HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-39-82 a r3 5�l
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON, ONTARIO 1-0131,10 TEL. (416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1982
REPORT NO. : PD-39-82
SUBJECT: BY-LAW 81-129 - PART OF LOT 18, CONCESSION 5,
DARLINGTON - HOUSE OF AMBER (FABER)
Our File: Z-A-1-12-4
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the
following:
1 . That Report PD-39-82 be received; and
2• That the attached By-law repealing By-law
81 -129 be forwarded to Council for approval .
BACKGROUND:
On December 7th, 1981 , the General Purpose and
Administration Committee considered Staff Report PD-192-81 ,
dealing with the objections received in respect of By-law
81-129. Said Staff Report (copy attached) recommended
repeal of By-law 81-129 in view of the objections received
to said By-law, and outlined the reasons for such a
recommendation.
V
n�_z r
Report PD-39-82 .. ./2
After consideration of a delegation to the Committee
Meeting, Resolution GPA-197-81 was approved, referring the
Report back to staff for dialogue with the applicants and
the objectors, with a request for a further Report back to
Committee.
On January 7th, 1982, staff wrote to Mrs. Faber requesting
written confirmation of her intention to proceed with the
application for rezoning. This was done as a result of a
newspaper ad contained in the December 30th, 1981 edition of
the Canadian Statesman, which indicated that Mrs. Faber
intended to terminate her business at the subject location.
In response to staff's request, Mrs. Faber has indicated
that it is not her intention to proceed with the application
for rezoning (copy of the letter attached), and in view of
that, staff are recommending that By-law 81-129 be repealed
as per the attache d,.By£-law.
F
Respect," 1 s ibmi tied,
„per== . • r " ��
T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
TTE/mjc
March 4, 1982
0
Mrs. Bonnie. E. Faber. ,
R.R.#1. Bowmanville, Ont. ,
LlC 3K2
51I`jkJ 1 Y �C
AP l � '
Dear Mr. Edwards P�<;r`,;;
In answer to your letter of Jan 7th.1982. I would- like
to confirm the ad you saw in the Canadian Statesman Paper, regarding
the stock sell out, and closing of my Retail Shop- known as House Of
Amber Antique and Gift Shop.
I am pleased to inform you, that I shall not only be
keeping my licence but preserving the well respected Gift Shop name
House Of Amber Antique and Gift Shop. I plan in the future to re-establish
our Business in an area not too far away, but an area that has
brought it's zoning by-laws up to date with the times and will welcome
a fast growing retail store as ours.
I have however decided to close my shop located at the nort'
end of Hampton Village on the Old Scugog Rd. as of Feb.28th. 1982.
Therefore I shall no be requiring your services any longer in regards to
the re-zoning of the business.
I feel truely sorry, that Hampton Village, due to out
dated by- laws and a few very jelous neighbours shall cause the people
of the area to be depribed of having a beautiful Landmard Home, once
known as the Old Manse, as well as a unique Gift Shop, that has become know
to many people in North America as well as Europe. This home has gained
noteriety, by visiting families from distant areas as well as informative
books that have been published, with our home and shop recorded in it,
there for people to know and to enjoy.
I am only sorry that our efforts to give the Village
something that each person could be proud of in their area has been partly
lost, due to such invalid and unapropriate reasons, but the Faber's
residence known as House of Amber shall be remembered by many people for
many years to come.
Yours Sincerely,
(Mrs) Bonnie Faber
House of Amber.
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N. SMITH, M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON, ONTARIO L013 1J0 TEL. (416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING
OF DECEMBER 7, 1981.
Report No. : PD-192-81
SUBJECT: Objections to By-law 81-129
Part of Lot 18, Conc. 5 (Darlington)
House of Amber (Faber)
Our File: ZA-1-12-4
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that:-
1. Report PD-192-81 be received; and
2. That the following By-law be forwarded to
Council for approval;
BY-LAW 81-
Being a By-law to repeal By-law 81-129
"WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Newcastle has
approved By-law 81-129 amending Restricted Area By-
law 2111, as amended, pursuant to their consideration
of an application for such an amendment, submitted
by the affected property owners.
AND WHEREAS the intent of By-law 81-129 was to
legalize an existing use and to recognize such use
as a home occupation and to regulate that use.
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Newcastle has
received certain objections to the approval of By-law
81-129, which objections the Council recognizes as
valid concerns of the residents and which objections
indicate that the existing use of the subject property
has certain adverse effects upon the existing use of
adjacent properties contrary to the intent of Section
16.6.5 of the Durham Regional Official Plan.
Report No. PD-192-81 Page 2
BE IT NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Council of the
Town of Newcastle hereby repeals By-law 81-129" and
3. That the By-law Enforcement Officer and Chief
Building Official take all necessary action to
ensure that the subject property is brought into
compliance with By-law 2111 and the Ontario
Building Code.
Background:
In September of 1980, acting upon an enquiry from a member of
the public, the planning department requested the Town's By-law
Enforcement Officer to investigate the apparent contravention of
the Darlington By-law. On September 23, 1980, the owner of the
subject property was requested, in writing, to cease and desist
their contravention of the by-law. It had been determined, at that
time, that the property owner was operating a retail sales outlet
contrary to the provisions of the "R-3" Residential zone. m
On November 20, 1980 staff received an application for an
amendment to: the zoning by-law. In reviewing the subject application
staff determined that the illegal use was established in 1972 and
that certain changes to the existing structures had been made with-
out benefit of building permits. Consequently not only was there a
by-law contravention but also a contravention of the Ontario Building
Code. In an attempt to correct the situation staff recommended that
the subject property be rezoned to recognize the existing use, pursuant
to Section 16.6.5 of the Durham Regional Plan; that the applicant enter
into a development agreement with the Town; and that the applicant
apply for building permits for the altered structure, to ensure Building
Code compliance. The aforesaid recommendations were contained in Staff
Report P-33-81 which was considered and approved by the Town's Planning
Committee and Council on February 16, 1981 and February 23, 1981,
respectively.
On September 14, 1981, Staff Report P-142-81 was considered and
approved by the Planning Committee. Said report recommended execution
of a development agreement between the Town and the applicants and
that Council approve a by-law amendment pursuant to their prior reso-
lution of February 23, 1981. This recommendation was endorsed by
Council on September 21, 1981 and By-law 81-129 approved.
On October 14, 1981 the Town Clerk undertook the circulation of
the subject by-law. Three objections were received in response to
that circulation and these are summarized below.
Report No. : Pct-192-81 Page 3
Mr. & Mrs. H. Potter
Mr. and Mrs. Potter have objected to the subject by-law on the
grounds that there was no prior notice of this proposed rezoning, the
fact that two businesses are being operated within a residential area,
and that the parking situation during special events is hazardous.
Mr. & Mrs. C. Musgrave
Mr. and Mrs. Musgrave have objected to the subject by-law on the
basis of the following points:
1. The subject business has operated for some seven years in
contravention of the Town's by-laws;
2. There was no prior notice of the proposed rezoning;
3. There are two businesses presently operating from the
residence;
4. This is a residential area;
5. The businesses devalue their property;
6. Lighting associated with the businesses creates a nuisance
and interferes with their enjoyment of their- property.
7. Parking is inadequate and overflows onto the street; s
8. Noise of traffic entering and leaving the parking area
disturbs their dog resulting in further nuisance to them-
selves and other neighbours;
9. The store was never part of the residence but a converted
garage.
Mrs. I Payne
Mrs. Payne has objected to the by-law on the grounds that the
gift shop was never part of the residence but formerly a woodshed and
garage, the fact that advertising exceeds the existing small sign and
includes newspaper advertisements, the applicants have continually
disregarded local by-laws including structural changes without permits,
the sale of food in the shop and the fact that a second business is
operating from the dwelling.
Comments:
The subject by-law was approved by Council pursuant to Section
16.6.5 of the Durham Regional Official Plan. Said Section permits
Council to pass by-laws to recognize existing uses provided that Council
is satisfied that such uses have no adverse effect on the present use
of the surrounding lands or the implementation of the provisions of the
Official Plan.
Staff report P-33-81 recommended approval of the subject by-law
subject to the applicant entering into a development agreement. Such
an agreement was prepared and executed by the Town and the applicants
and was intended to reinforce the subsequently approved zoning by-law
and restrict future changes in use without an appropriate amendment
which would require Council's approval.
Report No. : PD-192-81 Page 4
The aforesaid development agreement and zoning by-law were
recommended for approval by Staff Report P-142-81, and were based
upon the interpretation of the existing use as a "home occupation".
Staff note that the by-law originally proposed for approval contained
specific provisions aimed at limiting the existing use to a home
occupation. That is, an occupation conducted from a residence which
employs only persons residing in that residence and does not change
the character of the residence nor creates a public nuisance relative
to noise, traffic or parking. That by-law was modified by the
Committee to exclude the clauses limiting this to a home occupation
and was subsequently adopted by Council as By-law 81-129.
Staff have reviewed the objections of the residents and are
satisfied that they are valid concerns which require Council's
attention. Staff are very concerned about the fact that a second
business is being operated from the residence. A business which
was never previously disclosed by the applicants and which in all
probability was commenced subsequent to the passing of the existing
zoning by-law and which therefore is also illegal. This business was
not given consideration during the rezoning process or the deva�l.opment
agreement process. The applicants therefore are and were in default
of both the by-law amendment and the development agreement prior to
the approval of either one.
Furthermore, in light of the comments received from the objectors,
staff are not convinced that the nature and scale of these operations
can any longer be considered as a "Home Occupation". Obviously, the
residents have experienced a great deal of nuisance relative to lighting,
traffic and parking and although the development agreement was intended
to protect the residents from such complaints, this business has, on
occassion created traffic and parking problems which would not be con-
sistent with a home occupation. In that regard, the existing use of
the property would not appear to satisfy the requirements of Section
16.6.5 of the Durham Regional Official Plan relative to adverse effects
upon surrounding lands and the subject by-law should not have been approved.
In view of the foregoing, staff have no hesitation in recommending
that By-law 81-129 be repealed and that the owners of the subject pro-
perty be ordered to comply with the Town's Restricted Area (zoning) Bv-
law and that By-law Enforcement and Building Staff take all necessary
action to ensure compliance with Municipal and Provincial regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
l
T. T. Edwards, M.C.I.P. ,
TTE:cc Deputy Director of Planning.
SCIUM JLE 1 fs l
THE CORPOltX1'ION OF THE' /
" TOWN OF NEWCASTIE
By-law No. 81-12'I
a by-law to amend Restricted Area By-law Number
2111, as amended, of the former Township of
Darlington.
WHEREAS tho Council of the Corporatloa of Lite 'Town of Newcautle ducmu
it advisable to amend Restricted Area By-law Number 2111, as amended,
of the former Township of Darlington.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of Cite Town of Nc wcas t le
ENACTS as follows:
1. Map 13 of Schedule "A" to By-law 2111, as amended, is hereby
further amended by changing to SPECIAL PROVISION BY-LAW 81-
the zone designation of the lauds designated "ZONL CHANGE TO
( ' SPECIAL PROVISION BY-LAW 81-121)" on the attached Schedule "X"
V
hereto.
2. Section 13 of By-law Number 2111 , as amended, is hereby further
amended by adding thereto the following subsection 'aa' :
"(aa) Part of Lot 18, Concession 5
Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-law to the
contrary, that portion of Lot 18, Concession 5 designated
"SPECIAL PROVISION BY-LAW 81-129 on the attached Schedule
"A" hereto shall be used only in accordance with the follows:
Vk qW
provisions. In the (`vent tli;It tl«re is any conflict between
the provisions of this SPL•'CIAI. PROVISION and any other pro-
vi:.ion of Lhis by—law 2111 , n:: ainenJecl, then Cite provisions
- 2 -
applicable to an RI Zone, as specified by this By-law
2111, as amended, shall apply.
1. Permitted Uses
(a) one single family dwelling; and buildings and structures
accessory thereto
(b) an antique and gift shop which is wholly contained within
the single family dwelling provided that:
(� ) not more than 30% of the area of the dwelling unit
shall be used for the sale of antiques and lifts;
(ii ) there shall he titan a non-illurir
inated sign nuL more than 0.1 square mutre:s in area;
(iI Lhero.• s;hal l I"- rn„ :;Loragc of 1;ood:; or materi,
on the lands so designated;
IWO there shall l,c no mechanical or oLhur equipment used
except that which is customarily employed in dwelling;_
for domestic or hou:;c•hold purposes; and
(� ) We lands so designated shall be used in accordance
with the provisions of subsection 2 hereto.
2. Zone Provisions
(a) Lot Area (minimum) 1025 .0 m2
(b) Lot Frontage (minimum) 20.5 m
(c) Front Yard (minimum) 15.0 m
3 -
(d) Interior Side Yard (minimum)
(i) maul building 1.5 m
accessory building 0. 75 m
(e) Rear Yard (minimum)
(i) main building 10.5 m
(li) accessory bulldlnl' 0.5 in
(f) Parking Space (minimum) 5
(g) Lot Coverage (maximum) 18%
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date Hereof subject
to the provisions of Section 32 (25) of the Planning �'ct.
BY-LAW READ a first time t1l1s2 1st clay of September , A.D. 1981.
BY-LAW READ a second time t1iis21st day Of September , A.D. 1981.
BY-LAW READ a third time zinc( finally p:t::sccd Uiis 2 1st day of September
A.D. 1981.
G. B. RICKARD, Mayor
(seal)
di I
U. W. OAKE'S, Clerk
THIS IS jCHEDULE Y TO BY- _AW 01-L2-2— ,
PASSED "i H IS -1__s`___ D S ep t embe - �
AY OF A.D. 1981 . i
N 520 39' 20'*E 50.2 9 m
E
COX G.* TO. PERRY co
^ .i
cr
��h•r =z.i� ��d���'� r N
Z ''•' r` I.ia . O D
U 8 N 520 11' 30" E 50.292m
G
N
3
t�
v
N
O
ti
M
Z
,;T ELGIN STREET
ZONE CHANGE TO SPECIAL PROVISION BY-LAW 81-1z9
SCALE 1'500m
20 m 30in
G.B. ickard , Mayor
(SEAL ) /�"
0.W. Oakes , Clerk
SalUAJU 2
LOT 19 IQ 17 _OT 16
CON V I
a+ '
s
z �
SUBJECT LANDS
N Pit. 57
0
L St
Off'
v �
�QP�G
CON V
N tc
� a
� J
Q -1
S
4
SCALE IN MILES
0 1/4 1/2 CO N.IV
17 u
KEY MAP FOR BY- LAW 81 - X29.
cc4��3eit}A rse6tl ac rid , se R,4me people refuse
Weston, the mother . the L. eve the prophets of the pr sc
bride wore an elegant old rose C_ -i'estament who have a 100 as,we
formal gown, burgundy per cent accuracy record in )eca�
feathered hat and burgundy fortelling world events. the c
shoes,and an orchid corsage. The Bible's forecast for asr.a >
I,eavin for a honeymoon at conditions which would be puzz.
Puerto Plata, Caribbean, the very obvious in these last days we ar
bride wore a wool tweed was set down. in the book of of TIT
fl WE'RE OLOS�RO OUR QOORS! burgundy and suede suit, with Revelation as early as 95 A.D. The
HOUSE OF AMUR AIITIOUE A a gray blouse and hat, with We also have a vivid account phetic
shoes ana nanaoag or uur- of Present day conditions in I of t r;
GIFT SHOP iN NA PION VILLAGE Bundy.The groom wore a wool Timothy 4.and 11 Timothy 3- termg
tweed blue jacket and blue -People departing from the thirty`
trousers. faith in L
JV y1 , Mr. and Mrs. Tink are now -Giving heed to cults and Ezeki(
sue. residing in Weston, at 2170 deceivers, doctrines of devils tell of
GIFTSHOP Bromsgrove Road, Missis- (Jim Jones) regath
Hampton,orttado sauga. -Liars and hypocrites great
-Living together without tac:,,ea
Photo by Jim Dodgson marriage, perilous tunes, Russia
Weston lovers of pleasure, covetous, from t
will aF,
intervr
33.
jr
zle cor
prophe
Arab r
united
have s
S
Howse of Amber
House of Amber over one hundred years old. .
stately and Proud,for all to behold.—
warmth and grace she will always claim,
Share with us,dear friends,this honoured name. `
by
foreign
t
Bonnie E disrn(Renstearq Faber i '
Ralp1h
We, at our own free will, have the G:
decided to terminate ourbusiness. plant,
dined t
"ALL iTE S !OUST �� �� '
"Nee
_ r 1 �: quite
SOLD 0 OWEDIATF1 VI g special
�r :� '.� and Col
ative of
Shop open regular hours Engian� "Usual!
Wednesday to Sunday
.. y.
coanp?�t et
We wish to thank our many supporting f the c
customers that have made our y years in Tukk
business a success,to be proud of. Maybe assignrr
someday we will find a unique location that help go
Is in a more progressive area than Hampton, stall a C
and will suit a unique and largely growing system
business,as that of our Shop,the House of where t
Amber. install e
mounia
I have begun a new profession as Kavaca'
.Salesperson for Jack Ricard Real Estate at area o
123 King St. East In Bowmanvilie and will beltin-
alwa s be ha 500 tons
y happy to serve you. We are �
pleased to have met so many fine people about 40
and made so many Mends.Please feel free open pit
to drop in at our home House of Amber Celebrated His .First Birthday terrain t
anytime, or visit me at the Jack Ricard '
Office or call 623-2503. Hi! I am Nicholas John Curtis Vanstone. I was
We are so so to disc one year old on December 15, 1981.My Mommy and
loyal customers with our difficult decision Daddy are Mary-Anne Vanstone and Todd Bate.
to close the store. They think I am terrific. I have a lot of lovely
grandparents who are Curtis and Carrol Vanstone
Thanks once again for your friendship and John and Carol Bate. I am also loved by my
and support.Your friend,Bonnie Faber from
the House of Amber. great grandparents who are Mr. and Mrs. Charlie
Vanstone, Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Milne and Mrs.
Mary White of Apsley, Ontario. Merry Christmas
to all that love me. P.S. My godparents are Art
and Marie Reid, they lover'me too and I love them so
all.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
BY-LAW NUMBER 82- 39
being a By-law 'to repeal By-law 81-129 of the Town of Newcastle
entitled "a By-law to amend Restricted Area By-law Number 2111, as
amended, of the former Township of Darlington";
WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Newcastle has approved By-law
81-129 amending Restricted Area By-law 21,11 , as amended, pursuant to
their consideration of an application for such an amendment submitted
by the affected property owners;
AND WHEREAS the intent of By-law 81-129 was to legalize an existing
use and to recognize such use as a home occupation and to regulate
that use;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
received certain objections to the approval of By-law 81-129, which
objections the Council recognizes as valid concerns of the residents,
and which objections indicated that the existing use of the subject
property had certain adverse effects upon the existing use of
adjacent properties contrary to the intent of Section 16.6.5 of The
Durham Regional Official Plan;
AND WHEREAS as a result of the Town's considerations of the
objections, the applicants have withdrawn the subject application for
rezoning;
BE IT NOW THEREFORE resolved that the Council of the Corporation of
the Town of Newcastle hereby repeals By-law 81-129.
BY-LAW read a first time this 29th day of March 1982
BY-LAW read a second time this 29th day of March 1982
BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 29th day of
March 1982.
MAYOR CLERK