HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-4-96i/
DN: OMB.GPA THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #h c
Date: Monday, January 8, 1996 `� �..
Res. #��- f� "�� - ,� >.
Report #: PD -4 -96 File #:A 95/001
By -law #
APPEAL Subject: SUMMARY REPORT OF ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING
-. LITY OF CLARI INGTON DECISION
COMMITTEE OF THE OF
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -4 -96 be received for information.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 In January of 1995, Mr. Davies submitted an application for a minor variance. The
application sought relief from the parking requirements of the zoning by -law to
permit a mini -putt in addition to existing convenience store and residential
dwelling located on Second Ave. in Bowmanville.
1.2 The application was heard by the Committee of Adjustment on February 16, 1995.
A number of neighbouring residents appeared at the meeting in opposition to the
application. The residents objected to the application based on potential parking
problems associated with the proposed mini -putt.
1.3 Despite local residents objection, the Committee of Adjustment approved the
application. Subsequently, the area residents appeared before Council. As a
result, Council filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board against the decision
of the Committee of Adjustment.
2
527
REPORT NO. PD -4 -96 PAGE 2
2. ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING
2.1 The Ontario Municipal Board convened a hearing on December 6, 1995 to hear
the appeal. Planning Staff and the solicitor were at the hearing presenting
planning evidence in support of the appeal. A number of neighbouring residents
attended the hearing and spoke in opposition to the application.
2.2 At the end of the hearing the board member gave a verbal decision stating the
application does not meet the four tests as required in the Planning Act, ie: it
does not conform to the intent of the Official Plan, the zoning by -law, is not minor
in nature and not in the public interest. As a result, the appeal was allowed and
the minor variance was denied.
Respectfully submitted,
_r
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.,
Director of Planning
and Development
CP *FW *cc
December 22, 1995
Reviewed by,
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
W