Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-53-83 4 CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB UO TEL.(416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1983 REPORT NO. : PD-53-83 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR QUIT CLAIM - GRAHAM S. BAGG AND WILLIAM WATSON INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND WILLIAM AND DOROTHY MASULKA FILES: LD 159/81 and LD 8/82, RESPECTIVELY RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1 . That Report PD-53-83 be received; and * 2. That the attached By-laws in respect of the one foot reserves imposed as conditions of the subject applications for Land Division (Graham S. Bagg and William Watson Investments Limited; William and Dorothy Masulka; and John D. Moffat and Hilda B. Moffat) be approved; and 3. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute, on behalf of the Town, the conveyances in respect of Part 2 & 3, Plan 1OR-1411 ; Part 1 , Plan IOR-1566; and Parts 1 & 3, Plan 1OR-1592, at such time as all applicable lot development charges have been paid and subject to confirmation that all related legal expenses shall be borne by the applicant in each case. m L Report No: PD-53-83 .../2 BACKGROUND: On March 14th, 1983, Council considered a letter dated March 4th, 1983 from the solicitor for Graham S. Bagg requesting that the Town execute a Quit Claim to Parts 2 and 3, Reference Plan 1OR-1411 . This request was referred to the Planning and Public Works Departments for Report. Mr. Bagg's request arises from a situation that developed as a result of a severance application submitted under file number LD 159/81 by William Watson Investments Limited. The subject application for severance was reviewed by staff in April of 1981 and a recommendation for denial was made due to non-conformity with the provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan. A proviso was attached that should the application be approved, a lot development charge of Fifteen Hundred nollars ($1 ,5(10) would be required by the Town of Newcastle, as well as approval of a minor variance to the Zoning By-law, inasmuch as the proposed lot did not comply with the lot area requirements of By-law 2111 , as amended. The Land Division Committee approved the application subject to the registering of a one-foot reserve along the frontage of the retained lands. The Town did not register an appeal of the Decision, inasmuch as the major non-conformity was with respect to the Regional Official Plan and the Region of Durham had indicated no intention of appealing this Decision. The lot as created still does not comply with the Town's minimum lot area requirement, however, this could be rectified by a minor variance. A one foot reserve was subsequently registered as Parts 2 and 3, Plan 1OR-1411 . A * copy of the Committee's Decision is attached for Council 's information , and we note that the basis for requesting a severance was that the existing single family dwelling on the severed parcel was no longer required for the agricultural use of the lands, and that the retained lands would continue to be used as a nursery stock and Christmas tree operation. Report No: PD-53-83 .../3 By letter of December 17th, 1982, Mr. Bagg indicated that he is planning on planting orchards and Christmas trees on this land, and was interested in building a house thereon. This suggests that Mr. Watson, when applying for the severance in 1981, was aware of an intent to use the property for agricultural purposes and went so far as to specify the uses which now give rise to this request for release of a one foot reserve. By imposing the one foot reserve, the Land Division Committee effectively land-locked this parcel of land and clearly was intending to prevent the construction of a further non-farm related residential dwelling in this area, unless the local municipality otherwise chooses to lift the - restriction , giving rise to a situation whereby a severance has been granted contrary to the intent of the Regional Official Plan, and the local municipality placed in a position whereby it, for all intents and purposes, assumes the responsibilities of the Land Division Committee, since by lifting the one foot reserve, a new building lot will be created. This is a situation where the Land Division Committee has used a one foot reserve to justify a severance that otherwise would not be permitted by the Durham Regional Official Plan. However, this mechanism has also been used in other instances to supposedly prevent the construction of non-farm related dwellings in rural areas, notwithstanding the fact that the severance being applied for complies with the Durham Regional Official Plan and the local zoning by-law. Such a situation was the application by William and Dorothy Masulka, Land Division file LD 8/82. Staff reviewed this application in December of 1981 , and recommended approval , again conditional upon payment of the Town 's lot development charge. However, the Land Division Committee tabled the application, pending submission of proof that the proposed purchaser intended to use the subject lands for an agricultural or related use. Report No: PD-53-83 .../4 \/ On November 8th, 1982, the Land Division Committee again considered the application and approved the severance, conditional upon the registration of a one foot reserve along all the frontages of the retained land. Staff did not appeal the Decision, inasmuch as it did not directly affect the Municipality, and inasmuch as the applicant was agreeable to the imposition of a one-foot reserve, which, I might add, was subsequently registered as Part 1 , according to Plan 1OR-1566. On February 7th, 1983, the Town received a request from the solicitor for William and Dorothy Masulka enquiring as to the possibility of the Town Quit Claiming the one foot reserve upon payment of the applicable lot development charge. - Staff might add that a similar situation has recently come to light in respect of another application for Land Division, file LD 48/83, John and Hilda Moffatt. As with the Masulka situation, the proposed severance complied with the applicable policies of the Regional Official Plan and the local Zoning By-law. However, the Land Division Committee again imposed a one-foot reserve upon the retained lands, supposedly to prevent the construction of any non-farm related dwellings, notwithstanding the fact that such use would be permitted by the Zoning By-law. Recent discussions with the applicant have indicated that he is not - at all in favour of this condition, but that he was not intending to appeal on the understanding that he had the option of approaching the Town and requesting the lifting of the one foot reserve. In all of these situations, the Land Division Committee has, for whatever reason, ignored to a certain extent the recommendations of the Town of Newcastle. Staff, by means * of the attached letter, have advised the Land Division Committee of our concerns and have tentatively scheduled a meeting with the Committee on April 25, 1983. Report No: PD-53-83 .../5 COMMENTS: With respect to the request from Mr. Bagg, although the circumstances surrounding the creation of the lot do not comply with the provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan, staff see no useful purpose in refusing Mr. Bagg access to the lands now that the severed lot has been created and conveyed to a third party. By retaining the one foot reserve, the land is effectively land-locked and access to and from the property, for any purpose, can be prevented by the Town. Alternatively, the Town could grant a right-of-way across the one foot reserve, or lift a limited portion of the reserve to permit access for agricultural purposes only, thus preventing construction of a new dwelling unit consistent with the apparent intent of the Regional Land Division Committee. However, staff reiterate that we cannot see any useful purpose in limiting access, and would suggest that one of the one foot reserves be lifted, providing Mr. Bagg with at least the minimum lot frontage requirement required pursuant to the By-law. This could require preparation of a further reference plan to identify that portion of the one foot reserve which is to be lifted, should Council only wish to lift a minimal section of the reserves, and this should be done at the expense of the applicant, as should the preparation of the necessary Quit Claim documents and the registration of all applicable documents at the Land Registry Office. Staff note that the accompanying recommendation would lift both of the reserves, which would be the simplest method of dealing with the problem. Access to the site could then be controlled through the Town 's entrance policy. In that regard, discussions with the Town 's solicitor indicate that there would be no legal impediment to the Town releasing the reserves, however, he does suggest that the Town actually pass a by-law to permit conveyance of the parcels and then to convey title rather than quit claim. Report No: PD-53-83 .. ./6 With respect to the Masulka application, the retained and severed lands both comply with the provisions of the Regional Official Plan and By-law 1592, as amended. In that regard, staff would have no objection to the lifting of this one foot reserve, conditional upon payment of the Town's lot development charge applicable at the time of creation of this lot, and payment of all associated legal expenses arising from registration of the one foot reserve in the first instance, and subsequent expenses associated with the conveyance back. With respect to the third application, LD 48/83, although staff have not yet received a formal request from John and Hilda Moffat for a Quit Claim to the one foot reserve, again we would have no objections to the lifting of this one foot reserve, conditional upon payment of the applicable lot development charge and associated legal expenses. Respec 1 ted, . T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning TTE*mjc March 22, 1983 s s THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE BY-LAW NUMBER 83- 60 being a By-law to lift and authorize the conveyance of a one-foot reserve shown as Parts 1 and 3, Registered Reference Plan 1OR-1592. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE hereby enacts as follows: 1. THAT Parts 1 and 3 on Registered Reference Plan lOR-1592, being a one-foot reserve, which is hereby lifted. 2. THAT the conveyance of Parts land 3, Registered Reference Plan 1OR-1592 to John and Hilda Moffat, of the Town of Newcastle in the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized. BY-LAW READ A FIRST TIME THIS 11th DAY OF April 1983 BY-LAW READ A SECOND TIME THIS 11th DAY OF April 1983 BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 11th DAY OF April 1983 MAYOR'� CLERK 13 d THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE BY-LAW NUMBER 83-61 being a By-law to lift and authorize the conveyance of a one-foot reserve shown as Parts 2 and 3, Registered Reference Plan 1OR-1411 . THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE hereby enacts as follows: 1. THAT Part 2 and Part 3 on Registered Reference Plan 1OR-1411, being a one-foot reserve, which is hereby lifted. 2. THAT the conveyance of Parts 2 and 3, Registered Reference Plan IOR-1411 to Mr. Graham S. Bagg of the City of Oshawa in the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized. BY-LAW READ A FIRST TIME THIS 11th DAY OF April 1983 BY-LAW READ A SECOND TIME THIS 11th PA*/ OF April 1983 BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY THIS 11th DAY OF April 1983 MAY OR l CLERK JFile No------—---— THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE BY-LAW NUMBER 83- 62 being a By-law to lift and authorize the conveyance of a one-foot reserve shown as Part 1, Registered Reference Plan 1OR-1566. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE hereby enacts as follows: 1. THAT Part 1 on Registered Reference Plan 1OR-1566, being a one-foot reserve, which is hereby lifted. 2. THAT the conveyance of Part 1, Registered Reference Plan 1OR-1566 to William and Dorothy Masulka, of the City of Oshawa in the Regional Municipality of Durham is hereby authorized. BY-LAW READ A FIRST TIME THIS 11th DAY OF April 1983 BY-LAW READ A SECOND TIME THIS 11th DAY OF April 1983 BY-LAW READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 11th DAY OF April 1983 MAYOR CLERK REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE DECISION As per the provisions of Sections 29 & 42 of The Planning Act as amended; Section 61( 10) of The Regional Municipality of Durham -Act as amended; and Ontario Regulation 732/78 as amended File LD 159/81 Submission B149/81 May 4th , 1981 Wm. Watson Investments Ltd. Lot 33, Concession 1 Town of Newcastle (Darlington) J. Victor, Q.C. was present on behalf of this application accompanied by Mr. Watson, the President of the company. No further representation was present in favour of or opposed to the application. This application involves the severance of a 3452 m2 parcel supporting a single family dwelling from a 26 . 2 ha agricultural parcel. The severed parcel is proposed to be sold and the 25 . 9 ha retained parcel will continue to be used as a nursery stock and Christmas tree operation. The Committee was advised that the company owned approximately 65 acres in the Region of Durham. The house on the subject property is a new bungalow and is rented , however, it is deteriorating and the owners have had quite a problem with tenants. Most of the 65 acres that the company owns are treed . The Committee questioned whether the applicant would be agreeable to a 1 ' reserve being placed on the frontage of the retained lands . This was agreeable to the applicant. The Committee had for their information reports received from the Regional Planning Department, the Regional Works Department, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food , the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education, the Peterborough-Victoria-Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Durham Regional Health Unit. DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE MOVED: W. Allin SECONDED: G. Johnson THAT Application LD 159/81 be approved as applied for, as such is considered a surplus dwelling no longer required by the agricultural operation, subject to: 1• That the owner deed free and clear of all encumbrances to the Town of Newcastle a 1' reserve on both frontages of the retained land. 2. That the retained lands be developed by plan of subdivision. 3 . That the applicant submit two copies of a registered reference plan for the clearance of documents . Continued . . . . . 9/ Q0 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM LAND DIVISION COMMITTEE DECISION (Continued) File LD 159/81 (Continued) May 4th, 1981 Wm. Watson Investments Ltd. Town of Newcastle (Darlington) DECISION (Continued) 4. That this approval shall lapse at the expiration of two years from the date the decision is final and binding unless all the conditions are fulfilled and the formal consent has been released. 5. That prior to the signing of the certificate given by the Secretary/Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary/Treasurer is to be advised in writing by the Town of Newcastle that Condition #1 has been carried out to its satisfaction. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY May 4th, 1981 —--- ---------G. Wandless --------------D. Gibson Chairman -A -� a7rri _-----G. Johnson --`-1- = --rJ=` -- -R. Rahmer -`= = ------R. Morrison -------W. Allin --=--------------- s. S. Parker .Secretary/Treasurer ,Tiina 170 1 9 R 1 Last date of Appeal Jurgen 17, 19R1 Expiry Date 10 CORPORATION OF TIFF TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T.T.EDWARDS,M.C.LP.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB UO TEL.(416)263-2231 Mr. D. Gibson February 28, 1983 Chairman Regional Municipality of Durham Land Division Committee 105 Consumers Drive WHITBY, Ontario Dear Sir: - Re: File LD 48/83 - Submission B 35/83 February 7th, 1983 - John and Hilda Moffatt Part of Lot 16, Conc. 5, Town of Newcastle (Clarke) I have today been advised by Mrs. Sheila Parker, Secretary-Treasurer, of the Committee's concern with respect to the Town of Newcastle's position relative to the subject application. As I understand it, the Committee's intent in imposing a one-foot reserve as a condition of the approval of this application was to prevent the construction of a residential dwelling on the retained lands. There is no clear indication in the Committee minutes of the rational for this action. Our staff review of the application indicated that the subject lands were to be conveyed to the applicant 's son, and in fact , the decision of the Committee indicates that this lot was being created as a lot for a member of the farmer's immediate family who significantly assists in the farm operation. The subject and retained lands both comply with the applicable provisions of the Town 's Zoning By-law, and based on the apparent conformity with the Official Plan and the Zoning Plan, Town staff recommended approval , subject to payment of the Town 's lot development charge. The imposition of a one-foot reserve along the road frontage of the retained lands effectively prevents Mr. Moffatt from obtaining a building permit, although under the provisions of the Town 's Zoning By-law, he would be entitled to one. In an instance such as this , upon application to the Town by the applicant, and payment of the Town 's lot development charge, the one-foot reserve could be lifted and a building permit made available, thereby circumventing the condition as imposed by the Land Division Committee. . . ./2 i - 2 - Mr. D. Gibson February 28, 1983 It would appear to me that this type of condition is somewhat onerous both to the applicant and to the area municipality, in that additional legal costs are incurred by both parties in registering and discharging the one-foot reserve. The Town may, of course, as a condition of lifting the one-foot reserve, require the applicant to pay all legal costs associated therewith. However, this adds a further burden upon the applicant who in the first instance was entitled to a building permit under the Zoning By-law, and therefore it appears to me that imposition of this type of condition is an attempt to prevent the applicant from obtaining something which he would otherwise be entitled to in accordance with the terms of the Durham Regional Official Plan and the local Zoning By-law. I would therefore respectfully suggest that if it is the Committee's intent to prevent residential development within the rural areas, such a decision must be firmly based upon restrictions presently contained within the Durham Regional Official Plan or the applicable Zoning By-law. The use of one-foot reserves will not effectively accomplish this intent, inasmuch as it removes the approval of the severance from the Committee's domain and places it, in essence, with the local municipality. I trust that this clarifies our concerns with respect to the subject application, and if so desired, would be available to meet with the-Land Division Committee on March 2811-h. Yours er y, T. T. Edwards, M.C. I.P. Director of Planning TTE*mjc cc: L. D. Taylor Current Operations Planner