HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-082-02
.... l)
CWiJ!gtOO
REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
PUBLIC MEETING
Report #:
GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTi,We:;3/ t - 0;;;2-
Monday, September 9, 2002 1);tf G
PSD-082-02 File #: ZBA 1986-060 By-law #: ~ - / Lf 5
Meeting:
Date:
Subject:
REZONING APPLICATION
APPLICANT: WAYNE ALLEN
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PSD-082-02 be received;
2. THAT the rezoning application submitted by Dan Strike on behalf of Wayne Allen be
referred back to Staff for further processing and preparation of a subsequent report;
3. THAT all interested parties listed in this report and any delegations be advised of
Council's decision.
Submitted by:
Da id rome, M.C.I.P.,R.P.P.
Director, Planning Services
Reviewed by: ~ ~ - o-v---
Franklin Wu
Chief Administrative Officer
AR*L T*DJC*sn
August 29p, 2002
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-0830
637
REPORT NO.: PSD-082-02
PAGE 2
1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS
1.4 Site Area:
Wayne Allen
Dan Strike
To rezone the property from "Urban Residential Type One (R1)
Zone" to an appropriate commercial zone to permit the continuation
of an existing motor vehicle repair garage and automobile glass
replacement establishment.
1088 square metres (0.27 acres)
1.1 Applicant:
1 .2 Agent:
1.3 Rezoning:
2.0 LOCATION
2.1 The property under consideration is located at 12 Temperance Street in Bowmanville
(See Attachment 1). The subject property is located within Part Lot 12, Concession 1,
in the former Town of Bowmanville.
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 The original repair garage on the property dates back to 1945. Assessment records
indicate that the building on the property was constructed in 1940. Between 1945 and
1986, the property was acquired by the Newcastle Hydro-Electric Commission, also
formerly known as the Bowmanville Public Utility Commission, and was used for storage
and minor repairs to the truck fleet.
3.2 The property was in the ownership of the Newcastle Hydro-Electric Commission in
1984, when Zoning By-law 84-63 was adopted. In July of 1986, the applicant Wayne
Allen acquired the property with the intention of using it as a repair garage. He
subsequently applied for a minor variance to permit the operation of a repair garage as
a similar or compatible use to the purpose for which it was used on the day the by-law
was passed (A58/86). On October 31, 1986, the Committee of Adjustment denied the
minor variance, stating that as "the Public Utilities [use] is a permitted use within any
zone it is not considered a Legal Non-Conforming use; therefore it is not within the
committee's jurisdiction to deal with this application."
638
REPORT NO.: PSD-082-02
PAGE 3
3.3 The applicant then submitted an application to rezone the property from residential to
commercial (DEV 86-060). At the December 15th meeting of the General Purpose and
Administration Committee, the Committee approved the application on the condition that
the applicant obtain site plan approval from the Municipality. This condition remained
unfulfilled until the Spring of 2002, when the applicant submitted an application for site
plan approval. In the interim, a new Official Plan was approved by Council which does
not permit motor vehicle garages in this area (see Section 5). In consideration of the
time that has passed, staff informed the applicant that an additional public meeting on
the 1986 rezoning application, would be required.
4.0 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND SURROUNDING USES
4.1 The subject lands are located within the older built-up area of Bowmanville. The
building is set close to the Temperance Street road allowance and encroaches on the
property to the north. A gravel parking area covers the bulk of the site.
4.2 Surrounding Uses:
East - Church and Rectory, Residential uses beyond
North - Commercial uses
West - Residential uses
South - Vacant; formerly lawn bowling club
5.0 OFFICIAL PLAN POLICIES
5.1 The Clarington Official Plan designates the property as "Street-Related Commercial
Area" within the Bowmanville East Main Central Area Secondary Plan. The proposed
use does not conform with the provisions of the "Street-Related Commercial Area"
designation.
5.2 However, at the time that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommended approval of the rezoning application in 1986, the Official Plan of the
former Town of Newcastle, which was in place at the time, showed the property was
639
REPORT NO.: PSD-082-02 PAGE 4
designated "Commercial". The "Commercial" designation at the time permitted the
mechanical repair of vehicles.
6.0 ZONING BY-LAW CONFORMITY
6.1 The lands subject to the application are currently zoned "Urban Residential Type One
(R1) Zone". In order to permit the existing motor vehicle repair garage and automobile
glass replacement establishment, a rezoning application was submitted for
consideration.
7.0 PUBLIC NOTICE AND SUBMISSION
7.1 Public notice was given by mail to each landowner within 120 metres of the subject site
and a public meeting notice sign was installed on the lands.
7.2 The property owner of the abutting property to the south contacted Staff to raise his
concerns with the application. While he recognized prior approval of GPA committee in
1986, he wanted to ensure that the continuation of the repair garage use did not have
any adverse affects on the development of his property. His property (the former lawn
bowling club) has a retaining wall which supports the parking area of the subject
property. He questioned the possible impacts of drainage and vehicle weight on the
retaining wall. Further, he noted the current Official Plan designation of "Community
Facility" for his property and questioned the compatibility of an abutting repair garage.
8.0 AGENCY COMMENTS
8.1 The application was circulated for comments on the site plan application. The
Municipality of Clarington Building Division, Clarington Emergency Services
Department, Clarington Engineering Services Department, and Durham Region Public
Works Department have no objections to the proposal at this time.
8.2 The application has also been circulated to the following agencies for review.
. Central Lake Ontario Conservation
. Local Architectural Advisory Committee
640
REPORT NO.: PSD-082-02
PAGE 5
9.0 COMMENTS
9.1 The agent for the applicant has submitted a rationale for the continuation of the current
use of the property as a motor vehicle repair garage and automobile glass replacement
establishment (See Attachment 3). The principle argument in favour of the rezoning is
that, notwithstanding the interruption of the legal non-conforming status by the "public
use" of the property, the site has continuously been used as a repair garage since the
1940's. Further, no objections were received from circulated departments and agencies
or members of the public in 1986. Thus, the application was awarded conditional
approval by the GPA Committee in 1986.
9.2 Since 1986, however, with the adoption in 1996 of the Clarington Official Plan, the
Official Plan designation of the subject property has changed. Section 5.4 of the
Bowmanville East Main Central Area Secondary Plan states that "existing uses within
the Downtown which are not compatible with the historic character of the area, such as
auto-related sales and service, service stations, and commercial uses with outdoor
storage, shall be encouraged to relocate to areas outside the Downtown,"
9.3 Section 23.5.4 of the Clarington Official Plan indicates that Council must be satisfied
that the use is appropriate and compatible in the existing location, and that it is not
feasible to relocate the use, prior to passing a by-law to recognize the continuation of a
non-conforming use. Council may determine that additional information or studies are
required to establish that the proposal meets these criteria.
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 As the purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements for the Public Meeting under
the Planning Act, and taking into consideration all of the comments received, it is
respectfully requested that this report be referred back to Staff for further processing
and the preparation of a subsequent report.
641
REPORT NO.: PSD-082-02
PAGE 6
Attachments:
Attachment 1 - Key Map
Attachment 2 - Key Map for SPA 2002-027
Attachment 3 - Letter from Dan M. Strike, agent for the applicant, dated May 7, 2002.
Interested parties to be advised of Council's decision:
Dan Strike
Strike Salmers and Furlong
38 King Street West
PO Box 7
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L 1 C 3K8
Wayne Allen
2892 Highway No.2
RR#4
BOWMANVILLE, Ontario
L 1 C 3K5
Paul Kahn, 1317850 Ontario Ltd.
C/O Diamond Fischman and Push man
179 King Street
OSHAWA, Ontario
L 1 H 1C2
642
ou~
~4'
S'h
~ ~~~
ATTACHMEINT 1
-i/4'Q
S'~
~~
i:
.~
c,
&
<I
9.~
~
DEV.86.Q60
Zoning By-law Amendment
Owner: Wayne Allan
643
I
I
1---
I
,
I
I
I
-- -- -- -- ..- -- T- -- -- -- -- -- ---,
RIGHT OF WA Y .,
,~,.,,':;~::" N67"15'40"W 39.93m :II
v-
o
(lUSTING ONE STOREY
CONCRETE BLOCK BUlLOING
EXISTING ONE STOREY
BRICK BU,U),NO
(NO 12 Tn'PER.M'lCESTREET)
E
l!'l
0.,.
I"'-
~
E
l!'l
~ 'J@ I @
QJl '~". ~
~
m
N
,
L (llIST,'" 7
CAA'<'I:Ll.Ol
GolR~...oR(tyUIlG
...
L ,,",'~ 7
GAA\U ~OT
W'
o
'<t
l!'l
o
N
N
,Z
,
,
,
L EXISllMG 7
(lAAVUlOl
r-.
,
.,
-~~.
,
,
,
L....
W
.
o
o
m
o
i0
N
Z
@
(2).
o ,I 0.
(JII5l'lMG~'-(!'!4I'~
pt5llHCGoJ8IQIIItIPIW' lJI'I<~E10IIEII""-
:r:-"'N70.14'20'W 40.5m
{lClSTl!4C 1~.o;Iol..- \
T1lEEI0~
I
III
I II
ATTACHMENT 2
~~.J~~ I-
~(w.Mt I
......""" LU
\t'~ LU
V-flR(ROOl a:
t5
LU
()
Z
<(
a::
LU
Q.
::E
I.U
I-
=/':"-
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~
TO~1
I
I
~
,,-
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
SPA 2002.Q27
Site Plan Application
iE,
Owner: Wayne Allan
644
ATTACHMEINT 3
Strike, Salmers and Furlong
Barristers & Solicitors
Allan W. Furlong
Ronald R.M. Strike David W. E. Salmers
Catherine L Salmers Dan M. Strike
Practising in association, not a partnership
Zenovi T. Salmers. Law Clerk
w. Ross Strike (1895' (987)
A. Alan H. Strike, (Retired)
Reply to: Bowmanville
May 7,2002
W~Tr' fir. .,.t':",'. \ vn..,f". ',....
L~ \ l \, _j i \'.'i I,,' :; \':,
. l-' , ... >.-~ I ,.'~ r! i \ \ ,i l
1\ .'. . ,,"
I \," ','.'i
t ~./: A' [1' 71' \
MUNICIP"U:' Ii I.,Li.,c,INli I iii' \,
PLI\N[']il'lb ~ !~i-:,;:;F~1 i\i1E1il..--l
---~_..-
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario L 1C 3A6
ATTENTION: David Crome
Director of Planning
RE: Your File: DEV 86-60
12 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
Further to my telephone conversation with Carlo Pellarin of April 30th, 2002,
I confirm I represent a party interested in purchasing 12 Temperance Street, Bowmanville,
and maintaining its current use as a repair garage/auto glass installation facility. I have
been asked by Carlo to submit my rational to you in writing why I believe an Official Plan
Amendment is not need for the above noted matter. The argument behind not requiring
an Official Plan amendment parallels the reasoning why a new Rezoning application
should not be required.
In the fall of 1986 a rezoning application was submitted to rezone the property from
Residential to Commercial. At that time the Regional Official Plan had the area designated
as commercial and there were no negative comments from the agencies circulated the
application. At the December 15th, 1986, meeting of GP&A, the Committee approved the
application on the grounds that the by-law would be signed by Council after a site plan had
been completed for the property. I am advised by the Applicant that shortly after the GP&A
meeting he had some discussions with the Works and Planning departments regarding
a site plan, however, he nor municipal staff, pressed the issue because it was in existing
use. Because no one really pursued the completion of the site plan it appears to be one
of those issues that just fell through the cracks. The site plan has never been completed.
I am unaware of any provision in the Municipal Act or any other legislation that
specifies a time period within which a rezoning application MUST be dealt with. Similarly
I am unaware of any legislation that puts a limit on the length of time Council has to adopt,
reject or amend a decision of its GP&A Committee, If a new rezoning application is not
required then it follows that since we are dealing with a rezoning application brought
38 King Street West,
P.O. Box 7, Bowmanville, Ontario L 1C 3K8
905,623,5791 Fax: 905,623,8336
55 William Street East. McLaughlin Square,
P.O. Box 2096, Oshawa, Ontario L 1 H 7V4
6 4eDs,723,1101, 905,723,4634 Fax: 905,623,8336
Page.. .2
in 1986, the Official Plan in force in 1986 is the one that must be considered. At that time ,
both the Regional Official Plan and the Darlington Land Use Plan, which had been
amended and adopted by the Municipality, designated the land "commercial" which allowed
a repair garage.
From a practical point of view, if the Motor Vehicle Repair Garage which was
approved in 1986 by the GP&A Committee is then no longer deemed by Council to be
appropriate, Council can refuse to pass the by-law approving the re-zonin9 of the property
on the basis that Staff was unable to reach an appropriate site plan with the Applicant. In
other words, Council can always reverse the decision of the 1986 GP&A Committee so
as to prevent the older re-zoning application if that use no longer reflects the best use for
the property.
An Official Plan is a valuable planning tool which looks to the future in an effort to
regulate and co-ordinate development across the Municipality. The Official Plan is not
designed to be applied to situations such as this, where there is a long standing use which
due to some anomalies does not comply with the plan. Historically, the use of 12
Temperance Street as a repair garage predates even the concept of land use planning.
Enclosed herewith is a photocopy of a picture taken prior to Hydro acquiring the property
in the mid 1900's, confirming the recollection of long time Bowmanville residents about
Ross Hatley's garage, complete with gas pumps out front. But for the fact Hydro's use, as
a public agency, can't be used to promulgate a non-complying status, this rezoning
application would not be needed given the buildings automotive bays have been used for
vehicle repair and maintenance for more than 60 years, even during Hydro's period of
ownership.
Technically if the Municipality proceeds with the 1986 rezoning application an
Official Plan amendment is not needed because the use complies with the Official Plan in
place at that time that the application was made. Historically and from a planning theory
point of view, an Official Plan Amendment is not needed because this is not the type of
situation to which the Official Plan is intended to, nor should be, applied.
Please review the contents of this letter and provide me your comments at
your earliest convenience --- May 14th, 2002 would be nice if possible.
YOURS TRULY
STRIKE, SALMERS
::~,R1J ':15/
Dan M. Strike
DMS/dt
c.c client
P .S. In recognition of the fact that the delay in proceeding with the site plan rests mainly
on his shoulders and that the processing fees of site plans has dramatically
increased over the last 16 years, the Applicant is prepared to pay the increased fee
charged by the Municipality for these services (I.e. site plan, $802.50 less fees paid
in 1986 $30000 = $502.50)
646