Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout74-66REPORT NO.10 CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD BETWEEN LOTS 4 and 59 CONCESSION 8, CLARKE 4�� Background Information: In 1966 or thereabouts 12 lots were severed by a Mr, Caspari from the former Winn farm in Lots 4 and 5, Concession 8, Clarke. These lots were all slightly over 10 acres and were created at a time when no approval was required from any governmental authority for any lot in excess of ten acres in size. Six of these lots fronted on an unopened portion of the road allowance between lots 4 and 5, These six lots were still unsold when the zoning by-law came into effect in 1968 and after that time building permits could not be issued for lots which did not front on a road assumed for public use. To sell these lots Mr. Caspari promised to construct a road on the Township road allowance. The Township Council gave permission for the const- ruction of this road, by Caspari, but it must be noted that the Township never made any commitment that a road would actually be built, Since the lots were created neither by plan of submission nor consent, there was no way in which the municipality could compel the owner to enter into an agreement to build any road. The buyers of these lots chose to believe Mr. Caspari rather than to heed the ancient Latin maxim "Caveat emptor "(let the buyer beware). Mr. Caspari announced he had no intention of building the proposed road after all the lots were sold. A Mrs. Manger has written on behalf of the owners to request the Town to construct the road. While one can sympathize continued....... » 2 REPORT NO.10 with those who were the victims of these unfortunate transactions, there is no obligation on the part of the Town now to spend any money to bail them out of their predicament. I believe that we must maintain the provision in the by-law requiring lots to front on an assumed public road and I feel that it is incumbent upon the owners of these lots to pay for the construction of any new road required in the same way as any single owner developer would now be required to do. I enclose a memorandum from the consultant engineer to the former Clarke Township which outlines alternatives for financing the const- ruction of the proposed road should the Town decide to assume it. I should point out that some improvements to the road leading up to the proposed new section may also be required if the Ministry is to pay subsidy for the proposed new road, This should be investigated bofore any decision is made. In my opinion the Town should be very cautious about extending its road system in general especially where the amount of development being served is small in relation to the length of road constructed® Even if private individuals pay for initial construction there are continuing maintenance costs which have to be met by the ratepayers in general. Asa rule I would recommend that where a new road is being installed to serve less than one property for every 200 feet, those properties requiring the road should be compelled to pay for annual maintenance as well as initial construction. I am not sure how this . continued....... 3 REPORT NO e 10 could best be done, but there are a number of possible means of doingitand I think it would be worthwhile to seek a legal opinion on this matter. Since no action specifically of a planning nature is required in this case, I recommend that this report be referred to the Works Committee for any further consideration required. Respectfully submitted, George F. Howden, Planning Director. September 26th, 1973 Nomorandum to file From: R. R. Sims Re: Undeveloped portion of Road between Lots 4 and 5, Concession VIII Back round Information I received a letter on September 13th from H. Best requesting a review and report renpecting the above-noted road. Attached to that letter were copies of 18 items of correopondence dating back to 1967. The letters should be reviewed for the primary purpose of familiarization of the concern of present owners and the change in attitude concerning responsibility for improvement of the road. Prior to attendance at a Township Cotencil Meeting on the evening of September 18th I inspected the section of road in question. Because of terrain conditions, alignment and impact of any improvement scheme upon abutting properties I advised Council of the need to undertake a preliminary engineering survey for the purpose of compiling reasonably accurate cost estimates. Coot apportionment (see alternative beloca) will probably be one of the most significant considerations and therefore I felt that visual estimation and approximation would be unsatisfactory. Several persons have purchased properties along the road from a Mr. Caspari (the orlainal owner, Mr. Winn, still resides on the west side of the road). Caspari had given an original undertaking to improve the road but subsequently gave reasone why he Gould not be responsible for the work. The central problem now concerns the fact that under Township regulation building permits will not be issued to owners of property on an undeveloped road. Description and Location The road is located generally on a section of the road allowance between Lots 4 and S in Concession VIII. A portion of the road extending northerly from an east- west road which was established in lieu of the 8th Concession Road, to Mr. Winn's cotrance (npproxlmatesly 0.2 miles) has been assumed and is maintained by the Towel ©hip. The portion of the side road which requires improvement and for which owners have otebmItted a petition dated August 6th, 1973 commences at Mr. Winn's entrance and proceeds northerly to approximately the line between Concession VIII and IX (there io no capt -west road in evidence at that point but it generally coincides with the southern entrance to the Ganaraska Forest). Odometer measurements indicate that the length of improvement, north of Mr. Winn's entrance, is approximately 0.4 miles. It should be noted that this is inconsistent xrith correspondence stating that the length of the improvement is 3,300 feet and 0 PV X, N,PG n- �. A -444 ® 2 - that point should be checked with M. L. Ross and the owners because it is possible t1int their request for improvement iias intended `to include the section south of Mr. Winn's gate to the intersection. The most northerly 750 feet of the road follows a series of sharp curves through a xyooded area and then rejoins the road allowance between lots 4 and 5 and proceeds in a generally straight alignment to Mr. Winn's entrance. There is a relatively heavy side hill condition on the west side of the property and a valley condition on the east side. The present road is an earth track. Action Regalr.TL A pre-engineering survey of minimal cost but sufficient to prepare cost estimates should be carried out to provide topographical and alignment detail. If available an,ounership plan should be obtained from either M. L. Ross or H. Best because froptnano may be used as a basis of cost apportionment. The limit of ownership of th6 Oannraska Forest property on the east side should be noted. It wno my assumption that the survey would provide existing alignment information for the travelled track, major features such as the bush and sufficient cross section for, quantity estimation and property easement or acquisition. Before commencement of the work it should be cleared with M. L. Ross that the work is to commence at 1h:. Vinn's entrance or alternatively at the intersection south of that point. It will be necessary to confirm with M. L. Ross the design standards for the road which is assumed as a minimum township standard with gravel surface. Pubacquent to completion of the survey a report for Council will be required. Ponnf-ble Alternative Aga previously noted, main concerns will probably involve responsibility for the Oovk opd Unnno fog. At the pmsent time it Is any understanding that Council hats g1vou no cotidaltmont x.jlth reoppcP to responsibility and therefore the following nxtPrnattves Ave possible. 1. The application of the Local Improvement Act either through an initiating petition of the owner or by the municipality. It is noted that the use of thic Act for to relatively small project can be time consuming and costly because of the ndmtn1stratJ.ve and legal requirements that are associated with use of the Act. 9, Volitntary contribimlono frot-ii persons who wish to have the road improved in an vijiotint equa,], to the estimated coot. `3o A formula which t'ro"ld provide for some contribution by the municipality, the lrwrnero-, the Ganaraska Authority and possibly the Ministry of Transportation and Co Pmunicat Motors . 1' � f � i 3 Conclusion A project number should be assigned to the work and after clarifying points noted above commencement as soon as possible. RES /em 1 c.c. R. L. Windover M. Ross H. Best,,