Loading...
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-Re IorIs 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.