HomeMy WebLinkAboutKIN 88 002 Appoint Bldg Secrete
.
.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF KINCARDINE
BY-LAW NO. 1988-2
BEING A BY-LAW TO APPOINT JANICE GIBSON AS A PERMANENT
PART-TIME SECRETARY FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THE
TOWN OF KINCARDINE
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Kincardine
deems it desirable to hire a permanent part-time secretary for
the Building Department:
NOW THEREFORE the Council for The Corporation of the Town of
Kincardine ENACTS as follows:
1.
That Janice Gibson be hereby appointed permanent part-
time secretary to the Building Department and is
hereinafter referred to as permanent part-time
secretary;
2.
Janice
1987-100,
be in
Range
Gibson shall
Schedule "A",
The gross
accordance
Scale "D";
salary of
with By-law
3.
The actual salary of Janice Gibson within Section 2
above shall be adopted by resolution of council.
READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 7th day of January, 1988.
¿~~~ ~ ~l.3;~5
READ a THIRD time
1988.
and FINALLY
PASSED this
7th day
·af January,
.'
. ,
~~-~~
MO, ' - - .':'~;:.;:
-_.-
,
;.
.
.
-::i)ß - ßl
Ontario Municipal Board
Commission des affaires municipales de "Ontario
III 'mB 1IA'1"1'IR OF Section 34 of the
Plannina Act, 1983
AIm III 'I'BE IlAftBR OF appeals by the
Kincardine Dairy Co. Ltd. and Bruce
Cohoon against Zoning By-law 1988-1
of the Corporation of the Town of
Kincardine
C 0 U II S E L :
w. S. Mathers
- for
Bruce Cohoon and Kincardine
Dairy Co. Ltd.
K. L. Evans
- for
the Town of Kincardine
DECI!!HOR OF THE BOARD delivered bv S. WILSON LEE
On March 5, 1987, the Town of Kincardine adopted a new Official
Plan by revising its older plan. This new plan subsequently received
the approval of the Minister on January 31, 1989. Shortly after the
adoption of a new Official Plan, the Town embarked on a revision of
its comprehensive zoning by-law to implement the policies of the new
Official Plan.
By-law No. 1988-1 was accordingly enacted.
Two
appeals to By-law 1988-1 were received following the enactment.
This hearing dealt with these two appeals.
The two appeals both relate to two sections of By-law
No. 1988-1, Section 2.74 which requires that an "improved street"
having a minimum width of 20 metres and Section 4.8 which prevents
the erection of any building or structure in any zone unless the lot
fronts on an improved street.
READ AT COUN IL
DV
.
- 2 -
R 880622
The two appellants are Hr. Bruce Cohoon and Kincardine Dairy Co. .
Ltd.
Mr. Cohoon owns four lots, Lots 33, 34, 35 and 36 of Plan 4, all
of which, except Lot 33, have road frontages on their north and south
sides. The road on the north is Mechanic's Avenue, a local road with
66 feet of paved width which is an "improved street" within the
JllEtaning of the definition of the by-law. The road on the south is
lIechanic's Lane, which has a road allowance of 33 feet about 13 feet
of which has been paved. Xechanic . s Avenue has not been extended to
the front of Lot 33 as that portion of the road allowance is
interrupted by a ravine. The only road frontage Lot 33 has is the
portion that abuts the lane.
Because of the requirements under
Section 4.8 of the by-:lliw, _ Hr .<:o~~", w?uld not be able to erec~~
-1'
house on that lot. His counsel submitted that this constitutes an
undue prejudice as the provisions of the by-law would take away a
right Mr. Cohoon enjoys under By-law No. 4350, the by-law replaced
by By-law 1988-1.
The other appellant, Hr. Donald lIurray, principal of Kincardine
Dairy Ltd. owns a property about a block and a half east of the
Cohoon properties. This property is an irregular shape lot with its
eastern frontage on a local road, Prince Street, and its western
frontage on Mechanic's Lane. At one point this parcel was lllade up
of two separate parcels. The parcel fronting on Mechanic's Lane is
improved upon by a warehouse for milk distribution. The parcel
fronting on Prince Street is vacant. By operation of law, these two
parcels merged when its principal, Mr. Murray, acquired the two
parcels under the same name . Hr. lIurray intends to sever the two
parcels once more. He wants to retain for his own use the parcel
.
.
.
.
- 4 -
R 880622
(66 feet). In addition, it states that the local roads are designed
primarily to provide access to abutting properties. '1'0 some extent,
these policies ..rely enshrine and reflect the existing practices.
The Board finds that the two impugned sections of the by-law,
Le. Section 2.74 which states that an "improved street" is a public
street with a minimum riqht-of-way width and Section 4.8 which
requires frontage on improved streets are merely attempts to
implement the policies of the Official Plan. 'lhe Board is also
satisfied from the evidence presented that the justification for
imposing such requirements is sound. There are ample reasons to
deny developments which do not front on improved streets. From the
standpoint of transportation, planning, servicing and financial
hn""'en on the m\1JÜ.cipaJ.ity the requirements ma.ke obvioul sense. The
_.- ._.-..,-....... '-..- .. -----.<-<,.:--'--- -------------~----- ,- --"--
Board accepts these rationale without reservation. The appellants
have not been able to impeach their validity. There are instances
where developments are allowed fronting on lanes that were ~riginally
designed as secondary access. Stretches of Saugeen Street, Harbour
Street and Park Lane are such instances.
There is a multiple
dwelling structure at the end of Harbour Street which counsel for the
appellants cited as glaring example of such exceptions. On the whole
the Board is satisfied that the Town has successfully maintained the
transportation policies now enshrined in the Official Plan. The
implementing by-law has recognized the exception listed along these
streets by acknowledging their presence and providing exemption for
the application of Section 2.74.
Unlike the exceptions set out above, Mechanic's Lane which both
appellants' premises front on has not been developed to such an
~
~-""'I!'".-
--I
>
- 3 -
R 880622
with the warehouse located on l.t. He made application to the .
ComIittee of Adjustllent for consent to convey the parcel fronting on
Prince Street. The Committee deferred lllakinq the decision pending
the outcome of this hearinq. Although counsel for 1Ir. Murray did not
state explicitly, the gist of his argument is to the effect that the
by-law in question would prevent the Committee of Adjustment to grant
the consent since by operation of Section 4.8 the consent will in
effect create a lot in violation of the by-law. As such, the
Committee will not give the relief. The corollary is that if the
Board allows the appeal, it would clear the way for the Committee to
act.
Both the appellants were represented by the same counsel, 1Ir. W.
lIathers. No planning evidence was called. The case for both~p¡;¡E!als
depends essentially on an argument that the new provisions may have
affected rights previously enjoyed.
lis. Evans, counsel for the Town, on the other hand, presented
planning evidence and engineering evidence to support its opposition
to the appeals. On the basis of evidence presented, she defended the
provisions under appeal and also justified their applications to the
two appellants.
Kincardine, historically, has been limitinq development only to
lots that front on roads with the width that satisfies the definition
of an "iJllproved street". Where there are through lots, primary
access is to be had from the local roads and secondary access from
the lanes. The exhibits showing the Town development demonstrate
that, with some exceptions, this theme of transportation planning is
maintained. The newly approved Official Plan expressly requires
local roads having a minimum riqht-of-way width of 20 metres
.
.
.
.
- 6 -
In 8uaary, both appeals will be dismissed.
DATED at Toronto this 3rd day of November, 1989.
~, Aeq'd
~1IeI¡'i
Agenda-ReIorIs
Clerk-Admin
T_
Pull, Ms. Mgr.
.... CIìeI
Itos, c.n...
CIIIIf ol1'olk:e
RIBUTION
-lAW-
S. W. LEE
IlEMBER
R 880622
-'--.~----
~_"!'r""
-
"'--"~
.
;
- 5 -
R 880622
premises in the vicinity.
In fact, the evidence indicates that
.
extent that it can be said that it has become primary access for the
lIechanic's Lane performs the function of a lane and not an improved
street.
Mr. Cohoon's claim that it is well used and that there are about
100 cars passing each hour has been roundly refuted by the evidence
of the professional engineer called by the 'lOwn. If the Board were
to allow the appeals the effect will be certain and undesirable.
This lane will be forced to becominq an improved road. This would
undoubtedly defeat the planning intent which has been venerated for
years and expressly sttt_ø in the Official Plan.
1 ---"1
.'-''":- ;
"'"1
with respect to the Kincardine Dairy p~~~rty, the Board does
. '
not have any reasons before it to just.1fygiv.uï'i effect to the relief
,
the appellant claims. There are many instances in the Town of
!
Kincardine of through lots that have frontaqes on both the local road
and the lane. By clearillg '·the'· way for Mr. M¡¡rray to get his grant
of consent to convey,£hè.BO~dwill undoubtedly invite a flood of
applications.
In the case of Mr. Cohoon'. lot, at first blush, there may be
hardship involved. But let us not lose sight that he purchased the
property fully aware that there it has no frontage on an improvement
road.
Counsel argued that Mr. Cohoon might have been able to compel
the issuance of a building permit under the wordings of By-law 4350. Jf.ii."""
The Board has perused the wordings of that by-law carefully and has
concluded that only a very punctilious and fastidious reading would
give rise to such a conclusion.