COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 AT 7:00 PM MINUTES

Transcription

1 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2014 AT 7:00 PM MINUTES The Committee of Adjustment met on November 18, 2014 with the following in attendance: Mr. Morley Brown Mr. Wayne Goodfellow Mr. Brian Horner Mr. Jeff Sedgwick Councillor Earl Hawkins Mr. Ron Mills, Planner Ms. Kerstin Shillum, Deputy Clerk-Treasurer 1/ Call meeting to order 7:00 p.m. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm 2/ Declarations of pecuniary interest Chair Brown advised that any member having a pecuniary interest to declare could do so now or at any point during the meeting. Member Hawkins announced that he would be declaring a pecuniary interest with regards to application B13/ / Approval of agenda Moved by Hawkins, Seconded by Horner: That the agenda for this meeting be approved as circulated. Carried. 4/ Approval of minutes of July 29, 2014 meeting Moved by Sedgwick, Seconded by Goodfellow: That the minutes of the July 29, 2014 meeting be approved as circulated. Carried. 5/ Applications Brought Forward 7:05 pm B08/2013 McKeen and Young Revised proposal for new Rural lot for residential purposes Part East Half Lot 6, Concession 8 EHS Members of the public present for this hearing: Josephine (Jo) Young and William (Bill) McKeen Correspondence received (that was not included in the agenda package): none Planner Ron Mills advised that this application was first heard in 2013 but the decision was deferred to allow the owners to address issues and concerns that had been raised at that time, which included objections from neighbours and concerns for the costs of required improvements to the 5th Sideroad and to provide electricity to the previously proposed new lot. The proposed location of the lot has since been changed from the south-west corner to the south-east corner of the property. A request for the change to the application has been received and the required fee has been paid. Ron Mills, Planner, stated that he has spoken with John Willmetts, Director of Public Works, and that he, along with the Road Foreman from Adjala-Tosorontio, went to measure sight lines and there is an available entrance to the proposed lot from the Townline. Ron Mills, Planner, noted that the lot is entirely open, but it is also elevated well above the road, so the development of a dwelling will be at least in part Page 1 of 8

2 screened by the topography from view from the roads. It may well be prominent from other vistas however, so the Committee should be satisfied that the rural character of the area will not be unduly impacted. A development agreement could be required, if the Committee feels that the development should be situated on the lot at a particular location, within a defined building envelope. Jo Young and Bill McKeen, the applicants, stated they had nothing to add. There was no one in the gallery pertaining to this application and no comments were made. The Committee discussed the entrance location and questioned why it could not be moved a bit further north. Ron Mills, Planner, advised that that would not be suitable as there would be an issue with the sight distances due to the crest of the hill. The Committee asked about the driveway going across so much Township property. Ron Mills, Planner, stated that it was a very small portion of the roadway so a formalized agreement may not be necessary. However, Council may want a Road Use Agreement to indemnify the Township as this portion (small as it is) will be maintained by private owners. The Committee could put in a condition that it is subject to Council s discretion regarding the Road Use Agreement. The Committee wondered if there was anything in a by-law regarding the actual distance travelled over a road allowance. Ron Mills, Planner, stated that the Official Plan states that in order to create a lot there needs to be frontage on and access to a maintained road. There is nothing limiting the distance that can be travelled over an unmaintained portion. It would be up to Council to decide if the Committee imposes the condition. The Committee asked if there were regulations regarding the incline of the driveway as it met the road. Planner Ron Mills replied that there were regulations and there must be an apron at the road. It was agreed that there would need to be some excavation work done by the applicant. Moved by Goodfellow, Seconded by Sedgwick: That Application No. B08/2013, submitted by Bill McKeen and Jo Young, owners, to sever a parcel of approximately 2.0 ha. in size, to be taken from lands in the East Half of Lot 6, Concession 8 EHS be approved, and that consent be granted subject to the following conditions: A road widening be taken, if not previously taken, from the retained portion along the north side of the 5th Sideroad, in accordance with the Township of Mulmur road widening policies and requirements. That a development plan and agreement satisfactory to Council be required, to establish a building envelope on the westerly portion of the lot that will ensure that the rural character of the area is generally preserved. That, if/as deemed necessary by Council, a road use agreement be required for the portion of the private driveway that is on the Township lands adjacent to the severed lot. REASON: generally conforms to the Township s Official Plan. Page 2 of 8

3 6/ New Applications 7:20 pm B11/2014 John Gallaugher Estate -- new Rural lot for residential purposes Part West Half Lot 12, Conc. 4 EHS. Members of the public present for this hearing: Gord Gallaugher, Doug Gallaugher, Sharon Rodwell Correspondence received (that was not included in the agenda package): none Ron Mills, Planner, addressed the committee and stated that one lot was severed from the south-west corner of this parcel in There is an old barn on the lands, but it is in very poor condition. However, the owner at that time did not want to remove the barn, so a development agreement was put in place permitting the barn to remain and to be used for agricultural purposes other than the keeping of livestock. The agreement also provides that, if livestock are going to be housed in any structures on this property, a new facility (barn) must be constructed at a location that meets MDS2 requirements. So, the existing, derelict barn is not an issue. Further, the proposed lot is nearly all forested and the lot takes up all of the forested land (ie. the forest will not be split up). This tract of forest is not large enough (over 10 ha.) to be considered `significant`, so there is no need to require an Environmental Impact Study pursuant to the policies of the Official Plan. Also, because the lot is forested, the rural character of the area will not be impacted. Gord Gallaugher, Applicant, advised the Committee that the intended building site was closer to the pond. There was no one in the gallery pertaining to this application and no comments were made. The Committee noted that the lot is all wooded so a development agreement was not needed to protect the rural character as the trees would provide excellent screening from the road. The Committee confirmed that there was a development agreement in place on the retained portion that the barn cannot be used for livestock and that the barn is in poor condition too poor to house livestock. Moved by Sedgwick, Seconded by Goodfellow: That Application No. B11/2014, submitted by Gordon Gallaugher, executor for the estate of John Gallaugher, owner, to sever a parcel of approximately 6.0 ha. in size, to be taken from lands in the West Half of Lot 12, Concession 4 EHS, be approved and that consent be granted subject to the following conditions: A road widening be taken, if not previously taken, from the severed portion along the east side of the 3rd Line East, in accordance with the Township of Mulmur road widening policies and requirements. none REASON: generally conforms to the Township s Official Plan. Page 3 of 8

4 7:35 pm B12/2014 Bonnefield LP III Ltd. (Kristine Loft agent) Boundary Adjustment/Lot Addition to add lands to parcel to east (Roll No McPhie), Part Lot 9, Concession 2 WHS Members of the public present for this hearing: none Correspondence received (that was not included in the agenda package): none Ron Mills, Planner, stated that the owners have retained a planner, Kristine Loft, and she has submitted a planning justification report with the application. He advised that this is a simple lot addition. The owner has agreed to sell an area previously used as a dirt bike race course at the rear of the farm parcel to a neighbouring landowner to the east (McPhie - Roll No ). The lands which are proposed to be conveyed are not farmed and are not well suited for conversion to farmland as they are very wet. The retained portion is still certainly a viable agricultural parcel and the proposal does not diminish its potential for agricultural use. Similarly, the addition of this land to the adjoining parcel does not impact on the agricultural potential of the parcel in any way, or negatively affect agricultural uses in the surrounding area. Planner Ron Mills noted that he had originally thought the area being severed and conveyed was forested, and clarified that it is, in fact, not forested, but rather abandoned farmland. There was no one in the gallery pertaining to this application and no comments were made The Committee discussed the suitability of the severed piece for farming and agreed that it was too wet and therefore it was not important, form an agricultural land preservation perspective, that it be retained as part of the farm holding. Moved by Horner, Seconded by Hawkins: That Application No. B012/2014, submitted by Kristine Loft, agent for Bonnefield LLP III Ltd, owners, to sever a parcel of approximately 6.07 ha. in size, to be taken from lands in the East Half of Lot 9, Concession 2 WHS and added to lands in the East Half of Lot 9, Concession 2 WHS (McPhie - Roll Number ) be approved, and that consent be granted subject to the following conditions: The severed parcel shall be subject to Sections 50(3) and (5) of the Planning Act; The solicitor for the owner of the lot to which the severed parcel is to be added shall provide an undertaking to register the deed for the resulting enlarged parcel and to make an application for consolidation not later than thirty (30) days after the date of issuance of the certificate of consent, and to provide the Township with documentation which demonstrates that the consolidation has taken place not later than thirty (30) days after the consolidation has been finalized. REASON: generally conforms to the Township s Official Plan Member Hawkins declared a pecuniary interest with regards to the following application for the reason that: the application for a severance is from property that my wife and I own. Member Hawkins excused himself and left the meeting during the discussion. 7:50 pm B13/2014 Hawkins New Rural lot for residential purposes Part West Half Lot 10, Concession 5 EHS Page 4 of 8

5 Members of the public present for this hearing: Rhonda Hawkins, Katie Flear, Bill Hawkins Correspondence received (that was not included in the agenda package): NVCA no objection Planner Ron Mills addressed the Committee and stated that the property contains very little arable land (mostly steeply sloping lands suitable only for pasture) as well as forested valley lands that are unsuitable for agriculture. It and the surrounding area are not part of a prime agricultural area and so have been designated Rural in the Township s Official Plan. He further advised that there are three lots within this original Township half-lot, so this new lot would be the fourth and final lot permissible under the Rural designation. Further, there is an existing livestock barn on the subject lands. The MDS 1 required minimum set-back distance for a type 1 land use (which includes an off-site dwelling) on an adjoining lot is 158m. based on a tillable area of 10 ha. Most of the small amount of tillable area on this parcel is in fact, in the north-east portion, so would be severed off and become part of the proposed new rural lot. Under the MDS guidelines, for lots of greater than one hectare in size, a building area outside of the MDS1 required distance must be available and there must be a mechanism to require the development on the new lot to be required to be located accordingly. Planner Ron Mills also advised that because this lot is open at the front, the preservation of the rural character is a concern which must be addressed. A development agreement should be required to define a building envelope well back on the property, to ensure that the visual impacts are minimized and the rural character is preserved and, in this case, to ensure that the MDS1 requirements are met as well. The applicants have proposed a building site well back on the property which meets those requirements. Planner Ron Mills advised that he had been in contact with the NVCA regarding their preferred placement of the rear lot lines. The rear portion of the subject lands (the existing property) is part of a significant valley land system (Boyne River Valley) identified in the Official Plan, and since there is a large tract of forest within the valley, the forest is considered a significant forest under both the Provincial Policy Statement and in the Township s Official Plan. Mr. Mills stated that for that reason, it has been recommended, and the owners have agreed, not to extend the proposed lot into the significant forest or the valley land, and to define a building area in the aforementioned development agreement that is in the unforested area, well back from the valley land feature and significant forest, as defined by the Schedules to the Official Plan. The proposed building location is, as a result, over 70 m. from these significant features. The building envelope required by the development agreement would define the setbacks from the rear lot line to ensure that the buildings are located on the lot accordingly. The Committee discussed the possibility of realigning the rear lot line so that it follows an existing fence line and an old farm lane, so as to avoid the valley land and significant forest. Planner Ron Mills suggested having a building envelope set at least 185 m back from the barn (as opposed to the required 158 m) to accommodate a reasonable expansion of the livestock operation on the retained portion Rhonda Hawkins, applicant, advised the Committee that this proposal was part of their estate planning and that the severed lot would be conveyed to their son. There were no comments from the gallery. The Committee reviewed the MSD requirements and were in agreement to keep the building envelope a further distance than the minimum required. The Committee asked if this new lot configuration was acceptable to the applicant. Rhonda Hawkins, applicant, stated that it was acceptable. The Committee confirmed with Ron Mills, Planner, that this lot configuration would conform to the NVCA requirements. Ron Mills, Planner indicated that it would, noting that the NVCA had not actually objected but had expressed this as their preference, and he further assured the Committee that if the barn were to be expanded to hold more livestock the MDS 2 requirement for a reasonable expansion could be met. He also noted, after the following motion was read, that the actual size of the lot will now be in the order of 8.25 to 8.5 ha. because of the shift in the rear lot line. Page 5 of 8

6 Moved by Sedgwick, Seconded by Goodfellow: That Application No. B13/2014, submitted by Earl and Rhonda Hawkins, owners, to sever a parcel of approximately 8.75 ha. in size, to be taken from lands in the West Half of Lot 10, Concession 5 EHS, be approved and that consent be granted subject to the following conditions: A road widening be taken, if not previously taken, from the severed portion along the north side of 10 sideroad, in accordance with the Township of Mulmur road widening policies and requirements. That the rear lot line be revised so that it follows an existing rail fence along the westerly part of the rear of the lot, and thereafter along the edge of the heavily treed area that roughly defines the rim of the Boyne River, so that the lot does not extend into the valley or the significant forest associated with it. That a development plan and agreement satisfactory to Council be required, to establish a building envelope that will ensure that the rural character of the area is generally preserved, that a set-back of 70 m is provided from the rear lot line and that a set-back of a minimum of 180 m. is provided from the existing barn on the retained portion, to allow a reasonable expansion of its capacity to house livestock. REASON: generally conforms to the Township s Official Plan. Member Hawkins returned to the meeting. 8:05 pm B14/2014 Litz New Rural lot for residential purposes Part West Half Lot 1, Concession 2 WHS Members of the public present for this hearing: Gus Litz, Diane Litz, Wayne Bryan Correspondence received (that was not included in the agenda package): NVCA no objection Ron Mills, Planner, advised the Committee that there are four lots within this original Township half lot and the northerly half is within the Boyne Valley Provincial Park. That portion does not count against the lot density because it is part of a larger parcel under public ownership and so will not be developed for residential purposes. The creation of another lot would still appear, at first glance, to exceed the maximum number permissible under the Rural policies of the Official Plan. However, two of the lots are within the Primrose Settlement area, and those lots do not count against the total lots permissible under the Rural designation. Ron Mills, Planner, further noted that this property has sufficient frontage on a local road and sufficient lot area to permit it to be divided in half. The existing dwelling and garage are situated on the retained portion such that the side yard set-back requirements can also be met. Also, Planner Ron Mills stated that a development agreement should be considered by the Committee, however, the preservation of rural character on Highway 89 is not necessarily an issue. Gus Litz, applicant, advised the Committee that he plans to build a house on the severed portion and that his daughter will likely eventually live in the existing house on the retained portion. Wayne Bryan, from the gallery, stated that he had no objection to the severance and has much respect for Gus Litz. Page 6 of 8

7 The Committee questioned the appearance of having more than 3 severance on a rural lot and asked if there was a precedent. Planner Ron Mills responded that this is similar to the Poulsen severances in Terra Nova. Since a portion of this rural lot is deemed settlement area, lots within that area should not count against the number of rural severances allowed. The density within the rural portion remains low and, in this case would still only be three dwellings within the entire original Township half lot. The settlement area lots are not residential building lots. The Committee had some concern regarding the distance that the new house would be from the Second Line West and Highway 89, and generally agreed that this should be addressed in the development agreement. Planner Ron Mills suggested increasing the setback if needed. Moved by Hawkins, Seconded by Horner: That Application No. B14/2014, submitted by Gus and Alana Litz, owners, to sever a parcel of approximately 2.1 ha. in size, to be taken from lands in the West Half of Lot 1, Concession 2 WH, be approved, and that consent be granted subject to the following conditions: a road widening be taken, if not previously taken, from the severed portion along the east side of the 2nd Line West, in accordance with the Township of Mulmur road widening policies and requirements. That a development plan and agreement satisfactory to Council be required, to establish a building envelope on the northerly portion of the lot that will reduce the visual impact of the development from the highway and the noise impacts from the highway on the residential use of the lot. REASON: generally conforms to the Township s Official Plan. 8/ New and other business Zoning By-Law update - verbal up-date Planner Ron Mills told the Committee that the New Zoning By-law has been approved and is in effect. The Hilchey appeal was dismissed by the OMB without a hearing, as the applicant did not meet the requirements of an appellant and did not make any submission(s) at the Public Meeting. It appears that the Board made this a precedent setting case as to when applicants have the right to appeal and when they do not have that right. He noted that there is increasingly less tolerance for people not speaking up at public meetings and then coming in after the fact. He noted that it is likely that this decision will be used in argument many times in the future when the OMB has to deal with appeals made by people who have not followed the rules and met the requirements to be considered as legitimate appellants able to obtain party status at a hearing. Although the motion to dismiss was approved and there was no hearing of the appeal, the Township costs were still approximately $18,000. The Committee requested a copy of the Decision for the next agenda package. Page 7 of 8

8 9/ Information Items none 10/ Adjournment Moved by Sedgwick, Seconded by Goodfellow: That this meeting be now adjourned at 9:00PM, and that the next meeting be held at the call of the Chair. Carried. Approved: Morley Brown Chair Kerstin Shillum Secretary Page 8 of 8