The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP-106-79 T 4 .✓�',{.s`i..'6'�.-C.G_„l"+...,G..x° ,^�..-„i...,G'i.ti..4.-...:/'� _ '°'�”{ ��...'-"�fi; t.C.4,_4, CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D. N. Smith ,M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO TEL. (416)263-2231 REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF July 5, 1979. REPORT NO. : P-106-79 SUBJECT: Ontario Municipal Board Decision - An appeal by Solina Investments Ltd. against a decision of the Committee of Adjustments of the Town of Newcastle (Mrs. Mackie's Fence) BACKGROUND: On December 20, 1978, the Committee of Adjustment granted "in part" an application for authorization of a minor variance made by Solina Investments Ltd. The decision of the Committee of Adjustment was subsequently appealed by Solina Investments Ltd. and an Ontario Municipal Board hearing held. Mrs. K. Mackie objected to the appeal. The attached copy of the Municipal Board's decision was for- warded to the Planning and Development Department on June 13, 1979. COMMENT: The Ontario Municipal Board has allowed the appeal and the .application for authorization of the variance with respect to the front yard setback and the westerly side yard setback is granted. 2 - RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning and Development Committee recommend to Council that: 1. The attached Municipal Board Decision be received for information. Respectfully submitted, DNS:lb D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P. June 14, 1979 Director of Planning Form C-2 Ontario Ontario 416/965-1908 180 Dundas St.West Municipal Toronto, Ontario M5G 1 E5 Board THE SECRETARY-TREASURER, CODj1!ITTEE OF ADJUS714ETNT, Quote File Number TIO01N OF NEWCASTLE, A 79106 40 TE,11PERANCE STREET, BO",'KikNVI TTF, AO " ONTARIO. LlC 3 :4� i *-fie 11 1979 11 OJ 'qfl rkRT ,'IBT Dear Sir Re : Appeal by Solina Investments Limited Submission Nu--Lnber A-71178 Enclosed is; documentation as follows : Copy of Decision dated F;17 Duplicate Original of Decision Uj dated June � 1979. Yours truly, C . Saruyama Supervisor /fg Planning Administration Enclosure 'n5 f �G A 79106 Ontario Municipal oard ( � s ti IN ThE 14ATTER OF Section 42 of The PlarariinE� A.ct (R.S.0 . 19701, c. 349) as amended, — an. '�' 'v5,f�rt±� 'a' ..:ti•Jire P 7�ja.,p a 7. IN T'H'E Imo!TTER OF an appeal by J Soiina IrIVC-SLment.s Limited against a decision of the Committee of AdJustmer,L of tl<,e Toren of Newcastle; C O U N S E L : Ralph S. Jones - for Solina Investments Limited D.J .D. Sims, Q.C . - for the Town of Newcastle UECZSZCr� Of THE BOARD delivered by F. G. DLA.KE This is an appeal against the Committee ' s decision dated December 20, 1978, whereby the Committee; granted in part the appellant' s application for authorization of a minor ,variance from the provisions of Sy-law 2111; the Committee approved a reduction of the required front yard setback from 50 Feet to 49 .96 feet but refused to approve a reduction of the required %esterly .side yard setback from 25 feet to 19 .93 Feet. The applicat.i.on to he Committee was dated August 25 , 1976. The subject parcel comprises karts 9 and 10 on Reference Plain 10R-82.3, ;fi.led as Exhibit 3. in these proceedings. The subject parcel has a frontage of 130 feet and a depth of 363.61 feet. The company had also applied on August 18, 1978 to the Land Division Committee of the Re;gi oval Municipality of Durham for consent to the conv-eyanc.e or inortgage of the same Parts 9 and 10. The decision o:° that Comini-tee , dazed September 18, 1978, was that the application YBbe approved for industrial development"t" subject to ceri.ain conditions . Notwithstanding i:he unusual wordin6, .i.L. appears -ci�at the intent was to grant consent to convey ox rro.,rtgage and that the words "for industrial.. A 79106 2 . development" were not intended to be a condition or quali- fication. The application to the Land Division Committee was incorrectly worded in that it stated the abutting lands retained consisted of Parts il and 12 on Reference Plan 1OR• 813 whereas the abutting lands actually consist of Parts 6, 11 and 12 on the east side and Part 8 which abuts the rear 149 feet of the west side of Part 9 . Conditions attached by the Land Division Committee included that the application to the Committee of Adjustment for authorization of the minor variance be approved. Refusal of that variance by the Committee of Adjustment is the subject of this appeal . The only objector to this appeal appearing at this hearing is Mrs . K. Mackie, the owner of a residential property adjoining the west side of We subject parcel . The Mackie property has frontage of 346 feet on Base Line Road, a depth of 224.7 feet, and an area of approximately 1.79 acres. Shortly after construction of tke industrial building on the subject property commenced in June, 1978, Mrs. Mackie complained to the Town of Newcastle that the building was sited too close to her Property line, and the building inspector was immediately notified of her complaint. No explanation of the Town's failure to Stop construction at that early stage was offered at this hearing. According to the memorandum Of Mr. Guiler, Town Manager, dated October 23, 1978, filed as Exhibit 5 in these proceedings, which was not contradicted at this hearing, it appears that the drawings submitted by the company- 's agent with the appli- cation for a building permit in the latter part of May, 1978, showed a westerly side yard of 20 feet. This error was pointed Out to the agent by the building inspector, the required side yard of 25 1 feet was noted on the building permit, and the necessary corrections were made on the set of drawings retained by the building inspector and also on the set of drawings returned with the building permit to the agent. According to A 79106 Mr. Guiler' s memorandum, the set Of drawings which had been returned to the argent WE!re obtained by him for checking follow- ing an appearance by Mrs. t.lackie before council on October io, 1978, and it was apparent that the building inspector ' s notations on the site plan with respect to the required side yard had been erased. The submission by the president of the company at this hearing that the error in siting the building was an unintentional mistake by the builder was not supported by any other evidence. Regardless of the manner in which the side yard deficiency arose or the degree of blame that might be ascribed to the company and/or the municipality, this is a Planning matter to be determined On plai-ining principles pursuant to Section 42( 1) Of the Planning Act. The subject lands are designated Industrial in the local municipality's Official Plan which was approved in 1970, and the adjacent Mackie property is designated Agricultural. however, the subject . lands and all adjacent lands, including the Mackie property, are designated Industrial in the Official Plan of the Regional Municipality Of Durham which was recently approved by the Minister. All Official Plans of the area municipalities have to be amended to conform to the Regional Official Plan, and in the meantime the latter prevails if there is any conflict. The subject lands are zoned Open Storage Industrial (M2) and the Mackie property is zoned Agricultural by Restricted Area By-law 2111 . A single family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the Agricultural zone. However, it is the municipality' s intention to enact a. new by-law to implement the new official plan designations. Mrs. Mackie concedes that the industrial zoning of her property is inevitable as it Jill be surrounded by industrially designated lands . She indicated that she has no objection to the appearance of the building, which has no openings on its west wail , other than tha-F, it is A 79106 4. too close to the property line, affects her privacy, and contributes to drainage problems along the side of the road in I.-ront of her property. It does not appear from the evidence that the subject property contributes any more to the latter problem than other properties, and in any event it is the municipality ' s responsibility to provide proper ditch- ing and maintenance if necessary. It does not appear that there will be -any significant loss of privacy since the Mackie house is itself situated a substantial distance from the property line. There will also be more protection as the trees planted along the west side of the industrial building mature . In view of these factors and especially the change to an industrial designation for the Mackie property, I consider the variance sought to be a. minor variance, desirable for the appropriate use of the property, and Lhat the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law are maintained. The appeal is allowed and the application for authori- zation of the 'variances with respect to the front yard setback and the westerly side yard setback is granted. Dated at Toronto this 11th day of June, 1979. F. G. BLAKE MEMBER