HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-127-90 REPORT #3
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
DN: BOUMA REPORT File # r . j. 5
Res. #
By-Law #
hEUING: Council
DATE: Monday, April 9, 1990
REPORT #: PD-127-90 FILE #: A 27/89
SUDECT: APPEAL TO ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD (FILE V8900381)
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT - APPLICATION A 27/89
APPLICANT: RICHARD BOUMA
LOCATION: PART LOT 12, CONCESSION 2, FORMER TOWN OF BOWMANVILLE
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-127-90 be received;
2 . THAT the Ontario Municipal Board be advised that the Town of
Newcastle will not be participating in the Ontario Municipal Board
hearing scheduled for April 26, 1990 pertaining to the Committee
of Adjustment Application A 27/78, OMB file V8900381.
1. BACKGROUND
1. 1 On April 6, 1989, the Committee of Adjustment heard an application
for minor variance submitted by Mr. Richard Bouma. The application
sought relief from the frontage and exterior side yard requirements
of By-law 84-63 to permit the construction of a semi-detached
dwelling on the north-east corner of Elgin Street and Concession
Street in the former Town of Bowmanville.
1.2 Whereas Zoning By-law 84-63 requires a frontage of 20 metres and
an exterior side yard of 6 . 0 metres, the applicant proposed to
construct a semi-detached dwelling on a lot having ' a frontage of
18 metres and a proposed exterior side yard of 5 .5 metres.
. . . .2
REPORT NO. : PD-127-90 PAGE 2
1. 3 In commenting to the Committee of Adjustment, Staff noted that
within the Durham Region Official Plan and Town of Newcastle
Official Plan (Bowmanville Urban Area) the subject property was
designated Residential. The use as proposed is permitted within
said designation.
1.4 It was further noted that Zoning By-law 84-63 within the R-1 Urban
Residential Type One zone included as permitted uses a single
family dwelling, semi-detached dwelling and duplex dwelling unit.
1.5 The Committee of adjustment was advised that in order to consider
the application for approval, it must be satisfied that the
application was minor in nature, was desirable for the appropriate
development or use of the land and that it maintained the general
intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.
1. 6 The Committee of Adjustment in their deliberation of the
application deemed that the application did not appear appropriate
for the development of said lands, nor was it minor in nature, and
accordingly denied the application.
1. 7 Subsequent to the decision, Mr. Bouma filed an appeal to the
Ontario Municipal Board.
1. 8 It is Staff's position that the application would meet the
necessary requirements for consideration of approval and
accordingly would not be able to defend the Committee of Adjustment
decision at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Staff would
respectfully recommend the Town not to participate in the hearing.
1. 9 Should Council decide to concur with the Committee of Adjustment
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
REPORT NO. : PD- -90 PAGE 3
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
Franklin Wu, M.C. I .P. Lawrence 'F. Kotseff
Director of Planning Chief Admi istrative
and Development Officer
LDT*FW*cc
*Attach
4 April 1990
® SUBJECT SITE
w ~
Z w
Q w
J �
!n
FIRST STREET
w
w
m co
J
S�
ODELL ODELL ST.
c�
z —
c� _
J
w
CONCESSION STREET
KEY MAP �