibwn of Newcastle Hampton, Ontario LOB 1JO Attention Ron Dupuis Dear Sir: i 1P.O. BOX 357 43 ONTARIO ST. BOWMANVILLE. ONTARIO LIC 254 PHONE 14 161 623 -7744 File #5424 RE: Walkey p/f Andelwood Homes being part of Block H, Hanning Plan of the Village of Newcastle, Monroe Street, Newcastle This is to confrim that Mrs. Walkey had sold this property to Andelwood Homes with a closing date of November 22, 1985. The terms of sale include a building permit being available for the lot. ',he permit was refused by your office as apparently the old Village of Newcastle has passed a by -law closing the road in April of 1961. This road is used year around and there is at least one other house on the street. Mrs. Walkey purchased the property in December of 1979. It would be our legal position that the by -law is not enforceable for the following reasons: (1) It prevented ingress and egress to the subject lot, then owned by Robert John Vautt contrary to s460 of the Municipal Act R.S.O., 1960 (later s. 4441 R.S.O. 1970). To the best of our information and belief Mr. Voutt did not consent to the by -law. (2) The by -law has not been registered in the Newcastle Registry Office and accordingly has not come into effect. Municipal Act (1966 c.93 s. 32) later s.443 (9) R.S.O. 1970. In any event we understand from Mr. Walkey that you are willing to bring this matter before council to have this by -law repealed. We would ask for your assistance in this matter. Yours very truly IAH:am CC. Mr. John Walkey Kitchen & Kitchen HAMILTON & BELT TUNrAINE P Ixwin A. Hamilton iqa� .og4F Y W 2 W E- tn O W u Y A117RUR SI RE Sf RVO,R , L—1 y o v [D+aD IT N e K — s�asti ■•VD ay co :'ART /ER FREEWAY l cFr-15- RIGHT OF WAY i \ 0 V o Lr \ � 4Y w K see sl v a •ELL �, mss. �•eAaoo..[o� S� oncnA.0 u i6�� in�cn.•. -r r i 16' [D+aD IT N e K — s�asti ■•VD ay co :'ART /ER FREEWAY l cFr-15- RIGHT OF WAY 1,13 4 ak w r 9 C ip r. f...�.z,. � I w � � � ° !----- ief�.- _ r -- -- - - --� tt, � 3• X82 LA _T �' W Y �, e` l� - � ab o ' Ii: : •c o ' � �,.n An - r r o � p 0 �,,IV,,, Lz P V O N tT f' U uj It K «' to »• c N i Lo a `h A ALA AcXr A vet 174 - o r $ }.• .I, . �':1 . ` 1 3 13.775 ;+ 'r ' •rte � °�_�.�' � o' ~ � 76 ° v U NO _177 i r� NORTH c rKEET kp Y C to 1,13 4 ak w r 9 C ip r. f...�.z,. � I w � � � ° !----- ief�.- _ r -- -- - - --� tt, � 3• X82 LA _T �' W Y �, e` l� - � ab o ' Ii: : •c o ' � �,.n An - r r o � p 0 �,,IV,,, Lz P V O N tT f' U uj It K «' to »• c N i Lo a `h A ALA AcXr A vet 174 - o r $ }.• .I, . �':1 . ` 1 3 13.775 ;+ 'r ' •rte � °�_�.�' � o' ~ � 76 ° v U NO _177 i r�