HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-42-80 S
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Director's Report to Public Works Committee.
Item: WD-42-80.
Date: March 24, 1980.
Subject: By-Law 80-29.
Darcy, Clarke & Bond Streets,
Village of Newcastle.
Background:
In July of 1978 a request was received that the subject streets
be closed and conveyed to abutting owners. Resolution # W-266-78
supported the closure, in accordance with Town Policy, and was
subsequently adopted by Council.
On March 10, 1980, Council heard objections to By-Law 80-29 (see
correspondence, Dr. R.K. McArthur, attached) and referred By-Law
80-29 back "for clarification"; it is assumed that the referral
was intended to be to the Public Works Committee.
Report:
Correspondence was received from Mr. M.R. Davidson, abutting owner
of property located between Darcy and Clarke Streets, questioning
the validity of the objection to By-Law 80-29, and raising various
querieF relative to zoning and the provisions of By-Law 79-44.
As a result of Mr. Davidson's letter of enquiry (a copy of which
is attached hereto) the opinion of the Director of Planning was
sought and his memorandum commenting on matters relevant to The
Planning Act and Zoning are included in this report. It is noted
in the Director of Planning's memorandum, Item 2. , that former
Block M is clearly defined.
Summary:
In order to comply with Council's request for "clarification of
By-Law 80-29, Dr. R.K. McArthur and Mr. M.R. Davidson have been
invited to attend Public Works Committee and Mr. D.N. Smith, Director
of Planning, will be present in order to respond to matters involving
the Zoning By-Law and The Planning Act.
r.
F
M E M O R A N D U M [MAR 24 IS80,
TO: J. Dunham, Director of Public Works
FROM: D. N. Smith, M.C.I.P., Director of Planning
DATE: March 20, 1980
SUBJECT: Road Closing By-law. - 80-29
Further to your Memorandum of March 17, 1980 in respect
of the above, the following points may be of assistance to you:
1. The Hanning Plan has been deemed by the Town of
Newcastle, i.e. , no internal lots have status;
2. Dr. McArthur's parcel (the former Block M) remains
as a "lot of recordt0 i.e. , a substandard lot under
By-law 79-44 in that it is bounded by three unopen
road allowances and Mr. Davidson's lands. He would
be entitled to a building permit on the land if he
had proper frontage on a municipal road;
3. In order for Dr. McArthur to obtain frontage, he would
have to pay for the cost of constructing Darcy or Clarke
Streets from Park Street;
4. If the Darcy Street road allowance was dedicated in part
to McArthur as per Part 1 of Plan 1OR-1023, his properties
would meld i.e. ; any conveyance, mortgage, etc. for a
portion of the lands would require a consent under Section
29 of the Planning Act;
5. Any consent as per my point 4 will be subject to the
Regional Official Plan consent policies and the provisions
of by-law 79-44 in respect of lot sizes, frontage, etc.
- 2
6. I would suggest that Dr. McArthur be advised, if
appropriate, that the Town would not support a request
to open and construct Darcy Street and/or Clarke Street.
DNS:lb
M E M O R A N D U M
To: D.N. Smith, M.C.I.P. , Director of Planning.
From: J. Dunham, Director of Public Works.
Subject: By-Law 80-29 (Road Closures, Village of Newcastle).
Date: March 17, 1980.
Attached please find copy of correspondence received from Mr. M.R.
Davidson, owner of property abutting Bond and Clarke Streets in the
Village of Newcastle.
This matter has been in progress since July of 1978, and it would
seem to have reached something of an impass at this point in time.
Briefly, Mr. Davidson originally requested the closure and, at that
time, all abutting owners were in agreement with the proposal. Dr.
McArthur, however, recently purchased his property in the area, and
is now objecting to By-Law 80-29.
I would appreciate your co-operation and advice relevant to the
queries put by Mr. Davidson, and would be glad if we could meet to
discuss this matter fully, as soon as possible.
For your additional information, I attach a copy of Reference Plan
1OR-1023, and Dr. McArthur's letter of objection to the proposal.
r
143 Glenrose Ave
Toronto
Ontario
M4T 1K7
March 12, 1980
Mr. J. Dunham
Director
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
Public Works Department
Hampton
Ontario
LOB 1J0
Dear Mr. Dunham,
It was with great interest that I followed the discussions
of the March 10/80 Council Meeting, relevant to the By-law 80-29 ,
the closure of the undeveloped right-of-ways , Darcy, Clark and
Bond Streets. Over the past 21 months the process of closure has
been carried through the required legal steps.
1. The process of closure was initiated at
the July 6/78 meeting of the Public Works
Department ref : Resolution W-261-78.
2. The Corporation has had the land surveyed,
which was completed on August 27/79 .
3 . The land appraiser for the Municipality of
Durham has placed a value on the land in
question.
4. The Town Solicitor, Mr. David J.D. Sims, Q.C . ,
prepared the required closures and conveyances .
5. Durham Regional Council has granted approval
to this By-law 80-29 .
6 . The Corporation of the Town of Newcastle, in
compliance with the required procedures, pub-
lished their intentions, " . . . to stop and close
and authorize the sale of . . . " , in the
Newcastle Reporter.
. . . ./2
2
i
7 . All but one of the land owners abutting
the undeveloped road allowances, have
endorsed the actions of the Department of
Works in the implementation of the closure
proceedings.
It was surprising that one of the four land owners has,
at this late date, raised an objection, and that this single
objection has deterred the Council from carrying out their long
standing intention to pass this By-law. This dissenting land owner
pointed out that the closure of these undeveloped road right-of-ways
would remove the accessibility of some of the undeveloped lots from
these undeveloped right-of-ways . This condition would be the same
for all the other three abutting land owners, and yet they are all
in favour of proceeding with the closures.
The objection raised by the dissenting land owner seemed
to be based on the contention that severance would be granted for
lots 13 , 14, 15 , and 16 in block "M" , in contradiction to By-law
79-44 , dated May 23/79 . This raises several questions relevant to
the validity of the objection:
1. What would be the basis for granting
such a severance to this "dissenting
land owner" in contradiction to the
Zoning By-law?
2 . This section of land, block "M" - 13,
14, 15, and 16 , does not have a frontage
on any existing developed road allowance,
and therefore, is not designated as building
lots . In consideration of the existing
Zoning By-laws , and other regulations , what
might be the basis for permitting severance
of block "M" from block "H" , and permitting
construction on this land?
The three road allowances east of Park Street to Arthur Street
(a non-developed road allowance) , are all short blind allowances,
less than 400 ' long. Does the Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
intend to build these roads? If the answer is negative then why
would the Town not wish to sell these three right-of-ways , totalling
1. 68 acres, to the abutting land owners , realizing capital and
expanding the tax base? Leaving these road right-of-ways in an
undeveloped state represents a loss of annual income to the Town,
and an unwarranted burden on the tax payers in the community.
. . . ./3
3
A logical conclusion drawn from these facts casts
serious doubt on the validity of the objection raised at the
March 10/80 Council Meeting.
As the owner, for some 30 years, of lots 11 and 12 on
Darcy Street, and 11 and 12 on Park Street, in block "M" , the
status of the By-law is of substantial importance. With the
concurrence of the other land owners who have, over the past
21 months, supported the concept of closure of these right-of-ways,
we would appreciate a clarification from you on these questions
raised.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Yours very truly,
M.R. Davidson
cc. Mr. T.M. McIlroy, A.M.C.T.
Town Clerk
Corporation of the Town of Newcastle
MRD:mw
P-0- Box 370 KING STREET
NEWCASTLE, ONTARIO L01UH0
TEL. 987-4466
Februa--r-y 0.
J e 14 o -`-;'icilroy, A. C.T.
C'lerk,
�j
Corpora t4 0-
- of the To;Tn 6:f e c
40 Temperance Stureot,
30wmar-ville , ;--,ntario.
Dear -Er.
With reference to our discussion on Fridlaay, Februax-y Flth,
T should attain like to state my 0'
q the Proposed closure
of Darcy Street a ad Clar?ze 3itree't.
This section of Clarke Street fcr-' s t7le SCuthiern boundary of
MY Property and the sect--'Lon o.-f.' Dia-2;.cy -'reet an question divides
the Property approximately in hal-f .
Although I bought thi' s ---,f a'7, i . unit, 1
was assured by my solicitor that tl-io oxist- n-27 Poad 1'.11owance,
Darcy Street, acted as a natura! se-vcrenae-Lto the pro-�Derty.
hope to build a home on the .,ort'herrq)art of the property
_1 71a_
but may very well ---,,vish to sal ti 'he on bet
C!a-rke Street in the future.
if these tv 0 roads ar e c 1 c;j t h, s 7p c.--c t j o r, 0f' 1gan
will be land locked as it h-'s no o =,y ex?:-:t1!g read i,
For this reason 1 r,-- e s
f u.
u r"I 'cil or
COM-ittee of Council not .:-ass thi-c, f-,jr-c!-:osed byla,,,i.
if poss; ble I ,vjouji -2
c C,-,-,-7.nci-1 on ,iondlay,
l0t-h, and a--ain t:
RK:M/jn
- - - W Fd.(1106) Fd.00106)
i7 -- — -- -- — /®
E.An°1e ` C�
Block H B ock'H' .!�)
• E ��
N n
404 �J
1 I F
10 _ 2 14— J 1`r I. 1J o 1n
O - S W,Angle S..r Angle O O
t IOCk H' B ck H' 4) N
2
lFd�O(1106) ' 2 n
N 71°48�40 (370. 6'plon) 370 32'm6as.
O
PIT 1 �l•� � '� i O
� JI �«LI cn
N7104E'40•'E 132.00' PL.SSIB (0
`"— PART 2 rt<� ����r�; f
r32 00 Fd 0('J06) Z}g}O' Fd 0(1106) '
---I I\ Fd.0005)N71'46'40' ,' 0 (37G J6 Dlon; I 370.30 mgos 'li
j `N.W.Angie N .An le-
1 °
81pCk 'M' '�' I BJ�Ck'M' I
3 (
_r--
I
1 E 11 L z 1J 4 ✓ 6AJ CO
I
— 1 I — L — °�
31 ! o I
Ili 3 0 IS o ' O' '
1J O to
Z N O M
O I tennis `
S.W.Agle S. c_O
' °Block °Fd.mN716541401 3> 0me0s.1B
,
a z
O n r C
(0 Iron° I Pt ° I ^1 /�I J�/1-23B 21 —�C^— C
co 9orme �, , r_ Fd(1005) i r )� dj o�
D 13 ,6a-•' 11 3' PL N71 54'4 "E 238 20'
QJ
[�y��B`1 `�(1��O 1� •• i� N71 5(4 l E ^ 0264.00 p���'ppp6 20 J
PART O•t_lr-�L1 P/V� 618' n 0�
1
p L.J4A6P. ,per . y N71054 40 E (370.26' pion) 370.18 10
° / Fd.(1106)Wit
Net J N W.Angle p Fd 0(1106) ✓ Angle
e et 1-i % 04
1
Block
'P' � I �n•� 81 k'P'
ISSA pa>, 6 lto_r
140 LL/qj,�OMMLL it
.-='c H t3y z 6VL
<T 53 0
o
I NI rJL��rI\ i N
I
v
O
m ?
S w Angle ; ° S L An°,e O O
1 .1 0.
uck I � Fd(1005) B, ct P'
�tl(t005) O c n ° Z
N71 _4 40� E i 3.'C 26 Dlan t'l)OS m.os 'O (` -
t0
264 J. IJ6 09.
r —
09.7 L_2o4.JJ l pq ��6
08' n 1
PL.SS1B N 7J 54 40 E PL 370 08 '� J
PART,),-), 9 'n
~Fd.(1106) 19� . 1 . I'��.r V J 172 C17' 1 o
m I
! tl N 7'O c,4 4t E 37.,26'D1op Fd fO(tt06) 37-`» mfCS _ Z
i N W.Angle N E;Angle J 3
II Block 'S• Blo�k 'S• p
to
1.
n
(305
I � •�I t
G LC)v I - -- - - --- ! °I l`1- �i��0 t�A F_L ,
o
i 1c
Z!
,I
•a 1
S W Angle S E:Anpx -
( Block 'S B14 S' 1 I
rd (1706) Fd i(r,06)
--- ---J-- --___—i �r� -..._. . __. �. ,98_OG•m�cs 171 97'meo3
3 :';C pion - --- - {
FICAP TON
_- ---- — -- 74 00 Fd i 1106