Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD-1-84 �ykOWEEDGE AV CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE V�`6) NASD OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK 40 TEMPERANCE STREET TELEPHONE 623-3379 BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO Li C 3A6 REPORT TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 198 . CD-1-84 - File: 56.15.99. SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7(b) OF REFRESHMENT VEHICLE LICENSING BY-LAW 79-144. RCOMMENDATIONS: 1. That this report be received; and 2. That the request for an amendment to Section 7(b) of By-law 79-144, to increase the distance from 60 metres to 100 metres be denied; and 3. That G. Rutherford, Dari Dream, 215 King Street East, Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 1P4, be so advised. BACKGROUND AND COMMENT: Town of Newcastle By-law 79-144, permits the licensing, regulating and governing of vehicles from which refreshments are sold. Section 7(b) provides that: "The vehicle shall not be used to conduct business . . . within 60 metres of the property on which an eating establishment is located. " On November 25th 1983, a letter was received from Mr. G. Rutherford, Ruthcol Company Limited, carrying on business as Dari Dream and Neighbours Family Restaurants, 215 King Street East, Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 1134, requesting that the By-law be amended to prohibit the operators of motorized refreshment vehicles locating closer than 100 metres from an eating establishment. The By-law Enforcement Officer was requested to review the sites from which refreshment vehicles currently operate and determine their relative distances from the closest eating establishment. 1� Continued . . . . . /2 i CD-1-84 - 2 - January 3, 1984 A copy of Mr. Goodwin's report dated November 30th 1983, is attached for information. I would ask members of Council to note Mr. Goodwin's comment on the effect such an amendment would have upon at least three of the present refreshment vehicle operators ("Mr. Chips", "T & W Chips and Stuff" and "Hanc's Chips"). To amend the By-law in the manner suggested, would force at least two long- standing operations to relocate if possible,or go out of business. It is staff's opinion, that the 60 metre distance offers sufficient protection to the owners and operators of eating establishments and accordingly, it is recommended that the request to extend the distance restriction from 60 metres to 100 metres be denied. Respectfully submitted , i David W. Oakes, B.A. , A.M.C.T. , j Town Clerk. DWO/ms Attachment. December 5, 1983.