1. OPENING THE MEETING

Transcription

1 MINUTES FEBRUARY 3,2015 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT TOWNSHIP OF RAMARA Minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held on Tuesday, February 3,2015 at 9:15 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Administration Building, Brechin, Ontario. Present: Mike Thompson Richard Whitty Florian Camartin Doug Cooper Randy Warren Jennifer Foster John O'Donnell Jennifer Connor Chair Member Member Member Member Ass!. Secretary Treasurer Deputy Mayor Deputy Clerk 1. OPENING THE MEETING The Assistant Secretary Treasurer called the meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. 2. DECLARATIONS The Committee completed their Oath of Office and were sworn in by Jennifer Connor, Deputy Clerk. 3. ELECTION OF CHAIR RESOLUTION CA MOVED BY: Doug Cooper SECONDED BY: Richard Whitty THAT Mike Thompson be appointed as Chair for the 2015 term commencing on 4. OPENING OF REGULAR MEETING The chair called the meeting to order at 10:00am 5. CHAIRS INTRODUCTION The Chair read the introduction in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. Page 1

2 6. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST The Chair asked the Members if they had any pecuniary interest in the applications before them. There was none. 7. APPLICATIONS 7.1 CONSENT FILE B-12/14 PROPERTY: Part of Lot 6 and All of Lot 7, Registered Plan M municipally as 1324 Spyglass Point known An application has been made by Joseph and Jessie Braithwaite, owners and Kristopher Manitius, LL.B., of Fogler, Rubinoff, LLP, solicitor for the owners, for the creation of an easement by consent, to provide access for the neighbouring property to an existing shoreline dock. The proposed easement will be comprised of 7.1 m 2 and is to provide access to the dock currently existing on 1324 Spyglass Point Road, by the neighbouring parcel known as 1328 Spyglass Point Road. The Committee received report BP dated February 3,2015. The Assistant Secretary Treasurer outlined the purpose of the application and advised the Committee that circulation had occurred in accordance with Provincial Regulations. Comments received upon circulation of the application were as follows: BUILDING DEPT.: WORKS DEPT.: PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD: No concerns No concerns No objections David Wickoski, representing Folger, Rubinoff LLP, solicitor for the owner was in attendance at the hearing. He indicated had nothing further to add to the report. The Chair asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the application. There were none. Mr. Whitty stated that the application seemed straight forward. He explained to Mr. Wickoski that in future applications the owners should ensure the Committee has access to the property in order to view the subject land. He advised that he was not able to enter the property as the gate at the front of the driveway was locked. Mr. Thomspon explained that usually when the Committee cannot access the property they will defer the application. But in this case it was a technicality and fortunately, Mr. Thompson was able to enter the property through the neighbours lot during his visit at the security Page 2

3 company was present allowing him to take pictures for the Committee to view. Mr. Cooper explained that he feels uncomfortable with easements as they usually lead to civil suits down the road. He asked if the Township would have a record of the easement agreement on file. Ms. Foster advised that there would be record of the easement due to the planning application, but that a draft of the agreement has also been added as a condition of the approval. She advised that they could also ask for the registered agreement after the Certificate of Official is issued. Mr. Thompson agreed having a copy of the final agreement may be beneficial. Mr. Camartin agreed that it would have been nice to see the area of the easement and the dock in question. He didn't understand why one would want to share a dock with their neighbour, and wondered why the neighbour didn't just build their own dock to save all the trouble of an easement. Mr. Thompson noted that the dock is rather large in size. He explained to Mr. Camartin that the dock is in the shape of a "T" so each property owner has their own side, with the main walkway being shared. He believed that the dock was to be built with the walkway on the property line, but something must have prevented it from being in the middle and therefore the easement is being provided for a legal right of way to the shared dock. Mr. Cooper asked if the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority had reviewed the easement application. The Assistant Secretary Treasurer advised that under the Memorandum of Understanding with the Conservation Authority, easements and boundary adj ustments do not require circulation to the Conservation Authority. RESOLUTION NO.:CA THAT, having regard to the considerations set out in Section 51 (24), of the PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, Consent Application B-12/14, submitted by Joseph and Jessie Braithwaite, owners and Kristopher Manitius, LL.B., of Fogler, Rubinoff, LLP, solicitor for the owners BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. Satisfying the requirements of the, financial and otherwise, including payment of any outstanding taxes 2. Provision of a registerable legal description on the parcel to be severed, together with three (3) copies of the applicable reference plan. 3. Draft Easement documents prepared by a Solicitor, providing the registerable legal description. Page 3

4 7.2 CONSENT FILE B-1/15 AND MINOR VARIANCE FILE A-1/ MINOR VARIANCE FILE A-2/15 PROPERTY: South Part of Lot 14, Concession 11 - known municipally as 2620 Ramara Road 46 PROPERTY: South Part of Lot 14, Concession 11, being Part 1, Plan 51R known municipally as 2690 Ramara Road 46 Although there are two properties involved in the applications for consent and minor variance, one report was written as all information provided is applicable to both, and the applications were discussed in conjunction with one another. Consent File B-1/15 and A-1/15 An application has been made by Bert Ruhl, owner requesting consent to sever a parcel of land, from a ha. (97.37 acres) agricultural parcel. The parcel to be severed will be comprised of 1.22 ha. (3 acres), to merge with the property to the southwest, known municipally as 2690 Ramara Road 46. The boundary adjustment is being requested in order to incorporate an existing well servicing 2690 Ramara Road 46, which is currently on the subject lands. The retained parcel subject to the consent request, will be comprised of ha.(94.37 acres) and is subject to File A- 1/15, requesting a decrease in the minimum lot area of an agricultural parcel. The proposal will require the following variance to Zoning Bylaw # , as amended: SECTION DESCRIPTION ZONING BYLAW. PROPOSED VARIANCE REQUIREMENT 7(2)(a) Minimum Lol Area 40 ha. or Original 3S.19 ha ha Survey Lot Size ORIGINAL SURVEY LOT SIZE ha. Minor Variance File A-2/15 An application has been made by Donald and Julie Lies, owners, requesting a minor variance under File A-2/15, for an increase in the maximum lot size for an agricultural lot not accessory to an agricultural use, as a result of a boundary adjustment, subject to Consent File B-1/15. The proposal will require the following variance to Zoning Bylaw # , as amended: SECTION DESCRIPTION ZONING BYLAW REQUIREMENT PROPOSED VARIANCE 7(3)(a) Maximum Lot Size S090 m' (0.S1 ha.) 1.62 ha. 0.S1 ha. (S090 m') February 3,2015 Page 4

5 The Committee received report BP dated February 3,2015. The Assistant Secretary Treasurer outlined the purpose of the application and advised the Committee that circulation had occurred in accordance with Provincial Regulations. The Assistant Secretary Treasurer also suggested to the Committee that if the application for consent is approved, the Committee should consider adding to the following conditions to the conditions recommended in the report: 1) Successful completion of Minor Variance File A-1/15 2) Successful completion of Minor Variance File A-2/15 3) Draft transfer prepared by a solicitor, provided to the, indicating the parcel to be severed in Consent File B-1/15 is to be merged with the property known as 2690 Ramara Road 46. Comments received upon circulation of the application were as follows: BUILDING DEPT.: WORKS DEPT.: PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD: COUNTY OF SIMCOE: No concerns No concerns No objection The County of Simcoe staff recommend that the proposed boundary adjustment be reduced in order to preserve as much agricultural lands as possible, while accounting for an adequate buffer distance between the well location and the neighbouring agricultural operation, which may impact water quality. County planning staff do not object to the proposed boundary adjustment provided that as much prime agricultural land as possible remain within the larger farm operation. Don Leis, owner of 2690 Ramara Road 46 and applicant was present. He explained that the newly drilled well is in line with the neighbouring wells. The previous well that was drilled on the property was 270 feet down and required an elaborate reverse osmosis system. When they bought the house and had a study done on the water is wasn't feasible to continue to use the existing well. They had tried to drill on two other locations within the existing 1 acre parcel and could not find good water. When the well driller suggested the well that was in line with the other wells in the area, they found water in 30 feet. Donald R. MacDonald, 1908 Concession Road 10, was present at the hearing. He February 3,2015 Page 5

6 stated he is the owner of an adjacent parcel to 2620 to the North East. He provided a written letter to the Committee and read it out explaining his opposition to the boundary adjustment. His objection letter is as follows: Dear Committee Members: I would formally like to submit my objection to and my comments regarding Application No. A-2115 (Leis) and B-1115 and A-1115 (Ruh/). I, Donald R. MacDonald, object to these applications as they are major in nature- not minor, and would make for a waste of "agricultural" land. An easement would accomplish the rights to the well and keep the "agricultural" land intact. The previous one acre severance is not allowed now. I was involved in farming in 2014 farming no less than seven fields that were each less than three acres in size. To increase the size from one acre to four is ridiculous, to say the least. The original well must be proper/y decommissioned by a licensed well driller. The township's so-called ''planning'' staff's attitude towards "agriculture" is discriminatory and idiotic in my opinion as I have also found in other instances. I was also told a somewhat misleading statement by Jennifer Foster about Simcoe County Planning Department Dan Kingsbury's thoughts on these proposals after a telephone conversation with him on the matter. He also had mentioned an easement. I know of other lots of the proposed similar size that are a waste growing weeds in the township. I request to be notified of any decisions or amendments to these two proposals. If necessary I would welcome the oppor/unity to appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board where I would be requesting the board to amend the Ramara Township Official Plan and Zoning By-law in various ways as has happened in previous hearings. Mr. Thompson asked if anyone else in the audience had any comments. There were none. He noted that in regards to the letter from Mr. MacDonald there is the avenue of an easement instead of a boundary adjustment. He noted that the particular stretch of land in question is prone to flooding. He also noted that finding water in this area can be rather difficult and he understood why the applicant wanted the land as opposed to an easement. Mr. Camartin advised when he looked at the application he had concerns. He explained he has concerns with larger lots because they are harder to keep clean. When he first read the application he thought about an easement instead of a boundary adjustment but then thought about what would happen to the land subject to the easement. Would it become all weeds? He also wondered if the boundary adjustment was granted if the owner would use the area as a junk area and wreck the land with weeds and trash. Although he noted the applicant did not seem like that type of person. He noted that he has an understanding of the well situation and that it's a serious problem. He advised in principal he would be in support of the application at this point. He also advised Mr. MacDonald that the well drillers are very good at decommissioning wells if the well doesn't work out. He stated that Page 6

7 comment was unnecessary and that well drillers know what they are doing. Mr. Thomspon added in regards to Mr. MacDonald's letter that any issues Mr. MacDonald has with decommissioning wells are not the Committees problem. The same would go for any staff related concerns Mr. MacDonald had, noting that if he felt so desired they should go to Council. Mr. Warren explained that he sympathized with the applicant regarding the well situation. He asked if Mr. Leis had any plans for the future land, wondering if it would be fenced or farmed. Mr. Leis advised he has a verbal agreement with Mr. Ruhl that he would maintain the land. Mr. Leis has no intention to fence or farrn the land himself. Mr. Whitty noted that if an easement were to occur instead of a boundary adjustment that the land would still be impacted. He wondered if the easement would be fenced to ensure access. Mr. MacDonald didn't believe the easement would need to be fenced. He asked where the water line goes from the well to the house. Mr. Thompson added that wells have a 50 foot radius of influence. Mr. Leis explained the water line runs down the property line towards the house and comes out on a diagonal before his existing lot line. Mr. MacDonald suggested that Mr. Leis could sever a strip of land back to the well so that he would still own the land that the well is on. Mr. Cooper believed that this is a situation where one needs to look at the lesser of two evils. He advised he is really not in favour of easements because when subsequent owners come along, civil problems occur that can go on for years. He explained that although he is not a farmer and doesn't know too much about agriculture, what he does know is that if he had a well on someone else's property he would want to ensure that fertilizer and manure isn't spread over his well. He would want a buffer. He concluded that he is not a fan of big lots, but that is not to say there will be a mess for sure. Mr. Whitty questioned whether the severance could be made smaller. Mr. Leis noted that they are applying to have the lot widened a bit as well because when the house was built it was constructed very close to the lot line. He would like to have room to be able to traverse to the back yard without going onto the neighbour's property as the carport is very close to the line. Page 7

8 Mr. Thomspon explained that his first thought when he saw the application was that an easement would be a better option. He stated however that he is familiar with the land in this area and finding good water is hit or miss. He also noted that the area floods so he wondered how valuable this farmland really is. He explained he has seen the house completely surrounded by water in the past. He noted that although in Mr. MacDonald's letter it made reference to the lot not being allowed now, the fact is that the lot was allowed in 2001 regardless to what the rules are now. He also stated he believes that the applicant has the right to have water. He noted that if an easement were to be created, it would need to be at least 50 feet and the rules for well head protection and water quality are changing constantly so it's best to have a buffer. He also explained that if the well went dry, Mr. Leis may need to drill a well again another 20 feet over or so, then he would have to come back and do this again. He believes it makes sense to square it off to give the buffer for the well and more flexibility. Then the lot is also square instead of some of the weird shaped lots that exist in the township. He noted that he is not a farmer - but questions how this land could be considered prime agricultural soil. Mr. Camartin complimented Mr. Thompson on his comments noting they were excellent. He stated he has always questioned the land inventory. He did not understand how the land would be Class 1 when he's never seen a crop in this field other than hay. He also noted how the nice farm land around Honda in Alliston is and that it doesn't seem to be a concern even though it is great soil, noting that no one has said anything about that development. He explained that Mr. MacDonald has always been concerned about farm land and protecting agriculture, yet he was the first one to sell his land to the Casino when the opportunity presented itselfnoting Mr. MacDonald must not have thought it was so important at that point and he couldn't have believed that land would stay a farm. He stated he believed that the lot should be squared off and that the Committee should grant the application. Mr. Warren stated he didn't have much more to say. He noted that the land in question is a hay field and the land severed wouldn't affect the crop that much as hay seems to be the only thing the farmer can grow in that field. Mr. Whitty agreed the lot should be squared off and the consent be granted. Mr. Cooper agreed. Mr. MacDonald stated that he believes the flooding the Committee noted is perceived and with some tile drainage and some unclogging of the ditch to the south would clean up the flooding. He believes if the field were tile drained it could be Class 2 soil. He noted that the province is also putting solar panels on wheat fields and seem to be giving mixed signals. He believed that the 20 foot severance he suggested would be the best way to go, and that a farmer would know not to spread manure or fertilizer near a well. He thanked the Committee for allowing him the time to speak and address his concerns. Page 8

9 Mr. Leis stated that he has an agricultural background and that he wouldn't let the land turn to a junk pile. He advised that Mr. Ruhl and he have a verbal agreement that Mr. Ruhl can still work the land. He explained he had done his research, starting with an easement, investigating severing a strip and looking at squaring it off. He added he had discussions with the Township and County before applying. He advised the boundary adjustment is for their well, and that he'd like to have the well on the property. He also explained they spoke to real estate agents and they advised having the well on the property would be better for resale as opposed to an easement. Mr. Cooper noted that Mr. Ruhl was not present at the meeting and that Mr. Leis is the applicant showing they have a working relationship. He also believed it should be in record that Mr. Leis has an agreement with Mr. Ruhl that he can continue to work the land. Mr. Thomspon noted that the agreement could change with subsequent owners, but added that the easement option has been given thought by everyone on the Committee, the Township and the County. He stated he believes this is the right avenue to take because it really does what is in the best interest of all involved parties. He noted that if Mr. MacDonald wanted to go to the OMB, that is his privilege, but that the Committee does not make decisions based on Mr. MacDonald stating he would welcome the opportunity to go to the OMB. RESOLUTION NO. CA THAT, having determined that the requirements of Sec. 45 (5&6) of The Planning Act, R.S.O as amended and Sec. 3 of O.Reg. 200/96 have been complied with, Minor Variance Applications A-1/15 BE APPROVED, for the following reasons: This variance is minor in nature; This variahce would not offend the intent of the Official Plan; This variance would not offend the intent of the Zoning By-law; This variance is desirable for the continued use of the property for agricultural purposes. CARRIED Page 9

10 RESOLUTION NO. CA THAT, having determined that the requirements of Sec. 45 (5&6) of The Planning Act, R.S.O as amended and Sec. 3 ofo.reg. 200/96 have been complied with, Minor Variance Applications A-2/15 BE APPROVED, for the following reasons: This variance is minor in nature; This variance would not offend the intent of the Official Plan; This variance would not offend the intent of the Zoning By-law; This variance is desirable for the continued use of the property for residential purposes. CARRIED RESOLUTION NO.:CA THAT, having regard to the considerations set out in Section 51(24), of the PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, Consent Application B-1/15, submitted by Bert Ruhl, owner BE APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 4) Satisfying the requirements of the, financial and otherwise, including payment of any outstanding taxes 5) Provision of a registerable legal description on the parcel to be severed, together with three (3) copies of the applicable reference plan. 6) Successful completion of Minor Variance File A-1/15 7) Successful completion of Minor Variance File A-2/15 8) Draft transfer prepared by a solicitor, provided to the, indicating the parcel to be severed in Consent File B-1/15 is to be merged with the property known as 2690 Ramara Road 46. CARRIED The Committee then took a five minute break. The meeting reopened at 11 :33am 8. MINUTES RESOLUTION CA MOVED BY: Florian Camartin SECONDED BY: Doug Cooper THAT the minutes of the December 9,2104 hearing be approved presented. 9. NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS There was no unfinished business February 3,2015 Page 10

11 10. ADJOURNMENT RESOLUTION CA MOVED BY: Richard Whitty SECONDED BY: Randy Warren THAT, the meeting be adjourned. (11 :38 a.m.) c APr; /.9/fJ c9()/ (5 ADOPTED: e!ka c Mike Thompson, Chair Rlc\'Od ~0\)rH~ "Thn ff'f'(\ f6n~,w 11 umi-~. Page 11