HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-57-81 /6 /3,
r
1V
1
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT D.N.SMITH,M.C.I.P.,Director
HAMPTON,ONTARIO LOB UO TEL.(416)263-2231
REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF APRIL
13, 1981.
REPORT NO. : P-57-81
SJEC eques to Am-end the Town of ewcas e Building
By-law - Correspondence from R. J. Rutherford
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that:
1. This Report be received; and that
2. A copy of this Report be forwarded to Mr. Rutherford;
and that
3. No further action be taken.
BACKGROUND:
The attached correspondence from Mr. R. J. Rutherford
was forwarded to the Planning and Development Department for a
Report to the Planning and Development Committee. Mr. Rutherford
requests that the Town consider an amendment to By-law 79-8, being
a part of the Town's Building By-law and requiring the owner of
property to submit a Plan of survey or an Ontario Land Surveyor's
Certificate verifying that the foundation of a new building is sited
in accordance with the requirements of the Building Permit. Mr. Rutherford
2 -
indicates that in his situation, he has applied for a building
permit to erect a new house in the same location as a structure
which was demolished, the older structure being located on a farm
of approximately 100 acres and having been in place for over 100
years.
COMMENTS:
Staff have reviewed Mr. Rutherford's letter and agree
that in some situations the requirement for a survey or Certificate
as specified in By-law 79-8 may be onerous. Staff feel this is
particularly true for permits applied for in Agriculture zones,
where it may be readily apparent that a new foundation meets all
setback and yard requirements.
Staff have requested the Town's Solicitor to review Section
2.5 of the Building By-law and attach a copy of his response. Staff
share the Solicitor's concern that an amendment to the By-law to allow
the Chief Building Official discretion in requiring a survey or Certi-
ficate may be an improper delegation of authority. Most certainly,
it puts staff in a very difficult position in that continual requests
for exemption from Section 2.5 of the Building Bylaw may be expected.
As noted in Mr. Sims' correspondence, By-law 79-8 was
adopted by Town Council as a result of the situation between Mrs.
Mackay and Solina Investments Limited. The By-law was instituted
specifically to avoid any future possible disputes as to the location
of buildings. On the basis of that past experience and the concerns ex-
pressed above, Staff do not feel that a further amendment to the Building
- 3 -
By-law is warranted and feel that it would be appropriate for the
above Recommendations to be forwarded to Council by Committee for
adoption.
Respectfully submitted,
D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P.
Director o_fPlanning
I G. W4gh&
DNS:lb Chief Building Official
March 16, 1981
� mss-.•. ,� 2/ ,!1,;�,-, z
�'">^-'�-L��' � Imo•-��-�--<-.-,1 �,`,>✓1.t"�--C C,A / �`/�•• .mac. .., �.'• rJ ..-Z[�C�.c-•.. ,��_�t .�`./�c..
.- `r m
( / l.�c�--cam., -rt<.-., r� - •� ,--,--..-Z.Z. -..
...•l ._E'.-•.'...�..7--C�--�rJ a.t / A ` .i/t-C
/.mac. .�lLf-{�cd 1_. - i• .:C--Ci-L ..%cam"<-" `Z.( -�.t,">�J�Cwc[,�~. Y
/� r ft'--t-Lc„�.� l tip`. 1.1-<''C�/ � �+-r)--(-t-tom(-✓..y
J
-r\ ��-T���,�i�"-�,c>-GLf-,� \ ..�/mot `)d.L��.-,• ,G�� , : C Gi• �•�Y.-c,�--.-C L,.rLt.•� .�(./.C(,
r
X c I-
�/ � .,,f--t'�-s.,_�/\ l-":�lr -t 1-t�l�(-.._. _. /VT f-,1 a�.1. 1.I,^ • _. .—. -... ...�_/
J �• _c'�.f 1.-<_i L �. ./�.f,. -bl � -G . `) ��.-^-J �-�.c –<:C�.
rtU
T0WIN ,,,P NEWCASTLE
dLERK DIPAR7tWN't
Ff
111JI'Li lvx"Ktoll McInerney, 'All A,1, R.P. MORTON
f M.C. McINERNEY
BARRISTERS & SOLICITORS I.F. BRADY
W.M. BURCH
F
i
March 5 , 1981
Mr. D. Smith,M. C. I . P . ,
iDirector of Planning,
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle ,
-- -` ------- Municipal Buildings-,
Hampton, Ontario .
Dear Mr. Smith:
Re : Section 2 . 5 of the Town of
Neweastle Building By law
Thank you for your memo dated
February 24th, 1981 together with a copy of Mr. Rutherford ' s
letter dated February 17th, 1981 .
You will recollect that Section 2 . 5
of the Building By-law was enacted as a direct result of
the situation that arose between Mrs . Mackey and Solina
Investments Limited.
I The requirement of a survey or a
surveyor ' s certificate protects not only the Town but
also the owner of the property. Moreover, the survey or
surveyor' s certificate is a valuable document for the
owner of the property to have in his or her possession upon
the sale of the property.
I do--_not disagree that the average cost
of the surveyor ' s certificate might be approximately $100. 00 .
If it is felt desirable -the provision
in the Building By-law could be amended to allow some
discretion to the Chief Building Official . The proposed
amendment would be add after the words "or a certificate
117 NISG STREET, WHITBY, ONTARIO LIN 4Z1 BOX: 358 TELEPHONE: 668-7704
IV
- 2 -of an Ontario Land Surveyor" the following words "or such
other evidence satisfactory -to the Chief Official " . IIow---
ever , I have some concerns about the legality--of--such a
provision inasmuch as discretion is being delegated by
council to the Chief Building Official and such a delegation
may not be upheld by the court. Moreover, if the foregoing
suggested phrase is incorporated into the by-law the Chief
Building Official will be requested for exemptions in many
cases. This will put considerable pressure on the Chief i
Building Official whereas, at present, he can rely on the
specific requirements of Section 2 . 5 of the Building By-law.
I
I-f you h-ave an ue-s-t-ions !
y- - �q p-1�-mss e da
not hesitate to contact me .
David J. D. Sims, Q. C .
DJDS :mrs
i
I
I
i
i
I