THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

Transcription

1 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment was held on Thursday, January 5, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Offices, Port Carling, Ontario. PRESENT: Members: Officials Present: Adele Fairfield- Chair Karen Ellis S. Fahner - Secretary Treasurer Brian Hare A. Ghikadis - Development Planner Mary Grady A. Glazier - Committee of Adjustment Administrator Susan Pryke C. Minty - Planning Administrative Assistant Ruth Nishikawa D. Pink - Development Planner Ian Wallace Nancy Thompson Don Goltz Regrets: Stewart Martin 1. Meeting Called to Order Chair Fairfield called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest 3. Adoption of Minutes a. A copy of the Minutes dated December 15, 2004, is attached. Resolution Number: CA-01-01/05/2005 Member Goltz - Member Hare: Be it resolved that the minutes dated December 15, 2004 be adopted and approved as circulated. 4. Delegations 5. Hearing of Consent Applications (In Conjunction with Zoning Amendment Applications) a. B/122/04/ML, Ontario Limited, Part of Lots 11 and 12, Concession 8, Parts 11, 12, 19-23, Plan 35R-19949, (Watt), A verbal report was presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 26 days prior. Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Ms. Ghikadis read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #1

2 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 ii) iii) Memo received from Sandy Bos, Building Inspector. Ms. Ghikadis read the memo aloud, a copy of which is attached. Letter received from Hans Taal on behalf of the following people. Ms. Ghikadis read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. Nancy Louise Taal and Johannes Josephus (Hans) Taal Michael and Keith Snead and Laura Lemarquand Margaret Alexander Woodhouse Sidney Walter and Ethel Finch Elmer Frank & Ann Marie Duchek iv) Letter received from Hans Taal reguesting notification. A copy of the letter is attached. v) Letter received from Mrs. E.A. Rausch. Ms. Ghikadis read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. Staff commented on the history of the subject lands. In 2003, a total of five lots were created. At that time, a number of specific conditions were put in place due to concerns with steep slopes on the lot. Specifically a condition regarding an engineer to determine building envelopes. There was also concern with the further division of the waterfront. The current application is a proposal to create a new back lot. No additional waterfront lots are being created. The proposed lots conform and comply with the Official Plan and zoning by-law. Staff requested that a building envelope be defined on the severed lot. Mr. Staples, Penwood Road, Port Carling, Ontario P0B 1J0 attended the meeting. Mr. Staples stated they intend to place a small bungalow on the back lands. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. In answer to Member Hare s question, Ms. Ghikadis noted that the proposed severed lot does not meet the lot area requirements of the Rural (Ru1) zone. There is a question of the zoning on the proposed severed lot. It is currently zoned Rural (Ru1) but is more reflective of a Waterfront Residential (WR2) zone. In answer to Member Pryke s question, Mr. Staples indicated he and his wife are the owners of the numbered company. In answer to Member Nishikawa s question, Ms. Ghikadis stated new lot requirements for a Waterfront Residential (WR2) is 660 feet of frontage and 5 acres in area. The Rural (Ru1) zone requires 600 feet of frontage and 10 acres in area. An exemption is therefore required for area as the proposed lot only has 9.79 acres in area. It was noted that it does meet the criteria for the (WR2) zone. In answer to Member Grady s question, Mr. Fahner noted that By-law froze the lot. There is an excessive amount of frontage but the lot is very steep, and there were questions of access to the water. The focus was on the waterfront but no discussion of the rural lot. The rural lot had development rights through By-law and no one appealed it. Member Thompson questioned By-law and felt a Plan of Subdivision was not required due to the freezing of the lot. Mr. Fahner stated no additional Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #2

3 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 lots are to be created and a plan of subdivision is unnecessary. Usually with a plan of subdivision, a year round publicly maintained road is the result. In this case, the Township did not want the road nor could one built to Township standards. In answer to Member Nishikawa s question, Mr. Fahner stated staff and the District staff did not feel access was an issue. In answer to Member Pryke s questions, Mr. Fahner stated the proposed severed lot could be rezoned to Waterfront Residential (WR2) if Committee wishes and is appropriate. Either zoning has development rights. With respect to the septic system and the limited areas for septic, an engineering report has identified the servicing of the lot. Mr. Fahner added that site plan control is on the proposed retained lot. He requested Committee s direction whether they wish a building envelope to be defined or to define an appropriate setback for the proposed severed lot. He noted this could be done at the by-law stage. The majority of Committee agreed with defining a building envelope. Committee did not agree to the rezoning of the back lot to Waterfront Residential (WR2) as it would permit greater lot coverage and a sleeping cabin. Resolution Number: CA-02-05/01/2005 Member Hare - Member Goltz: Be it resolved that Consent be granted for Application B/122/04/ML, ( Ontario Limited) provided the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. A registerable description (Deed) of the severed lots be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan, if required. 2. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage systems be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. 3. The retained lot be restricted in size to restrict any further severance. The severed lot receive an exemption to the minimum lot area requirement of the Zoning By-law. 4. A satisfactory building envelope be incorporated in a zoning by-law exemption for the proposed severed lot. REASONS: This application will conform with the requirements of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, the Township Official Plan and the District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan. Pursuant to Section 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, all conditions imposed must be fulfilled within one year from the date of the sending of the Notice of Decision or the application is deemed to be refused. It is a requirement that all conditions imposed be fulfilled prior to the granting of this consent and the giving by the Secretary- Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #3

4 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 Treasurer of the certificate provided for in Subsection 42 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, (R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended). 6. Hearing of Consent Applications a. B/120/128/04/ML, Reid, Lot 30, Concession 12, (Cardwell), A verbal report was presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 16 days prior. Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Ms. Ghikadis read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. ii) Memo received from Sandy Bos, Building Inspector. Ms. Ghikadis read the memo aloud, a copy of which is attached. Staff noted the proposed lots comply with the Official Plan and zoning by-law. Staff did not inspect the property and had no objection to the application. Mr. Dave Reid, 11 Bird Lane, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1J1 attended the meeting to answer any questions. Mr. John Jackson, Main Street West, Huntsville, Ontario P1H 2C5 agent for the applicant attended the meeting. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. In answer to Member Goltz s question, Mr. Fahner stated Cardwell is identified in the Official Plan as Area 2 Low Density Development Area. This permits more than one lot per land holding. Area 3 Country Residential for Monck and Watt only allows one lot per landholding. Resolution Number: CA-03-05/01/2005 Member Goltz Member Ellis: Be it resolved that Consent be granted for Application B/120/128/04/ML, (Reid) provided the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. A registerable description (Deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan. 2. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage systems be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #4

5 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, That cash-in-lieu of parkland be dedicated to the Township in the amount of 5% of the assessed value of the newly created vacant lot, or the entire lands, whichever is less. REASONS: This application conforms with the requirements of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, the Township Official Plan and the District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan. Pursuant to Section 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, all conditions imposed must be fulfilled within one year from the date of the sending of the Notice of Decision or the application is deemed to be refused. It is a requirement that all conditions imposed be fulfilled prior to the granting of this consent and the giving by the Secretary- Treasurer of the certificate provided for in Subsection 42 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, (R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended). b. B/121/04/ML, McQuaid, Part of Lot 35, Concession B, Parts 5 and 7, Plan 35R- 4766, (Watt), A verbal report was presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 16 days prior. Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Ms. Ghikadis read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. ii) Memo received from Sandy Bos, Building Inspector. Ms. Ghikadis read the memo aloud, a copy of which is attached. Staff noted the status of the legal right-of-way would not change. Mr. Dave Kingshott, 3762 Telford Line, Orillia, Ontari L3N 6H3 attended the meeting as agent for the applicant to answer any questions. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. Committee had no questions Resolution Number: CA-04-05/01/2005 Member Ellis Member Goltz: Be it resolved that Consent be granted for Application B/121/04/ML, (McQuaid) provided the following conditions are fulfilled: Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #5

6 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, A registerable description (Deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan. 2. That the severed lot merge with the abutting lot. The severed lot is to be added to land currently in the ownership of Edwin B. Kingshott. REASONS: This application conforms with the requirements of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, the Township Official Plan and the District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan. Subsection 3 of Section 50 of the Planning Act applies to any subsequent conveyance. Pursuant to Section 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, all conditions imposed must be fulfilled within one year from the date of the sending of the Notice of Decision or the application is deemed to be refused. It is a requirement that all conditions imposed be fulfilled prior to the granting of this consent and the giving by the Secretary- Treasurer of the certificate provided for in Subsection 42 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, (R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended). c. B/123/124/125/04/ML, Estate of Hermant, Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concessions E and F, Parts 19, 20, 54 and 56, Plan 35R-16399, (Medora), A verbal report was presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 16 days prior. Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Ms. Ghikadis read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. ii) Memo received from Sandy Bos, Building Inspector. Ms. Ghikadis read the memo aloud, a copy of which is attached. Staff noted that proposed severed lot 2 is associated with a narrow waterbody and does conform to the Official Plan policies. As per the District s comments regarding Fisheries comment, the Township maps indicate the property abuts Type 1 habitat. A fish habitat study has been submitted by Michalski Nielsen and staff recommends this be peer reviewed. Both severed lots have suitable building sites. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #6

7 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 Ms. Margaret Walton, Planscape, 104 Kimberley Avenue, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1Z8 attended the meeting as agent for the applicant. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application Ms. Walton questioned the timing for a peer review and noted they would have to wait until spring to check into any issues. Mr. Fahner indicated if the peer reviewer finds any discrepancies they would send their comments to the Township. If the assessment was done in the summer or early fall, it should not have to be revisited. Resolution Number: CA-05-05/01/2005 Member Ellis Member Pryke: Be it resolved that Consent be granted for Application B/123/124/04/ML, (Estate of Hermant) provided the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. A registerable description (Deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan. 2. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage systems be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. 3. That cash-in-lieu of parkland be dedicated to the Township in the amount of 5% of the assessed value of the newly created vacant lot, or the entire lands, whichever is less. 4. That a fisheries impact assessment be completed and peer reviewed for the Severed Lot 2 (B/124/04/ML), and that any requirements from that assessment be implemented. REASONS: This application conforms with the requirements of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, the Township Official Plan and the District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan. Pursuant to Section 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, all conditions imposed must be fulfilled within one year from the date of the sending of the Notice of Decision or the application is deemed to be refused. It is a requirement that all conditions imposed be fulfilled prior to the granting of this consent and the giving by the Secretary- Treasurer of the certificate provided for in Subsection 42 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, (R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended). Resolution Number: CA-06-05/01/2005 Member Ellis Member Pryke: Be it resolved that Consent be granted for Application B/125/04/ML, (Estate of Hermant) provided the following conditions are fulfilled: Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #7

8 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, A registerable description (Deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan. 2. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage systems be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. 3. That the severed lot merge with the abutting lot. The severed lot is to be added to land currently in the ownership of Peter Hermant. REASONS: This application conforms with the requirements of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, the Township Official Plan and the District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan. Subsection 3 of Section 50 of the Planning Act applies to any subsequent conveyance. Pursuant to Section 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, all conditions imposed must be fulfilled within one year from the date of the sending of the Notice of Decision or the application is deemed to be refused. It is a requirement that all conditions imposed be fulfilled prior to the granting of this consent and the giving by the Secretary- Treasurer of the certificate provided for in Subsection 42 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, (R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended). d. B/126/04/ML, Dawson, Part of Lot 25, Concession 8, Parts 1 and 2, Plan RD- 885, (Watt), A verbal report was presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 16 days prior. Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Ms. Ghikadis read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. ii) Memo received from Sandy Bos, Building Inspector. Ms. Ghikadis read the memo aloud, a copy of which is attached. Staff noted the proposed severed lot is required to be joined to the abutting lands in order to provide for suitable access, as the terrain is difficult in this location. An entrance approval has already been issued from the District of Muskoka. Both the retained and benefiting lands are currently building lots and the proposed severance will not change that status. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #8

9 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 Mr. Earl Smith, 1052 Inverness Road, RR # 2, Utterson, Ontario P0B 1M0 attended the meeting to answer any questions. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. In answer to Member Pryke s question, Mr. Smith indicated he had no problem with the road widening condition from the District. Resolution Number: CA-07-05/01/2005 Member Pryke Member Nishikawa: Be it resolved that Consent be granted for Application B/126/04/ML, (Dawson) provided the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. A registerable description (Deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan. 2. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage systems be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. 3. The lands are subject to an agreement with the District Municipality of Muskoka pursuant to Section 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., as amended, respecting: i) The applicant enters into a deferred road widening agreement with the District of Muskoka pursuant to Section 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, as amended; ii) The applicant enters into an agreement with the District of Muskoka pursuant to Section 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S. O., 1990, as amended, respecting the location of wells on the property in relation to the District Road.. 4. That the severed lot be merged with the abutting lot. The severed lot is to be added to land currently in the ownership of Earl D. Smith. REASONS: This application conforms with the requirements of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, the Township Official Plan and the District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan. Subsection 3 of Section 50 of the Planning Ace applies to any subsequent conveyance. Pursuant to Section 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, all conditions imposed must be fulfilled within one year from the date of the sending of the Notice of Decision or the application is deemed to be refused. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #9

10 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 It is a requirement that all conditions imposed be fulfilled prior to the granting of this consent and the giving by the Secretary- Treasurer of the certificate provided for in Subsection 42 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, (R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended). 7. Hearing of Minor Variance Applications a. A-77/04, Harding, Part of Lot 32, Concession 5, Part of Lots 25 and 26, Plan 18, (Port Carling), A verbal report was presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 14 days prior. No submissions were received. Photographs were circulated to Committee. Staff noted the wrong pitch of trusses was sent from the manufacturer. Only a portion is over the height requirement due to the angle of the lot and there is good tree buffering from the lake. Mr. Bill Harding, 18 Schooner Court, Markham, Ontario L6C 1R2 attended the meeting. Mr. Harding read a letter of support aloud from the neighbour across the bay. Mr. Don Moynes, RR # 1, Rosseau, Ontario P0C 1J0 attended the meeting as the builder for the applicant. Mr. Moynes noted the height would not be obtrusive to anyone. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. In answer to Member Grady s question, Mr. Moynes stated they had approached Kent Trusses and Beaver Lumber regarding this mistake and Beaver Lumber had paid the application fees. In answer to Member Thompson s question, Mr. Fahner stated Committee should be basing considerations on the planning merits of the applications. The most important factor is the visual impact and staff felt the tree cover would soften the impact. Mr. Moynes stated the truss issue was not intentional and requested Committee to consider the proposed. Resolution Number CA-08-05/01/2005 Member Nishikawa - Member Pryke: Be it resolved that Application A-77/04, Harding, to allow an addition to the existing dwelling to be 37 feet in height, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby granted. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #10

11 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 CONDITIONS: REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment of the property, maintains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted that only a portion of the structure exceeds the height limit and is well screened from the lake. It was also noted that the neighbours that view the property from across the lake supported the application. b. A-78/04, Heenemen, Part of Lot 34, Concession 2, Parts 2 and 3, Plan 35R- 7586, (Watt), A verbal report was presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 14 days prior. No submissions were received. Photographs were circulated to Committee. Staff noted that Brandy Lake has more restrictive requirements due to water quality concerns. Waterfront Residential (WR4) is most the restrictive for setbacks. The recently passed provisions of Waterfront Density By-law (By-law ) allow additions to existing structures at 35 feet, however, the proposed addition is going closer. Staff inspected the property and there are limited areas for expansion given the terrain. It was noted that the proposed addition was redesigned as it originally matched the existing building line that brought it even closer to the water. Mr. Vernon Heeneman, Box 383, Port Carling, Ontario P0B 1J0 attended the meeting. Mr. Heeneman indicated they wish to avoid blasting. They are very restricted due to the layout of the existing dwelling. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. In answer to Member Goltz s question, Ms. Ghikadis stated according to our information the Original Shore Road Allowance is closed. In answer to Member Ellis question, Mr. Heeneman stated the proposed addition could not be located on the other side of the dwelling due to the topography of the lands. Member Nishikawa questioned if Committee could impose a condition to request a surveyor confirm the setback. Mr. Fahner stated this could be done at the building permit stage. Committee agreed that a surveyor confirm the setback from the water. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #11

12 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 Resolution Number CA-09-05/01/2005 Member Wallace Member Thompson: Be it resolved that Application A-78/04, Heenemen, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling to be 40 feet from the high water mark, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby granted subject to confirmation of the setback by a surveyor. CONDITION: That a surveyor confirm the setback from the lake. REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment of the property, maintains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted that the existing building line is being maintained and due to physical constraints (rock outcrop) the addition is in the best location. It was also noted that the neighbours did not oppose. c. A-79/04, Suitso, Part of Lot 19, Concession 8, Lot 6, Plan M-330, (Monck), A verbal report was presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 14 days prior. Photographs were circulated to Committee. Letter of support was submitted from Siegfield Judt. Ms. Ghikadis read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. Staff noted the existing sideyard setback of the dwelling is 12 feet. The dwelling was constructed circa 1964 and pre-dates the by-law. The back corner of the proposed addition is proposed to be four feet from the side lot line and does limits additional buffering. Mr. Peter Suitso, 40 Oaken Gateway, Toronto, Ontario M2P 2A1 attended the meeting. Mr. Suitso stated neighbouring structures are approximately 200 feet away and not visible due to the tree density. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. In answer to Member Pryke s question, Mr. Suitso stated the addition could not go on the other side of the building due to the driveway. In answer to Member Nishikawa s question, Mr. Fahner stated the applicant is within lot coverage. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #12

13 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 Resolution Number CA-10-05/01/2005 Member Thompson Member Wallace: Be it resolved that Application A-79/04, Suitso, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling to be 34 feet from the high water mark and 4 feet from the side lot line, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby granted. REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment of the property, maintains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted that the distance between the buildings on the subject land and abutting lots is good. Due to physical constraints, (location of driveway and septic system), the addition is in the only suitable location. d. A-80/04, Hogg, Part of Lot 18, Concession 6, Lot 2, Plan M-661, (Watt), A verbal report will be presented. Ms. Ghikadis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 14 days prior. Photographs were circulated to Committee. Staff noted the dwelling would have an appearance of a three storey dwelling and would not be in character with the area. The property is subject to site plan control. Significant tree removal had occurred last summer prior to site plan approval. It was noted the entire width of the dwelling is subject to the 38 foot height request. Mr. Steve Hogg, 39 Iron Gate Drive, Paris, Ontario N3L 4G3 attended the meeting. Mr. Hogg stated the lot is restrictive. The building is situated in a natural depression of the lot. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. In answer to Member Thompson s question, Mr. Fahner stated there was significant tree removal on the property and a letter was sent to the wrong property owner in error. Staff had not discussed site plan approval but is recommending significant tree planting. In answer to Member Goltz s question, Mr. Hogg stated the additional height is not required for habitable space. It is for the snow load. In answer to Member Hare s question, Mr. Hogg stated Pinestone Engineering did a stormwater management plan on the property. He noted the trees were taken down for the entrance and building envelope. In answer to Member Nishikawa s question, Mr. Fahner stated the site plan application would be on Planning Committee due to the tree cover. It was noted Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #13

14 8. Correspondence Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005 that silt fencing and the implementation of the stormwater management plan has not been done. Member Thompson questioned lot coverage calculations. Mr. Fahner stated the applicant is within lot coverage requirements. 9. Unfinished Business 10. New Business 11. Statistics 12. Adjournment Resolution Number CA-11-05/01/2005 Member Thompson Member Wallace: Be it resolved that Application A-80/04, Hogg, to allow for the construction of a dwelling in which a portion of the dwelling is to be 38 feet in height, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby denied. REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is not minor in nature, does not maintain the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and does not maintain the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee felt the proposed dwelling can comply with the requirements of the zoning by-law. The proposed dwelling is not inkeeping with the character of the area. Resolution Number: CA-12-05/01/2005 Be it resolved that the meeting adjourn at 11:17 a.m. Adele Fairfield, Chair Stephen Fahner, Secretary-Treasurer Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 5, 2005, Page #14

15 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Offices, Port Carling, Ontario. PRESENT: Members: Officials Present: Adele Fairfield- Chair Karen Ellis S. Fahner - Secretary Treasurer Brian Hare A. Glazier - Committee of Adjustment Administrator Mary Grady D. Pink - Development Planner Susan Pryke 9:04 a.m. C. Minty - Planning Administrative Assistant Ruth Nishikawa Ian Wallace Don Goltz Regrets: Nancy Thompson Stewart Martin 1. Meeting Called to Order Chair Fairfield called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. 2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest 3. Adoption of Minutes a. A copy of the Minutes dated January 5, 2005, is attached. Resolution Number: CA-01-26/01/2005 Member Goltz - Member Hare: Be it resolved that the minutes dated January 5, 2004 be adopted and approved as circulated. 4. Delegations 5. Hearing of Consent Applications (In Conjunction with Zoning Amendment Applications) a. Nil. 6. Hearing of Consent Applications a. B/127/04/ML, Kerr, Part of Lot 24, Concession F, Parts 2, 5-9, 12, Plan 35R- 9232, Part 1, Plan 35R-17805, (Medora), A verbal report was presented. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 19 days prior. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005, Page #1

16 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005 Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Mr. Pink read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. i) Memo received from Sandy Bos, Building Inspector. Mr. Pink read the memo aloud, a copy of which is attached. The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR1). Both the proposed retained and severed lots comply with the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan. Staff inspected the property on January 11, It is a relatively level lot, heavily treed, and the proposed retained lot does contain several good building sites. There is a concern that the only suitable septic location is located on the current right-of-way. Staff recommends that the right-of-way be extinguished across both the severed and retained lots, and replaced with a right-of-way over the existing driveway. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Bill Grimmett, Box 365, Port Carling, Ontario P0B 1J0 attended the meeting as agent for the applicant. He noted the location of the right-of-way could be dealt with as a condition to the consent. They have no immediate plans to develop the retained lot. Mr. Nick Roche, Box 990, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1V2 attended the meeting in opposition to the application on behalf of the neighbouring property owner (Wright). Mr. Roche stated concerns with the sideyard setback for shoreline structures and requested that Committee impose a 50 foot sideyard setback on the retained lot. In answer to Member Pryke s question, Mr. Roche stated his client s dock encroaches on the projected sideyard setback. This increase to the setback would address any boating, swimming or safety concerns. In answer to Member Hare s question, Mr. Roche requested Committee take into account of the existing structures in the area. He noted concerns with a boathouse being located 10 feet from his client s dock. Mr. Grimmett stated his clients are trying to get a clear understanding of this issue and requested the matter be deferred to further discuss this with his clients. Mr. Fahner reminded Committee that the new setback for docks is 30 feet. A single storey boathouse would be permitted, however, if it had a deck on it then the required setback would be 45 feet. Staff felt the new setback requirements are adequate and should cover any concerns. ADJOURNED b. B/129/04/ML, Wright, Part of Lots 26 and 27, Concession 13, Parts 1 and 3, Plan 35R-17213, (Medora), A verbal report was presented. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 19 days prior. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005, Page #2

17 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005 Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Mr. Pink read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. ii) Memo received from Sandy Bos, Building Inspector. Mr. Pink read the memo aloud, a copy of which is attached. The zoning on the subject property is Waterfront Residential (WR1) and Open Space (OS2). According to the mapping associated with the Official Plan policies there are steep slopes associated with the frontage of this property. A site visit on January 12, 2005 confirmed this. The slopes are in the range of 40% for both the proposed severed and retained lots, and Section B-8.5 of the policies state that on lands with slopes between 40-60%, the minimum water frontage for new lots shall be 300 feet. Both the proposed severed and retained lots exceed this requirement. They also both comply with the zoning by-law. The site visit also found that the lot is heavily treed, and there is a large ravine running through the area in what appears to be the proposed lot line between the proposed severed and retained. Even with the steep slopes, and large ravine, due to the large frontages and areas of the proposed lots, several good building sites do exist. Normally, the WR1 zone is not subject to site plan control. Due to the steep slopes on the property, staff requests that both the proposed severed and retained lots are made subject to site plan control. Staff had recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Nick Roche, Box 990, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1V2 attended the meeting as agent for the applicant. Mr. Roche indicated the application represents good planning and requested Committee s approval. No one else attended the meeting in support or in opposition to the application. In answer to Member Hare s question, Mr. Fahner stated the previous severance application has not been finalized. This proposal does not extinguish the previous severance application. Member Ellis questioned site plan control. Mr. Fahner stated a site plan control by-law was approved at the January 24, 2005 Council meeting. Resolution Number: CA-03-26/01/2005 Member Wallace Member Hare: Be it resolved that Consent be granted for Application B/129/04/ML, (Wright) provided the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. A registerable description (Deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan. 2. That cash-in-lieu of parkland be dedicated to the Township in the amount of 5% of the assessed value of the newly created vacant lot, or the entire lands, whichever is less. REASONS: This application conforms with the requirements of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, the Township Official Plan and the District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005, Page #3

18 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005 Pursuant to Section 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, all conditions imposed must be fulfilled within one year from the date of the sending of the Notice of Decision or the application is deemed to be refused. It is a requirement that all conditions imposed be fulfilled prior to the granting of this consent and the giving by the Secretary- Treasurer of the certificate provided for in Subsection 42 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, (R.S.O., 1990, Chapter P.13, as amended). c. B/130/04/ML, Sullivan, Part of Lots 26 and 27, Concession 11, Parts 1-5, 7-10, 13, Plan 35R-14872, (Medora), A copy of the report was attached. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 19 days prior. Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Mr. Pink read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. ii) Memo received from Sandy Bos, Building Inspector. Mr. Pink read the memo aloud, a copy of which is attached. Staff noted that a similar concurrent application, proposing to sever the subject property into a total of four lots was denied in 2003 and staff also recommends that this application be denied. If this property were to be downzoned, it would comply with the requirements of the zoning by-law. With the current zoning, the proposed lots do not comply. Staff inspected the property on January 12, With respect to the topography and proposed lot areas and frontages, a Waterfront Residential (WR1) zoning is appropriate for the lot. Good building sites do exist as the land is fairly level. However, staff does not support the downzoning of large commercial properties. There are concerns as currently the septic system servicing the proposed severed lot is on the proposed retained lot. A replacement system is required on the proposed severed lot. If Committee was to approve the application, staff recommended it be subject to conditions, including obtaining a report from a qualified person in tourism economics as to why this is not a viable resort property. Mr. Wayne Simpson, 11 Centre Street S., Huntsville, Ontario P1H 1W4 attended the meeting as agent for the applicant. Mr. Simpson requested a deferral of the application as an economic study is currently being drafted. He noted the proposed severed lot is to be rezoned to WR1 and the retained lot would remain commercial. Ms. Margaret Walton, Planscape, 104 Kimberley Avenue, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1Z8 attended the meeting in opposition to the application on behalf of Ken Fowler who owns adjacent commercial property. She registered her concern with Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005, Page #4

19 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005 the application and wishes to see the resort designation remain and felt it benefits the continuation of the resort commercial properties in the area. Member Hare questioned if it was appropriate to create a new lot under 300 feet of frontage with a two storey boathouse currently under construction. Mr. Fahner stated staff did not evaluate the new boathouse as staff was recommending denial of the application. Member Nishikawa questioned if the problem was created when the OMB permitted residential use on a commercial property. Mr. Fahner stated the Township s first option was to not permit this use and the OMB wanted it included. In answer to Member Pryke s question, Mr. Fahner noted the Official Plan does state prior to consideration an economic study is required. Staff felt they should be given an opportunity to provide one. He also noted that an owner of the resort could possibly live in this dwelling. In answer to Chair Fairfield s question, Mr. Fahner stated it is difficult to look into the future. He noted that there is currently a number of existing commercial properties that are re-developing. Mr. Simpson requested time to demonstrate the economic viability and noted what they propose does make sense. Member Nishikawa noted her concerns with a residential property in the middle of commercial property. Mr. Fahner stated the concern is with the majority of the commercial portion of the lot is behind the severed lot. The majority of Committee did not support a deferral of the application and the following resolution was considered. Resolution Number: CA-04-26/01/2005 Member Hare Member Wallace: Be it resolved that Consent be denied for Application B/130/04/ML, (Sullivan), as the downzoning of commercial property is not supported due to the close proximity of surrounding commercial properties. Carried 7. Hearing of Minor Variance Applications a. A-81/04, Hermant, Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession E, part of Part 33 and 34, Plan 35R-16399, (Medora), A verbal report was presented. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 13 days prior. No submissions were received. According to the mapping associated with the Official Plan policies, there is a narrow waterbody constraint associated with the subject property. According to Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005, Page #5

20 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005 staff s measurements, the lake is 140 metres (460 feet) across. Although it is a narrow waterbody, it is a separation of existing uses, and we would permit the severance at a lesser frontage. Existing structures are still well setback from the side lot line, and although staff did not conduct a site visit, staff recommends approval. Photographs were circulated to Committee. Ms. Margaret Walton, Planscape, 104 Kimberley Avenue, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1Z8 attended the meeting as agent for the applicant. Ms. Walton indicated there would be no impact from the variance, the existing development is modest and is a bonafide minor variance application. Mr. Adam Hermant attended the meeting. Member Nishikawa inquired if Committee is recognizing the lot at 300 feet. Mr. Fahner stated this would recognize the lot at 294 feet of frontage. Ms. Walton indicated there is an existing boathouse on the property and are aware of the requirements of the new by-law. She noted the applicants do not want a two storey boathouse. Resolution Number CA-05-26/01/2005 Member Wallace Member Hare: Be it resolved that Application A-81/04, Hermant, to allow a new lot to have 294 feet of frontage, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby granted. REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment of the property, maintains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted that this lot creation is a separation of existing uses and there is no impact on the neighbouring properties. b. A-82/04, Glassman, Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 14, Part 2, Plan RD- 2038, (Medora), A verbal report was presented. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 13 days prior. A letter was received from John and Kay O Reilly. Mr. Pink read the letter aloud, a copy of which is attached. It is a small corner of the existing deck that is presently encroaching into the front yard. Staff inspected the property on January 25, There is tree cover buffering the existing deck, in the form of several large mature trees, however, the trees have had many limbs removed, and there is no undergrowth present along the shoreline. Staff would like to see more undergrowth present. The land slopes fairly steeply from the waterfront. The building is set quite high on the Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005, Page #6

21 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005 property, therefore, reducing the visual impact from the lake due to the mature trees. As it is only a small portion of the deck encroaching onto the front yard, staff recommended approval. Mr. Nick Roche, Box 990, Bracebridge, Ontario P1L 1V2 attended the meeting as agent for the applicant. Mr. Roche stated the side yard setback is 50 feet. As a result of a survey after construction, and the shoreline indentation, there is a technical infraction. There is no impact on neighbours and all the tests for a minor variance have been met. No one else attended the meeting in support of or in opposition to the application. Member Pryke requested that a condition is added for additional buffering. Mr. Roche stated he has not seen to the property, but noted there are several mature trees. He questioned what buffering staff contemplates, is it only to be the area in front of cottage? Mr. Fahner stated shoreline buffering is in the By-law and in the Official Plan. Staff is concerned with area in front of the dwelling. There is a fairly thick growth of hemlock and they did leave some mature trees. Staff suggested some additional plantings, approximately 12 trees of the coniferous variety. Mr. Roche did not object. Committee agreed with additional buffering. Resolution Number CA-06-26/01/2005 Member Hare Member Wallace: Be it resolved that Application A-82/04, Glassman, to allow an existing deck over 5 feet in height to be in the front yard and to allow a front yard setback of 47 feet for the existing dwelling/deck, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby granted subject to buffering to staff satisfaction. CONDITIONS: That buffering on the property is provided to the satisfaction of Township staff. REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment of the property, maintains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted that only a portion of the structure encroaches into the front yard, there is minimal impact on the neighbouring properties, and the shoreline is irregular. c. A-83/04, Morris, Part of Lot 15, Concession 13, Lot 6, Plan M-291, (Wood), A verbal report was presented. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 13 days prior. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005, Page #7

22 Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005 A letter was received from Steve Morris requesting notification. A copy of the letter is attached. The subject property is an undersized lot according to the existing lots of record provisions and, therefore, is not considered a building lot. However, Section 7.2.A.2 of By-law 87-87, as amended, permits existing structures to be reconstructed. The proposed dwelling is well setback from the front lot line, 75 feet, but a site visit revealed the land slopes up steeply from the water on the subject property and levels to a plateau. There is moderate tree cover, mainly coniferous species, buffering the entire shoreline of the subject property, therefore, rendering the proposed structure not entirely visible from the waterfront. With respect to the proposed dwelling, the height variance requested is small, just over one foot, and only over the central/front portion of the dwelling. The dwelling is quite narrow, 30 feet, thus reducing the impact. It does have the appearance of a two storey with a loft or a two and a half storey dwelling. Staff recommended approval. In answer to Member Goltz s question, Mr. Fahner stated the dwelling is not constructed, there is a hole for the foundation. Member Goltz felt it could be built at 35 feet in height. Member Nishikawa did not support the variance. She felt they could comply and it would be a small imposition to make the roof fit the height requirements. Member Pryke offered her support to the application as it is only a small portion of the roof, and is well buffered. Member Wallace felt the applicant could comply with the height requirements. Member Hare felt the impact would be minimal and offered his support. Chair Fairfield commented that it would appear from the water to be three stories and this should be avoided. She could not support it. Member s Grady and Ellis concurred. Resolution Number CA-07-26/01/2005 Member Hare Member Ellis: Be it resolved that Application A- 83/04, Morris, to allow for the construction of a dwelling in which a portion of the dwelling is to be 36 feet 2 inches in height, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby denied. REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is not minor in nature, does not maintain the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and does not maintain the intent of the Official Plan. It was the opinion of the Committee that the dwelling could comply with the requirements of the by-law and the roof could be lowered in height. Minutes Committee of Adjustment January 26, 2005, Page #8