HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-217-91 V/
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
DN: COFA.GPA REPORT
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee File #
Date: Monday, September 23, 1991 Res. #
Report#:PDJ,_-27_-_9_1 File #: _A911-024 - A91-028, inclusive By-Law#
Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 1991 AND SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
FILE: A91/024 to A91/028, INCLUSIVE
Recommeidations:
It s respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1 . THAT Report PD-217-91 be received; and
2 . THAT Council concur with the decisions of the Committee of
Adjustment made at its meeting of August 1 and September 5,
1991; and
3 . THAT Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario
Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of
Adjustment in the event of an appeal.
1. 1 The Committee of Adjustment heard three (3) applications on
August 1, 1991 and three (3) applications on September 5,
1991. Applications A 91/025 to A 91/028 were APPROVED by the
Committee. Application A 91/024 was TABLED by the committee
at both the August 1 and September 5, 1991 meetings .
1.2 Application A 91/024 was recommended to be DENIED by Staff.
The applicant has erected a fence 1. 8 m in height within 3 .0
m of a street line, where such structure impedes the vision
of an access from the street, to an adjacent lot. Committee
TABLED the application at the owners request at the August 1,
1991 meeting. The applicant was unable to attend the
September 5, 1991 meeting due to work commitments, therefore
the committee TABLED the application once again.
2
REPORT NO. : PD-217-91 PAGE 2
1 .4 Staff have reviewed the balance of the decisions of the
Committee and are satisfied that the decisions conform to the
general intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law and
that the variances sought are minor in nature.
1.5 Council's concurrence with the Committee of Adjustment
decisions is required in order to afford Staff's official
status ' before the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of
appeal of the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
_1 pu�.
Franklin Wu, M.C. I .P. Lawrence 0 Kotseff
Director of Planning Chief A i istrative
and Development Officer
CP*FW*cc
*Attach
13 September 1991
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A91/024
********************
APPLICANT: GERALD PEARSON
AGENT:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
86 TURNBERRY CRES.
PART LOT: 35 CONCESSION: 2
TOWNSHIP: DARLINGTON
PLAN NUMBER: - -
ZONING: Rl
HEARING DATE: 1-Aug-91
DECISION: TABLED
APPEAL DATE: 31-Aug-91
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING FENCE HAVING A SETBACK OF 2M, MINIMUM
REQUIRED 3M
REASON FOR DECISION:
TABLED TO ALLOW APPLICANT TO MEET WITH TOWN PLANNING STAFF
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A91/025
APPLICANT: LIANNA DEVELOPMENTS
AGENT: J.D. BARNES LTD.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
12 CLINTON COURT
PART LOT: CONCESSION:
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANVILLE
PLAN NUMBER: 10M-798 -30
ZONING: R2
HEARING DATE: 1-Aug-91
DECISION: APPROVED
APPEAL DATE: 31-Aug-91
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO LEGALIZE A S.F.D. LOCATED ON A LOT HAVING FRONTAGE OF 11. 63M
( 38 . 1 FT. ) , MINIMUM REQUIRED 12M
REASON FOR DECISION:
THAT AS THE APPLICATION MAINTAINS THE INTENT OF THE TOWN O.P. AND
ZONING BY-LAW AND IS MINOR IN NATURE, THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A91/026
APPLICANT: PARADISE ESTATES
AGENT: J.D. BARNES LTD.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
64 SOPER CREEK DRIVE
PART LOT: CONCESSION:
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANVILLE
PLAN NUMBER: 1OM-798 -37
ZONING: R2
HEARING DATE: 1-Aug-91
DECISION: APPROVED
APPEAL DATE: 31-Aug-91
MINOR VARIANCE:
LEGALIZE A S.F.D. LOCATED ON A LOT HAVING FRONTAGE OF 11.85M (38.9
FT. ) , MINIMUM REQUIRED 12M
REASON FOR DECISION:
THAT AS THE APPLICATION MAINTAINS THE INTENT OF THE TOWN 0. P. AND
ZONING BY-LAW AND IS MINOR IN NATURE, THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A91/024
********************
APPLICANT: GERALD PEARSON
AGENT:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
86 TURNBERRY CRES.
PART LOT: CONCESSION:
TOWNSHIP:
PLAN NUMBER: - -
ZONING:
HEARING DATE: 5-Sep-91
DECISION: TABLED
APPEAL DATE: 5-Oct-91
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING FENCE HAVING A SETBACK OF 2M, MINIMUM
REQUIRED 3M
REASON FOR DECISION:
TABLED TO SEPT. 26 IN ORDER THAT THE APPLICANT BE PRESENT. A
DECISION WILL BE MADE AT THAT TIME
r I-
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A91/027
********************
APPLICANT: MERLYNN & HELEN SHANTZ
AGENT: G.M. SERNAS & ASSOC. LTD.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
221 LIBERTY ST. N.
PART LOT: 10 CONCESSION: 2
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANVILLE
PLAN NUMBER: - -
ZONING: R
HEARING DATE: 5-Sep-91
DECISION: APPROVED
APPEAL DATE: 5-Oct-91
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO CREATE A LOT HAVING AN EXISTING ACC. BLDG. WHICH WOULD EXCEED
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE REQUIREMENT OF 40% OF THE MAIN BLDG. TOTAL
FLOOR AREA AND HAVING A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 0. 0M, MINIMUM
REQUIRED 1.2M
REASON FOR DECISION:
AS THE APPLICATION IS IN KEEPING WITH THE DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE AREA, THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR, SUBJECT TO
ANY FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT IN QUESTION BE CONTINGENT UPON
THE REMOVAL OF THE QUONSET HUT, AND COND. BE REG'D ON TIT
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A91/028
********************
APPLICANT: DAVID & JOANNE PAYNE
AGENT: G.M. SERNAS & ASSOCIATES
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
227 LIBERTY ST. N.
PART LOT: 10 CONCESSION: 2
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANVILLE
PLAN NUMBER: - -
ZONING: R1
HEARING DATE: 5-Sep-91
DECISION: APPROVED
APPEAL DATE: 5-Oct-91
MINOR VARIANCE:
CREATE A LOT HAVING AN EXISTING DWELLING WITH A SIDEYARD SETBACK
OF 0 . 8M (2 . 6 FT. ) , MINIMUM REQUIRED 1 .2M AND HAVING AN ACC.
STRUCT. WITH A SIDEYARD SETBACK OF 0 . 7M (2 . 3 FT. ) , MINIMUM
REQUIRED 1.2M
REASON FOR DECISION:
AS THE APPLICATION IS IN KEEPING WITH THE DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE AREA AND IS CONSIDERED MINOR IN NATURE, THE APPLICATION BE
APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR