HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-184-81 Gtr. 3S. r�� � `✓- ���
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�DECEMBER 73 1981
REPORT NO. : PD-184-81
SUBJECT: Application for Rezoning Z-A-3-6-9
Part of Lot 32, Concession 7
Former Township of Clarke
Denis and Vella Prue
Recommendations
It is respectfully recommended:
1. That Report PD-184-81 be received;
2. That the subject application Z-A-3-6-9 be approved;
and
3. That the attached by-law be forwarded to Council for
approval at such time as the Applicants have ful-
filled the following requirements:
(i) Submission of an engineering report from a
certified engineer indicating that the
existing dwelling is in conformity with the
Ontario Building Code and approved structurally
as a residence;
(ii) If the existing dwelling is not in conformity
with the Ontario Building Code than the
Applicants must ensure that alterations are
undertaken to bring the structure into
conformity with the Code;
Report No.: PD-184-81 Page 2 I
(iii) That the existing driveway culvert and minor
ditching be brought into conformity with the
present Town of Newcastle standards, design
criteria and approved by the Director of
Public Works;
(iv) Approval of a permit by the Durham Regional
Health Unit indicating that the existing
well and septic system is satisfactory and
in compliance with the Health Unit standards.
Background..
On September 28, 1981 the Planning and Development Committee
considered staff Report P-161-81, attached in respect of the above
referencedsubject matter. Said Report recommended that the attached
by-law be forwarded to Council for approval at such time as the
applicant had fulfilled certain specified conditions. By Resolution
PD-325-81, the Report was referred back to staff for further con-
sultation with Mr. Prue.
Comments
As was discussed at the Committee meeting, there were six conditions
of approval suggested. The first four of these related to the circum-
stances surrounding the original construction of the dwelling. The
other two relative to the existing building located in the flood plain
and the payment of the Town's development charge were suggested
in accordance with the Town's normal procedures when dealing with
flood susceptible lands and new development.
The discussion arising from the Committee meeting seemed to
indicate to staff a willingness on the Committee's part to reconsider
the various requirements which staff were recommending as conditions
of approval. In view of that, staff have undertaken a further review
of these matters and are unable to support any change to the first
four requirements which were directly related to compliance with
various provincial and municipal codes and standards.
However, the status of the existing building presently located
within the flood plain has been clearly established as legally non-
conforming. In that regard, it could be permitted to remain without
affecting the intent of the zoning by-law which is to prohibit new
or further buildings within flood plath areas. We must remind the
Report No. : PD-184-81 Page 3
Committee, however, that it is the intent of the Official Plan and
the zoning by-law that such legally non-conforming uses should in
the long run cease to exist. For that reason, we are not suggesting
any changes to the zoning by-law to recognize this use within the
flood plain. It may, however, continue as legally non-conforming.
The matter of the payment of the Town's development charge
has also been reviewed by staff. Paragraph 2 of By=law 76-58
which establishes lot development charges clearly requires payment
of these charges where development or redevelopment of land involves
a severance or a rezoning. Paragraph 4b of that by-law further ex-
pands on this requirement and requires the payment of these charges
prior to the passing of a by-law amendment. However, a review of the
preamble to the by-law reveals that it is the intent of the by-law
to only require development charges where there is a net increase
in the number of dwelling units that would otherwise be permitted.
In that regard, a prior severance of a lot resulted in a net increase
of one unit. A lot development charge was paid relative to that
severance. Therefore, the subject rezoning would not result in
any further increase since prior to the severance one permit would
have been available for the lot as it existed then. Staff would
therefore have no objection to the waiving of this requirement.
On November 20, 1981 staff discussed the proposed rezoning and
staff's earlier recommendations with Mr. Prue. Mr. Prue has agreed
with staff's suggestion that the earlier requirements, relative to
the building in the flood plain and the lot development charge, be
dropped. However, Mr. Prue does not agree with staff's position
that the other requirements remain unchanged.
It is Mr. Prue's opinion that this situation has developed
directly from the actions of the Town. He suggests that the Town
is responsible through lack of action in enforcing the building
regulations in place at the time and through lack of action in having
the building demolished at the time of the building infractions. Mr.
Prue has further suggested legal action will be taken against the
Town relative to this matter, if he is forced out of the property
by what, he feels, are onerus requirements. Staff, in reviewing the
files, are satisfied that the Town has consistently attempted to
have the non-complying situation rectified, in that regard. Mr.
Prue has confirmed that he was aware of the background surrounding
construction of the house and yet he still acquired the property.
By so doing he has accepted certain obligations to comply with
municipal and provincial regulations. He has also indicated that
at the time of acquisition his lawyer obtained confirmation from
the Town indicating that no further action was to be taken by the
Town relative to the house. Staff have reviewed the department's
files and attach a copy of a letter, from Mr. D. Smith, to the
solicitors for the applicant, which confirms that the Town will
not be proceeding with an injunction earlier granted in respect of
the subject building. Said letter also indicates that the building
(C)
Report No. : PD-184-81 Page 4
was erected without a permit and that we are unable to confirm
compliance with the Ontario Building Code. The letter does not
relieve the municipality of any obligation to satisfy itself as
to Building Code Compliance prior to amending the zoning by-law to
legalize the existing use.
Mr. Prue has indicated that both he and his mortgage company
accept the fact that the building may not comply with the Code and
are only concerned with by-law compliance. While it is possible to
rezone the lands to permit the existing use, by doing so the Town
would be accepting the non-complying nature of the dwelling and at
the same time ignoring the past circumstances surrounding its
construction. Staff cannot, in good conscience, recommend such
action since it would only perpetuate the existing situation which
prior Councils have indicated as being unsatisfactory. Witness
their legal proceedings against Mr. Thompson the builder of the
house. To, at this time, legalize the situation would be contrary
to the intent of those actions which has consistently been to bring
the property into compliance with both the applicable building reg-
ulations and zoning By-laws.
As stated above, Mr. Prue contends that the Town is, in part,
responsible and should now rezone the property to correct the situ-
ation. Staff cannot accept this argument since Mr. Prue did purchase
the property fully aware, by his own admission, that the house was
illegally constructed,in terms of both the then applicable building
regulations and zoning by-laws. The Town has, id staff's opinion, a
responsibility to ensure compliance with Municipal and Provincial
regulations. If the Town is not satisfied as to such compliance
then no action should be taken which would violate the inherent
protection to ratepayers manifest in those regulations and by-laws.
The onus of compliance must, therefore, remain with the applicant
and the property only rezoned upon meeting the Town's requirements as
outlined by the staff recommendation.
Respect-fu submitted,
s
T( T. Edwards, M.C.I.P.,
TTE:c,c Deputy Director of Planning.
Zk
„1'
`h
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCAST LE s<<)
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB 1JO D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P.,Director
TEL. (416)263-2231
January 8, 1980
Messrs. Van Nest & Sebert
Barristers and Solicitors
118 King Street East
P. 0. Box 145
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
LIC 3K9
Dear Sirs:
Re: Prue (property formerly Thompson
property) Part Lot 32, Con 7, Clarke
Further to your letter of January 3, 1979 regarding the
above, please be advised that the Town of Newcastle has undertaken
the rezoning of the above-mentioned property to' permit a single-
family dwelling and accessory buildings under an "RR-3" zoning
category.
By-law 79-136 of the Town of Newcastle was adopted on December
3, 1979 by Town Council and will be circulated to all property owners
within 400 feet (as per Municipal Board regulations) in the near
future.
In light of the action to rezone the subject property, it
may be assumed that the Town will not be proceeding with the injun-
ction referred 'to in your letter.
It should be noted that as the building on the property was erected
without a building permit, it is not possible to indicate whether the
building complies with the Ontario Building Code. I trust this infor-
mation will be of assistance.
Yours very truly,
DNS:Ib D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
By-law Number 81-
Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area By-law
1592, as amended, of the former Township of
Clarke.
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
deems it advisable to amend Restricted Area By-law 1592, as amended, of
the former Township of Clarke.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Town of
Newcastle ENACTS as follows:-
1. Section 5.3 of By-law 1592, as amended, is hereby further amended
by adding thereto the following subsection (e) :-
"(e) Leskard Road RR-5
Notwithstanding any provisions of this By-law to the contrary,
that parcel of land designated "RR-5" on the attached Schedule "A"
hereto shall be used only in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) Permitted Uses
(i) One existing single family attached dwelling.
(2) Zone Provisions
(a) Lot Area (minimum) .46 hectare
(b) Lot Frontage (minimum) 51.5 metres
(c) Front Yard (minimum) 65.0 metres
(d) Side Yard (minimum.) 9.5 metres
(e) Rear Yard 11.5 metres
(f) Gross Floor rea (minimum) 111.5 square metres
(g) Building Height 10.0 metres
2. Schedule "A" to By-law Number 1592, as amended, is hereby further amended
by changing to "RR-5" the zone designation of the lands designated "ZONE
CHANGE TO RR-5" on the attached Schedule "X" hereto.
- 2 - By-law No. 81-
3. This By-law shall come into effect on the date hereof, subject to the
provisions of Section 35 (10) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1970.
BY-LAW READ a first time this day of A.D., 1981.
BY-LAW READ a second time this day of A.D., 1981.
BY-LAW READ a third time and finally passed this day of
A.D., 1981.
MAYOR
(seal)
CLERK
THIS IS SCHEDULE 'X' TO BY-LAW 81-.�,
PASSED THIS DAY OF A. D. 1981,
RD. ALLOW. BTW. CONC. 7 and 8
N77 002 30°E
z
81 982rrr,
M�
E
m
MO rn
0 co
O �
2
NBSv z
2?.432m N72041'E 74.774m
(SEAL ) 11ZONE CHANGE TO RR-5"
G.B. Rickard, Mayor 0 100 200 400m
200 50
D.W. Oakes, Clerk
KEY MAP
FORMER TOWNSHIP OF CLARKE
1 =25000