HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-285-89k�
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
: COFA2 REPORT
(STING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, November 6, 1989
REPORT #: PD- 285 -89 FILE #: A 76/89
File # o
Res. #
By -Law #
SUBJECT: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
JULY 6, 1989
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -285 -89 be received for information.
2. THAT the Committee of Adjustment be advised that Council does not
support its decision in denying minor variance application A 76/89
submitted by Halminen Homes Ltd. and that the Town will not defend
the Committee of Adjustment's decision before the Ontario Municipal
Board.
3. THAT the Ontario Municipal Board and Halminen Homes be advised of
Council's decision and be forwarded a copy of this report.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 On Thursday July 6, 1989, the Committee of Adjustment heard an
application for minor variance submitted by Donevan and Fleischmann
on behalf of Halminen Homes. The application sought relief from
the by -law requirement of 1.2 m interior side yard of the "Urban
Residential Type One (R1) zone to a side yard of 0.66 m (2.16 feet)
in order to correct a surveying error which caused the existing
dwelling to be constructed as such.
1.2 Through the review of the application it was noted that there
exists unprotected openings in the dwelling within the 1.2 m
...2
con in
J 7 7 CU
REPORT PD- 285-89 PAGE 2
required side yard setback. These unprotected openings would not
comply with the requirements of the Ontario Building Code.
1.3 In the recommendation to the Committee, Staff noted no objection
to the application subject to conditions of approval. These
included the dwelling be brought into compliance in terms of the
Ontario Building Code, the applicant demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that the reduced side
yard will not adversely impact lot grading and that final occupancy
permit not be issued until such time as the dwelling is in
compliance with the Building Code and the applicant has satisfied
Director of Public Works in terms of grading.
1.4 The Committee of Adjustment in their deliberation of the
application deemed the application not to comply with the intent
of the Zoning By -law nor can be considered minor in nature and as
the neighbour and prospective purchaser appeared in objection, the
Committee DENIED the application.
1.5 Subsequent to the decision, Halminen Homes, through its solicitor
Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt, filed an appeal to the Ontario
Municipal Board.
1.6 Since Staff was on record in support of the minor variance
application and therefore would not be able to defend the Committee
of Adjustment decision at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
Staff is also confident that the applicant can satisby the
conditions of approval as recommended to the Committee of
Adjustment. As the municipality does not have a valid case before
the Ontario Municipal Board, Staff respectfully recommend the Town
not to participate in the hearing.
1.7 Should Committee and Council decide to concur with the Committee
of Adjustment's decision and to defend its position before the
Ontario Municipal Board, it must direct Staff to retain legal
counsel and an independent planning consultant. ...3
" r, T
REPORT PD- 285-89 PAGE 3
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
DIrector of Planning
and Development
CP*FW*cc
*Attach
27 October 1989
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
jjawrenc
Chief A
Officer
Kotseff
strative