Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-32-82 i 4 i CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE i PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P.,Director HAMPTON, ONTARIO 1_0131,10 TEL. (416)263-2231 j REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 22 1982 REPORT NO. : PD-32-82 SUBJECT: OBJECTIONS TO BY-LAWS 81 -123, 81 -124 AND 81-125 CLERKS FILES: 60.35.141 , 60.35.142, 60.35.143 OUR FILE: Z-=A=1-6-9 i RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1 . That Report No. PD-32-82 be received; and 2. That the Draft Amending By-law attached to this Report be forwarded to Council for approval ; and 3. The following resolution be forwarded to Town Council for adoption and for submission to the Ontario Municipal Board along with By-laws 81 -123, 81 -124 and 81 -125, and the amendments thereto. "WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle has approved By-law 81 -123, 81 -124 and 81-125 in order to provide zone provisions consistent with the Special Purpose Commercial Node designation delineated by Amendment 12 to the Darlington Official Plan. AND WHEREAS the Town is satisfied that the amending By-laws, attached to this Report, will bring By-laws 81 -123, 81 -124 and 81 -125 into conformity with the applicable policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan; AND WHEREAS the aforesaid By-laws amending By-laws 81 -123, 81-124 and 81 -125 have been approved by Council of the Town of Newcastle. I Y% t Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./2 BE IT NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle hereby requests the Ontario Municipal Board to provide direction to the Town of Newcastle in respect of the circulation of the subject amendments to By-laws 81 -123, 81-124 and 81-125; and, if favourably disposed, to dispense with the circulation requirements for said amending By-laws due to the Special Circumstances involved. Furthermore, the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle requests the Ontario Municipal Board to approve By-laws 81 -123, 81 -124 and 81 -125, as amended, notwithstanding the outstanding objections to said By-laws, and to convene one public hearing in respect of By-law 81 -123, 81-124 and 81-125, and the respective amendments thereto, at their earliest possible opportunity; and further, hereby authorize Town staff and/or the Town Solicitor to represent the Municipality at any such hearing that may be convened. BACKGROUND: Reports P-37-81 , P-105-81 and P-139-81 , copies of which are available in the Planning Department, outline the history and development of By-laws 81 -123, 81-124 and 81-125. As these earlier reports indicate, the amending By-laws were prepared to control development within those areas designated "Special Purpose Commercial Node" by Amendment 12 to the Darlington Official Plan. The required circulation of By-law 81 -123, 81-124 and 81-125 is now complete. A number of objections to the approval of these by-laws have been received. Planning staff have summarized the objections and have prepared comments related to the concerns raised. Maps showing the location of the objectors ' properties are attached to this report. SUMMARY AND COMMENTS: By-law 81 -123 I During the circulation period, written objections to By-law 81 -123 were received from: 1 . The Regional Municipality of Durham; 2. Mr. J. G. Chipman, Solicitor, on behalf of Valiant Property Management; I Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./3 3. Mr. Irwin B. Hamilton, Solicitor, on behalf of Audrey Jean Kinsman; 4. Mr. Idalo Cappuccitti . j Copies of these letters of objection are attached to this report. In addition to the written objections received, Mr. Edward Whiting has gone on record as being opposed to the rezoning proposed by By-laws 81 -123 and 81 -124. 1 . The Regional Municipality of Durham Regional Planning staff have indicated that the Special Purpose Commercial component of By-law 81 -123 conforms to the land use designations in both the Durham and Darlington Official Plan. However, Regional staff have stated that the By-law does not conform insofar as it does not establish a separate zoning category for service stations and gas bars, and it does not contain a specific requirement related to the provision of full municipal services. In response to these concerns raised by Regional Planning staff, Town staff have prepared a draft amendment to By-law 81 -123. This draft amendment has been reviewed by "the Region" and they have advised us that the draft By-law amendment would bring By-law 81 -123 into conformity with the provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan. Staff are recommending therefore that the draft By-law be forwarded to Council for approval and that the Town seek the Ontario Municipal Board's direction on notice requirements for this By-law amendment. The draft By-law amendment is attached to this report along with a copy of the comments provided by Regional Planning Commissioner, Dr. M. Michael . i Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./4 2. Mr. J. G. Chipman, Solicitor, on behalf of Valiant Property Management. Mr. Chipman has, on behalf of his clients, submitted a "general " objection to By-law 81-123 and has indicated that he plans to present evidence in support of this objection at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. i Staff are, therefore, unable to provide comments in respect of this objection and can only assume that their objection relates to perceived impacts upon their commercial proposal presently under construction on the north-west corner of Townline Road and Highway 2. In that regard, the lands subject to By-law 81-123 are designated within the approved Official Plan and the By-law conforms therewith. 3. Irwin B. Hamilton, Solicitor, on behalf of Audrey Jean Kinsman. By letter dated November 13th, 1981 , Irwin Hamilton, solicitor for Mrs. Audrey Jean Kinsman, has indicated that his client does not object to the general intent of the By-law, but only to the area that is shown on the Schedules. Mrs. Kinsman objects to a small rectangular portion of her property being included within the area affected by By-law 81 -123. Planning staff have reviewed the property boundaries within .the area where Mrs. Kinsman has indicated concern. Detailed investigation, through registry office records, has revealed that the By-law Schedules were prepared on the basis of inaccurate information. As such, staff have included within the amendment described in 1. above, a provision which would have the effect of removing Mrs. Kinsman's lands from the I Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./5 area affected by By-law 81 -123. Mr. Hamilton has been asked to comment on this draft amendment as it relates to his client's objection. He has advised Town staff that the passage of such a By-law would resolve his client's objection. A copy of Mrs. Kinsman's Irrevocable Letter of Withdrawal is attached to this Report. 4. Mr. Idalo Ca pp uccitti Idalo Cappuccitti has objected to the proposed lot area requirements that would apply to his property. The lands are apparently 713 square metres short of the 3,500 square metre minimum requirement and the objector has requested that the By-law be amended to recognize the existing holding. Staff note that a similar objection was received during the circulation of draft "Special Purpose Commercial By-laws" early in 1981 . Our position regarding this objection remains unchanged. Special Purpose Commercial Areas are intended to permit the grouping and development of those services and facilities which consume larger parcels of land and require exposure to traffic. We believe that a reduction in the lot area requirement would undermine the intent of both the Durham and Darlington Official Plans. 5. Objection by Mr. Edward Whiting In addition to the written objections received, Mr. Edward Whiting has gone on record as being opposed to the rezoning proposed by By-laws 81 -123 and 81 -124. Mr. Whiting is apparently objecting because the "Special Purpose Commercial " provisions only apply to part of his property located on the south-west corner of Darlington Boulevard and Highway 2. According to the information which has been presented to the Planning Department, Mr. Whiting's property extends south on Darlington Boulevard approximately 100 feet beyond the Special Purpose Commercial Zone boundary. i Report No. : PD-32-82 „ ./6 Staff have reviewed the objection and note that the lands affected by By-law 81 -123 reflect an interpretation of the extent of those lands designated "Special Purpose Commercial Node" in the approved Amendment 12 to the Darlington Official Plan. The lands owned by Mr. Whiting which extend beyond the "Special Purpose Commercial " Zone boundaries also extend beyond the "Special Purpose Commcercial Node" designation in the Official Plan. As such, staff could not support an amendment to extend the areas covered by By-law 81 -123 without an amendment to the Courtice Urban Area Plan. SUMMARY AND COMMENTS: By-law 81 -124 During the circulation period, written objections to By-law 81 -124 were received from: 1 . Mr. Ralph S. Jones, Solicitor, on behalf of Mr. Larry Dupuis; 2. Mr. J. Victor, Solicitor, on behalf of Messrs. Sakellarakos, Papadakis and Dracopoulos. Copies of these letters of objection are attached to the Report. In addition to the written objections received, Mr. Edward Whiting is on record as being opposed to the rezoning proposed by By-laws 81-123 and 81-124. During the required circulation period for By-law 81 -124, the Town Clerk received, in addition to the objections noted above, one letter of support from Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hayward. A copy of this letter of support is attached to this Report. Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./7 1 . Mr. Ralph S. Jones, Solicitor, on behalf of Mr. Larry Dupuis Mr. Jones has, on behalf of his client, objected to the lot frontage and area requirements which By-law 81-124 would impose on his client's lands. The parcel in question does not meet the proposed minimum requirements and therefore could only be developed in conjunction with neighbouring properties. Mr. Jones claims that the By-law amendment effectively denies a zoning designation which is "specific and applicable with certainty" to his client's lands. The "Special Purpose Commercial Node" designation was designed to accomodate those services and facilities which characteristically consume larger parcels of land and which require exposure to traffic. The intention of both the Durham and Darlington Official Plans is to group these uses within specified areas and to provide requirements within the implementing By-laws which will reflect the larger lot area requirements and which will establish and maintain the intended character of these areas. Staff believe that the lot area and frontage requirements set out in By-law 81-124 are in conformity with the applicable Official Plan policies. Staff feel that a reduction in these requirements would undermine the intended development pattern for Special Purpose Commercial Areas. 2. Mr. J. C. Victor, Solicitor, on behalf of Messrs. Sakellarakos, Papadakis and Dracopoulos Mr. Victor has, on behalf of his clients, filed an objection to the lot frontage and area requirements that are proposed for his clients' lands. The lands in question are located within an area where the minimum lot frontage and lot area requirements are twice as large as those proposed for other areas within the Special Purpose Commcercial Node i designation. i i Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./8 The lands owned by Per. Victor's clients are within an existing residential area where there has, over a number of years, been considerable opposition by area residents to the possibility of Commercial development. In response to the concerns raised by the residential property owners in the area, the Town has increased the zone requirements to ensure that when commercial development does take place, it will only be permitted on large lots requiring consolidation of existing holdings. The requirements set out for these lands are felt to be in keeping with the proposed modified amendment 80-40/ND(14) to the Darlington Official Plan. The proposed amendment, as modified, states that: "In the Special Purpose Commercial Node designated on Schedule I in Lots 34 and 35, Concession 2, former Township of Darlington, redevelopment from Residential to Special Purpose Commercial shall require the consolidation of land into parcels of sufficient size, such size to be precisely defined from location to location in the restricted area zoning by-law. Until such consolidation takes place, it shall be the policy of this plan to maintain the character of the existing residential uses." We note, for the Committee's information, that this amendment was considered by the Durham Regional Council at its meeting of February 3rd, 1982 and was approved. Staff are recommending that the zone requirements for Block i 1 , as described in By-law 81-124, remain unchanged. i Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./9 3. Objection by Mr. Edward Whiting Although Mr. Edward Whiting is on record as being opposed to both By-law 81 -123 and 81 -124, staff believe that he is primarily concerned with the extent of the area covered by By-law 81 -123. We do not, however, have any indication of the nature of his concerns in respect of By-law 81 -124. 4. Letter of Support to By-law 81-124 A letter of support for the approval of By-law 81 -124 was received from Mr. and Mrs. F. E. Hayward. The Haywards are residential property owners within the area affected by the modified proposed Official Plan Amendment 80-40/ND(14) to the Darlington Official Plan. These lands are described as Block 1 in By-law 81-124 and are affected by the same zoning requirements that affect the lands owned by Mr. Victor's clients (see earlier comments). The support offered by the Haywards and the lack of objections from other residents in the area would suggest that the long standing concerns of these residential property owners have been satisfied by the proposed by-law, as was staff's intent. 5. Draft Amendment On the request of Regional Planning staff, Town staff are recommending that By-law 81 -12.3 and 81-125 be amended to indicate that full municipal services are required for any development or redevelopment. Although "the Region" has made j no comments on By-law 81 -124, staff believe that a similar j provision should be incorporated within this By-law in order to ensure consistency with By-law 81 -123 and 81-125. A draft amending By-law which has the effect of incorporating such a servicing requirement in By-law 81 -124 is attached to this Report. I -IV���� Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./10 SUMMARY AND COMMENTS: By-law 81-125 During the circulation period, written objections to By-law 81 -125 were received from: 1 . The Regional Municipality of Durham; 2. Board of Trustees, Ebenezer United Church; 3. Board of Trustees, Courtice United Church; 4. Mrs. Marilyn Huether Copies of these letters of objection are attached to this Report. 1 . The Regional Municipality of Durham i As was the case with By-law 81 -123, Regional Planning staff have indicated that the Special Purpose Commercial Component of By-law 81-125 conforms to the land use designations in both the Durham and Darlington Official Plans. However, Regional staff have stated that the By-law does not conform insofar as it does not establish a separate zoning category for service stations and gas bars, and it does not contain a specific requirement related to the provisions of full I municipal services. i In response to these concerns raised by Regional Planning staff, Town staff have prepared a draft amendment to By-law 81 -125. This draft amendment has been reviewed by "the Region" and they have advised us that the draft By-law amendment would bring By-law 81 -125 into conformity with the provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan. Staff are recommending therefore that the draft By-law be forwarded to i Council for approval and that the Town seek the Ontario Municipal Board's direction on notice requirements for this By-law amendment. The draft By-law amendment is attached to this Report along with a copy of the comments provided by Regional Planning Commissioner, Dr. M. Michael . Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./11 2. Board of Trustees, Ebenezer United Church The Board of Trustees, Ebenezer United Church, have objected to the inclusion of "Taverns" and "Beer, liquor or Wine outlets" in the list of permitted uses for the area affected by By-law 81-125. i i Staff appreciate the position of the Church Trustees, i however, the uses which they oppose are considered to be in conformity with the Special Purpose Commercial Node designation set out in the Darlington Official Plan. Staff believe that with the large lot area and yard requirements I and with the exclusion of residential and most other uses that would normally attract small children, the Special Purpose Commercial areas are better suited than most Commercial areas to accomodate these types of uses 3. Board of Trustees, Courtice United Church The Courtice United Church Board of Trustees have voiced a similar objection to the one filed by the Ebenezer Church Trustees. The Courtice United Church representatives feel that taverns and alcoholic beverage outlets should not be permitted within the area affected by By-law 81 -125. Our staff response to this objection is the same as the one outlined in our earlier comments (see 2 above) regarding the objection by the Ebenezer United Church. Staff believe that with the large lot area and yard requirements and with the exclusion of residential and most other uses that would normally attract children, the Special Purpose Commercial Areas are better suited than most Commercial areas to accomodate these types of uses. l i I Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./12 4. Mrs. Marilyn Huether Mrs. Huether has objected to Special Purpose Commercial uses being permitted on two residential lots immediately west of her dwelling. She believes that Commercial development on these lots would disturb her enjoyment of her residential property. Mrs. Huether does not, however, object to Commercial Zoning on the lands west of the two dwellings that are presently used as part of an auto sales establishment. The lands which extend from the westerly limit of Mrs. Huether's property to Darlington Boulevard are designated Special Purpose Commercial Node in the Darlington Plan, and as such, the proposed zoning is considered to be in conformity with the Official Plan. The zone requirements set out in By-law 81-125 provide a minimum side yard requirement of 10 metres where a Commercial use abuts a lot having a residential use thereon and require a "minimum landscaped area" requirement of 20%. In addition, the minimum lot area requirement would require consolidation of existing holdings prior to new development taking place. Similarly, the requirement of the amending by-law for full municipal services would preclude any immediate change in land use, due to the necessity of extending services to this area. Given these zone requirements and given that By-law 79-151 would require that a site plan agreement be executed prior to the establishment of any commercial use, staff believe that reasonable separation and protection of adjacent residential uses is ensured. Based on the foregoing, staff are recommending that the draft By-laws attached to this Report be forwarded to Council for approval . Planning staff recommend that the Municipal Board be requested to provide direction on any notice that may be i Report No. : PD-32-82 . . ./13 required so that these By-law amendments can be considered at the same time that the hearing is held to deal with By-laws 81 -123, 81-124 and 81 -125. Respe u1ly'submitted, j CZ � y I T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. Director of Planning i FA/mjc February 15, 1982 i I i i i THIS IS SCHEDULE IX' TO BY-LAW 81- 12-3 Septemb PASSED THIS 21st ,- DAY OF e A.D. 1981 . J•G. CHIPMAN, Solicitor, on behalf of VALIANT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT R ..X I. CAPPUCCITTI U) 63-4m 71.5m 30-5m rn _j 0 kw. 11m 0 .5-e _3 G WA,( E. WHITING > .5. >1 UJ Z' Z O E Z 3 HA A4 .0 O'n behalf z lf Of A.i S olicit or 73 KINSMAN MAN <w 4z 7rn 16 zm ZONE CHANGE TO SPECIAL 81— 123 PROVISION BY-LAW LOCATION OF OBJECTORS G.13 Rickard ,Mayor 0 50 150M C 50 David W. Oakes, Clerk TINS IS SCHEDULE '>C' 'TO BY-LAW 81- 124 , PASSED T1-11S 21st DAY OFSe-`emberA.D• 1951 . V ZONE CHANGE TO SPECIAL PROVISION BY—LAW 81-124 G Cr' M 5 8 2 8 3 m< k•.w w a: w i;> O R.S.JONES,E Solicitor,aiwl�ik:� ::sY:%i t r on r":D : J behalf LD m : . U I S G J. V C IT 0 R S o or z a�2{� � It �,w �o behalf oI f of J A P AD A K IS W & �. T . SA LL A AK OS o F- ..: W 2+ W s` o O U HIGHWAY Na HAYyygR ::"< H 2 SUPPORT �z z 10 LOCATION OF 06JECTORS r 0 25 50 IOOm G.B. Ickord , ayor 20 �- D.W. Oakes, Clerl( THIS IS SCHEDULE 'X' TO BY—LAW 81 - 12') PASSED I H1S 21st — DAY OF SeptembeA.D. 19 S 1 ,. �1 f ZONE CHANGE TO SPECIAL PROVISION BY-LAW BI--. O J Q _O O c 2 c l+ll H1 m lsjf4rjf',`5!r%:'e' %4i'` Q) iyr'��'s;;;'.�;%•'lj''?,;ravl{;iii'.irr'c��[�/?�':I�i;;,�l��'�.''y :. :/.r::i:>::fJ+:';ry:?!,;•:?ciL?r;4rrltCj:; N........:..::..::.:::. .i "`•hri r. (r 0: �:. G r r,.. J... , i...+ r.. t.:r / 1., f r Jr. i. ( :1 i 1-3m S O J B D of U E i TR ST E S i COURTICE w UNITED CHURCH I I w i 3i � I O I ..........:....... J ci c RD ALLOW. BTW. CONC• I & 2 BD.of TRUSTEES LOCATION OF EBENEZER// , UNITED CHURCH p OBJ ECTORS G.B. ickard , Mayor 0 25 50 loom 20 D.W.Oaliee, Clerk 5 Cam) ® CUMAM aooe•o600®000eso ► o®6010 e.oe••..•. DURHAM October 9, 1981 CDPIES TIM The Regional 0 Du�hamy Mr. David W. Oakes , A.M.C.T. Clerk Planning Department Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street 105 Consumers Dr. Box Bowmanvi l l e, Ontario �r9 Whitby, Ontario L l C 3A6 if r Canada,L1N 6A3 (416)668-7731 Dear Mr. Oakes: Fenceof ..... ... .. ... . .. . .. . D11. M. R. MICHAEL, M.C.IR Re: Restricted Area By-laws 81-123 and 81-1 Commissioner of Planning This letter is in response to r corres Septembe r 29, 1981 , requesting a statement of conformity (Schedule 3) related to the above by-laws. As discussed with Mr. T. Edwards of your Planning Department, I regret to inform you that I am not in a position to certify their conformity to the Official Plan since the by-laws in their present form include provisions allowing motor vehicle gasoline bar and service stations indiscriminately and not in a special zone contrary to Section 8.3.3.3 of the Durham Regional Official Plan. I would respectfully suggest since there is presently no apparent pressures to construct a service station in this general location that you delete this provision. Thereafter you may wish to examine the issue of service stations and the appropriate designations on its merits and decide which locations you would like to allow within a special zoning category. In this way I will be in a position to certify the by-laws forthwith. I trust that you will examine this matter with the. view to expedite the by-laws outside the issue of the service stations which, at times, as you are aware, create a lot of objections. If you have any questions related to this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Yours very truly, FF r i Dr. M. Michael , M•C.I.P. n� � � � ' .' Commissioner of Planning ' J :JS � �' Tutu cc: Mr. D. Smith, Chief Administrative Officer Intll'�� C'f �Ba:..'��,��� .OCT Mr. T. Edwards , Deputy Planning Director CLERf( DC LNr J /t J� ✓ DURHAM December 21, 1981 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department Mr. David Oakes Box 623 Clerk 105 Consumers Dr. Whitby, Ontario Town of Newcastle Canada,L1N 6A3 (416, 668-7731 40 Temperance Street Bownanville, Ontario LIC 3A6 DR. M. R. MICHAEL, M.C.I.P. Commssioner of Planning Dear Mr. Oakes Re: Restricted Area, By-law 81-123 Town of Newcastle We have reviewed the provisions of the above by-law having regard for the revised rules of procedure, effective September 1, 1979, and the guidelines for Regional comments as suggested by the Ontario Municipal Board. A copy of our report is attached herewith. Yours very truly, r Dr. M. Michael , M.C.I . . Commissioner of Planning :cc Encl . cc: C. Saruyama Ontario Municipal Board Co.� 7 I S�a� Restricted Area By-law 81-123 Town of Newcastle December 21 , 1981 Location: Part of Lots 32, 33, 34 and 35, Concession 1I, former Township of Darlington. Proposal To rezone the subject lands to "Special Provision By-law 81-123" to permit Special Purpose Commercial uses and existing uses as well as motor vehicle Gasoline Bars and Motor Vehicle Service Stations . Conformity with Official Plan: The subject site is designated "Residential " in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Section 8.3.2.2 of the Durham Plan stipulates that: ,I. . . . . . . .without the necessity of an amendment to this Plan, an existing commercial strip within or outside an urban area may be allowed to consolidate into a node provided that such node is developed in accordance with good urban design principles and with common internal traffic circulation, common ingress and egress for traffic, and access to arterial roads only by service lanes or collector roads. " The subject site is designated "Special Purpose Commercial Node " in the Cou rtice Major Urban Area Plan Plan which was approved by the Minister as Amendment No. 12 to the Official Plan of the former Darlington Planning Area. The Special Purpose Commercial component of the proposal conform to the land use designations in both the Durham Plan and the Darlington Official Plan. With respect to the permitted Motor Vehicle Gasoline Bar and Motor Vehicle Service Station, Section 8.3.3.3 of the Durham Plan stipulates that existing and new automobile service stations shall be zoned within a special zoning category in the zoning by-laws. The subject by-law does not establish a separate zoning category for such uses and accordingly, this component of the by-law does not conform. Services : Section 8.3.3.4 of the Durham Regional Official Plan states that "Special Purpose Commercial Areas within Urban Areas shall be fully serviced by municipal water and sewage systems and this shall be a necessary condition before special purpose commercial development is permitted". In this regard municipal water service is available only to those portions of the subject lands abutting Townline Road. The remaining lands without frontage on Townline Road can he serviced by way of watermain extensions on Highway No. 2. Sanitary sewer service is not immediately available to the subject site. Servicing of the subject lands will require sewer extensions on Highway No. 2 from the Farewell Creek Trunk Sanitary Sewer. In addition, we understand from the Town of Newcastle staff that the Town intends to amend the subject by-law to require new development or redevelopment to proceed on the basis of full municipal services in accordance with the policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan. i Dr. M. Michael , M.C. I.P. Commissioner of Planning i i i i CABLE ADDRESS 'BESK" TELEX 06-22687 TELEPHONE (416) 593-5511 TELECOPIER \ c,/✓,CY/j�Y��141 -Cl/12�r�OGCCl�07� R.V.ELLIOT,O.C. J.T.AOIINSO N,O.0 N.R.M—EWEN,O.C. W.L N.SOMERVILLE O.C. R.C. IEECH,O.C. W.S.ROBERTSON,0.C. �( I.A. FALCONER,. Ci. K:W. COT_T, B.FORMAN,O.C. R.A F.SVT HERLAN U,O C D.A.L.BRITNELL,0.C. CORDON DUN NET,q,C. V%✓7C( O 17.�(r_'_LGNGC�C/WY t\///V•j.(L( C I. .McEW IN O.C. K.W.SCOTT,p,C. D,M.HARLEY,0.C. 1.U.HOLDING,O.C. GARTH MANNING.O.C. J.A.COATES 1V.R,MURRAY,q.C. N.J.MUNN G.CIHRA,O.C. R.A.STRADI NAIR O.C. J.D.HYLTON,O.C. J.D.BROOKS J.H Mc C.Mc HAIR J.P.BORDEN,O.C. JORDAN OIMOF F. O C {- R LEE WOODS ",S.SCOTT D.L.MACDONALD L.A.WRIOMT T.A.SWEENEY N J.B.A.DICKIE G E.THOMPSON A.F.OUCH TEED B.LISOWSKI P q pRAVND E A.AYERS /�/�}� j � na(.G W T PAS BY D,S."AU- ON G.E.PET S V L N . ETT MAN W.J.McNEILL J.G.CNIPMAN B.C KEITH T.P.BATES R.P.HUTCHISON J.F.MANN R 5.ECHLIN W D.T.CARTER M . DERM R R.W.KITCHEN EVA M KRASA 5 F.WAOU M.J.LANG P.G FI NDLAY B.H.BRESNER E.N.SCFINEIDEH J,U.DEAN G.B.MORAWET2 R,S,BELL MARGUERITE MOONEY M K.MCKELV EY W.D.R.BEAMISH T.G.ANDREWS S.C.BORLAK ANNE CORBETT MARY MARGARET FOX B.D.MULRONEY A.L,J.PAGE LARISSA V.TKACHENKO 5 WEIR COUNSEL E.R.E.CART•,R,O.G. C.H.MORAWE TZ,O.C. PATENT AND TRADE MARK COUNSEL DENNIS OCOINNOR,0.C, G.JAMES M.SHEARN CLEASE REFER TO: J. ' G. Chipman November 19 , 1981 TO BE DELIVERED Town Df Newcastle, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville , Ontario. L1C 3A6 Attention: Mr. D. W. Oakes Town Clerk Dear Sirs : Re : Restricted Area By-law No. 81-123 We are the solicitors for Valiant Property Management, the owner of lands in the immediate vicinity of the _lands subject to By--law 81-123 . We hereby object to the approval of By-law 81-123 . It is our intention to attend at the hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding By-law 81-123 to speak to and present evidence in support of our objection. Yours very truly, BORDEN & ELLIOT JGC :hp J. G. Chipman c. c . Mr. R. P. Hann Mr. G. Petch iy i Irwin A. Hamilton, B ®m LL Barrister a Solicitor - '°-'-°--~°--_.kV_J P.O.Dox 357 43 Ontario Street Dowmanvillo,Ontario November 13, 1981 LIC 2S4 Telephone 623-7744 Area Code 416 David W. Oakes , A.M.C.T. Town Clerk, Town of Newcastle 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3A6 Dear Sir: Re: your file No. 60 . 35 . 141 By-Law 81-123 I am the solicitor for Audrey Jean Kinsman. Mrs. Kinsman objects to the by-law. Mrs . Kinsman does not object to the general intent of the by-law but only to the area that is shown on Schedule "X" and "X-2" as shown on the by-law. Both Schedule "A" and "X-2" show an irregular southern boundary on the subject lands. This area is shown to be 3. Om X 24 . 4m. This land is in fact owned by Mrs. Kinsman. Enclosed you will find a survey of Mrs . Kinsman ' s property which is described in Instrument Number 17179 . it is clearly shown that Mrs . Kinsman s north boundary is a straight line the length of the property. Accordingly, Mrs . Kinsman objects to the inclusion of part of her property in by-law 81=123. Yours very truly, DISTRIBUTION o. ACV. IAH: jw ®Y; �..... Trwin 'A. 4amilt r0RICaIN cc. Mrs . A. Kinsman AL 'P®,. ®a 9 Townline Road S . COPIES TO: Oshawa, Ontario. ...................