THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA. Wednesday, January 15, 2014, 7:00 P.M.

Transcription

1 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA Wednesday, January 15, 2014, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, Municipal Office, 3131 Old Perth Rd., Almonte A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA C. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Committee of Adjustment - Page(s) 1 to 3 Committee motion to approve the Committee of Adjustment Minutes from the meeting held on October 23, E. HEARINGS 1. Application A Pages 4 13 Owner(s): TIMOTHY ILLINGWORTH Property Address: 510 RIVER ROAD, APPLETON ON Legal Description: LOTS 6-7, PLAN 843, TESKEY SURVEY, & LOT 1, PLAN 843, HART SURVEY Ward: RAMSAY Zoning: FIRST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONE Requested Variance to Zoning By-law #11-83: 1. Table 13.2A - R1 Zone Provisions For lots with no municipal water or sewer, the by-law requires a minimum rear-yard setback of 10.0m (32.8ft). The owner is requesting to reduce this setback to 4.0m (13.1ft) to allow for the construction of a new single detached dwelling and attached garage on the property. 2. Section Setbacks from Environmental (EP) Zone All development must be setback 120m from a Provincially Significant Wetland. The owner is requesting to reduce this setback to 70m to allow for the construction of a new single detached dwelling and attached garage on the property. 2. Application A Pages Owner(s): Property Address: Legal Description: Ward: Zoning: CAROL-ANN LEISHMAN 306 COUNTRY STREET, ALMONTE ON PART LOT 14, CONCESSION 9, PART 1 OF PLAN 27R ALMONTE FIRST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R1) ZONE

2 2 Committee of Adjustment January 15, 2014 Requested Variance to Zoning By-law #11-83: Table 13.2A - R1 Zone Provisions For lots with municipal water and sewer, the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0m (59.1ft). The owner is requesting to reduce this minimum frontage to 14.38m (47.2ft) F. OTHER BUSINESS G. ANNOUNCEMENTS H. ADJOURNMENT

3 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, Municipal Office, 3131 Old Perth Rd., Almonte PRESENT: APPLICANTS/PUBLIC: STAFF: Stacey Blair, Chair Patricia McCann-MacMillan Bill Chapman Brian Cavan Christine Cavan Stephen Stirling, Recording Secretary Matt Robson Secretary called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A. CALL TO ORDER B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Moved by Patricia McCann-MacMillan Seconded by Bill Chapman C. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Patricia McCann-MacMillan Seconded by Bill Chapman That the Minutes be accepted as presented. E. HEARINGS: 1. Application A The applicant, Brian Cavan, provided a brief overview of the application to the Committee regarding the major reconstruction of an existing single detached dwelling. Mr. Cavan indicated that he wishes to construct a +39m 2 deck to extend from the south side of the dwelling. The deck encroaches on the required 30m (98.4 ft) minimum setback from the high water mark of a watercourse or waterbody required by Section 6.24 of the Zoning By-law # As such, the applicant 1

4 Committee of Adjustment Minutes October 23, 2013 requested to reduce the minimum setback from the high water mark of a watercourse or waterbody from 30.0 m (98.4 ft) to 25.0 m (82.0 ft). Staff noted that based on the drawings submitted by the applicant, the proposed deck appears to be setback ±28.0m from the bank of the Mississippi River. The reduced setback of 25.0m was requested to account for mapping errors and to allow for some flexibility with respect to the design proposed deck. The Committee questioned the slope stability and flooding potential of the property. Staff noted there is a retaining wall along the bank of the Mississippi River and that the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) reviewed the application and had no objections in principle but that the owner would be required to obtain written permission from the MVCA authorizing the construction of the proposed works. Moved by Bill Chapman Seconded by Patricia McCann-MacMillan THAT the Town of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment APPROVE the necessary minor variance for the lands described as Lot 13, PT Lot 14, Plan 6262 (Mitcheson Street), Almonte Ward, Town of Mississippi Mills, municipally known as 36 Union Street South, to reduce the minimum setback from the high water mark of a watercourse or waterbody from 30.0m (98.4 ft) to 25.0m (82.0ft), to allow for the construction of a 39 m 2 (420 ft 2 ) deck subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant acquire all required building permits; 2. That the minor variance is approved based on the plans submitted; 3. That the applicant provide the Town with a copy of the written permission from the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority authorizing the construction of the proposed works. 2. Application A CARRIED The applicant was requesting relief from Section 6.9 Permitted Projections Into Required Yards of Zoning By-law #11-83 to reduce the minimum interior side-yard setback for uncovered balconies from 1.0 m (3.28 ft) to 0.0m (0.0 ft) to allow for the construction of a Juliet style balcony attached to Unit 204 of the Thoburn Mill condominium building. The Committee acknowledged they granted a minor variance (A-09-13) on August 21, 2013, which reduced the minimum interior side-yard setback for uncovered balconies from 1.0 m (3.28 ft) to 0.0m (0.0 ft) to allow for the construction of three (3) Juliet balconies on the building. No other comments. Moved by Bill Chapman Seconded by Patricia McCann-MacMillan THAT the Town of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment APPROVE the necessary minor variance for the lands described as Lanark Standard Condominium Plan No. 18, Level 2, Unit 2, Almonte Ward (Anderson Section), Town of Mississippi Mills (municipally known as Unit 204, 83 Little Bridge Street), to reduce the minimum interior side-yard setback for uncovered 2

5 Committee of Adjustment Minutes October 23, 2013 balconies from 1.0m (3.28ft) to 0.0m (0.0ft), to accommodate one (1) 0.8m² (8.6ft²) Juliet style balcony, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant acquire all required building permits; 2. That the minor variance is approved based on the plans submitted in with the associated building permit application. F. OTHER BUSINESS None 3 CARRIED G. ANNOUNCEMENTS None H. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Committee the meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm on the motion of Patricia McCann-MacMillan. Stephen Stirling, Recording Secretary 3

6 PLANNING REPORT TOWN OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: January 15, 2014 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Chairperson and Members of the Committee of Adjustment Matt Robson, Planner MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION D13-IL-13 (A-14-13) RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Town of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment APPROVE the necessary minor variances for the lands described as Lots 6-7, Plan 843, Teskey Survey, & Lot 1, Plan 843, Hart Survey, Ramsay Ward, Town of Mississippi Mills, known municipally as 510 River Road, to reduce the minimum rear-yard setback of the First Density Residential (R1) Zone (no municipal water or sewer) from 10.0m (32.8ft) to 4.0m (13.1ft), and to reduce the minimum setback from a Provincially Significant Wetland from 120m to 70m, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant acquire all required building permits; 2. That the applicant provide the Town with written permission from the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority prior to beginning construction of the proposed works; 3. That the applicant obtain all necessary approvals from the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit related to the onsite well and septic services prior to beginning construction of the proposed works; and, 4. That the minor variance is approved based on the plans submitted with the application. BACKGROUND / PROPOSAL The applicant wishes to redevelop the subject property with a new 125m² (1344ft²) single detached dwelling and attached ±67m² (720ft²) garage. The proposal would result in an existing single detached dwelling and detached garage being demolished. The property is currently zoned as First Density Residential (R1) by the Town s Zoning By-law #11-83 and is designated as Rural Settlement Area and Villages by the Town s Community Official Plan (COP). As the proposed location of the new dwelling is encroaching on the minimum 10.0m (32.8ft) rear yard setback of the R1 Zone (for lots with no municipal water or sewer) and is located within 120m of a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW), the applicant has sought the following relief by way of a minor variance in accordance with Section 45 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990: To reduce the minimum rear-yard setback within the First Density Residential (R1) Zone on a lot with no municipal water or sewer from 10.0m (32.8ft) to 4.0m (13.1ft), and to reduce the minimum setback from a Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) from 120m to 70m. 4 1

7 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT LANDS: The subject property is an irregularly shaped ±1790m² (19 267ft²) parcel within the settlement area of Appleton. The property fronts onto River Road, which is owned and maintained by the County of Lanark. The property currently contains a single-detached dwelling and a detached garage. While the parcel fabric/aerial photography associated with the Town s G.I.S. system appear to be displayed incorrectly, these existing structures appear to be located quite close to the rear property line and well within the minimum 10.0m rear yard setback requirement of the R1 Zone. That being said, due to the apparent age of these structures, Staff believe their construction likely predates any zoning by-law for the Town of Mississippi Mills or the former Township of Ramsay, and therefore, would be considered legal non-complying with respect to the current Zoning By-law # SITE SERVICING The property is currently serviced by on-site well and septic services, with access to the lot being provided by way of an existing gravel driveway located at the south side of the property. The applicant has indicated that he wishes to continue to use this driveway and existing on-site septic and well to service the proposed dwelling. The applicant will be required submit a maintenance inspection application to the Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit and arrange an inspection to confirm whether the on-site well and septic services are suitable for the new dwelling. If the septic system is deemed inadequate to service the new construction then the applicant will be required to submit a sewage system permit application for approval to upgrade the sewage system prior to a building permit being issued. The location of the subject property is depicted in the following figure: Location Map 5 2

8 SURROUNDING LAND USES The following is a description of surrounding land uses: North: Detached single family residential lots zoned R1 which back onto the Mississippi River and the Appleton Wetland PSW. East: Vacant 1115m² lot zoned R1 as well as an unopened and unmaintained portion of municipally owned road allowance which contains a laneway used to access a 4772m² lot which is zoned Open Space (OS) and contains a single detached dwelling and detached garage. South: Detached single family residential lots zoned R1. West: Municipally owned park as well as the Appleton Falls and Mississippi River. COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION: Comments received based on the circulation of this application have been summarized below: Town CAO: No concerns or objections. Fire Chief: No concerns or objections. Town CBO: No concerns or objections. Owner will be required to obtain a demolition permit for the existing dwelling and all necessary building permits. Director of Roads and Public Works: No concerns or objections. Recreation Coordinator: No concerns or objections. COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES: County of Lanark Public Works: No comments received. Leeds, Grenville and Lanark District Health Unit: At this time our office has not viewed the sewage system on the property. Prior to any further comment, please be advised that our office will require the proponent to submit a maintenance inspection application to our office with the paid fee and an inspection to be arranged. The purpose of the inspection is to ensure that the existing sewage system is suitable to support the house re-construction. If the septic system is deemed inadequate to service the new construction then the applicant will be required to submit a sewage system permit application for approval to upgrade the sewage system prior to a building permit being issued. Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority: The proposed development is estimated to be approximately 70-80m from a Provincially Significant Wetland referred to as the Appleton Wetland. No other natural heritage features or natural hazards were identified. Guidelines prepared in support of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) require that new development and site alterations, including the creation of new lots, within 120 metres of a PSW only be permitted if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or ecological functions of the features identified. This is generally addressed through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, given that a travelled municipal road, as well as other residential properties, separates the subject 6 3

9 property from the PSW, additional impacts to this natural heritage features are not anticipated as a result of the subject application. Therefore, it is our opinion that there is limited value in conducting an EIS. MVCA does not have any comment regarding the proposed reduction in the rear yard setback as it is beyond the scope of our review process. MVCA does not have any objection to the subject application. However, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 153/06 - Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses, written permission is required from MVCA prior to the subject work. This permit is required to assess potential impacts of the proposed development to the hydrology of the PSW. A search for occurrences of potential Species at Risk was not conducted. Please contact the Ministry of Natural Resources for a review in this regard. Ontario Power Generation: No comments received. Hydro One: No comments received. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: The Town has received the following comments in support of the proposal from Mike & Debbi O'Malley, the owners of the 521 & 525 River Road (properties front onto the north side of River Road and back onto the Mississippi River): This is to state our support for this application for a minor variance. We have reviewed the proposed building plan with the owner and understand this variance is required for the project to be feasible, due to the lot shape. The proposed new dwelling is an improvement over the current dwelling which posed similar infringement without ill effect. We feel this request for a minor variance should be granted as it facilitates both the removal of a derelict structure and its replacement with a new single family home, providing community improvement without community cost. EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION: Section 45 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides the Committee of Adjustment with the authority to grant relief from the requirements of a municipal zoning by-law. In properly evaluating such requests, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the proposal meets the four (4) tests set out in the Act. Staff comments concerning the application of the four (4) tests to this minor variance request are as follows: 1. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Official Plan? The Official Plan is the policy document which guides physical development and redevelopment within the Town of Mississippi Mills. The Plan designates the subject lands as Rural Settlement Area and Village which contemplates a full range of residential and accessory uses. The proposed dwelling and attached garage are permitted uses under this designation. Section 3.6.1(5) of the Plan outlines an objective to Ensure that residential intensification, infilling and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of design. With regards to satisfying this policy, Staff believe that the design and scale of the proposed structure would respect the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. With regards to the developing within 120m of a PSW, Section (3) of the COP contains the following policy: 7 4

10 Development within 120 m of provincially significant wetlands or 50 m of a locally significant wetlands may take place in accordance with the land use designation shown on land use Schedules to this Plan only when it has been demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Assessment that there shall be no negative effects on the natural features or ecological functions of these wetlands. This is not a setback requirement, but rather a requirement for a review of development proposals within the relevant adjacent lands. The review of development may be carried out by the Committee of Adjustment where the determination of minor would be assessed based on the effects of the development on the natural features or ecological function of the wetland. That being said, as noted by the MVCA, given that a travelled municipal road, as well as other residential properties, separates the subject property from the PSW, additional impacts to this natural heritage features are not anticipated as a result of the subject application. As such, there would likely be limited value in conducting an EIS. As such, Staff are of the opinion that the proposed development is in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan. 2. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law? A Zoning By-law document is a regulatory planning tool used to implement the policies of the Official Plan. It is applicable law and is applied to control and direct the location of specific land uses and the placement of structures both within the municipality and on a specific lot. The subject property is currently zoned as First Density Residential (R1) Zone by the Town s Zoning By-law # The development standards for the R1 Zone vary based on the services available (see Table 13.2A R1 Zone below). It is important to note that assuming the existing structures do in fact benefit from legal non-conforming rights, the owner would be permitted to rebuild them in their current location if he so desired. As noted previously, the G.I.S. mapping available to the Town appears to show these structures sited extremely close to the rear property line. The intent of a rear yard setback is to provide an adequate separation between abutting properties residential uses in order respect the residential character of an area and to maintain a level of privacy. Also, for lots without municipal services available, the rear yard setback can help provide a sufficient area to accommodate on-site well and/or septic services. While the applicant has indicated that he wishes to utilize the existing 8 5

11 well and septic on the property, the lot/building configuration would appear to allow such services to be accommodated on site. While there appears to be opportunity to shift the dwelling closer to River Road based on the 7.5m front yard setback requirement of R1 Zone, Staff note that doing so could potentially obstruct the line of sight of drivers maneuvering around this relatively sharp corner of the road. The applicant has also stated that he would prefer to construct the dwelling at the rear of property as this area of land is flatter, and would allow him to better utilize the existing private services. The intent of the requiring development to be setback 120m setback from lands zoned Environmental Protection (EP) (which are Provincially Significant Wetlands) is to ensure that development does not impact the natural heritage features or hydrology of the wetland. Based on comments received from the MVCA, the proposed development is not anticipated to negatively impact the PSW. In addition, the applicant will be required to obtain a permit from MVCA prior to beginning the proposed works in order to allow for potential impacts to the hydrology of the PSW to be assessed. 3. Is the proposal desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? In assessing whether the requested relief is appropriate, it is important to examine more than solely the degree of relief requested. Other limiting circumstances or conditions, which render the proposal appropriate or necessary, must also be evaluated. Staff acknowledge that the irregular shape and location of the lot on the corner of River Road, coupled with the setback requirements of the R1 Zone, significantly limit where a dwelling can be located on the property. While the applicant could position the dwelling closer to River Road in order to increase the rear yard setback, Staff have concerns that this could potentially obstruct the line of sight of drivers going around the corner of River Road. Staff consider the proposed building configuration and combined ±192m² (2,066ft²) footprint of proposed dwelling and detached garage to be an appropriate and reasonable development for the subject property. As proposed, the development would result in a lot coverage of only ±11% which is well under the maximum 30% coverage permitted in the R1 Zone. In addition, Staff consider the proposal to be desirable as it would result in the demolition of existing single detached dwelling and detached garage which have fallen into disrepair. 4. Is the proposal minor? In determining if a variance proposal is minor, the potential effect of the variance on the use of the subject property, on the abutting holdings, the neighbourhood, and, to a lesser extent, the municipality as a whole, must be considered. Staff note that the abutting ±1115m² property to east stands to be impacted the greatest by the proposed development. While this abutting property is currently vacant, it could potentially be developed in the future. That being said, the proposed dwelling appears to be setback further from the rear lot-line compared to the existing dwelling and detached garage on the property. 9 6

12 10

13 APPENDIX Proposed Site Plan 11 8

14 SITE PHOTOS 12 9

15 Proposed Building Elevations 13 10

16 PLANNING REPORT TOWN OF MISSISSIPPI MILLS BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: January 15, 2014 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: RECOMMENDATION: Chairperson and Members of the Committee of Adjustment Matt Robson, Planner MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION D13-LE-13 (A-15-13) Carol-Ann Leishman THAT the Town of Mississippi Mills Committee of Adjustment APPROVE the necessary minor variance for the lands described as Part Lot 14, Concession 9, Part 1 of Plan 27R-10369, Springfield Section, Almonte Ward, Town of Mississippi Mills, known municipally as 306 Country Street, to reduce the minimum lot frontage of the First Density Residential (R1) Zone (Municipal Water and Sewer) from 18.0m (59.1ft) to 14.38m (47.2ft), subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner acquire all required building permits; 2. That the owner enter into a site plan/development agreement for the installation of water and sewer services to the lot-line along with obligations relating to lot grading, drainage and property access prior to developing the lot; and, 3. That the minor variance is approved based on the plans submitted with the application. BACKGROUND / PROPOSAL The applicant was granted provisional consent (LDC File #B13/097) by the County of Lanark Land Division Committee on October 28, 2013, to sever a vacant 457m² residential lot from a ±1169m²(12 583ft²) property. The applicant has indicated that they intend to build a new detached dwelling on the severed lot with an existing detached bungalow dwelling and attached garage remaining on the retained lot (see Appendix for building/floor plan drawings). Table 1 below outlines the development standards of the R1 Zone as well as the lot area, lot frontage, lot coverage and various setbacks of the retained and severed lots. Table 1: Proposed Lots R1 Zone (Water and Retained Lot Severed Lot Sewer) Lot Area (m²) 450 ±712 ±457 Lot Frontage (m) 18 ±22.2 ±14.38 Front Yard Setback (m) 6 ±9.5 No building Side Yard Setback (m) 1.2 ±1.2 No building Rear Yard Setback (m) 7.5 ±11 No building Lot Coverage, Maximum 40% / 45% (bungalow) ±20% No building As severed lot does not meet the minimum frontage requirements of the First Density Residential (R1) Zone (Municipal Water and Sewer), a condition of the provisional consent is for the owner to obtain appropriate relief from the minimum lot frontage provisions of the Zoning By-law for the Town of Mississippi Mills either by way of an amendment to the Zoning By-law or a minor variance. As such, the applicant has 14 1

17 sought the following relief by way of a minor variance in accordance with Section 45 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990: To reduce the minimum lot frontage within the First Density Residential (R1) Zone (Municipal Water and Sewer) from 18.0m (59.1ft) to 14.38m (47.2ft). DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY & SURROUNDING LAND USES The property which the severed lot was created from is located within a residential neighbourhood of Almonte which is primarily comprised of single-detached dwellings. The property is ±1169m²(12 583ft²) in area, has a lot frontage of ±36.6m(120ft) along Country Street, a lot depth of ±31.9m(104.9ft), is zoned as First Density Residential (R1) by the Town s Zoning By-law #11-83, and is designated as Residential in the Town s Community Official Plan (COP). There is currently an existing bungalow and attached garage situated on the north-west side of the property, as well as a small shed in the south corner which the applicant has indicated will be removed. It should be noted that while the 36.6m (120ft) width of property would allow for the retained and severed lots to have frontages exceeding the 18m requirement of R1 Zone, doing so would require the demolition of the existing single family dwelling on the retained lot. The abutting properties along Country Street each contain a single detached dwelling, are zoned R1, and have a lot area and frontage comparable to the subject property. Similarly, the abutting properties to the rear which front onto St. George Street each contain a detached dwelling, and are zoned R1, however, the area and frontages of these lots are approximately half that of the subject property. To the east of the property is a long term care facility Almonte Country Haven, a municipally owned recreational facility Almonte Lawn Bowling Club, a municipally owned sports field Snedden Casey Ball Diamond, as well as a residential townhouse subdivision Almonte Mews which is currently under construction. The location of the subject lands within the Town is depicted in the following figure: 15 2

18 SERVICING & INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property is currently serviced by municipal water and sewer and fronts onto Country Street, a municipally owned and maintained road. The owner was issued an entrance permit by the Town s Roads and Public Works Department on December 10, The Town s Director of Roads and Public Works reviewed the proposal and provided the following comments: Landowner to enter into a development agreement for the installation of water and sewer services to the lot-line along with obligations relating to lot grading, drainage and property access. Securities to be provided accordingly. Access Curb modifications will be required at the applicants expense to provide access to the lot (currently all barrier curb). Water and Sewer Water and Sewer lines are in the street however service laterals will need to be provided to the lot at the proponents expense. This work will also involve all necessary roadway reinstatements. There are no storm sewers in this block of Country Street. Grading/Drainage The lot has excellent grading and drainage characteristics. When the lot is ultimately developed, a grading and drainage plan will need to be prepared by the developer. As these requirements will be required prior to any construction on the severed lot, they would not limit the ability to create the lot at this time. Due to the infill nature of the proposal within the Almonte Ward, the development shall be subject to Site Plan Control. Furthermore, the Town must also be in receipt of all development charges prior to any construction on the lot. COMMENTS FROM INTERNAL CIRCULATION: Comments received based from circulation of this application have been summarized below: Town CAO: No concerns or objections. Fire Chief: No concerns or objections. Town CBO: No concerns or objections. Director of Roads and Public Works: Landowner to enter into a development agreement for the installation of water and sewer services to the lot-line along with obligations relating to lot grading, drainage and property access. Securities to be provided accordingly. Access Curb modifications will be required at the applicants expense to provide access to the lot (currently all barrier curb). Water and Sewer Water and Sewer lines are in the street however service laterals will need to be provided to the lot at the proponents expense. This work will also involve all necessary roadway reinstatements. There are no storm sewers in this block of Country Street. 16 3

19 Grading/Drainage The lot has excellent grading and drainage characteristics. When the lot is ultimately developed, a grading and drainage plan will need to be prepared by the developer. Recreation Coordinator: No concerns or objections. COMMENTS FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES: Comments received based from circulation of this application to outside agencies have been summarized below: Canada Post Corporation: No comments received. Ontario Power Generation Inc.: No comments received. Ottawa River Power Corp.: No comments received. Rogers Cable Communications Inc.: No comments received. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: No comments have been received from the public as of the date this report was prepared. EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION: PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (PPS), 2005 The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. As per Section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, all planning decisions must be consistent with the PPS. Generally speaking, the PPS encourages new residential development to occur within established settlement areas, on full municipal services, and in the form of intensification or redevelopment. This policy direction is highlighted in the following sections of the PPS: Planning authorities shall identify and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area by: a) establishing and implementing minimum targets for the provision of housing which is affordable to low and moderate income households. However, where planning is conducted by an upper-tier municipality, the upper-tier municipality in consultation with the lower-tier municipalities may identify a higher target(s) which shall represent the minimum target(s) for these lower-tier municipalities; b) permitting and facilitating: i) all forms of housing required to meet the social, health and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements; and ii) all forms of residential intensification and redevelopment in accordance with policy ; c) directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs; 17 4

20 d) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of alternative transportation modes and public transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed; and e) establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety. The proposed minor variance would allow for a future infill opportunity on existing municipal services. With this in mind, Staff view the minor variance application to be consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS. Four Tests Section 45 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, provides the Committee of Adjustment with the authority to grant relief from the requirements of a municipal zoning by-law. In properly evaluating such requests, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the proposal meets the four (4) tests set out in the Act. Staff comments concerning the application of the four (4) tests to this minor variance request are as follows: 1. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Official Plan? The Official Plan is the policy document which guides physical development and redevelopment within the Town of Mississippi Mills. The subject property is designated as Residential in the Town s COP. This designation permits low and medium density residential uses as well as associated accessory uses. Residential Designation Section of the COP contains various objectives intended to implement a goal of a balanced supply of housing within the Town. The following provides an analysis of the proposal against relevant objectives: To promote and support development which provides for affordable, rental and or increased density of housing types; Based on the area of the proposed severed lot, it is anticipated that a relatively compact and affordable dwelling would likely be developed on the lands. The infill nature of the proposal would effectively double the density of the subject property. To direct the majority of new residential development to areas where municipal sewer and water services will be available and which can support new development; The Town s Director of Roads and Public Works has indicated that municipal water and sewer services would be available, and able to support a single-detached dwelling on the severed lot. To ensure that residential intensification, infilling and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of design. The dimensions and area of the retained lot satisfy the minimum development standards of the R1 Zoning and are comparable to other properties in the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed severed lot is slightly deficient with respect to lot frontage, however, it exceeds the minimum lot area requirement of the R1 zoning. Overall, Staff believe the severed and retained lots would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. General Consent Policies The COP provides further direction regarding lot creation in Section entitled General Consent Policies. This section states that the Town shall support the creation 18 5

21 of new lots by consent when a number of criteria are satisfied. The following provides an analysis of the proposal against the applicable criteria: the scale of development proposed or the total development potential of the property would not require a plan of subdivision; As the proposal is to create one (1) additional lot, a plan of subdivision would not be required. the application represents infilling in an existing built up area; The proposal represents an infill development in an existing built up area within the settlement area of Almonte. the proposed lots are in keeping with the lot area, frontage and density pattern of the surrounding neighbourhood; While the proposed severed lot is slightly deficient with respect to lot frontage, it exceeds the minimum lot area requirement of the R1 zoning. Taking the setback requirements of the R1 Zone into account, Staff believe the there would be more than sufficient area to accommodate a single-detached dwelling, ancillary structure(s) and required off-street parking on the property. In addition, once developed, the combined density of the severed and retained lot would be consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood. Overall, the proposal is not anticipated to detract from the residential character of the area. the creation of lots would not create or worsen traffic, access or servicing problems; The creation of one (1) additional building lot will not negatively impact the traffic of the area. The Town s Director of Roads and Public Works has indicated that servicing is available to the subject property. the application represents an orderly and efficient use of land, and its approval would not hinder the development of the retained lands; The infill nature of the proposal on lands with full municipal services available represents an efficient and desirable form of development. The retained lot satisfies all development standards of the R1 Zone. the application meets all other policies of this Plan. The proposed proposal satisfies all other relevant policies of the COP. Overall, Staff believe the proposed minor variance and resulting severed lot are in keeping with the intent of the Town s COP. 2. Does the proposal maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law? A Zoning By-law is a regulatory planning tool used to implement the policies of the Official Plan. It is applicable law and is applied to control and direct the location of specific land uses and the placement of structures both within the municipality and on a specific lot. To determine the intent of the By-law, it is inappropriate to consider single provisions in isolation. The overall effect of the proposed development on the zoning requirements as a whole should be considered. 19 6

22 As noted previously, apart from the deficient frontage, the retained lot satisfies all of the development standards of the R1 Zone. The intent of a minimum lot frontage requirement is to help maintain a level of consistency between lots and to ensure that there is sufficient area on site to accommodate a dwelling, entrance and ancillary structures. That being said, Staff believe that the proposed 14.38m (47.2ft) frontage and 457m² area of the retained lot in more than sufficient to accommodate the above noted works. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Zoning By-law contains various R1 subzones (being subzones D, E, F, G, H & I) which have minimum lot frontage requirements of 12m and minimum lot area requirements of 360m². With this in mind, Staff view to the proposal to be in keeping with the intent of the Zoning By-law. 3. Is the proposal desirable for the appropriate development of the lands in question? In assessing whether the requested relief is appropriate, it is important to examine more than solely the degree of relief requested. Other limiting circumstances or conditions, which render the proposal appropriate or necessary, must also be evaluated. Based on the infill nature of the proposal on lands with full municipal services available, Staff consider it to be an efficient and desirable form of development. Once again, it is important to emphasize that apart from the deficient frontage, the severed lot meets all of the development standards of the R1 Zone. That being said, Staff view the 18m frontage requirement of the R1 Zone to be somewhat excessive and quite frankly outdated for an urban area of a community which strives to create compact and efficient forms of development. As such, Staff view the proposal to be a desirable and appropriate development of the subject lands. 4. Is the proposal minor? In determining if a variance proposal is minor, the potential effect of the variance on the use of the subject property, on the abutting holdings, the neighbourhood, and, to a lesser extent, the municipality as a whole, must be considered. While the land holding has a sufficient area and frontage to be divided into two lots which would meet the development standards of the R1-Zone, this is not possible due to the location of the existing dwelling on the retained lot which the applicant wishes to keep. With this in mind, it is important to note that frontage and area of the retained lot has been made as large as possible while keeping the required 1.2m side yard setback of the existing dwelling on the from the side lot line. Furthermore, any building(s) developed on the severed lot will be required to meet all setback and lot coverage provisions of the R1 Zone which will help alleviate any negative impact on abutting properties. Staff note that while no comments have been received from the public at the time this report was prepared, the County received comments during the consent process which questioned whether the retained lot could be used for commercial purposes or for a higher density residential use than a single family dwelling. In response, Staff note that the R1 zoning would only permit a detached single family dwelling to be developed on the property which in theory could include an accessory apartment or home-based business not exceeding 60m² in area. Any change of use to higher density residential or commercial would require amendments to the Town s Zoning By-law and COP and be subject a public meeting where members of the public would have the opportunity to express their support or opposition of the proposal. That being said, based on the area of the lot and the composition of the surrounding neighbourhood, it is extremely unlikely for Staff to be supportive of a proposal for a commercial or higher density residential use on the lot. 20 7

23 21

24 APPENDIX Plan 27R Severed Lot Retained Lot 22 9

25 Aerial Photo (2011)

26 Site Photo (January 8, 2014) 24 11

27 Proposed Building Elevation 25 12

28 Proposed Floor Plan 26 13