THE MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AND CONSENT MET IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, TOWN OF MILTON AT 7:00 P.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 2005.

Transcription

1 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AND CONSENT MINUTES Section 45 of the Planning Act Meeting No. COA # Thursday, January 27, 2005 THE MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AND CONSENT MET IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, TOWN OF MILTON AT 7:00 P.M., THURSDAY,. MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mr. J. Yaworski, Chair Mr. F. Louks, Vice-Chair Mr. J. Vanderzand Mr. G. Marsh Mr. T. Price Mr. Christian Lupis, Planner, Town of Milton Mrs. Betty Cunningham, Planning Technician, Town of Milton Ms. Bronwyn Marshall, Committee Secretary, Town of Milton The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. following the Mayor s Annual Appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chair positions, through which Mr. Joe Yaworski was nominated for and accepted the position of Committee Chair, and Mr. Fred Louks was nominated for and accepted the position of Committee Vice-Chair for the 2005 Committee term. Member J. Vanderzand declared a conflict on Minor Variance Application A-04/096/M (Brown) due to the fact that he is a close neighbour. As such, he chose not to deliberate as a Committee Member for the application. The Chair confirmed that a quorum was in attendance. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A-04/095/M (First Milton Shopping Centre) MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A-04/096/M (Brown) MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A-05/001/M (Beaverhall Homes) The Chair asked if the applicant for minor variance application A-04/096/M (Brown) would mind having their application heard after the two other applications to be discussed at the meeting so as to expedite the process for the other applicants (due to a large number of concerned neighbours who came to the meeting regarding the Brown minor variance). The applicant s agent had no concerns with the suggestion.

2 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 2 The following minor variance application was reviewed within the context of Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act: MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A-04/095/M (First Milton Shopping Centre) 1510 Steeles Avenue West Part Lot 14, Concession 4 Plan 20R Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton Requesting permission to allow a garbage enclosure having a setback of 6.5 metres from the intersection, whereas Section 4(b) of Zoning By-law , as amended, permits a waste enclosure on the property with a minimum setback of 30 metres from the intersection on Part of Lot 15, Concession 4, Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton. Present: Mr. Chris Barre agent (First Gulf Developments Ltd) 6860 Century Avenue East Tower, Suite 1000 Mississauga ON L5N 2W5 The Chair inquired whether there was anyone in attendance either in support or in opposition to the application, in which there were no others present with respect to the application. Overview: Mr. Barre, the agent, was sworn in. Mr. Barre explained that the garbage enclosure is located at the North End of Building C backs onto James Snow Parkway. He explained that the site plan for the property was approved with the garbage enclosure in the same position; however that it was built without a roof so as to provide for easy access and removal of the garbage, and that the intent was for the enclosure to be incorporated/integrated into the building. Committee Deliberations: Chair J. Yaworski asked staff member Mr. Lupis for clarification regarding whether or not the lack of roofing on the structure was an issue to consider when reviewing the variance. Mr. Lupis confirmed that the garbage enclosure is considered an accessory structure because of the fact that it does not have a roof; as such the variance regarding setback from the intersection was required. Mr. Lupis clarified for the Committee that had the structure been enclosed with a roof, the variance would not have been required.

3 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 3 MOTION TO APPROVE: Following discussions, and having regard for the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P13: the Committee, in its opinion, finds: 1. That the application is considered to be minor; 2. That the application is considered to be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the property; 3. That the application is considered to be within the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan; 4. That the application is considered to be within the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. MOVED BY: J. Vanderzand SECONDED BY: A. Price THAT the minor variance application of First Milton Shopping Centre, FILE #A-04/095/M (First Milton Shopping Centre), to the Town of Milton Committee of Adjustment and Consent, requesting permission to allow a garbage enclosure having a setback of 6.5 metres from the intersection, whereas Section 4(b) of Zoning By-law , as amended, permits a waste enclosure on the property with a minimum setback of 30 metres from the intersection on Part of Lot 15, Concession 4, Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton be APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the approval be subject of an expiry in one year from the date of the decision if the conditions are not met, if the proposed development does not proceed and/or a building permit (if applicable) is not secured. Signed in Favour to the motion to approve: J. Yaworski F. Louks J. Vanderzand G. Marsh A. Price Signed in Opposition to the motion to approve: Nil MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED Those persons in attendance were advised of the 20-day appeal period from the date of this decision being rendered.

4 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 4 The following minor variance application was reviewed within the context of Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act: MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A-05/001/M (Beaverhall Homes) Black Drive Part of Lot 12, Concession 4 Plan 20M-925 Developer Lot 316L Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton Requesting permission to allow a minimum rear yard setback of 6.42 metres, WHEREAS Section 6C of Comprehensive Zoning By-law , as amended, permits a minimum rear yard setback of 7.0 metres on Part of Lot 12, Concession 4, Plan 20M-925, Developer Lot 316L, Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton. Present: Mr. Godfrey Defreitas agent (Hunt Design Associates Inc) 40 Vogell Road Suite 17 Richmond Hill ON L4B 3N6 The Chair inquired whether there was anyone in attendance either in support or in opposition to the application in which there were no others present with respect to the application. Overview: Mr. Defreitas, the agent, was sworn in. Mr. Defreitas explained to the Committee that the variance was required in order to correct an error in the devising line set out by the surveyor at the original time of surveying of the site. The builder was not notified of the problem with the rear yard setback until after the home was already sold to the purchaser. The builder attempted to re-align the property boundaries to correct the problem, but was unable to do so and as such, the variance was required. Committee Deliberations: Member J. Vanderzand inquired as to whether or not there were any other homes in the subdivision which would require this same variance or a similar one to come before the committee Mr. Defreitas explained that to his knowledge, there were not.

5 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 5 MOTION TO APPROVE: Following discussions, and having regard for the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P13: the Committee, in its opinion, finds: 1. That the application is considered to be minor; 2. That the application is considered to be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the property; 3. That the application is considered to be within the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan; 4. That the application is considered to be within the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. MOVED BY: F. Louks SECONDED BY: J. Vanderzand THAT the minor variance application of Beaverhall Homes, FILE #A-05/001/M (Beaverhall Homes), to the Town of Milton Committee of Adjustment and Consent, requesting permission to allow a minimum rear yard setback of 6.42 metres, WHEREAS Section 6C of Comprehensive Zoning By-law , as amended, permits a minimum rear yard setback of 7.0 metres on Part of Lot 12, Concession 4, Plan 20M- 925, Developer Lot 316L, Town of Milton in the Regional Municipality of Halton be APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Signed in Favour to the motion to approve: J. Yaworski F. Louks J. Vanderzand G. Marsh A. Price Signed in Opposition to the motion to approve: Nil MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED Those persons in attendance were advised of the 20-day appeal period from the date of this decision being rendered.

6 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 6 The following minor variance application was reviewed within the context of Section 45 (1) of the Planning Act: MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION A-04/096/M (Brown) Fifth Line Part of West Half Lot 15 Concession 6 (Nassagaweya) Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton Requesting permission to allow: A reduction in minimum lot area to 1.75 hectares for an agricultural operation, WHEREAS Section 10.2 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law , as amended, requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 hectares for an agricultural operation; and, A reduction in minimum front yard setback to 21.5 metres for an existing singlefamily dwelling, WHEREAS Section 10.2 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law , as amended, requires a minimum front yard setback of 22.5 metres; and, A reduction in minimum setback from the interior lot line to 0.6 metres for a legal non-conforming barn, WHEREAS Section (i) of Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw , as amended, requires a minimum interior lot line setback of 1.2 metres; and, To recognize a legal non-conforming accessory building (barn) in the front yard, with a front yard setback of 0.39 metres, WHEREAS Section of Comprehensive Zoning By-law , as amended, requires that accessory buildings only be permitted in the rear or interior side yard on Part of West Half Lot 15, Concession 6 (Nassagaweya) Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton. Present: Applicant: Agent: Ms. Heather Brown Fifth Line RR#2 Rockwood ON N0B 2K0 Ms. N. Jane Pepino Aird & Berlis LLP BCE Place, Suite 1800 Box Bay Street, Toronto ON M5J 2T9 Hydrogeologist on behalf of applicant: Mr. Dennis L. German 3 Watson Road South Suite 1A, Guelph ON, N1L 1E3

7 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 7 The Chair inquired whether there was anyone in attendance either in support or in opposition to the application in which there were members of the public present with respect to the application. Present: Laurie Wells, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Jennifer Minogue & Ivan Clark, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Peter J. Langeryt, 1388 Tinsmith Lane, Oakville ON, L6M 3C8 Erwin Kowalski, Fifth Line, Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Irene Jensen & Blair Harrison, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Keith L. Hopkins, 3141 Clairmont Court, Burlington ON, L7N 2J3 Fred Newton, Fifth Line, Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Joan Nunnaro, Fifth Line, Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Don Schrader, Fifth Line, Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Jim & D. Miller, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Melanie Newton, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Reesa Dexter, Fifth Line RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Clyde Benson, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Shaylan Purchase, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 John Ross, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Sharon Sommerville, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Michael Brown, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0 Overview: Committee Member J. Vanderzand vacated his seat and sat behind the Committee Members so as to not be involved in any way in the decision regarding the application. Mr. Christian Lupis, Planner, Town of Milton, was sworn in. Mr. Lupis clarified that all variances requested for by the applicant were under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, none being under Section 45(2). He explained that although the public circulation listed that variances were requested under Section 45(2) of the Planning Act, it is staff s opinion that proper public notification was given, and as such, the application should proceed before the Committee. Committee Chair, J. Yaworski, asked the Members if any of them had a problem with the application proceeding, none of the members objected to proceeding; as such the application was heard. Mr. Lupis read through his Planning report dated January 24, 2005 for the Committee Members and those present with regard to the application. Mr. Lupis explained that staff recommended approval of the application with conditions. He explained the suggested conditions to the Committee and advised of how each condition was related to the application. Ms. N. Jane Pepino, the agent, was sworn in. Ms. Pepino submitted as evidence 45 letters of support for the application, as well as a Hydrogeological report in support of the application.

8 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 8 Ms. Pepino explained that the applicant was before the Committee due to a circumstance of bad timing. When the Town By-law implementation process occurred, Ms. Brown was not yet the owner of the subject property and was not told by the sellers and/or selling agent that the proposed changes in the Zoning By-law would have a direct impact on the use of subject property. Ms. Pepino argued in detail how the application met each of the four tests of approval of a minor variance application. Ms. Pepino explained that for 160 years the subject property has been capable of housing livestock and that Ms. Brown is not the only property owner in the immediate area who has agricultural uses in place. Ms. Pepino addressed that her client/the applicant was aware that there were surrounding property owners who had concerns with regard to the application; in particular regarding the two horses which are currently on site and the impact that these horses would have on the recent contamination of neighbouring wells. Ms. Pepino explained that based on the Hydrogeological report submitted on behalf of the applicant, there was no evidence found to support the claim that Ms. Brown s horses were the source of contamination of the neighbouring wells. Ms. Pepino explained the applicant was in support of the comments and conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Dennis German, B.Sc., P. Geo, Senior Hydrogeologist, Principal; author of the Hydrogeology report submitted on behalf of the applicant, was sworn in. Mr. German answered some questions from the Committee Members regarding the locations, depth, and tilling of wells in the area. The Committee Chair polled the audience to determine if there were any members of the public in attendance in support of the application, to which there were. He then polled the audience to determine if there were any people in attendance in opposition to the application, to which there were. The Chair then asked if those in support of and in opposition to the application would like to nominate one individual to speak on behalf of those in favor and those opposed to the application. Mr. Fred Newton, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0, was sworn in to speak in favor of the application. Mr. Newton explained that he is witness to the development of the property over the last 25 years as he has lived at his current residence since that time. He explained that he is extremely impressed with the setup that Ms. Brown has put together on the property because the conditions are excellent and the distribution of the manure has been looked after correctly in his opinion. He noted that he was rather surprised by the opposition from other members of the surrounding area to the use of the subject property, given that it is an agricultural/rural area. Mr. Newton answered a few questions from the Committee Members regarding the number of times per year his well is tested and whether or not he had problems with well water contamination. Mr. Newton explained that he has elderly parents who moved in with him, and to avoid any possible situation of them getting sick from the well water, he put in a UV system. He also explained that he maintains 4 horses on his property, and has his well water tested approximately 3-4 times each year.

9 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 9 Ms. Irene Jensen, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0, was sworn in to speak in opposition to the application. Ms. Jensen supplied the Committee Members with photographs of her property detailing the location of her property line versus the spread line of the manure by the applicant. Ms. Jensen explained to the Committee Members a general timeline of events since the time of her residing on the neighbouring property (2001 moved into basement of house) to the timing of Ms. Brown initiating use of the subject property as a hobby farm (2004). The purpose of the timeline was to outline for the Committee the change in water contamination levels over the course of the +/- three years. Ms. Jensen explained her concerns that the character of her home has changed negatively because of the horses on Ms. Brown s property; that manure stockpiling is of concern; that because of Saturday spreading on the subject property her family cannot enjoy the outdoors on the weekends due to smells and flies from the manure; and that her overall property value has decreased due to bad well water conditions and the smell of manure when you come on to her property. Ms. Jensen explained that she has thoroughly consulted with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) regarding Town policies and MDS II calculations between her property and the subject property owned by Ms. Brown. Ms. Jensen was told by OMAF that back in 1996, MDS II calculations were not required; as such the location and layout of her house were not required to meet the current MDS II calculation standards; as well, OMAF explained to her that typically, they would not be involved in this type of process. The Committee Members asked Ms. Jensen a few questions regarding when well testing began on her property; when her family actually moved in to the now existing home; how recently well testing was done on her property; the reading levels that she was given; if and when a UV light was installed for her well (December 30, 2004); and what the reading levels were both before and after the UV light was installed. Ms. Jensen explained that her levels of contamination have been as high as 81; that the well was tested both before and after implementation of the UV system and that the testing has also showed clear water levels both before and after the UV system was installed. Mr. Lupis spoke to the issue and explained that Ms. Jensen was correct in saying that OMAF is not typically involved in this type of process, however Mr. Lupis contacted them in order to correctly implement the condition regarding the Best Management Strategy. OMAF agreed to review the situation and to identify how the Best Management Strategy should be implemented. Member J. Yaworski asked Mr. Lupis which part of the property the Best Management Strategy (BMS) would apply to? Mr. Lupis explained that the BMS would apply to the entire property and that staff wanted this included as a condition so as to attempt to protect and prevent well contamination of the subject property as well as neighbouring properties. Ms. Jensen asked Mr. Lupis why the Nutrient Management Act is not applicable in this situation? Mr. Lupis explained to Ms. Jensen and the Committee that the Best Management Practice serves the same purpose as the Nutrient Management Act; that

10 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 10 because the BMS will be evaluated based on 5 horses (the minimum number of which it can be evaluated), the Nutrient Management Act does not apply. Mr. Lupis explained that the Best Management Practice was devised for this very reason, in that it will serve the same purpose and cover the same items as the Nutrient Management Act would if it were applicable in this situation. Ms. Laurie Wells, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0, speaking in opposition to the application, was affirmed. Ms. Wells explained that her primary concern is with the condition of her well. She has had regular testing of her well and has received varying results over the last few years. Ms. Wells upgraded her well in 2004 to a substantial cost, and even after doing so, she had test results returned which showed over growth in the well. Testing just prior to the Meeting Date showed that the well was overgrown with bacteria yet again (testing done January 19, 2005). Ms. Wells explained that she has had Mr. Rod Thompson from Halton Regional Health Department come out to test her well, to which he was unable to pinpoint the source of contamination. Ms. Wells is concerned that the subject property of the application is the contaminating source. Ms. Wells was asked a few questions from the Committee Members regarding the location of her property in relation to the subject property; the location of her well; whether her well is a drilled or dug well (Ms. Wells believed it is a drilled well); and the depth of her well (Ms. Wells explained that her well is approximately 50 feet deep). Mr. Erwin Kowalski, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0, speaking in opposition to the application, was sworn in. Mr. Kowalski outlined for the Committee that his primary concern was well water contamination. He explained that he has lived at his current residence for approximately 40 years and never had well problems until 5 years ago. Over the last few years his tests have also been up and down in levels of contamination, similar to those identified by Ms. Jensen. The Committee Members asked Mr. Kowalski whether or not during the time he has resided on his property, the subject property contained any livestock? Mr. Kowalski explained that to his knowledge, there was only 1 horse on the subject property, approximately 15 years prior. Mr. Blair Harrison, (husband of Ms. Irene Jensen) Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0, speaking in opposition to the application, was sworn in. Mr. Harrison came to the stand and spoke in addition to the concerns already identified by his wife, Ms. Irene Jensen. Mr. Harrison had numerous questions for staff member Mr. Lupis regarding the Best Management Strategy and OMAF s role in the implementation of the strategy. Mr. Harrison was concerned also with whether or not the neighbours of the applicant would be involved in the BMS process. Mr. Harrison also asked Mr. Lupis what further steps were within his rights should he be able to prove that Ms. Brown s horses are the cause of the contamination of his well.

11 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 11 Mr. Lupis explained that the outcome of the BMS would determine whether or not any horses were permitted on the site, and how many would be permitted if the case allows. Mr. Lupis explained that the concerns of the neighbours would be provided to OMAF in order to devise the BMS on the subject property. Mr. Lupis explained that it is not his position as a Town Planner to identify for Mr. Harrison what further steps he could take should he be able to prove that Ms. Brown s horses are the source of the contamination. Mr. Lupis explained that his staff report addressed any issues of potential contamination based on comments provided by Halton Region Health Department, the agency responsible for review of water issues/concerns. He explained that if the Regional Heath Department had concerns and had recommended that the minor variance be denied, this would have been addressed accordingly in the staff report. As such, Regional Health provided comments stating that the condition regarding the Best Management Practice would be sufficient in addressing the concerns. Mr. Jim Miller, Fifth Line, RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0, speaking in support of the application, was sworn in. Mr. Miller explained that he used to have similar problems with his well contamination and thought that it was due to horses that he had on his property approximately 5 years ago. Mr. Miller explained that he had the horses removed from his property, however, the problems with the well testing remained. Tests for Mr. Miller showed that the problem was with wells that were drilled back in the 1960 s not being compatible with today s conditions, resulting in contamination of the water. The result was that Mr. Miller had to have his well reconditioned, which solved the problems he was having with contamination. Mr. Michael Brown, (son of applicant) RR#2 Rockwood ON, N0B 2K0, speaking in support of the application was sworn in. Mr. Brown explained that the neighbour with the majority of the concerns and opposition to the application is located to the west of the subject lands. He asked if the water flow occurs in a South East direction, how could the neighbour to the west have well contamination from the horses existing on the subject property? He wondered if those in opposition to the application had ever investigated the source of contamination coming from something other than his Mom s (applicant) horses. Ms. Jane Pepino, agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke again to the Committee to address some of the items brought forward by members of the public. Ms. Pepino explained that in her opinion, the general comment of those who spoke in opposition to the application was that they just want the horses to go away, and that issues regarding the variance were not really addressed. Ms. Pepino explained that Ms. Brown has had water testing done on her property as well, and has had readings of 0.0 without a UV system in place. Ms. Pepino explained that Ms. Brown is prepared to adhere to whatever the conditions of the BMS outline for the subject property. Ms. Brown has no intention of using the farm for commercial purposes; she only wants to use it as a hobby farm, which is within the intent of a rural area.

12 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 12 Ms. Pepino addressed Mr. Harrison s question regarding what recourse he would have should he be able to prove through DNA testing that Ms. Brown s horses are in fact the source of his well water contamination she explained that he would have recourse through the applicant s signed agreement with the Town, should the application be approved subject to conditions; that he would have recourse through OMAF; through the Nutrient Management Act; or through suing Ms. Brown should he so choose. Ms. Pepino explained that he has the same ability as any other person in Canada when it comes to securing his own rights as a property owner. Committee Member G. Marsh asked if condition #3 could have an addition made to it that in the interim, before the BMS is completed, a containment facility be erected on the subject property? Ms. Pepino explained that there was not enough time for this to be done, as the BMS has to be completed prior to March 31, Mr. Lupis addressed Mr. Marsh s question and explained that he felt as though Ms. Pepino was correct in that there would not be enough time to secure a building permit for the containment facility, construct the facility, and still have the BMS completed prior to March 31, Member A. Price asked what is happening with the manure which is currently being stored in the wheelbarrow in front of the barn? Ms. Pepino explained that the manure has been moved and is being stored in the wheelbarrow, away from the Jensen/Harrison fence line, where it will be held until the Best Management Plan is put in place. She added that the wheelbarrow full of the manure couldn t be moved without tractor help from one of the neighbours who allows Ms. Brown to have use of their tractor. Ms. Pepino also mentioned that as long as the manure is maintained in the wheelbarrow, it could not contaminate the ground. Chair J. Yaworski asked how many horses the applicant intends to have on her property? Ms. Pepino said that a maximum of 4 horses is what Ms. Brown had advised she would like to have on the property. (3 riding horses and one hobby horse; has a mare which Ms. Brown would like to breed if possible) Mr. Lupis explained that the BMP would identify the total number of horses that Ms. Brown could house in the existing barn and ultimately on the subject property. Committee Deliberations: Member G. Marsh explained that he feels staff comments are appropriate and was prepared to proceed. Mr. Louks asked Mr. Lupis for clarification regarding the BMP procedure. Was he correct in that OMAF would make recommendations, the recommendations would translate into an agreement with the Town, which would be subject to Bylaw enforcement; if the applicant was non-complying with the agreement then the variance would be void? Mr. Lupis confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Lupis also noted for clarification that condition #4 regarding the timing to complete the BMP was changed from March 31, 2005 to April 30, 2005; and that wording would be added to condition #2 for clarification that when calculating

13 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 13 MDS II, Factor B (Final Livestock Units) will be based on a minimum number of 5 livestock units (i.e. horses). MOTION TO APPROVE: Following discussions, and having regard for the requirements of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P13: the Committee, in its opinion, finds: 1. That the application is considered to be minor; 2. That the application is considered to be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the property; 3. That the application is considered to be within the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan; 4. That the application is considered to be within the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. MOVED BY: G. Marsh SECONDED BY: F. Louks THAT the minor variance application of Heather Brown, FILE #A-04/096/M (Brown), to the Town of Milton Committee of Adjustment and Consent, requesting permission to allow: A reduction in minimum lot area to 1.75 hectares for an agricultural operation, WHEREAS Section 10.2 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law , as amended, requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 hectares for an agricultural operation; and, A reduction in minimum front yard setback to 21.5 metres for an existing singlefamily dwelling, WHEREAS Section 10.2 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law , as amended, requires a minimum front yard setback of 22.5 metres; and, A reduction in minimum setback from the interior lot line to 0.6 metres for a legal non-conforming barn, WHEREAS Section (i) of Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw , as amended, requires a minimum interior lot line setback of 1.2 metres; and, To recognize a legal non-conforming accessory building (barn) in the front yard, with a front yard setback of 0.39 metres, WHEREAS Section of Comprehensive Zoning By-law , as amended, requires that accessory buildings only be permitted in the rear or interior side yard, on Part of West Half Lot 15, Concession 6 (Nassagaweya) Town of Milton, Regional Municipality of Halton be APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the applicant consult with the local Resource Management Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) to devise a Best Management Strategy for the agricultural use of the property to the satisfaction of the Town of Milton. The strategy should focus on odour mitigation, prevention of on-site and off-site risks to private water supplies from surface runoff and/or groundwater contamination and should also identify the maximum number of horses that should be housed in the existing barn. This strategy should be submitted to the Town no later than April 30, 2005 and the applicant

14 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 14 will be required to enter into an agreement with the Town to ensure that the proposed recommendations brought forth by the Best Management Strategy are implemented on the subject property. 2. The applicant must complete an MDS II calculation, with assistance from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), to determine whether the expansion complies with Minimum Distance Separation Formula (MDS II). In the event that MDS II cannot be met, the maximum number of horses that should be housed in the barn, as will be determined by the Best Management Strategy, will be based on the original 50.2 square metre barn only. When calculating MDS II, Factor B (Final Livestock Units) will be based on a minimum number of 5 livestock units (i.e. horses). 3. That no manure be spread on the subject property until such time as the applicant provides the Town of Milton the above noted Best Management Strategy. 4. That the variances regarding the location and setback of the house and barn only apply to the existing footprint of the single detached dwelling and barn and does not permit any new addition and/or expansion to the existing barn. 5. That if a building permit is required, development charges will be applicable in accordance with the Town, Region and Educational Development Charges By-laws at the time of building permit issuance, at the rate in effect at that time. 6. That the approval be subject of an expiry in one year from the date of decision if the conditions are not met, if the proposed development does not proceed and/or a building permit (if applicable) is not secured. Signed in Favour to the motion to approve: F. Louks G. Marsh A. Price Signed in Opposition to the motion to approve: J. Yaworski MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED Those persons in attendance were advised of the 20-day appeal period from the date of this decision being rendered.

15 TOWN OF MILTON COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT & CONSENT 15 OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT MOVED BY: A. Price SECONDED BY: G. Marsh THAT this Meeting of the Milton Committee of Adjustment and Consent do now adjourn with the next meeting to be held on Thursday February 24, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10 p.m. MOTION CARRIED Chair Secretary-Treasurer Executed Minutes to: Milton Clerk s Department (original for the record) Milton Planning and Development Department Milton Building/Zoning Services Halton Regional Planning Department Minor Variance Files: A-04/095/M (First Milton Shopping Centre) A-04/096/M (Brown) A-05/001/M (Beaverhall Homes) Site Plan File: SP-21/03 (First Gulf Commercial Centre) Subdivision File: 24T (Milton East Partnership Inc.)