HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-294-89,
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
REPORT FileD MCCA�T�Y
a. .. 1
Res. #
By -Law #
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: November 20, 1989
SUBJECT: ZONING BY -LAW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
AN APARTMENT BUILDING AT THE CORNER
OF WELLINGTON, SCUGOG AND CHURCH STREETS
MCCARTHY AND ASSOCIATES
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -294 -89 be received;
2. THAT Committee's direction is requested with respect to either one
of the following options:
THAT the Town reconfirms its position with respect to By -law
89 -104 and lets the Ontario Municipal Board to determine the
legality of the By -law
W
THAT upon the Region's approval of the related official plan
amendment application, Staff be directed to bring forth a new
by -law to satisfy the Region's concerns and to rescind By -law
89 -104; and
3. THAT the Regional Commissioner of Planning and the applicant be
advised of Council's decision.
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 On June 26, 1989, Council dealt with Official Plan amendment
application and rezoning application submitted by O.P. McCarthy
...2
••� •�
am
for the development of a senior citizen residential apartment which
contains commercial uses. At the same meeting, Council passed By-
law 89 -104. Two (2) appeals were received by the Clerk; one from
Mr. E. Finlan on behalf of the Concerned Citizens Committee and one
from the Commissioner of Planning of the Region. The Clerk
forwarded the Finlan appeal to the Board which subsequently advised
Mr. Finlan that his appeal cannot be considered because Mr. Finlan
is not representing a citizen group incorporated under the law of
Ontario. Mr. Finlan was advised that should a Board Hearing take
place, he or any members of his Committee may ask to be added as
a party, at the commencement of the Hearing, and therefore, take
an active part in the proceedings. The Region Commissioner's
appeal was forwarded to the Board at a later date.
2. COMMENTS:
2.1 Staff reviewed the appeal and have held discussions with the
Commissioner to ascertain the reason for appeal. In summary, the
Region's appeal was based on the following grounds.
2.2 Firstly, it argued that the By -law was passed too soon because the
Official Plan Amendment has yet to be dealt with by the Region and
the Planning Act specifically states that a by -law can only be
passed after the Official Plan Amendment is approved by the upper
tier municipality. This provision of the Planning Act was the
result of an amendment to the Act made just prior to Council's
passage of By -law 89 -104. Unfortunately Staff was not aware of
the said amendment. Otherwise, Staff would be recommending that
the actual by -law be passed after the Region deals with the
Official Plan Amendment. Be it as it may, and after consultation
with the Town's Solicitor, it was concluded that the Town could
argue that once the Region approves the Official Plan Amendment,
By -law 89 -104 could be deemed to conform to the Official Plan.
...3
2.3 The second reason for objection relates to the fact that the By-
law passed by Council does not stipulate the allowable commercial
uses be permitted only within the residential building. Staff feel
that this is really an insignficant issue. In consideration of the
rezoning application, the submitted site plan always show one
building and it was on this basis that By -law 89 -104 was passed.
Staff does not share the Region's view on this reason for appeal.
2.4 In any event, the Commissioner is not prepared to withdraw the
appeal, and has indicated that he will not withdraw the appeal even
if at some later date, the Region decides to approve the Official
Plan Amendment.
3. OPTIONS:
In view of the latest position of the Region Commissioner of
Planning, the Town now must assess its options. There are
basically two options available to the Town.
3.1 Option A
Do nothing and Staff will debate the legality and appropriateness
of the By -law before the Ontario Municipal Board. As the apppeal
is with the Ontario Municipal Board, it is now in waiting period
pending scheduling for hearing by the Board. The Board may quash
the By -law; approve it as is; approve it with amendments; or ask
the Town to pass a new By -law.
3.2 Option B
The Town could rescind the By -law and pass a new by -law after the
Region approves the Official Plan Amendment. The new by -law will
have to be circulated as per the Planning Act and will only be
effective if there is no subsequent appeal. This option appears
...4
n
REPORT •
PAGE 4
to be more desirable because it would satisfy the Commissioner's
concern. However, in the event of an appeal lodged by others, the
new by -law will end up before the Ontario Municipal Board anyway
and this option may cause time delay in getting the matter resolved
before the Board.
4. CONCLUSION:
4.1 The applicant has indicated to Staff that they prefer Option A.
Notwithstanding, matter of this nature is not and should not be
determined by the applicant and is clearly Council's perrogative
to decide. Staff has no preference to either option. the purpose
of this report is to assist Committee and Council in understanding
the issue at hand and be able to pick either one option it deems
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
1
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
FW *jip
November 6, 1989
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
L renc E. Kotseff, M.C.I.P.
Chief A �nistrative Officer
INTERESTED PARTIES TO BE NOTIFIED OF COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL'S DECISION:
O.P. McCarthy and Associates
11 Church Street
Suite 404
TORONTO, Ontario
M5E 1M2
Mr. John Rice
65 Concession Street West
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L1C 1Y7