Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-09-125 - Request for Reconsideration - DC 09/07/K/AP - 510 Krug StDevelopment & Techrr~ca~ Services Report To: Development & Technical Services Committee Date of Meeting: August 10, 2009 Submitted By: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager, Development & Technical Services) Prepared By: Jeff Willmer (519-741-2325) Ward(s) Involved: Bridgeport -Centre (Ward 1) Date of Report: August 4, 2009 Report No.: DTS-09-125 Subject: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC09/07/KIAP 510 KRUG STREET PAUL AND PENNY GROMINSKY iz - i RECOMMENDATION: For information. BACKGROUND: This application was considered and conditionally approved by Council on June 29 2009. The original staff report and resulting Council resolution are attached for reference. Subsequent to that decision the owner has requested reconsideration (see July 13 letter attached). The owner proposes to demolish the existing triplex in order to clean up contamination on site. In response to neighbourhood concerns that the redevelopment might not take place in a timely manner Council agreed to impose a condition as permitted by the Planning Act. The condition requires the owner to obtain a building permit for a new dwelling prior to obtaining a demolition permit. The demolition permit would then set out the condition imposing a fine of $20,000 per demolished dwelling unit ($60,000 total) if redevelopment is not substantially complete within two years after the demolition permit is issued. REPORT: The limitations of the Planning Act allow for very little flexibility on how this type of condition is implemented. The time limit can be imposed as a condition of demolition permit, but only after a building permit has been issued for redevelopment. Options The following options may be considered by Council: 1. Reconsider the June 29 decision as requested by the owner's solicitor, and eliminate the condition. The owner is willing to provide an undertaking, to provide a higher level of assurance to the City, that the remediation will be undertaken expeditiously and that redevelopment will be substantially completed within two years after Ministry of Environment acknowledges a Record of Site Condition for the property confirming satisfactory remediation. 2. Reconsider the June 29 decision and revise the condition to allow a longer time period for redevelopment. This is problematic for the owner in that it still requires them to obtain a building permit for a dwelling prior to obtaining a demolition permit, resulting in further delays before starting remediation, which isweather-sensitive and not feasible in winter conditions. 3. Take no action and thereby reaffirm the June 29 decision. The owner may exercise their right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB process can take 6-18 months and it is likely that the vacated building would be boarded up in the meanwhile, until a decision is issued. Staff comments As the owners do not yet have a definite redevelopment in mind it is not reasonable to require them to prepare building plans and pay all fees in order to obtain a building permit before obtaining a demolition permit. Given the existing R-6 zoning the likely redevelopment is a multiple dwelling of 3 or more residential units; this would require site plan approval which would add to the time needed before a building permit could be issued. Council and the community can take some comfort in the knowledge that it is in the owner's interest to proceed expeditiously with site clean-up so as to minimize liability including the potential for contamination to migrate. It is also in the owner's interest to proceed as soon as possible with redevelopment in order to provide return on investment. 12-2 When considering the competing interests, the prospect of a vacant lot awaiting redevelopment on a remediated site is considered preferable to a vacant boarded up building on a contaminated site. The community interest in facilitating the site remediation should be given highest priority. The need to expedite remediation is explained in more detail in the June 24 report attached. That report concludes as follows: "Given the severity of the contamination and the engineering consultant's recommendation to remediate immediately, staff is of the opinion that the benefits of the proposed demolition far outweigh the consequences of retaining the dwelling. Although the proposed demolition of a building in good condition represents a loss in terms of housing stock, streetscape appeal, and compatibility with the neighbourhood, staff is of the opinion that demolition is justified considering the need for soil remediation and potential forfurther damage if no action is taken." Procedural Implications If Council is to reconsider the June 29 resolution a Notice of Motion would be required. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No new or additional capital budget requests are expected with this recommendation. COMMUNICATIONS: All property owners within 60 metres of the subject property will be circulated an information letter and information regarding the date and time of the Committee/Council meeting dealing with this application. CONCLUSION: The property owners will be appearing as a delegation to request reconsideration of the June 29 decision, in regards to the condition of approval requiring that prior to obtaining a demolition permit they obtain a building permit for redevelopment, and that redevelopment be substantially complete within two years. REVIEWED BY: • Della Ross, Manager of Development Review (519-741-2327) ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager Development and Technical Services Department Attachments: Correspondence dated July 13 2009 from Hertzberger & Associates • Decision of City Council June 29 2009 • Report DTS-09-102 considered at the July 29 2009 Council meeting 12-3 HERTZBERGER & ASSOCIATES Barristers and Solicitors 30 Duke Street West, Penthouse, Kitchener, Ontario N2H 3W5 GREGURY C, KERT~BERGER, B.A. ~H4NS.), LL.B. Tel: X519) S7~-944 A. l~~CH4LA~ S~MPSQN, B.A., L.L.B. Fax: X519} 57a~0989 w~~7~~~.1~~lrt~l~~;r~;e;t•ia~~~.ca~~z n.si~~~~ st)~~rz:~~~rtlk~~r~,e~•1a~~T.c~~~~~ Sen t via July 13, 2009 Gff~ce of the Mayor & Council City Ilall, P.~. Box ~ ~ 18 200 King Street west Kitchener, 4N N2G 4G?' and Jeff Willmer, Development and Technical Services Interim General Manager 9th door, Berlin Tower City Hall, P.D. Box 1118 200 King Street West Kitchener, U~ N2G 4G7 ATTE~TI4N: Jeff ~Villmer, and City Council Dear SirlMadame: Re: Demolition Control Application DCO910'11K1AP, for 510 Krug Street,~.tchener, [lN Please be advised that we are the solicitors for Paul and Penny Gro~~insky, for the above matter. A.~ you are aware Paul and Penny Graminsky recently applied for a demolition permit for the above noted property. This matter was heard by the City of Kitchener, City Council, on June 29, 2009. At this meeting the application was approved with several conditions, including that a building permit is also obtained and that construction be completed an the new unit within two years of the date of issuance far the permits. we respectfully ask that these conditions be reconsidered. .~~~~ .. Monica fewer Cristelle wisdom Lee-Anne Ladd panda Vau~l~an Real Estate Real Estate ~orparatelCt~rr~mercial ~~~illslEstateslNlatrirnanial ~~~,~'~'~':~f~~'.....e~.t~,~r~w~~.l~t~~~.~.~.~~~. c~visclo~n~cr~l~.c;rt~l~er~.~,~~~•l~~w.e:ar~7 l~acld~~i-l~cr~:~:~er Yerl~~~~~.~:t~~t~ r~rar~=~,l~~~nrr~~.~ert~l~~~r 1e.rlt~~~r.~:c~n~ ... _ ................................~r_..............._............a.........................,,.........,... ...~...............~...r...,........................_.~.........................,_...... ... ,.,....,.,,.,...~,..............h.•..~.....,._......,.....,,,,._,..~..,._........................_.._. 12-4 t is important to note, that the demolition order is being requested in order to facilitate the cleanup of an environmental hazard, This is not simply something that our clients are choosing to do, but something that must be done, the issues will not go away on their own. further, any delays in the cleanup have the potential to greatly exacerbate the problem, as it could allow the ail to migrate to additional properties or even enter the water table, please note that if either of these events occur our client will not be responsible. Because of the nature of the work it must be completed before the ground freezes, thus if the work is going to be done this year it needs to be started before September. Cur clients have every intention of developing the property in the future, however, their plans have not been finalized, and thus they are unable to apply for a building permit at this point. fur clients are suffering significant financial losses to facilitate the cleanup and will continue to suffer these lasses until the property has been fully remediated, and a new building constructed. Thus, it is clearly in our clients' best interest to construct a new building as soon as possible. Even if a development plan had already been prepared a two year requirement for completion is unrealistic. ~n order ensure the property has been fully remediated, soil samples must be taken a full year after the remedial cleanup is completed, in order to prove that the property is in fact free frarr~ contamination. These samples must be taken, assessed and approved before any construction an the property can begin. Dur client understands the City's concerns about having a vacant lot, however, with the building unoccupied and without power, if the demolition is not completed prior to the onset of winter, our clients will have no alternative other than to board up the doors and windows, to protect the property until demolition can commence. If demolition can begin immediately, our clients are willing to make efforts to make the property as aesthetically pleasing throughout the process as possible, including putting up a fence across the property, putting in new grass, and insuring that the driveway is in excellent condition. Our client is willing to discuss the matter fu1-ther, and wishes for you to contact him. directly. He can be rea¢~ed at his office at 519-743-8846 or on his cell phone at 519-572-590&. Yours ve truly, HERTZB RGE°~ & ASSOCIATES Gregory : ~ertzberger GCHIns CC client Monica ewer Cristelle wisdom Lee~Anne Gadd Rhonda Vangl~an Real Estate Real Estate CarparatelCorr~mercial willslEstateslMatrir~anial ~~~e~~ve~r!cr~l~ex-t~l~er~~~erlE~~~-.cat~~ c~visdor~~(t/c~~.c~~l~er~re~~l~~~~r.cot~~ 1(¢~~ac~clr`/~~hert~l~er(}~rerlt~~~~.~c3~n r~~~~~'l~~xiri~;~~~~~~t~hc*r~~~,l~t~~~:c~~~~~ ......~.........~....._..4vxd"'....~......~.,...,..~.......4r+'1 ....................................... »...~...~....~..,...............1.....~........~......,.,...~.........~.....-............:...~ ~.~.....~...... ...4.~.~..........,.1.....f,,...,..........~.~..~........4J_........_.............~ ~.... dw 4w .wF 12-5 COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 29, 2009 - 210 - CITY OF KITCHENER COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE B. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - ~CONT'D~ 11. Demolition Control Application DC 09101IK1AP - 510 Krug Street - Grominsky Council considered Development & Technical Services Department report DTS-09-102 ~A. Pinnell~, dated June 24, 2009. Mr. Jeff Watchorn, area resident, spoke in opposition to the proposed demolition application, raising concerns related to the absence of a timeline for redevelopment of the property; and requesting restrictions on what can be redeveloped on the site, advising that he did not want anything bigger than the triplex that exists now. He added that an adjacent property on Islington Avenue to the rear of 510 Krug Street had been purchased by the same family and questioned if the two properties could be merged at some point in time. Mr. J. Willmer, Interim General Manager, Development and Technical Services, advised that the standard condition to provide that the property be redeveloped within 2 years of the demolition was not applied in this case due to the extent and unpredictable nature of remediation required to address soil contamination on the site, and which may cause delay in obtaining Ministry of Environment approvals. Mr. Willmer added that the City has no authority in this instance to apply restrictions other than in respect to demolition of the structure. He noted that at such time redevelopment occurs, if the proposal meets all zoning and site plan requirements, it could result in a larger structure. Mr. Willmer stated that the second property on Islington Avenue cannot legally be merged with 510 Krug Street without submission of a development proposal. He added that it would be quite unusual for these two properties to be developed as one given the odd configuration; however, without knowing the intent of the property owner he could not comment further. Councillor J. Smola questioned the direction of the migration of the contaminated soils. Mr. Willmer advised that the contamination is currently limited to the site; however, there is potential for migration into the municipal roadway necessitating immediate action to complete the remediation to stop its progression. He added that the matter has been brought forward at this time as staff believes it is in the best interest of all concerned, including the surrounding neighbourhood, to address the issue of contaminated soil remediation as soon as possible. In response to Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Mr. Willmer advised that the standard condition requiring development within 2 years of demolition could be applied, with the proviso that Council would give an extension if delays occur as a result of difficulties associated with remediation of the site. Mr. Watchorn concurred with this approach; however, reiterated his desire to restrict redevelopment to no more than the existing triplex use as he anticipated any larger development would depreciate his own property value. Mr. Willmer advised that the lands are currently zoned Residential Six ~R6~ which permits multiple dwellings of up to 3 storeys and which does not limit the use to a triplex. He reiterated that if any redevelopment proposal meets all zoning regulations, the property owner will have the right to proceed and which will not require any formal public process. Councillor Smola suggested that the size of the lot appears insufficient to accommodate parking for anything larger than a triplex use. Mr. Willmer pointed out that the property is quite deep at 185 ft. and has a 16 ft. sideyard that could potentially provide a driveway to the rear of any new building where a larger parking area could be accommodated. Councillor Vrbanovic inquired if the acquisition of the property on Islington Avenue creates opportunity for the property owner to provide additional parking. Mr. Willmer advised that the second property is zoned R3 or R4 which does not permit multiple dwellings and therefore, additional parking on that site for use at 510 Krug Street would not be a permitted use. 12-6 COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 29, 2009 - 211 ~ CITY CF KITCHENER COMMITTEE aF THE WHOLE B. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS - ~GONT'D~ 11. Demolition Control Application DC 4910~1KiAP - X10 Krug Street - Grominsky Gont'd It was resolved: "That Demolition Control Application DC09f071K1AP requesting permission to demolish one ~1~ triplex dwelling located at 510 Krug Street, awned by Paul and Penny Oraminsky, legally described as Lot 170, Plan 841, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1 ~ That the owner obtain a building permit far a proposed dwelling; and, 2} That upon satisfaction of condition 1, the Chief Building Official may authorize and issue a demolition permit under Section 33~6~ of the Planning Act, subject to the following condition: • In the event that construction of the new dwelling is not substantially complete within 2 years of the date of issuance of the demolition permit, the City Clerk may enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, $20,000 for each dwelling unit contained in the residential properties in respect of which the demolition permit is issued and such sum shall, until the payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permit to demolish the residential property is issued; provided however, that in the event that unusual delays are experienced with site remediation or Ministry of Environment approvals, Council will entertain a request for extension of the redevelopment timeline." Decision of Licensin Tribunal - S reitzer Meats until considered Corporate Services Department report CRPS-09-099 ~R, Oo , d June 24, 2009. It was r load: "That the Dec of the Licensing Tribunal attached to Corporate S ces Department report CRPS-09- , to revoke business licence No. 2009 109 00 L6 issued to Spreitzer Meats, 12 dfard Raad, Kitchener, Ontario, be ado ." 13. Demolition Control A ion _ fi5 weber Street Eas Council considered Developme Technical Servi Department report DTS-09-104 ~A. Pinard~, dated June 17, 2009. It was resolved: "That Demolition Control be granted, t rmit demolition of one ~1~ single detached dwelling located at 65 weber Stre ast, owne the Estate of atakar Buryanek, legally described as Plan 372, Pt 10, without con s." 14. Right of First Refusal A ment -~ 36 King Street ~1' _ K ~ Performing Arts Association The following matt rose from in~camera discussion this date. It was resole "That t arpvration of the City of Kitchener elects not to exercise its Righ First Refu as set out in the Right of First Refusal Agreement, registered on tit s In meat No. 146317'3, to acquire the Property owned by the K-w Performing Arks 12-7 - . . , . ~T r~~~~~~~~~~ T~chr~rca~ Se~+~rc~s Report To: Council Date of Meeting: June 29, 2009 Submitted By: Alain Pinard, Interim Director of Planning (519-741-2319) Prepared By: Andrew Pinnell, Planner (519-741-2668) Ward(s) Involved: Bridgeport -Centre (Ward 1) Date of Report: June 24, 2009 Report No.: DTS-09-102 Subject: DEMOLITION CONTROL APPLICATION DC09107/KIAP 510 KRUG STREET PAUL AND PENNY GROMINSKY RECOMMENDATION: That Demolition Control Application DC091071KIAP requesting permission to demolish a multiple dwelling located at 510 Krug Street, owned by Paul and Penny Grominsky, legally described as Lot 170, Plan 841 be approved without conditions. iz-s 1 ,.~ °~, ~;.~~ ems- ~'+ 7 a ~ it ~ ! A~s~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ u~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~a.a ~~a ,..o. ., ~~ ~ ~ ' +! ~ •~~~r ~"- ~, ~ F K,, ~' . ~~_~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ,~ .. ~~ ~~ ,~ u a u~ ,, _ ~~~;i~ . - ~_ m Sig a ~~ ~~~ x~ .~ _ ~~ View of subject property from Krug Street _ ~ ~~~_R BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the north side of Krug Street, between Eton Drive and Sherwood Avenue. The surrounding area is composed of a mix of low rise residential land uses with a commercial plaza located directly across the street from the subject property. The property contains a building used as a three-unit multiple dwelling (triplex). The building was constructed in approximately 1955. The subject property is designated Low Rise Residential in the Official Plan and is zoned Residential Six (R-6) in the Zoning By-law. The applicant is proposing to demolish the dwelling in order to access soil that was contaminated due to an underground oil storage tank leak. The non-hazardous soil is proposed to be remediated. According to an Engineer's report the contamination is below the dwelling and appears to be migrating. The applicant has stated that the timeframe for and type of redevelopment is unknown. REPORT: Planning Comments Under the Planning Act, the purpose of demolition control is to maintain residential properties within the municipality and to prevent their premature or unjustified removal. In this case, the owner has stated that there are no immediate plans for redevelopment. Following the remediation of the soil, the excavation would be backfilled and graded and the land seeded or sodded. 12-9 Seven criteria, as outlined in Council Policy I-1010, are used to evaluate the appropriateness of an application to demolish a residential property in circumstances where no building permit will be issued for a new building on the site: 1. Property Subject to the Ontario Heritage Act The City's Heritage Planner advises that there are no heritage concerns with the subject application. 2. Architectural and Historical Value The City's Heritage Planner advises that there are no heritage concerns with the subject application. 3. Condition of the Dwelling A City Building Inspector examined the dwelling on June 23, 2009 and advises that the exterior brick, soffit, and fascia are in good condition. The roof is in good condition and appears to be adequately insulated. The rear deck is in poor condition. The dwelling has forced air heating throughout and a newer oil furnace and tank in basement. Electric water heaters have been removed from the property. There is no evidence of major settling or foundation movement. Windows and some finishes have been upgraded within the last 10-15 years. Other finishes in the kitchens and bedrooms appear to be original. The triplex appears to be generally in fair to good condition. 4. Impact of Demolition on Abutting Properties, streetscape, and Neighbourhood Stability Planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed demolition would have a negative impact on the streetscape as it would create a gap in the currently continuous streetscape. Staff is of the opinion that, ideally, redevelopment should occur immediately following demolition. Since the timeframe for redevelopment is unknown it is possible that the lands may remain vacant in the long-term. This situation is not desirable within this stable, low rise residential area. The fact that the subject building is in overall good condition further intensifies staff's concern. 5. Timeframe of Redevelopment The applicant has stated that the timeframe for and type of redevelopment is unknown. 6. Proposed Use In Terms of Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties As stated above, a vacant lot is not a desirable or ideal land use within this stable, low rise residential area, however, it should be emphasized that the reason for the proposed demolition is to access soil that was contaminated due to an underground oil storage tank leak so that the site may be remediated. The applicant has provided a Groundwater Sampling Report prepared by MTE Consultants Inc., which states that "MTE recommends that remedial action be implemented immediately. If free product migrates into the municipal roadway, it has the potential to quickly migrate large distances via underground utilities, and gravel betting for utilities. If free product migrates into the municipal roadway, the volume of contaminated soil and the associate remedial costs could increase exponentially." 12 - 10 Separate correspondence with the Engineer at MTE reveals that "Petroleum Hydrocarbons in the furnace oil that has been released are potentially harmful to both humans and the natural environment. If the furnace oil is not remediated, it could potentially migrate downwards to deeper aquifers that are used by the Region of Waterloo for drinking water supply. If the furnace oil migrated off site beneath another building, the oil could generate vapours that could penetrate into a basement and cause harm to the building's inhabitants. There are cleanup standards set for petroleum hydrocarbons by the Ministry of the Environment, and meeting these standards will be the goal of the remediation." 7. Neighbourhood Consultation In order to ensure that Planning Act timelines for demolition control applications are met during the summer months and given the time-sensitivity of the oil spill issue, this application was not circulated to the neighbourhood for comment, however, all property owners within 60 metres of the subject property were circulated an information letter giving a summary of the proposal and information regarding the date and time of the Council meeting dealing with this application. Conclusion Given the severity of the contamination and the engineering consultant's recommendation to remediate immediately, staff is of the opinion that the benefits of the proposed demolition far outweigh the consequences of retaining the dwelling. Although the proposed demolition of a building in good condition represents a loss in terms of housing stock, streetscape appeal, and compatibility with the neighbourhood, staff is of the opinion that demolition is justified considering the need for soil remediation and potential for further damage if no action is taken. Heritage Comments The City's Heritage Planner has indicated that there are no concerns with the subject application. Building Inspector Comments A City Building Inspector examined the dwelling on June 23, 2009. The building is a 1960's style 2 plus storey walk-up triplex. The property contains a 4 metre by 14 metre storage garage and 2.5 metre by 4 metre utility shed in rear yard. The property is serviced with water, hydro, and sanitary facilities. There is an abandoned underground fuel tank on the left side of the property. There are 8 monitoring wells placed around the existing triplex. The building is constructed with a poured concrete foundation and is of wood frame construction and face brick exterior. The exterior brick, soffit, and fascia are in good condition. The roof is in good condition and appears to be adequately insulated. The rear deck is in poor condition. The dwelling has forced air heating throughout and a newer oil furnace and tank in basement. Electric water heaters have been removed from the property. There is no evidence of major settling or foundation movement. Windows, and some finishes have been upgraded within the last 10-15 years. Other finishes in kitchens and bedrooms appear to be original. The triplex appears to be generally in fair to good condition. The abandoned fuel tank outside the building is being investigated and it is understood that it will be removed and the ground tested during demolition. The Building Division has no objections to the demolition of the building. Note that a demolition permit will be required. 12 - 11 Engineering Comments Engineering Services requires that all existing services must be capped prior to the Demolition Permit being issued. The capping must be completed by the City at the expense of the owner. Fire Department Comments The Fire Department has commented that it has no concerns with the subject application. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No new or additional capital budget requests are expected with this recommendation. COMMUNICATIONS: Preliminary circulation of the demolition control application was undertaken on June 16, 2009 to internal agencies. Comments were received from four internal agencies (see Appendix "A"). This application was not circulated to the neighbourhood for comments, however, all property owners within 60 metres of the subject property were circulated an information letter giving a summary of the proposal and information regarding the date and time of the Council meeting dealing with this application. CONCLUSION: Planning staff have considered this situation and are of the opinion that the proposed demolition is justified. As such, Planning staff recommends that demolition control application DC09/07/KIAP, requesting permission to demolish a multiple dwelling located at 510 Krug Street, legally described as Lot 170, Plan 841, be approved without conditions. REVIEWED BY: • Della Ross, Manager of Development Review (519-741-2327) ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Jeff Willmer, Interim General Manager Development and Technical Services Department Attachments: • Appendix "A" -Plan submitted with application • Appendix "B" -Internal agency comments 12 - 12 t1P~Er~o~x ,,,~, URVEYOR' S~~ SEAL PROPERTY REPORT PART ! ASSOCIATI~NOFONI'AIa110 ~ LAI~~ SURVEYgR3 LAN OF SURVEY OF LOT I?0, REGISTERED PLAN 841 puNSU~M~ssror~~oRM I TY 0~' K I TCHENER ` ~ 0942~~ EGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF V~ATERL00 ALE ~ I INCH = 30 FEET ° Io zo ~a 4a ~o ieet I~. ~P E R I AL 1 DISTANCES SHOWN ON TH (S PLAN ARE i N FEET AND CAN 8E CONVERTED TO METRES BY MULTIPLYING BY o.3oas .T}~IS ~~.All,l$ NqT YAti© ~i.llt,~SS,.IT 18 All EMB~~SI:1 VENTHER RUEB SURVEYING LIMITED ~ ~~ I ~9?' ' ~ .' ' ;. ,O~IGtIiAI crIPY 1TE~ BEARINGS ARE A5TRONQ~AIC AHD ARE REFERRED TO THE W' ly BOUNDARY ~ ISSIIEb 9Y T1lE 3URYErOR Off' LOT I70, AS SHOWN ON REGISTERED PLAN 8~ I , HAVI NG A GEAR I NG ~ I* ~icc~r/ii<efI ri41 OF N 39'04' Oa" W 11~}rlrll~it fet1. f~stiis itll, LOT I ~~ INST. I~za~o ....,.,. ~ - ~. ...~ .W.... N 48'47' 38" E P +« I.a ~~ ~. N 48°39' 2t)" ~ M Io.2~'s~ Rlats171 N l s I r~ 5 0. 8 7' --~ R I a t 617) _ -~- -------- ~- O R 18 _..,. O C . L . F . ~ ON LINE O °' ~ ~ 0. 4' ! w I w ~4 X I _2 I_ ~ ~ ~ 1 O Z . x ~' ~ ~ U k N5T, 7 1650? ~ ~ a x ~ N t ~... y.. cTJ cn fl ~ O. 2'' I ~ p O 0. 2' 111 ~ .~... p ~,, , , co ~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ `~ i` ~~ $~)1~ N - `C~~ ~ ,~ GARAGE 0 Z ~ - I 3. 2' I. f'' LOT 1 ?0 ~. ~~ ., . ~ ~ x ROOFED Z I,, ~ ~ - 0 ~f~ ~J f~T~ln ~"firn~a~p ~~~Lf L~'W'~r~tG~;o~ W ct ~ PORCH o m• J ~~~~i ~~ b4 ~G Cpl 0~'t~, ~~.~~' 1^ @ ~ ° ~"~ ~ ~ f ~ ~' o x 6. OB' ~ 1 .16.31' ~f~Ct I~~£vtf~v±~~ (~U4r~~a~ '...."' w p Z z I , Q ~~ ~. ~ ~ o ~, ~ x z ~ ~~b ~ ~;5~.1 ~ G~ z ~~ \ w ~ BRICH ~~~,i ~~`6~``4 rl~ ~ ~1r~i,Gr'~OE ~, ~ `~ z fI tRIPLEX ~ ~ t~.ag' _... ~ u ~ ~ ~ U 0 Z ~ ~~ I ' ~ 7~ ~~~ ~.. ~, ~, . ~~ i `~ "1 ~~~ ~1~~61 a fig, P ~~ ~~ 53' r ~ E 5D CJ G ~ n ~-~ ~, ~ R ~, ~ PN 9 ~~'~~ P PAREf) FOR ~ P THIS REPORT WAS RF P, & P. GROM I NSKY 5URV6YOR`5 CERTIFICATE I CERTIFY THAT IN AND A R Y P N I FART ~ ~ ~ W THF ACT~ SURVEYO i HE . ACCDRDANCE T}~ I S PLAN MUST B E READ I N SURVEYORS ACT AND THE REGISTRY ACT AND ,; ONJUNC~' I pN W I TN SURVEY REPORT 1114 - J. METZ, O. L. 5. THE REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THfM. ' ,, p~1FED MARCH IO, 1997'. ~ 17 B. ROE, o. t-. 5. CLF -CHAIN LINK FENCE HE A!Rh DAY ~. THE SURVEY WA5 CDMPI.ETED DN ~ DF FEB., 1997. G JOB Na. p = ^ PLANTED FOUND C, C, = Cl1T CR4S5 PROP. = PRaPORT I ONED ''~ MARCH f O, 1997. .. ~. DAN I F 1. Mcl_F. D SIB = STANDARD IRON BAR -X" W FENCE DN'fARID 1.,AND SURVEYOR 71 -'48 (2~ 1 I B = IRON BAR ^., ... ~ M, W MEASl1RE0 r,111= ~TEaFR RI~FA StJRUEY i NG L I M I TCD 12 - 13 ! t ~~ ~~ ~; ~,-~-~~~~~iov_n ~p°o~c~da x~~ -~ ~~ m ~v v~n~u~~ Q~'~~0 ~ z D N -~I m 'n ~ ~ n a o . . ~ ~ ao ~ ~ ° ~ ~ v f e ~ X ~ ~ N C~ ~, ~ ° --~ y ~ ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B. ~ 9 ~+ ~ p (n ~ CI7 ~' ~ acc~~~ ro ~p U ~ iU ~ ro t r ~ ~' ~. ~ ~ro a ;' ~ ,~ Z °7 ro ~ ~ m v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~, n -~ ~ ~ D -I ~ ~ m ~ ro ~, ~ "C7 o~ ro -~ m ~' ~ ci a _ ~ mro c m ;m ~~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o. ~n ~~~, ; ~ Al~q ~~ ~ ~ , ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~1 ~ q _3` ~ n ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ . ~ CI ,-« ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N Uf lU ~ W ~ 'C3 .. ~ C3 N A C] ~ ~ ~ ~ O rr ~N p ~ ~ R ~- v ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, ' ~ a~ ~ ~' ~ a ~~ ro.~ ~ -- ~ ~ a ~ n f° C7 U ~ ~ o ~n~ err N o a ~ °- ~ ' € a ~ , Ct ro ~f° D ~ ~ cv ~ ~ n ~° ~ i o ' n ~.m ~, Q o cv 3 p ~ ~. r ~ ; -p ' ~? ~ ro ~ ro ro ~ ro ~ ~~ 3 ~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ., ~ ~ rt ~_ ro ""~ i ~ a -e _ (1 ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ 't _ ~~ ~ ~ .%t ~? ~ t ~ ~ ~ Q `r. CT „~. ~ I ~ f -~-~~roN~a~an ~ ~~ n Oo~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' -~ ~-~ ~ rn~ QQ vin-~u~~n ~ Qn ~ ~ b ! I ~ M ~-~-~x~~~~~n x .~{~ n O~~c ~ ~ a + 3 ' ~-~ ~ a~'a ~n-~v~~, C"~ ~ ~ •~ v ~ ~1 9 ~ ~ ~ •-+ ~ ~+, lr P}' r SD "1 G7. 41. !'F a ~NZQtl~~,n~ m oro ~~,~;~~ ~ o ~ ~N~°'f°ro~' i° ~~,~ n~~.,,~ `~ ~~~0 m '~ ~ -tea ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~~~'~ m -~ ~ ~ '~ ~ c ~~' ~ cD a ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ n .. ~ d Q a' fl o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ n ~ R W ~ t~7 . O ~ ,~ air a a ~ u, ~ o cn ~ o ~ ru _n „ Qua c~ Cam? ~ ~ " ~ N rt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' "~ N O CB .. ~ ~ ~ C Cr 0 ~ m m fU p r. ~ ~~ ~ ~ rr ~ ~F ro ~ ro .~ ~ ro X ~ ro ro ~ ~ ~~ A ~~, ~ ~~ m ~ ~ cro ~' ~a a' ~ ~' ~~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ a° p ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ t°~ o ~. m ~' ~~ n ~ . o ~ ~ ~ ~ ro a~ ;~ x »~, m °~ ~ C7. m b -~ I ~ r~ v 3 i p n~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ro ~~ ~C 93 a M ; q ro Y7 n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t3 s~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !'~' ~ rt D7 I i ? . Vi ~ ~ ~ n , C ~ ~ N Lf1 C ~ '~ .~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ N ro n._ m ~ ~ ~ ~+n ~' w co '~ • !a i u ~ m { s rn m a ~ ~ ~ i i o ~ ro ~• ~ cn cQ n ! a ~ ~~ ~ n ~..~ ^r {l~~ v 0 - ~ ~ ~ c b ro 0 D ~ m ~ n ~ ~ i ~ m !~ ~, Q ~ j 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ! .w E n ~ ~ ~ m II fl1 ~ ~ ~ !D .~ .~ _ w m Q ~ ~ ~ E C ~ ~ ' ~ W ~ o ~ ~ I n ~ "CJ I E ~ ~ ~ s ~ q I ~ ~ ~ EEE f ~ ~ E ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~" d I o ~ D ~ f ~ w f "' € I ~ E i ~ k .., ~ ~ i f ~ I C j ~ !n i m ~ f„ .. f 1 f i i ~ ~ ~. D ~; 12 - 14 n ~.. V~ ~ ~~ ~;~~no-a~ x .~~~C)q~ ~ ~ a ~,-~~~m~°~~~ 1 (^~ ~ V/ ~ ~ ~~ "cn .~~ ro ~ m •~ ~,Z ~ ;'~'~ ~ro~~ m I~ ~ Z rt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' n o ro ~ . ~ t ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~' ffl ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ o ,. ~°..~ ~~~ D. o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ;; (~ ao ~ «- ~ ~ ~ ~ m 3 ~ ~ ? ~. p' p ~ ~ Z D ~7 m ~ ~ a ~ ~ -~ ~~ _ ~ n ~ Q° n y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ro ~'~~ ° ~ ~ ,~ ~ s ~~ ~ cD ~~~~ a ~~ a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~ i ~ w,,, © ; [ ~~ ~ ~a " ~ 1 ~ , ~ A ~ 3 i O t7 fD !p ~" ~ "` ~' ~ (i7 i o ~ ~~ ~. ~ D ~ ~~ ~, ~ e~ a. ~ ~~ ~ ! m n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~_ s t c r7 cp ~ Q i D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,. (~ ~ D na ~C O 0.1 ~ R 4 ~_ 'D ~ E2 N• ~ ~. O ~ ~ ~ ~` to `C ~ ~ C ~ ~ a N ~ ~ N ~ -~ ~ -~ n ~ v v m as n' o 0 ~ ~. ~ ~ ~. ~. ~ ~' c ~ ... ~ ~ ~ 3-~-~ ~ m~ ~' ~ p' '~ ri. ~ ~ . . . . 'q ~, ~ ~? o fA f7 ~ n ~1 -I D a ~ ~r. ~Y ~ ~~, ~~ ~ , ~ goo ~ v ~`~roN ~ ~ ~-Q~n~j ~zm mfl~0 m~ c~~ ~~m~,~~ ~m~~~~~' -~, CG © ~ ~ ~ ~ w~~. ~;~r~ ~. , a ° m r n . - n~ ~~ ~ '~ ~~~ a ~ acs ~-q~ D~~r~ Oro0~ ooh D .-~ ~ ~ ~x ~ ~~~ ~ ~ DQ~~n ~ ~ ~° ~. ~ -~ c- 3 ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ' ~ ~ Q. ~~~' ~ Q ~ ~~Q ~ '- O ~ ~~t~ ~ ~ ~ a-~~ D ~ It] ~ ~ ~ C~ ~m~'~ua~s ~ ~ N ~ 7C ,~ ~ ~ ; Q ~ D ~ ~ ~ D D C N of ~ ~ '13 cU ~ CTt 3 © ~ to . ,~ ~ D D 3 ~ O ~ ~ ~ [U -, ..« ~ 0 D ^ Q ~ 7 ~ I- ~ ~ -, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ A ~• iD ~ ~. C3 ~ ~ ~ c p ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ om, ~ ~ ~ ~ 4D ~ `'~ X n Q "'*. rr ~ D to ~ Uj V+ ~ O C7 (B C ~ ~ [] ~ 7 ~ O C~3 ~ ©D ,~ ~-„ ~, 4 Cb C2 ~ ~ ~ U1 ~ {U ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~+ ,~ 'C N ,~ Q ~ ~ N (U D ~ ~ q p1 cn ~ ~ a ~ N Q .r ~ ~" ^' ~. C ~ (~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q D ~ 3 ~- D ~« rn ~ ~ ' o~ .~~ ~ ~ c p a ~ m ~ 3 - _ ~ ro _ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~,~- o ~~ ~. a ~ mw~, ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ m ~~.a ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ x ~ m ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~~ m ~ ~~ m .q ~ -~ m p. ~ ,~ ~ Q ~ ~ s m tr ~~ ~ q O D ~ ~ ~ -h N ~ ~U X Q ro .~ ~ -^ :. ~ ~• ~ ~" m ~ c~ n ~ ' m c i N~ ,rte ~ ~ ~; ~h ~v ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~,~ ^ D -~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ro ro ~ ~ ~ =' `° ~, z+~-~~ ~a ~;~~ a 0 ~ ~ ~0 N p ~ a~ ~ a °- ~ Q ~ 12 -1 5 v ~% w v