APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE

Transcription

1 COMMUNITY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING P. O. Box 397, 415 Hunter Street Woodstock Ontario N4S 7Y3 Phone: Fax: Web Site: Our File: A-1/07 APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE TO: Township of Norwich Committee of Adjustment MEETING: January 9, 2007 REPORT NO: OWNER: H.E.G. Homes Inc. c/o Henry Goor R.R. #1 Burgessville, ON N0J 1C0 VARIANCE REQUESTED: Relief from the following provisions of Section 9.2 RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) ZONE, TABLE 9.2 ZONE PROVISIONS to allow: a) a Lot area of 1,161 sq.m. (12,497 sq.ft.) in place of the minimum requirement of 2,800 sq.m. (30,140 sq.ft.); b) a Lot frontage of 25.9 m (85.0 ft) in place of the minimum requirement of 35 m (114.8 ft); and, c) a Lot depth of 42 m (137.7 ft) in place of the minimum requirement of 80 m (262.5 ft). PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: To obtain relief of the above-noted sections of the Township of Norwich Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a 1-storey single detached dwelling having a gross floor area of sqm. (2,580 sq.ft.), including a 2- car garage. LOCATION: The subject lot is described as Part Lot 7, Concession 7 (South Norwich) in the Township of Norwich. The lands are located on the east side of Highway 59, between Van Ash Road and Maple Dell Road, in the settlement of Milldale.

2 File No. A-1/07 Page 2 Report No OFFICIAL PLAN: Schedule "N-1" Township of Rural Settlement Norwich Land Use Plan (Milldale) ZONING BY-LAW: Rural Residential Zone (RR) PLANNING REVIEW: According to the applicant, the subject lot was created in No development has ever occurred on this vacant lot. Municipal records indicate the 155 sq.m. (1668 sq.ft.) dwelling, with an attached garage, on the lot to the immediate north ( Highway 59) was developed in The remaining 13 residential lots in Milldale developed during the period 1900 to The larger residential lot located 2 lots south (#772788), was developed in 2002, prior to the adoption of the current Township zoning regulations. For the Committee s information, eleven (11) of the fifteen (15) residential lots in Milldale are considered to be legal non-conforming to the lot area, lot frontage and lot depth provisions of the Zoning By-law because development of these properties occurred prior to adoption of the current RR zone provisions. Plate 1 Location and Existing Zoning shows the location of the subject lands and the existing zoning in the Milldale area. Plate Aerial Orthophotography shows the extent of development in the Milldale area. Plate 3 Applicant s Site Sketch shows details of the proposed development. Intent and Purpose of Official Plan: The Official Plan (Section ) requires the Committee of Adjustment to consider the four (4) tests of the Planning Act which are used to assess minor variance applications. the objectives and policies of the Official Plan can be met if the minor variance is granted; the request for variance constitutes a minor departure from the performance standards of the zoning by-law; the general intent of the zoning by-law can be met; and whether the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of land.

3 File No. A-1/07 Page 3 Report No In determining whether the variance is desirable, the Official Plan states that the Committee shall consider: whether there are constraints and/or restrictions due to physical or inherent conditions of the site; whether alternative designs of the proposal are clearly not feasible or appropriate; the concerns of adjacent owners and residents, and community in general; whether approval would create an undesired precedent; whether compliance with the By-law would be unreasonable or impossible and impose undue hardship on the applicant. Generally, the policies for rural settlement areas encourage development of residential uses in rural clusters such as Milldale, subject to specific review criteria. The subject development is considered to be an infilling housing proposal under the policies of Section INFILL HOUSING. When considering such proposals, the municipal authority must ensure the development is consistent with the characteristics (street frontage, setbacks, lot area and spacing) of existing development in the immediate area. A comparison of the subject lot versus the existing developed lots in Milldale revealed the subject site, being 1161 sq.m. (12,497 sq.ft.) in area, is considerably smaller than the average lot size, being 2,993 sq.m. (32,217 sq.ft.). As well, the lot depth is similar to many of the existing Milldale lots, but remains well below the required lot depth for the RR zone. The subject lot has a lot frontage similar to most of the lots. It is noted, however, that the form of dwelling, being a single storey single detached dwelling with an attached garage is similar to the existing dwellings in Milldale. All infilling housing development must satisfy specific review criteria, including determining if private services are adequate to accommodate the development project and determining how any stormwater drainage can be properly controlled without negatively affecting nearby properties. The owner did not provide any additional information with the application to indicate that they satisfied the requirements to address servicing issues identified by the County.

4 File No. A-1/07 Page 4 Report No On the basis of the above comments, it is Planning staff's opinion that the application to develop a residential dwelling on an undersized lot in Milldale is not in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan policies. Intent and Purpose of Zoning By-Law: The purpose of requiring minimum lot area, lot frontage and lot depth for each Rural Residential lot is to ensure adequate land area is available to accommodate residential development on private services and provide adequate areas for off-street parking and private amenity spaces for the residential use. In this case, the existing lot comprises 41.4% of the required lot area, 74% of the required lot frontage and 52.5% of the required lot depth. Section allows under-sized residential lots to develop provided that each of the area, frontage and depth lot characteristics are equal to or greater than 80% of the requirements. In this case, the very small lot area and shallow lot depth are considerably less than the requirements and cannot constitute minor departures from the zoning regulations. Desirable Development/Use: The subject site comprises an existing lot, zoned for residential use. While it may be possible to enlarge the lot depth and lot area, by adding land from the adjacent farm parcel via an application for consent to sever, the applicant has indicated such lot addition is not desirable for the intended development. Thus, from the applicant s perspective, the lot is constrained and the requested variances are considered necessary. From a planning perspective, the number and nature of the requested variances suggest that the existing lot is too constrained to allow development of a residential use. Planning staff is of the opinion that the Committee would be setting an undesirable precedent by allowing development to occur by reducing the RR zone provisions to the extent requested. Therefore, in this case, the requested variances cannot be considered desirable for this form of residential development. Planning staff are aware comments from the County Department of Public Health and Emergency Services have been provided to the Committee. Public Health staff indicated concerns with regard to private services and, therefore, did not support development of a new residence on this small lot.

5 File No. A-1/07 Page 5 Report No Summary: In conclusion, it is Planning staff s opinion that the minor variance application does not satisfy the four tests set out in the Planning Act and, therefore, this Office cannot recommend support of the application. RECOMMENDATION: Whereas the variances requested: (i) are not minor variances from the provisions of the Township of Norwich Zoning Bylaw No Z; (ii) are not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; (iii) are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Township of Norwich Zoning By-law No Z; and (iv) are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan of the County of Oxford, this office is of the opinion that this application is not acceptable from a planning point of view and should not be granted. Authored by: Approved by: Stephen Couture Stephen Couture, B.E.S. Planner Margaret Misek-Evans Margaret Misek-Evans, MCIP, RPP Corporate Manager Date: January 4, 2007 SC/ File: N-1-07_HEG Homes Inc

6 NORWICH

7 NORWICH

8

9

10