AGENDA - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 2012

Transcription

1 AGENDA - COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT SEPTEMBER 7, 212 A Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment will be held on Friday, September 7, 212 at 1: p.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Offices, Port Carling, Ontario 1. Call to Order 2. Adoption of Agenda a. Resolution to Adopt the Agenda. 3. Declaration of Conflict of Interest 4. Adoption of Minutes a. Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. 5. Delegations 6. Hearing of Consent Applications (In Conjunction with Zoning Amendment Applications) 7. Hearing of Consent Applications (In Conjunction with Minor Variance Applications) 8. Hearing of Minor Variance Applications (in Conjunction with Consent Applications) 9. Hearing of Consent Applications a. B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Part of Lot 31, Concession 4, Parts 1-5 and Parts 6-13, Plan 35R-2477, (Watt), , b. B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Lots 9 and 1, Concessions 7 and 8, (Monck), , Page 1 of 149

2 9. Hearing of Consent Applications c. B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, (Monck), Hearing of Minor Variance Applications a. A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part 1, Plan 35R-1961, (Watt), b. A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Rosseau, Parts 2 and 4, Plan 35R , (Medora), c. A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Concession 3, Lot 4, Plan 21, (Wood), d. A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Plan 18, (Wood), e. A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Concession 12, Lot 1, Plan 54 (RCP), Medora, Correspondence 12. Unfinished Business a. Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, Waldon Investments Inc., Part of Lot 16, Concession 6, Parts 1-3, Plan 35R-1333, (Medora), Information Items 14. New Business 15. Statistics 16. Committee in Closed Session 17. Adjournment a. Resolution to Adjourn the Meeting. Page 2 of 149

3 Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 3 of 149

4 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT A Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment was held on Friday, August 17 th, 212, at 1: p.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Office, Port Carling, Ontario. PRESENT: Members Present: Officials Present: Susan Benson D. Pink - Interim Director of Planning Brad Burgess M. Ellis - Planner Allen Edwards Chair A. Glazier - Committee of Adjustment Coordinator Alice Murphy /Acting Secretary-Treasurer Carol-Anne Robinson L. Forbes - Planning Assistant 1. Meeting Called to Order a. Chair Edwards called the meeting to order at 1: p.m. 2. Adoption of Agenda a. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the agenda. Resolution Number: CA-1-17/8/212 Member Benson Member Robinson: Be it resolved that the Committee of Adjustment Meeting Agenda dated August 17, 212, be adopted. Carried. 3. Declaration ation of Conflict of Interest a. None. 4. Adoption of Minutes a. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes held on July 27, 212. DRAFT Member Benson commented that Item 1.d., (Waldon Investments Inc.), additional Reasons for Decision were noted at the July 27, 212 meeting. The application does maintain the Provincial Policy Statement, the waterfront needs to be protected extra focus on the 1 foot vegetative buffer. This will be noted in the file. Resolution Number: CA-2-17/8/212 Dnot Dwith Member Robinson Member Benson: Be it resolved that the minutes dated July 27, 212, be adopted and approved as circulated. Carried. Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 4 of 149

5 5. Delegations a. None. Minutes Committee of Adjustment August 17, 212 Page 2 of 8 6. Hearing of Consent Applications (In Conjunction with Zoning Amendment Applications) a. None. 7. Hearing of Consent Applications (In Conjunction with Minor Variance Applications) a. None. 8. Hearing of Minor Variance Applications (In Conjunction with Consent Applications) a. None. 9. Hearing of Consent Applications a. B/27/12/ML, Christie, Part of Lots 3 and 4, Concession 1, Part 3 on Plan 35R-8291, Parts 1-3 on Plan 35R-1379, (Medora), Roll # Mr. Ellis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 15 days prior. Submissions s were received as follows: i) Letter from the District Municipality of Muskoka, Planning and Economic Development Department. Mr. Ellis read the letter, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Bill Grimmett, Agent, Box 365, 61 Joseph Street, Port Carling, ON, PB 1J, attended the meeting. Mr. Grimmett explained that during the process of the benefitting lot being sold, it was discovered that a section of the right of way is not registered. This application will legalize access to the benefitting property. DRAFT No one attended in support or in opposition to the application. Committee had no questions. Resolution Number: CA-3-17/8/212 Member Benson Member Robinson: Be it resolved that Consent be DR granted for Application B/27/12/ML, (Christie) provided the following conditions are fulfilled: 1. A registerable description (deed) of the right-of-way be submitted to the Secretary Treasurer, along with a registered copy of the reference plan. Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 5 of 149

6 Minutes Committee of Adjustment August 17, 212 Page 3 of 8 2. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the retained lot is satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage systems be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. REASONS: This application conforms with the requirements of RAFT Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, the Township Official Plan and the District Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan. Pursuant to Section 41 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, all conditions imposed must be fulfilled within one year from the date of the sending of the Notice of Decision or the application is deemed to be refused. It is a requirement that all conditions imposed be fulfilled prior to the granting of this consent and the giving ing by the Secretary-Treasurer of the certificate provided for in Subsection 42 of Section 53 of the Planning Act, (R.S.O., 199, Chapter P.13, as amended). 1. Hearing of Minor Variance Applications a. A-48/12, Colman, Part of Lot 2, Concession 4, (Wood), Roll # Mr. Ellis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 1 days prior. No submissions were received. Mr. Charles Colman, Applicant, Riverpointe Drive, Dayton, KY, 4174, attended the meeting. Mr. Coleman explained they did not wish to disturb the lakebed for a new dock, so they built a steel dock over the old cribs. The new steel dock extended slightly over the old dock and the added width was discovered at the time of the final building inspection. Mr. Coleman indicated he was available to answer questions. No one attended in support of or in opposition to the application. In response to Committee s question, Mr. Colman indicated the canoe ramp is used to store two sail boats. Resolution Number CA-4-17/8/212 Member Robinson Member Benson: Be it resolved that Application A-48/12, (Colman), to permit a dock width of 38 feet DReso and to permit a dock to be 7 feet from the side lot line, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby approved. Carried. DRA RAF AFT Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 6 of 149

7 Minutes Committee of Adjustment August 17, 212 Page 4 of 8 REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment of the property, maintains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted the additional width does not impact the shoreline, there is no perceptive difference, the fish habitat was maintained and the neighbours did not indicate any concerns. b. A-49/12, Levman, Part of Lot 21, Concession F, (Medora), Roll # Mr. Ellis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 14 days prior. No submissions were received. Mr. John Jarick, Agent, 2676 Muskoka Road 169, Torrance, ON, PC 1M, attended the meeting. Mr. Jarick explained the shape of the lot makes it difficult to develop beyond 2 feet from water s edge. Mr. Jarick indicated he was available to answer questions. No one attended in support of or in opposition to the application. In response to Committee s tee s questions, Mr. Pink clarified various aspects of the application and noted a Building Permit would not be available to construct a roof over the deck unless s the minor variance is approved. Resolution Number CA-5-17/8/212 Member Murphy Member Burgess: Be it resolved that Application A- 49/12, (Levman), to permit the construction of an addition (porch) to an existing dwelling which will result in a lot coverage of 11% or 1,876 square feet of the lot area within 2 feet from the high water mark, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby approved subject to the following condition: 1. The shed attached to the sleeping cabin be removed. DRAFT Carried. REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment the property, maintains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted there was no tree removal during construction, the porch is well set back from the lake, the porch complies with all other Dof D8 requirements of the by-law, other variances have been granted at 11% and the neighbours did not indicate any concerns. Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 7 of 149

8 Minutes Committee of Adjustment August 17, 212 Page 5 of 8 c. A-5/12, Mann, Part of Lot 24, Concession 8, Part 1 on Plan BR-119, (Monck), Roll # Mr. Ellis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 14 days prior. No submissions were received. Mr. Duncan Ross, Duncan Ross Architects, Agent, 75 Main Street West, Huntsville, ON, P1H 1X1, attended the meeting. Mr. Ross indicated the purpose of the application is to extend a small portion of deck to enable e the applicants to see where their children play. The topography (steep slopes) limits areas to construct any expansions. No one attended in support of or in opposition to the application. In response to Committee s question, Mr. Ross indicated the deck would extend 48 inches beyond the end of the dwelling. He noted the applicants own the abutting property, which is under the Managed Forest Tax Incentive Program. Photographs of the existing dwelling and artist t rendering of the proposed renovated dwelling were submitted, copies of which are attached. Committee held a lengthy discussion regarding the domination of the built form at the waterfront. The felt the submitted sketches did not accurately reflect the existing structures as they do not show the dock along the shoreline to the boathouse. Committee also indicated they wish to have site plan control on the property to ensure the retention ention of vegetation. It was the consensus of Committee to adjourn the application until all the structures on the subject property are confirmed. d. A-51/12, Elsley, Part of Lot 35, Concession 12, Lot 37 on Plan 32, (Medora), Roll # Mr. Ellis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 14 days prior. DRA RAFT No submissions were received. Ms. Terry Ledger, Agent, 167 Medora St., Port Carling, ON, PB 1J, attended the Ms. Ledger indicated the sleeping cabin is small, well setback, is located the dwelling and complies with all other requirements of the zoning by-law. No onedone attended in support of or in opposition to the application. Dmeeting. Dbehind In response to Committee s question, Mr. Pink indicated the recommendation to remove the sleeping cabin is due to the insufficient frontage and concerns with the density at the shoreline. They could add a substantial addition to the dwelling in the future, if and/or when they do so, the sleeping cabin would have to be removed. He Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 8 of 149

9 Minutes Committee of Adjustment August 17, 212 Page 6 of 8 noted Committee could impose a condition to restrict a maximum increase for the dwelling. Resolution Number CA-6-17/8/212 Member Murphy Member Burgess: Be it resolved that Application A- 51/12, (Elsley), to permit the construction of a sleeping cabin on a lot that is undersized in lot frontage, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The lands are made subject to site plan control to ensure the retention of existing vegetation. 2. The sleeping cabin be removed ed if/when an expansion to the dwelling is proposed. Carried. REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment of the property, maintains ains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted the existing dwelling and sleeping cabin are both modest in size, a larger addition to the existing dwelling could have been proposed and visual impact will be minimal as the proposed sleeping cabin is located behind the existing dwelling. e. A-53/12, Bartman, Part of Lot 27, Concession D, (Medora), Roll # Mr. Ellis explained the history, nature and location of the application/property. Notice of the Hearing was circulated 1 days prior. Submissions were received as follows: i) Letter of support from Teresa Todd. Mr. Ellis read the letter, a copy of which is attached. ii) DRAFT Letter of support from Donald Sheldon. Mr. Ellis read the letter, a copy of which is attached. Mr. Bill Grimmett, Agent, Box 365, 61 Joseph Street, Port Carling, ON, PB 1J, the meeting. Mr. Grimmett indicated after reviewing the staff report and with his clients, they have agreed to withdraw the portion of the application for the ramp. rador They have also agreed to the removal of the storage building and dark sky lighting. lighdligh Mr. Grimmett reviewed the four tests of a minor variance and indicated he Dattended Dconferring was available to answer questions. No one attended in support of or in opposition to the application. Committee had no questions. Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 9 of 149

10 11. Correspondence ence a. None. Minutes Committee of Adjustment August 17, 212 Page 7 of 8 Resolution Number CA-7-17/8/212 Member Burgess Member Murphy: Be it resolved that Application A-53, (Bartman), to permit the construction of a two storey boathouse on a lot that has 297 feet of frontage, as shown on the plan attached to the Notice of Decision, is hereby approved. All other provisions applying to shoreline structures (height, width, etc.) will be based on a lot frontage of 3 feet. The variances are granted subject to the following conditions: 1. That the lands be made subject to site plan control to address Dark Sky Lighting on the proposed boathouse/dock and a satisfactory Site Plan Agreement be registered on title. 2. That the interior walls and door for the storage room at the northwesterly corner of the first storey of the boathouse be removed. Carried. 12. Unfinished Business a. None. 13. Information Items REASONS FOR DECISION: It is the opinion of the Committee that this application is minor in nature, is suitable development for the enjoyment of the property, maintains the intent of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 87-87, as amended, and maintains the intent of the Official Plan. The Committee noted the proposed boathouse is located in the centre of the lot, there is minimal impact, this is an improvement as to what is existing, the property is well vegetated and the neighbours were in support of this application. DRAFT a. Letter of Withdrawal of Application A-83/11, Ferndale Fun Inc., Part of Lots 29 & 3, Concession 6, (Medora), Roll # Pink advised Committee the Applicant has withdrawn the application. A solution the zoning issues is being prepared, however, no formal application has been madeḋmade. made. 14. New Business DMr. Dto a. Committee held a brief discussion regarding how to deter people from building without a permit. Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 1 of 149

11 Minutes Committee of Adjustment August 17, 212 Page 8 of Statistics a. None. 16. Committee in Closed Session a. None. 17. Adjournment a. Resolution Number: CA-8-17/8/212 Allen Edwards, Chair Member Burgess Member Murphy: Be it resolved that the meeting adjourn at 2:31 p.m. Carried. Andrea Glazier, Acting Secretary-Treasurer RAAndrea DRAFT Resolution to Adopt the Minutes. Page 11 of 149

12 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 12 of 149

13 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE #: B/28/29/12/ML ROLL #: , NOTICE OF HEARING OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONSENT To consider an application for consent for a proposed land severance pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 199, Chapter P.13, as amended. APPLICATION MADE BY: Newton Glassman and Ontario Inc., c/o The Catalyst Group Inc., 77 King Street, West, Royal Trust Tower, TD Bank Centre, Suite 4329, Box 212, Toronto, ON, M5K 1J3 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Part of Lot 31, Concession 4, Parts 1-5, and Parts 6-13, Plan 35R-2477, (Watt), Civic Address: 143 Boyce Road, Unit #14, Zoning Schedule: 29 and 3 EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT: A severance application (B/29/12/ML) has been made to sever a portion of the Glassman property and add it to the abutting property. Please refer to Severance Sketch #2. The abutting property is in the ownership of Glassman and Ontario Inc. Please note the abutting lot was created by severance in 1983.Lands cannot be added to the abutting lot as it was a severed lot. In order to break the previous severance, a portion of the abutting lot is to be added to the Glassman property. Please refer to Severance Sketch #1 (B/28/12/ML). Once the previous severance is broken, the severed lot in Application B/29/12/ML can be added to the abutting lot in order to accommodate the location of a proposed tennis court. Generally, two separate lots exist today and two separate lots are proposed with a change in common lot lines only. NOTICE: A Notice of this Hearing has been circulated to all property owners within 12 metres (4 feet) of the subject property and to the appropriate official and agencies according to Ontario Regulation 197/96 at least 14 days prior to this Hearing. This Notice has been sent to you for your information and does not require any response unless you wish to make one. The above noted application will be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on the date and at the time shown below. DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 212 TIME: 1: P.M. PLACE AND ADDRESS: Township of Muskoka Lakes, Municipal Offices, (corner of Joseph Street and Bailey Street), Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 13 of 149

14 Notice of Hearing B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman/ Ontario Inc. PUBLIC HEARING: ANY PERSON may attend this Hearing and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition to the proposed consent application. Please see address below. If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of Committee in respect of the proposed consent does not make written submissions to Committee before it gives or refuses to give a provisional consent, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss the appeal. You are entitled to attend this public hearing in person to express your view about this application or you may be represented by counsel for that purpose. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: There may be additional information relating to the proposed consent application available from staff located in the Planning Department, Municipal Office, (corner of Bailey and Joseph Street), Port Carling, Ontario on weekdays between 8:15 a.m. and 4 p.m. or by mail at The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, P.O. Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) Please quote the Committee s file number(s) noted above. FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING: If you do not attend the hearing it may proceed in your absence and, except as otherwise provided in the Planning Act, you will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceedings. NOTICE OF DECISION: If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of this application, you must submit a written request to the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. A copy of the decision of the Committee will be sent to the applicant and to each person who appeared in person or by counsel at the hearing and who has filed with the Secretary-Treasurer a written request for notice of decision. PLEASE NOTE: THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT IS A JUDICIAL BODY WHICH MAKES DECISIONS SOLELY ON INFORMATION GATHERED AS A COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Dated this 22 nd day of August, 212. Andrea Glazier Acting Secretary-Treasurer B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 14 of 149

15 HARBOUR I. 1 (R16) OLD TOWNSHIP EUPHEMIA I GUIDE 143I. (R17) (Glassman) (Glassman and Ontario Inc.) BRACKENRIG LAKE ROSSEAU I. (R19) DOCK B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., CRANBERRY I. Page 15 of

16 P COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA REPORT TO: Chair Edwards and Members of the Committee of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 7, 212 SUBJECT: B/28/29/11/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., c/o The Catalyst Group Inc., Part of Lot 31, Concession 4, Parts 1-5 and Parts 6-13, Plan 35R-2477, (Watt), Civic Address: 143 Boyce Road, Unit #14. Roll #: , RECOMMENDATION: That Consent Applications (B/28/29/12/ML) be approved subject to conditions: A registerable description (deed) of the severed lot(s) (including all required rightsof-way) be submitted to the Secretary-Treasurer along with a registered copy of the reference plan. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage system be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Matt Ellis, Planner 3/8/12 Original signed by M. Ellis Acknowledged By: John Curran, Interim C.A.O. 3/8/12 Original signed by J. Curran ORIGIN: A severance application (B/29/12/ML) has been made to sever a portion of the Glassman property and add it to the abutting property. Please refer to Severance Sketch #2. The abutting property is in the ownership of Glassman and Ontario Inc. Please note the abutting lot was created by severance in Lands cannot be added to the abutting lot as it was a severed lot. In order to break the previous severance (consent), a portion of the abutting lot is to be added to the Glassman property. Please refer to Severance Sketch #1 (B/28/12/ML). Once the previous severance is broken, the severed lot in Application B/29/12/ML can be added to the abutting lot in order to accommodate the location of a proposed tennis court. Generally, two separate lots exist today and two separate lots are proposed with a change in common lot lines only Page 1 of 5 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 16 of 149

17 PROPOSAL: (B/29/12/ML) Particulars of Retained Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: 42 feet 2.35 acres Particulars of Severed Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: Particulars of Abutting Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: Nil.21 acres 217 feet 1.61 acres BACKGROUND: PLANNING DATA: Existing Use: Proposed Future Use: Existing Zoning: Waterfront Residential Waterfront Residential Retained Lot: Waterfront Residential (WR1-7) Severed Lot: Waterfront Residential (WR6-7) Benefitting/Abutting Lot: Waterfront Residential (WR6-7) Official Plan Designation: Waterfront Schedule Number: 29 and 3 Access: Neighbouring Uses: Original Shore Road Allowance: Fisheries Resource: Private Road (from Boyce Road) Waterfront Residential Closed Type 2 (General) Civic Address: 143 Boyce Road, Unit #14 Page 2 of 5 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 17 of 149

18 Current Zoning: WR1-7, WR6-7 Minimum Frontage and Area Requirements WR1-7 WR6-7 (Sec (Sec a) a) Lot Frontage 2 Feet 4 Feet Table 1: Lot Size Requirements Retained + Severed Lot Area 1 Acre 2 Acres 2.56 Acres Existing Lot Dimensions Proposed Zoning: WR1-7, WR6-7 Proposed Lot Dimensions Abutting Retained Severed Resultant (Abutting + Proposed Severed) 42 Feet 217 Feet 42 Feet (no change) 1.61 Acres 2.35 Acres Nil.21 Acres 217 Feet 1.81 Acres PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Official Plan The subject lands fall within the Waterfront Designation of the Official Plan. The General Development Polices of the Waterfront Designation state that natural form should dominate the character of the Waterfront and shorelines shall be encouraged to be maintained in a predominately natural state with vegetation retained as development occurs (Section B 5.2). Where development occurs, it shall also complement the natural and built form and should enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to character (Section B 5.4). Waterfront lots should be of sufficient dimension and size to accommodate the use proposed, related structures, and services within acceptable standards. As such, a variety of lot sizes, water frontages, setbacks, and structural limitations are expected in recognition of the natural and built influences in the Waterfront (Section B 5.8). The retention of trees and native vegetation shall be encouraged through site plan control to uphold the visual and environmental integrity of the Waterfront and protect water quality. Where development is proposed, a natural undisturbed buffer is required at the water s edge to generally meet a target of 15 metres (5 feet) in depth from the high water mark. Where little or no natural buffer exists, re-naturalizing will be required, where possible. Minor accessory structures and an access pathway to the shoreline are permitted (Section B 5.51 and 6.5). There are no polices that directly relate to tennis courts. The policies of the Implementation Section in the Official Plan state in considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations (Section F 1.6.4). Page 3 of 5 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 18 of 149

19 2. Zoning By-law The retained lot falls within the Waterfront Residential (WR1-7) zone of the Zoning By-law. The severed and abutting/benefitting lots fall within the Waterfront Residential (WR6-7) zones of the Zoning By-law. The minimum required frontage and area for lots zoned Waterfront Residential (WR1-7) is 2 feet and 1 acre respectively. The minimum required frontage and area for lots zoned Waterfront Residential (WR6-7) is 4 feet and 2 acres respectively (Section a). The retained lot exceeds these requirements. However, the frontage of the retained lot is not changing, as a result of this application. The frontage of the abutting/benefitting lot is not being increased. However, the area of the abutting/benefitting lot is being increased as a result of this application. This lot would move closer into compliance with the Zoning by-law for the minimum lot area requirement of two acres for lots zoned WR6. 3. Site Characteristics A site inspection was carried out on August 24, 212. The retained and abutting lots are well vegetated and consist of varying slopes towards the water with bedrock outcroppings. The retained lot contains a two storey dwelling with an attached two storey garage and dock. The abutting/benefitting lot contains a two storey boathouse, which includes an attached garage. The severed lot is to contain a portion of a future tennis court. The tennis court would be located at the rear of the resultant (severed and abutting) lot and over 14 feet from the high water mark. The tennis court would be well buffered from the dwelling on the abutting property to the west, (the retained lot) and the abutting property to the east. According to the applicant s agent and the project manager for the proposed tennis court, it is anticipated that there will be minimal grade changes required for the tennis court, given the mostly flat nature of the severed lot. The location of the proposed tennis court was chosen for this reason. 4. Sewage Disposal A report from the Township s Septic Inspector, Sandy Bos, dated August 31, 212, states the existing sewage system on the retained lot, subject to application B/29/12/ML, approved under Building Permit requires alteration to meet the requirements of the Ontario Building Code (OBC). A letter from the applicants project manager, Tamarack North Limited, received on September 4, 212, states that a clay containment berm can be installed between the proposed tennis court and existing septic bed. This containment berm will serve to ensure that effluent from the existing septic system is contained within the property of the dwelling which it serves. A Building Permit is required for these works. A condition of the application, that is standard for all consent applications, requires confirmation from the Township that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage system be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. The required alterations for the existing septic system are included in this condition. These works must be carried out and approved prior to the completion of the severance. Page 4 of 5 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 19 of 149

20 5. Breaking Previous Consent A Section of the Planning Act, commonly referred to as once a consent always a consent states that once a parcel is created, it cannot be added to. This was put in place in 1979 to prevent the accidental merging of properties if they were put in the same name. The deeming by-law process is not available for lots created by consent. To effect the proposed lot addition (B/29/12/ML), the previous consent (B/83/3/ML) would have to be broken. Breaking the previous consent is applied for as consent (B/28/12/ML) and consists of severing a very small piece of the retained lot and adding it to the abutting lot owned by Newton Glassman, which is also the retained lot in application (B/29/12/ML). 6. By-law Administration A Building Permit is not required for a tennis court, as it does not fall within the definition of a Building as per the Ontario Building Code. However, a tennis court is considered as a structure in the Zoning By-law and, therefore, must comply with all the setback requirements of the Zoning By-law. The future tennis court, in the location proposed would exceed the Zoning Bylaw requirements for front, rear and side yard setbacks. Page 5 of 5 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 2 of 149

21 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 21 of 149

22 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 22 of 149

23 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 23 of 149

24 Glassman August 24, 212 The garage on the retained lot (B/29/12/ML) Glassman August 24, 212 The dwelling on the retained lot B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., Page 24 of 149

25 Glassman August 24, 212 The boathouse/garage on the benefitting lot Glassman August 24, 212 B/28/29/12/ML, Glassman and Ontario Inc., The location of the proposed tennis court on the severed lot Page 25 of 149

26 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 26 of 149

27 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE #: B/3/31/12/ML, B/32/33/12/ML ROLL #: , NOTICE OF HEARING OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONSENT To consider an application for consent for a proposed land severance pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 199, Chapter P.13, as amended. APPLICATION MADE BY: Melloney McNabb, 68 Manitoba Street, Bracebridge, ON, P1L 2B4 Nancy Brown and Joyce Brown, 111 Baldwin Road, Bracebridge, ON, P1L 1W8 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Part of Lots 9 and 1, Concessions 7 and 8, (Monck), Civic Address: 112 and 111 Baldwin Road, Zoning Schedule: 39 EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT: Four related severance applications have been made to create additional lots and to sever and add to an abutting lot. In the first application, (B/3/12/ML), Melloney McNabb wishes to create one additional lot. The proposed severed lot is vacant and residential development is proposed. The proposed retained lot will contain the existing two storey garage with living quarters. Residential development is proposed. In the second application, (B/31/12/ML), Melloney McNabb wishes to sever a portion of the subject land and add it to the abutting property. The abutting property is currently in the ownership of Nancy Brown and Joyce Brown. The proposed severed lot is vacant and residential development is proposed. In the third and fourth applications, (B/32/33/12/ML), Nancy Brown and Joyce Brown wish to create two additional lots. The proposed severed lot in B/32/12/ML will contain an existing dwelling and garage. The proposed severed lot in B/33/12/ML is vacant and residential development is proposed. The proposed retained lot in these applications will merge with the severed lot in B/31/12/ML. Generally, two separate lots exist today. If the lots are created and there is a lot line adjustment (lot addition in B/31/12/ML), there will be a total of five lots. Please refer to the sketch indicating the Resultant Lots. B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 27 of 149

28 Notice of Hearing B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb B/32/33/12/ML, Brown NOTICE: A Notice of this Hearing has been circulated to all property owners within 12 metres (4 feet) of the subject property and to the appropriate official and agencies according to Ontario Regulation 197/96 at least 14 days prior to this Hearing. This Notice has been sent to you for your information and does not require any response unless you wish to make one. The above noted application will be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on the date and at the time shown below. DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 212 TIME: 1: P.M. PLACE AND ADDRESS: Township of Muskoka Lakes, Municipal Offices, (corner of Joseph Street and Bailey Street), Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) PUBLIC HEARING: ANY PERSON may attend this Hearing and/or make written or verbal representation either in support of or in opposition to the proposed consent application. Please see address below. If a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of Committee in respect of the proposed consent does not make written submissions to Committee before it gives or refuses to give a provisional consent, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss the appeal. You are entitled to attend this public hearing in person to express your view about this application or you may be represented by counsel for that purpose. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: There may be additional information relating to the proposed consent application available from staff located in the Planning Department, Municipal Office, (corner of Bailey and Joseph Street), Port Carling, Ontario on weekdays between 8:15 a.m. and 4 p.m. or by mail at The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, P.O. Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) Please quote the Committee s file number(s) noted above. FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING: If you do not attend the hearing it may proceed in your absence and, except as otherwise provided in the Planning Act, you will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceedings. NOTICE OF DECISION: If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of this application, you must submit a written request to the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. A copy of the decision of the Committee will be sent to the applicant and to each person who appeared in person or by counsel at the hearing and who has filed with the Secretary-Treasurer a written request for notice of decision. PLEASE NOTE: THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT IS A JUDICIAL BODY WHICH MAKES DECISIONS SOLELY ON INFORMATION GATHERED AS A COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Dated this 22 nd day of August, 212. Andrea Glazier Acting Secretary-Treasurer B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 28 of 149

29 KEY PLAN THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. INFORMATION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ZISKA MR FALKENBURG B/3/31/12/ML, 1723 McNabb, B/32/33/ML, 1723 Brown, Part of 1669 CON CON 9 Brown McNabb BALDWIN SEPP 132 CON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON HOUSTON CON ZISKA PEARCEY SOUTH MONCK DRIVE 1521 CON Page 29 of CON NICHO ROA PARTRIDGE LAN 1221

30 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA REPORT TO: Chair Edwards and Members of the Committee of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 7, 212 SUBJECT: B/3-33/12/ML, McNabb and Brown, Part of Lots 9 and 1, Concessions 7 and 8, (Monck), Civic Address: 112 and 11 Baldwin Road. Roll #: , RECOMMENDATION: That consent application (B/3/12/ML) be approved with the following conditions: A registerable description (deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary Treasurer, along with a registered copy of the reference plan. That cash-in-lieu of parkland be dedicated to the Township in the amount of 5% of the assessed value of the newly created vacant lot, or the entire lands, whichever is less. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage system be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. That consent application (B/31/12/ML) be approved with the following conditions: A registerable description (deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary Treasurer, along with a registered copy of the reference plan. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage system be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. The severed parcel merge in title with the lot to which it is being added and Subsection 3 of Section 5 of the Planning Act be applied to any subsequent conveyance. That consent application (B/32/12/ML) be approved with the following conditions: A registerable description (deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary Treasurer, along with a registered copy of the reference plan. If Consent application (B/33/12/ML) is not finalized, that cash-in-lieu of parkland be dedicated to the Township in the amount of 5% of the assessed value of the newly created vacant lot, or the entire lands, whichever is less. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage system be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. Page 1 of 9 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 3 of 149

31 That the Property Identification Number (PIN) for the road that runs along the southerly side lot line on the retained lot, is transferred and merge in title with the retained lot. That consent application (B/33/12/ML) be approved with the following conditions: A registerable description (deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary Treasurer, along with a registered copy of the reference plan. That cash-in-lieu of parkland be dedicated to the Township in the amount of 5% of the assessed value of the newly created vacant lot, or the entire lands, whichever is less. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage system be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Matt Ellis, Planner 3/8/12 Original signed by M. Ellis Acknowledged By: John Curran, Interim C.A.O 3/8/12 Original signed by J. Curran ORIGIN: Four related severance applications have been made to create additional lots and to sever and add to an abutting lot. In the first application, (B/3/12/ML), Melloney McNabb wishes to create one additional lot. The proposed severed lot is vacant and residential development is proposed. The proposed retained lot will contain the existing two storey garage with living quarters. Residential development is proposed. In the second application, (B/31/12/ML), Nancy Brown and Joyce Brown wish to create two additional lots. The proposed severed lot in B/32/12/ML will contain an existing dwelling and garage. The proposed severed lot in B/33/12/ML is vacant and residential development is proposed. The proposed retained lot in these applications will merge with the severed lot in B/31/12/ML. Generally, two separate lots exist today. If the lots are created and there is a lot line adjustment (lot addition in B/31/12/ML), there will be a total of five lots. Please refer to the sketch indicating the resultant lots. PROPOSAL: (B/3/12/ML) Particulars of Retained Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: 122 feet 136 acres Page 2 of 9 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 31 of 149

32 Particulars of Severed Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: (B/31/12/ML) Particulars of Retained Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: Particulars of Severed Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: 35 feet 7.9 acres 82 feet acres 2 feet 2.5 acres Particulars of Abutting Lot Lot Frontage: 956 feet * Lot Area: 92 acres *Frontage increased to 956 feet once Township Road is transferred to the abutting lot, required as a condition of B/32/12/ML. (B/32/12/ML) Particulars of Retained Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: Particulars of Severed Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: (B/33/12/ML) Particulars of Retained Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: Particulars of Severed Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: 35 feet 89.5 acres 38 feet 8.9 acres 426 feet 72.5 acres 35 feet 17 acres *Frontage increased to 426 feet once Township Road is transferred to the retained lot, required as a condition of B/32/12/ML. Official Plan Designation: Rural (Area 4: Rural Residential Cluster) Schedule Number: 39 Access: Neighbouring Uses: Original Shore Road Allowance: Fisheries Resource: Civic Address: Baldwin Road Rural Residential/ Vacant Not applicable Not Applicable 112 and 11 Baldwin Road Page 3 of 9 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 32 of 149

33 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Current Zoning: Ru1, Ru3, EP1, OS2 Minimum Frontage and Area Requirements Ru1 Ru3 OS2 EP1 (Sec. (Sec. (Sec. (Sec a) a) 6.2.2) 6.3) Table 1: Lot Size Requirements (Resultant Lots) Proposed Zoning: Ru1,Ru3, EP1, OS2 Proposed Lot Dimensions Lot Ru3 Ru1 Ru3 OS2 EP1 Total Ru1 Ru3 RuR OS2 EP1 Total Lot Ru1 RuR Ru1 RuR Lot Frontage Frontage Lot , * * Frontage Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Total Lot Acres 72.5 Acres 8.9 Acres 17 cres Area Acres Acres Acres * Frontage increased to 426 feet once Township Road is transferred to Lot 3, required as a condition of B/32/12/ML Page 33 of 149 Page 4 of 9

34 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Official Plan The subject lands fall within the Rural (Area 4: Rural Residential Cluster) designation of the Official Plan. Development controls shall be structured to ensure that growth is distributed in such a way that the rural character of the Township will be preserved and enhanced To maintain the low density character of the rural area, lots shall have generous frontages and areas (Section E and E 6.2.4) All lots shall be of a size and configuration appropriate for the proposed use. The design of new lots shall also have regard for the characteristics of the particular piece of land being subdivided (Section E and E 6.2.6). Setbacks shall be sufficient to maintain the natural appearance of the rural area, provide a natural buffer between development, including septic facilities, and a travelled road (Sections E and E 6.2.8). The profile of development shall be appropriate given the area and property Characteristics and shall be in the form of single detached residential units. Where the lot size is sufficient and servicing requirements can be met, one accessory apartment within a single detached residential unit will be considered (Sections E and E ). Rural Residential Clusters are generally defined as areas where there is an established cluster of at least six residential dwellings and where there is an opportunity to create a cohesive development node by allowing limited lot creation within the boundaries established for the clusters as shown on Schedule F of the Official Plan. In preparing these policies existing Rural Residential Clusters were identified and designated as such. More intensive development in the form of Rural Residential Clusters in locations other than those identified as Rural Residential Clusters on Schedule F is not permitted. Additional Rural Residential Clusters are not expected to be created nor existing ones expanded upon. (Sections E 7.5.1, and E 7.5.2). Permitted uses in Rural Residential Clusters include Low density, single detached residential uses; including accessory secondary dwelling units (Section E 7.5.3). Limited lot creation in the Rural Residential Clusters will be by consent. New rural residential lots shall have a minimum frontage and area of 1 hectare (2.5acres) and 1 metres (325 feet) respectively. Setbacks shall be consistent with the general character of the existing development in the designated Rural Residential Cluster (Section E 7.5.4). The preservation and conservation of the limited agricultural land base in the Township will be encouraged. The contribution of agricultural lands to the Rural Character of the Township is recognized as important to preserve (Section E 12.1). The criteria for evaluating the agricultural potential of lands in the Rural Designation are: The Canada Land Inventory Classification; The size of the parcel; The agricultural history of the property; The suitability of the property for agricultural; and The abutting land uses (Section E 12.2). Page 5 of 9 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 34 of 149

35 Alternative uses of agricultural land may be permitted where the proposed use of land serves the greater long term interest of the general public or long term uses have been previously established (Section E 12.4). Large blocks of agricultural land shall be maintained (Section E 12.7). Subject to all other applicable Official Plan policies, one lot for residential purposes may be created for each 2 hectares (5 acres) of land held which is designated as agricultural land, provided that the lot created is located on land that has no agricultural potential and in a location where its development will not interfere, or conflict with, an agricultural operation (Section E 12.8). In considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations (Section F 1.6.4). 2. Zoning By-Law Lot 1 on the sketch of the resultant lots provided (the severed lot in Application B/3/12/ML), falls within the Rural Agricultural (Ru3) Zone of the Zoning By-law. Lot 2 on the sketch of the resultant lots (the retained lot in Applications B/3/12/12/ML) falls within the Rural (Ru1), Rural Agricultural (Ru3), Environmental Protection (EP1) and Open Space (OS2) Zones of the Zoning By-law. More specifically, the southerly half of the frontage, including the area that contains the dwelling on the lot, is zoned Ru3. The northerly half of the frontage, as well as a portion in the center of the retained lot, is zoned EP1. A small pocket that wraps around the rear of the severed lot is zoned Ru1. The easterly half of the retained lot and towards the rear, is zoned OS2. Lot 3 on the sketch of the resultant lots (which includes the severed and benefitting lots in application B/31/12/ML, falls within the Ru1, Ru3, RuR, OS2 and EP1 zones of the Zoning Bylaw. More specifically, the road frontage is zoned EP1. The middle portion of Lot 3 (the benefitting lot in application B/31/12/ML), which wraps around the rear of Lots 4 and 5, is mostly zoned Ru1, but contains small pockets zoned Ru3. The easterly half of the lot, towards the rear, is zoned OS2, but also contains an area at the south-easterly corner zoned EP1. Lot 4 on the sketch of the resultant lots (the severed lot in application B/32/12/ML), falls within the Ru1 and Ru3 zones of the Zoning By-law. More specifically, the frontage of the lot is zoned RuR and the easterly half towards the rear, is zoned Ru1. Lot 5 on the sketch of the resultant lots (the severed lot in application B/33/12/ML), falls within the RuR and Ru1 zones of the Zoning By-law. More specifically, the frontage is zoned RuR and the easterly half that wraps around the rear of the two abutting lots to the west, is zoned Ru1. The minimum required frontage and area for lots zoned or Ru3 or RuR is 325 feet and 2.5 acres respectively (Section a). The OS2 zone permits agricultural uses, conservation, forestry operation, hunt camp, open space recreation and a wayside pit or quarry (Section 6.2.1). There are no minimum frontage and area requirements in the OS2 zone (Section 6.2.2). The EP1 zone permits the production of cranberries, and buildings or structures used for flood control, erosion control and the provision of pedestrian access or other similar activities (Section a). There are no minimum frontage and area requirements in the EP1 zone (Section 6.3.2). Page 6 of 9 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 35 of 149

36 When a lot is designated as being in more than one zone, each part of the lot shall be used in accordance with the zone regulations applicable to the zone designation for that part (Section 7.27). The frontages and areas for each lot, as well as the uses proposed on each lot, comply with the Zoning By-law requirements of their respective zones. 3. Site Characteristics A site inspection was carried out on August 24, 212. All five of the existing and proposed lots are well vegetated and consist of varying slopes with bedrock outcroppings. Because four applications have been submitted, which propose five separate resultant lots, the site characteristics or each of the resultant lots are discussed separately below. A) Lot 1 Lot 1 on the sketch of the resultant lots (the severed lot in Application B/3/12/ML),is vacant. The lot consists of gentle slopes towards Baldwin Road and is heavily forested. B) Lot 2 Lot 2 on the sketch of the resultant lots (the retained lot in Application B/3/12/ML) contains a two storey garage with living quarters in the second storey. The lot consists of mainly open field and rolling hills on the westerly (front) half. The lot also consists of a pond and a creek that drains from the northeast and into two ponds in the central portion, then southwest towards Baldwin Road. The area zoned EP1 is comprised of the creek, ponds and associated wetland area. The remainder towards the rear is heavily forested. The garage/dwelling and associated driveway on this lot are located outside the wetland area. C) Lot 3 Lot 3 on the sketch of the resultant lots (which includes the severed and benefitting lots in Application B/31/12/ML) is vacant. The frontage of the lot along Baldwin Road, consists of a low-lying and seasonally flooded area associated with the creek that drains from the abutting Lot 2 and comprise the area zoned EP1. Similar to Lot 2 discussed above, Lot 3 also consists of mainly open field and rolling hills on the westerly (front) half. The lot also consists of a pond that drains into the ponds and creek on Lot 2. The remainder towards the rear is heavily forested. A Township Road, which is used as a laneway/driveway that serves the dwelling on Lot 4 (the severed lot in application B/32/12/ML), runs along the northerly side lot line. The road is at the north-westerly edge of Lot 3, but outside the wetland area zoned EP1. As discussed later in this report, Planning staff recommends this road be transferred to Lot 3, as a condition of application B/32/12/ML. The road is to be used as a laneway/driveway for a future dwelling on this lot. The road would serve as a mutual driveway for Lots 3 and 4. A suitable building site for a dwelling has been identified at the end (to the north-west) of the road and outside the wetland area. Although a future dwelling is to be constructed behind abutting Lot 4 (the severed lot in application B/32/12/ML), sufficient area exists to afford a Page 7 of 9 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 36 of 149

37 substantial vegetative buffer between the building envelope for an eventual dwelling on Lot 3 and Lot 4. D) Lot 4 Lot 4 on the sketch of the resultant lots (the severed lot in application B/32/12/ML) contains a 1.5 storey dwelling and garage. The lot contains gentle slopes towards Baldwin Road. The Township Road, which is used as a laneway/driveway that serves the dwelling on this lot, runs along the southerly side lot line. As discussed later in this report, Planning staff recommends this road be transferred to the abutting Lot 3, as a condition of Application B/32/12/ML. The driveway would be used as a mutual driveway with Lot 3. E) Lot 5 Lot 5 in the sketch of the resultant lots provided (the severed lot in application B/33/12/12/ML) contains gentle slopes towards Baldwin Road and is heavily forested. The lot is vacant. Numerous suitable building envelopes for a dwelling exist on Lot 5. The lot is L-shaped and wraps around the rear of two abutting lots to the west. However, given the size of this lot and the fact it is well forested, a dwelling on the lot could be constructed and still leave a sufficient vegetated buffer between the future dwelling and the abutting westerly lots. 4. Agricultural Potential As mentioned earlier in this report, some of the subject lands contain areas that are zoned Rural Agricultural (Ru3). However, these areas are not currently farmed and are small. Lands with high agricultural potential usually consist of large tracts that are zoned for that use. According to the Canada Land Inventory mapping, the soils in the subject area are mostly identified as Class 4S. Class 4 Soils, have severe limitations that restrict the range of crops or require special conservation practices or both. Furthermore, soils that fall within Subclass S have adverse characteristics including, but not limited to low permeability, low natural fertility and low moisture-holding capacity. Lots zoned Rural Agricultural that are used for farming typically consist of a larger area zoned Ru3 than on the subject lands. It also does not appear the subject lands have been used for farming in the recent past. The subject lands, therefore, have low agricultural potential and are unlikely to be farmed in the future. 5. Compatibility (Lot frontages & Areas) Due to its close proximity to Bracebridge, the Baldwin Road area experiences higher pressure for rural lot creation than other Rural areas of the Township. The Baldwin Road area was, therefore, identified as a Rural Residential Cluster as an opportunity to create a development node that consists of a higher density (smaller lot frontages and areas). To preserve the character of the other Rural areas in the Township, denser development is directed to Baldwin Road and generally away from the remainder of the Rural areas. Other small Clusters are also identified on Brackenrig Road, Deebank Road, Falkenburg Road and Windermere Road. The surrounding lots in the vicinity of the subject lands vary widely in size, ranging from approximately 23 feet to 7 feet in frontage and approximately 2.7 acres to 71 acres in area. All five of the proposed resultant lots have similar frontages and areas with the surrounding lots. Therefore, it is not expected that the creation of the proposed additional lots will result in any compatibility issues with the neighbouring Rural Residential lots, on Baldwin Road. Page 8 of 9 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 37 of 149

38 6. Transfer of the Township Road As mentioned earlier in this report, Lot 3 includes a Township Road, which is used a laneway/driveway that serves the existing dwelling on Lot 4 and would also be used as a mutual driveway to serve a future dwelling on Lot 3. A separate application for a Right-of-way may be submitted in the future to ensure legal access registered on title for Lot 4. According to a copy of the deed, prepared in 1884, for Lot 3 (currently owned by Nancy and Joyce Brown), this road was transferred from the Township to the lot owners at that time. However, the transfer was never registered on title at the Muskoka Land Registry Office. Therefore, the road is identified on the severance sketch, which is based on the most current survey of the subject lands. To resolve this issue and ensure the road becomes a part of Lot 3, Planning staff recommends a condition of Application B/31/12/ML that requires the transfer of the Property Identification Number (PIN) be transferred to Lot By-law Administration Because four consent applications have been submitted, which require different conditions that must be fulfilled to complete the consent, the recommendations for each consent application and their respective conditions, are provided separately in the Recommendations section at the beginning of this report. Committee could view each consent application separately, or all four applications collectively. Page 9 of 9 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 38 of 149

39 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 39 of 149

40 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 4 of 149

41 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 41 of 149

42 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 42 of 149

43 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 43 of 149

44 McNabb (B/3/12/ ML) August 24, 212 The severed lot (Lot 1) from Baldwin Road McNabb (B/3/31/12/ML) August 24, 212 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of The garage/dwelling on the retained lot (Lot 2) Page 44 of 149

45 McNabb (B/3/31/12/ML) August 24, 212 One of the ponds in the central portion of the retained lot (Lot 2) McNabb (B/3/31/12/ML) August 24, 212 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of The open field on the retained lot (Lot 2) Page 45 of 149

46 McNabb (B/3/31/12/ML) August 24, 212 Zoomed-in view looking towards the forests at the rear of the retained lot (Lot 2) McNabb August 24, 212 B/3/31/12/ML, (B/3/31/12/ ML) McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of The creek that runs from the ponds on the retained lot (Lot 2) Page 46 of 149

47 McNabb (B/3/31/12/ ML) August 24, 212 The retained lot (Lot 2) from Baldwin Road McNabb August 24, 212 B/3/31/12/ML, (B/3/31/12/ ML) McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of The driveway on the retained lot (Lot 2) from Baldwin Road Page 47 of 149

48 McNabb (B/31/12/ ML) August 24, 212 The creek that runs from the retained lot (Lot 2) and along Baldwin Road in front of the severed lot to be added to Lot 3 McNabb/Brown B/3/31/12/ML, (B/31/32/12/ML) McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of August 24, 212 The Township Road, used as a driveway to be transferred to Lot 3 Page 48 of 149

49 McNabb/ Brown (B/31/32/33/12/ML) August 24, 212 Zoomed-in view of the pond and looking towards the forested area at the rear of Lot 3 McNabb/ Brown B/3/31/12/ML, (B/31/32/33/12/ML) McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of August 24, 212 The location of a future dwelling on Lot 3 Page 49 of 149

50 McNabb/Brown (B/31/32/12/ML) August 24, 212 The dwelling on Lot 4 McNabb/Brown (B/31/32/12/ML) August 24, 212 The garage on Lot 4 B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 5 of 149

51 Brown (B/33/12/ML) August 24, 212 The severed lot (Lot 5) from Baldwin Road B/3/31/12/ML, McNabb, B/32/33/ML, Brown, Part of Page 51 of 149

52 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 52 of 149

53 MILFORD BAY WRAY y rd LAKE MUSKOKA LOT 26 CON BEAUMARIS MILFORD BAY HWY KEY PLAN THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. INFORMATION FOR 2285 PLANNING PURPOSES B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 53 of MILLS

54 P COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA REPORT TO: Chair Edwards and Members of the Committee of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 7, 212 SUBJECT: B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, (Monck), Civic Address: 1242 Milford Bay road, Unit #6. Roll #: RECOMMENDATION: That Consent Application (B/34/12/ML) be approved subject to conditions: A registerable description (deed) of the severed lot be submitted to the Secretary Treasurer, along with a registered copy of the reference plan. Confirmation that the Township is satisfied that the severed and retained lots are satisfactory for on-site sewage disposal and that any problems identified with any existing sewage system be corrected to the satisfaction of the Township. The severed parcels merge in title with the lots to which they are being added and Subsection 3 of Section 5 of the Planning Act be applied to any subsequent conveyance. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Matt Ellis, Planner 3/8/12 Original signed by M. Ellis Acknowledged By: John Curran, Interim C.A.O. 3/8/12 Original signed by J. Curran ORIGIN: A severance application (B/34/12/ML) has been made to sever a portion of the subject land and add it to the abutting lot. The abutting lot is currently in the ownership of Kaye Construction Company (Muskoka) Limited. The proposed severed lot will contain an existing garage. The proposed retained lot will contain an existing dwelling, garage and boathouse. Development is not proposed at this time for the proposed retained and resultant lots. This is a change in lot lines only. No new additional lots are being created. Page 1 of 4 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 54 of 149

55 PROPOSAL: Particulars of Retained Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: Particulars of Severed Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: Particulars of Abutting Lot Lot Frontage: Lot Area: 2 feet 1.3 acres 2 Feet.11 acres (5, square feet) 13 feet.84 acres (36,59 square feet) BACKGROUND: PLANNING DATA: Existing Use: Proposed Future Use: Existing Zoning: Community Residential Community Residential Retained Lot: Community Residential (R3) Severed Lot: Community Residential (R3) Benefitting/Abutting Lot: Community Residential (R6) Official Plan Designation: Communities (Milford Bay) Schedule Number: 62 Access: Neighbouring Uses: Original Shore Road Allowance: Fisheries Resource: Private Road (from Milford Bay Road) Community Residential Not Applicable Type 1 (Significant) Civic Address: 1242 Milford Bay Road, Unit #6 Page 2 of 4 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 55 of 149

56 Current Zoning: R3, R6 Minimum Frontage and Area Requirements R3 R6 (Sec. (Sec a) a) Table 1: Lot Size Requirements Existing Lot Dimensions Proposed Zoning: R3, R6 Proposed Lot Dimensions Retained + Severed Abutting Retained Severed Resultant (Abutting + Proposed Severed) Lot Frontage 13 Feet 22 Feet 13 Feet 2 Feet 2 Feet 15 Feet Lot Area 3, square feet 1.41 Acres.84 Acres (36,59 Square Feet) 1.3 Acres 5, Square Feet.95 Acres (41,59 Square Feet) PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Official Plan The subject lands fall within the Communities (Milford Bay) designation of the Official Plan. Lots in the communities shall be of sufficient size and configuration for the proposed use and to provide for on site private servicing (sewage disposal, water supply and storm water retention) (Sections D and D 6.1.3). Single family lots shall meet a minimum standard of.4 hectares (1 acre) of area and 6 metres (2 feet) of frontage (Section D 6.1.2). Lots that front onto water have a similar character to shoreline development in the waterfront land use designation. To maintain this character, lot sizes may be larger for these shoreline lots than standard town lots that do not front on the water (Section 6.1.4). The policies of the Implementation Section in the Official Plan state in considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations (Section F 1.6.4). 2. Zoning By-law The retained and severed lots fall within the Residential (R3) zone of the Zoning By-law. The abutting/benefitting lot falls within the Residential (R6) zone of the Zoning By-law. The minimum required frontage and area for lots zoned Residential (R3) and Residential (R6) is 2 feet and 3, square feet respectively. The retained lot exceeds these requirements. 3. By-law By-law was passed by Council on July 4, 1989 to permit a Contractor s Yard on the abutting/benefitting lot owned by Kaye Construction Company (Muskoka) Limited. No changes Page 3 of 4 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 56 of 149

57 are proposed to the contractor s yard at this time. However, mentioning By-law is to confirm the contractor s yard is a legal use. 4. Site Characteristics A site inspection was carried out on August 24, 212. The retained and abutting lots are well vegetated and consist of gentle slopes towards the water. The retained lot contains a two storey dwelling and a single storey boathouse with docks. The abutting/benefitting lot is used as a contractor s yard for Kaye Construction Company Limited. The abutting/benefitting lot contains a single storey boathouse with docks and numerous buildings related to the contractor s yard. The severed lot, to be transferred to the benefitting lot, contains a single storey garage that is used by the owners of the benefitting lot. Page 4 of 4 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 57 of 149

58 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 58 of 149

59 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 59 of 149

60 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 6 of 149

61 Kaye August 24, 212 The dwelling and garage on the retained lot Kaye August 24, 212 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, The garage on the severed lot to be added to the benefitting lot Page 61 of 149

62 Kaye August 24, 212 The boathouse on the retained lot Kaye August 24, 212 The boathouse on the benefitting lot B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, Page 62 of 149

63 Kaye August 24, 212 B/34/12/ML, Kaye, Part of Lot 26, Concession 9, The buildings for the contractor s yard on the benefitting lot Page 63 of 149

64 A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 64 of 149

65 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE # A-54/12 ROLL # NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O., 199, c.p.13,45(5), R.R.O., 198, Reg. 787 APPLICATION MADE BY: LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Andrew Conrod Redmond and Suzanne Marie Redmond, 31 Kings Lynn Road, Toronto, ON, M8X 2T2 Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part 1, Plan 35R-1961, (Watt), Civic Address: 1413 Brackenrig Road, Unit #4, Zoning Schedule: 3 EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT: Relief is requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the maximum coverage of buildings on a lot to be 1% of the lot area (lot coverage). The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR1) and is located on a Category 1 Lake (Lake Rosseau). The applicants wish to reconstruct a dwelling and construct a two storey boathouse. The subject property has a lot area of 53,8 square feet. The maximum coverage of buildings permitted is 5,38 square feet. The proposed buildings on the lot is to be 5,875 square feet or 1.9%. The variance requested is 495 square feet over what is permitted. Relief is also requested from Section e. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being that 4 feet of by-law frontage is required in order to allow a two storey boathouse with a maximum size of the second floor being 65 square feet of habitable space along with a covered area up to a maximum of 25 square feet. The subject property has a by-law frontage of 392 feet. This variance, if granted, will permit a 65 square foot sleeping cabin on the second floor of a boathouse and a 25 square foot covered area on a lot that has 392 feet of by-law frontage. Please note all other provisions applying to the width of the boathouse will be based on a lot frontage of 4 feet. NOTICE that an application under the above file number will be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on the date and at the time shown below. DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 212 TIME: 1: P.M. PLACE AND ADDRESS: Township of Muskoka Lakes, Municipal Offices, (corner of Joseph and Bailey Street), Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 65 of 149

66 Notice of Hearing A-54/12, Redmond PUBLIC HEARING - You are entitled to attend this public hearing in person to express your view about this application or you may be represented by counsel for that purpose. If you wish to make written comments on this application they may be forwarded to the Secretary - Treasurer at the address shown below. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: - There may be additional information relating to the proposed variance application available from staff located in the Planning Department, Municipal Office, (corner of Bailey and Joseph Street), Port Carling, Ontario on week days between 8:15 a.m. and 4 p.m. or by mail at The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) Please quote the Committee s file number noted above. FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING - If you do not attend the hearing it may proceed in your absence and, except as otherwise provided in the Planning Act, you will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceedings. NOTICE OF DECISION - If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of this application, you must submit a written request to the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. PLEASE NOTE: THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT IS A JUDICIAL BODY WHICH MAKES DECISIONS SOLELY ON INFORMATION GATHERED AS A COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Dated this 28 th day of August, 212. Andrea Glazier, Acting Secretary-Treasurer A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 66 of 149

67 BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG BRACKENRIG DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK DOCK PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL PICKEREL LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE LANE PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY PENNEY 'E' I. (R18B) CRANBERRY I. ECHO I. (R18) PROSPECT I. (R18A) GUIDE I. (R17) 19) 3 31 Bay Brackenrig LAKE ROSSEAU KEY PLAN THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. INFORMATION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 67 of 149

68 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA REPORT TO: Chair Edwards and Members of the Committee of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 7, 212 SUBJECT: A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part 1, Plan 35R- 1961, (Watt), Civic Address: 1413 Brackenrig Road, Unit #14. Roll #: RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application (A-54/12), to permit a two storey boathouse with a second storey sleeping cabin of 65 square feet and a covered area of 25 square feet on a lot with less than 4 feet of frontage be approved, subject to the following conditions: That the lands be made subject to enhanced site plan control to address Dark Sky Lighting on the proposed boathouse/dock and a satisfactory Site Plan Agreement be registered on title. That the existing dock be removed. That Minor Variance Application (A-54/12), as it relates to lot coverage, be denied. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Matt Ellis, Planner 3/8/12 Original signed by M. Ellis Acknowledged By: John Curran, Interim C.A.O. 3/8/12 Original signed by J. Curran PLANNING: Official Plan Designation: Waterfront Lake Category: Category 1 (Lake Rosseau) Existing Zoning: Waterfront Residential (WR1) Lot Frontage: 392 feet Lot Area: 1.24 acres (53, 8 square feet) A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 68 of 149

69 Section Number Description Requirement Variance Applied For Proposal a Lot Coverage 1% of the lot area (5,875 sq. ft.) 1.9% (495 sq. ft. over) Construct a two storey boathouse and new e ORIGIN: Minimum lot frontage for a two storey boathouse with a sleeping cabin of 65 square feet and a covered deck area of 25 square feet 4 feet To permit a two storey boathouse with a sleeping cabin of 65 square feet and covered deck of 25 square feet on a lot with 392 feet of by-law frontage dwelling Construct a two storey boathouse Relief is requested from Section e of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the maximum coverage of buildings on a lot to be 1% of the lot area (lot coverage). The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR1) and is located on a Category 1 Lake (Lake Rosseau). The applicants wish to reconstruct a dwelling and construct a two storey boathouse. The subject property has a lot area of 53,8 square feet. The maximum coverage of buildings permitted is 5,38 square feet. The proposed buildings on the lot is to be 5,875 square feet or 1.9%. The variance requested is 495 square feet over what is permitted. Relief is also requested from Section e of By-law 87-87, as amended, being that 4 feet of by-law frontage is required in order to allow a two storey boathouse with a maximum size of the second floor being 65 square feet of habitable space along with a covered area up to a maximum of 25 square feet. The subject property has a by-law frontage of 392 feet. This variance, if granted, will permit a 65 square foot sleeping cabin on the second floor of a boathouse and a 25 square foot covered area on a lot that has 392 feet of by-law frontage. Please note all other provisions applying to the width of the boathouse will be based on a lot frontage of 4 feet. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Official Plan The policies of the Waterfront Designation of the Official Plan state that natural form should dominate the character of the Waterfront and shorelines shall be encouraged to be maintained in a predominately natural state with vegetation retained as development occurs (Section B 5.2). Where development occurs, it shall also complement the natural and built form and should enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to character (Section B 5.4). Section B 5.12 explains the purposes of front yard setbacks. Land based buildings and structures (unless otherwise specified in the Plan) shall be located a minimum of 2 A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 69 of 149

70 metres (66 feet) from the normal or controlled high water mark of a waterbody with the exception of minor accessory buildings or structures and marine related facilities, which shall be located as detailed in an implementing Comprehensive Zoning By-law (Section B 5.13). Where development is proposed, a natural undisturbed buffer is required at the water s edge to generally meet a target of 15 metres (5 feet) in depth from the high water mark. Where little or no natural buffer exists, re-naturalizing will be required, where possible (Section B 5.51). For lots on Category 1 (Large) Lakes, the maximum lot coverage shall be 1% of the lot area based on that portion of the area of the lot within 6 metres (2 ft) of the normal water s edge (Section B 9.2). Coverage is a means by which density is controlled, therefore, strict compliance is required. However, no Official Plan Amendment is required for a variation not exceeding 1/1 of the permitted coverage a variation to recognize coverage of existing structures (Section B 9.6). In recognition of the built character of a waterbody, the density of development on lots shall be limited based on a lot frontage and lot area criteria, as detailed in an implementing zoning by-law. More specifically, the density shall be controlled by limiting lot coverage to a maximum percentage of that portion of the lot area within 6 metres (2 feet) of the normal water s edge (Sections B 1.5 and 1.6). Two storey boathouses are permitted on Category 1 Lakes and Rivers, subject to all other provisions related to them in Section B 13.7 (Section B 9.2.a). Standards regulating shoreline structures shall be detailed in the implementing comprehensive zoning by-law (Section B 13.2). Section B 13.3 lists the criteria that shall be regarded when designing and siting shoreline structures. Section B 13.7 states that two storey boathouses shall be located on Category 1 Lakes, provided that the structure is not located on a narrow waterbody, significant fish habitat is protected and be located on a lot with a minimum water frontage of 9 meters (3 feet). Size and location policies are also outlined. The policies and implementing zoning by-law provisions regarding density shall be strictly adhered to in accordance with Section F.1.6 of the Official Plan (Section B 1.9). The policies of the Implementation Section in the Official Plan state in considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations (Section F 1.6.4). The criteria that are relevant in evaluating this application are impact of decisions on future development in the Township, location of shoreline structures on neighbouring properties, visual impact and impact on the natural shoreline (Section F 1.6.5). 2. Zoning By-law On Category 1 Lakes, the maximum permitted lot coverage is 1% of the area (Section a). In the case of the subject property, this amounts to 5,38 square feet. The proposed dwelling and boathouse would result in a lot coverage of 5,875 square feet or 1.9% of the lot area. A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 7 of 149

71 The minimum required lot frontage for a two storey boathouse which includes a second storey sleeping cabin of a maximum 65 square feet and a covered deck area of a maximum 25 square feet is 4 feet (Section e). The subject lot has a by-law frontage of 392 feet. Where the lot line is the high water mark, Lot Frontage is defined as the horizontal straight-line distance between the points where the side lot lines intersect the high water mark (Section 8.73 a). This is also referred to as the straight-line or by-law frontage. 3. By-law When the subject property was created by Consent Application B/45/2/ML, By-law was also passed by Council on August 28, 22 to restrict the location of buildings and structures on the property. More specifically, structures, including shoreline structures, are prohibited within 5 feet of the southerly side lot line. The proposed dwelling and two storey boathouse are to be located outside of this no-build area. 4. Restrictive Covenant A restrictive covenant registered as Instrument Number MT prohibits development on the northerly portion of the property, as shown on the site plan. Agreements between property owners that are registered on title are private matters. The Building Department, therefore, does not enforce or refer to these agreements when issuing Building Permits. Although the Township does not have jurisdiction regarding the restrictive covenant on the northerly portion of the property, the proposed dwelling and two storey boathouse would also be located outside this area. 5. Site Characteristics The property was visited on August 27, 212. The property is well vegetated and consists of varying slopes towards the water with bedrock at or below the surface. The property contains a 1.5 storey dwelling and a dock. A) Proposed Dwelling The existing dwelling is located 18 feet from the high water mark, at its closest point. The proposed dwelling is to be located 44 feet from the high water mark, at its closest point. The proposed dwelling is to have a southerly side yard setback of 12.5 feet and a northerly side yard setback of 66 feet. The proposed dwelling is to be located outside the no-build area on the southerly portion of the property subject to By-law and the area subject to a restrictive covenant on the northerly portion of the property. By-law and the restrictive covenant are discussed in more detail below. As the proposed dwelling is to encompass a portion of the building envelope for the existing dwelling and the driveway area at the rear, as few trees as possible are required to be removed to construct the proposed dwelling. A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 71 of 149

72 Due to the existing vegetation on the property and the setbacks of the proposed dwelling, the privacy impacts to the northerly and southerly abutting properties from the proposed dwelling are anticipated to be minimal. B) Proposed Boathouse The straight-line frontage of the property, known as the by-law frontage, is 392 feet. According to the application, the actual shoreline frontage of the property, including all the indentations along the shoreline, is approximately 6 feet. The proposed boathouse is to be located approximately 21 feet and 66 feet from the northerly and southerly projected side lot lines respectively. The proposed boathouse is to be located outside of the no build area subject to By-law The two storey boathouses on the abutting properties to the north and south of the subject properties are not visible from the location of the proposed boathouse. The proposed boathouse, therefore, would result in minimal privacy impact on the abutting northerly and southerly properties. The existing dock on the property is 16 feet in width. The cumulative width of the supporting dock for the proposed boathouse and the existing dock is 78 feet. To comply with the Zoning By-law for the maximum cumulative width of 75 feet for shoreline structures, the existing dock must be removed. Although the applicants have indicated the existing dock is to be removed, Planning staff recommends this be required as a condition of the application (as it relates to the proposed boathouse), to ensure compliance with the Zoning By-law. The dock must be removed (and the condition cleared) prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the proposed boathouse. 6. By-law Administration Planning staff recommends this application be approved to permit a two storey boathouse on a lot with less than 3 feet of frontage, subject to conditions to implement Dark Sky Lighting on the boathouse and require the removal of the existing dock. Applications for two storey boathouses on properties with less than 3 feet of frontage and located on Category 1 Lakes are typically supported where there is a substantial discrepancy between the straight-line (By-law) frontage and the actual shoreline frontage. As mentioned above, Planning staff recommends this application, as it relates to the frontage requirement for a two storey boathouse (with a second storey sleeping cabin of 65 square feet and a covered deck of 25 square feet) be approved, but with the condition that this property is subject to enhanced site plan control, to implement Dark Sky Lighting on the proposed boathouse. In this case, the straight-line frontage is very close to 4 feet (392 feet). All other provisions, as it relates to the width of the proposed boathouse will be based on a lot frontage of 4 feet. The proposed dock/boathouse complies with all these requirements. Planning staff traditionally recommends denying applications that exceed the maximum permitted 1% lot coverage on Category 1 Lakes and Rivers. However, the Committee has approved variances of up to 1% over the maximum permitted lot coverage in the past. A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 72 of 149

73 7. Conclusions It is Planning staff s opinion that the proposed minor variance, to permit a two storey boathouse which includes a second storey sleeping cabin of a maximum 65 square feet and a covered deck area of a maximum 25 square feet on a lot with less than 4 feet of frontage, (with conditions) meets the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. It is Planning staff s opinion that the proposed minor variance, to permit a two storey boathouse which includes a second storey sleeping cabin of a maximum 65 square feet and a covered deck area of a maximum 25 square feet on a lot with less than 4 feet of frontage, (with conditions) is an appropriate and desirable development of the land and is minor in nature. The proposed minor variance (as it relates to lot coverage) does not meet the intent of the Official Plan or the Zoning By-law. A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 73 of 149

74 A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 74 of 149

75 A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 75 of 149

76 A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 76 of 149

77 Redmond August 27, 212 The existing dwelling from the water s edge on the northerly side of the lot Redmond August 27, 212 A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Looking towards the boathouse on the abutting lot to the north from the existing dock Page 77 of 149

78 Redmond August 27, 212 Looking towards the no-build are subject to a restrictive covenant, from the proposed dwelling location Redmond August 27, 212 Looking to the north of the proposed boathouse location A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 78 of 149

79 Redmond August 27, 212 Looking to the abutting lot to the south of the proposed boathouse location A-54/12, Redmond, Part of Lot 31, Concession 3, Part Page 79 of 149

80 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 8 of 149

81 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE # A-55/12 ROLL # NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O., 199, c.p.13,45(5), R.R.O., 198, Reg. 787 APPLICATION MADE BY: LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Marilyn Hull, 14 Lewes Crescent, Toronto, ON, M4N 3J2 Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Rosseau, Parts 2 and 4, Plan 35R-21698, (Medora), Civic Address: Not Assigned, Zoning Schedule: 22 EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT: Relief is requested from Section 7.2.A.6. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being that the reconstruction of damaged existing non-complying buildings are to be located in the same location with the equivalent or reduced dimensions and a Building Permit Application being submitted within one year of the date on which it was damaged. The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR3) and is located on a Category 1 Lake (Lake Rosseau). The applicant wishes to replace two existing dwellings that were damaged by fire in 212. The proposed dwelling will have a different configuration than the two that were existing. This variance, if granted, will permit a new dwelling to be constructed in a different configuration than what was existing. The proposed floor area is equivalent to the combined floor area of the two dwellings that were existing. Relief is also requested from Section 7.2.A.1 of By-law 87-87, as amended, being that an extension to an existing Dwelling Unit or Sleeping Cabin is not permitted where there is more than one dwelling on a lot. Prior to the fire, there were three dwellings and one sleeping cabin on the subject property. This variance, if granted, will permit the reconstruction of a dwelling where more than one dwelling exists. NOTICE that an application under the above file number will be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on the date and at the time shown below. DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 212 TIME: 1: P.M. PLACE AND ADDRESS: Township of Muskoka Lakes, Municipal Offices, (corner of Joseph and Bailey Street), Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 81 of 149

82 Notice of Hearing A-55/12, Hull PUBLIC HEARING - You are entitled to attend this public hearing in person to express your view about this application or you may be represented by counsel for that purpose. If you wish to make written comments on this application they may be forwarded to the Secretary - Treasurer at the address shown below. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: - There may be additional information relating to the proposed variance application available from staff located in the Planning Department, Municipal Office, (corner of Bailey and Joseph Street), Port Carling, Ontario on week days between 8:15 a.m. and 4 p.m. or by mail at The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) Please quote the Committee s file number noted above. FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING - If you do not attend the hearing it may proceed in your absence and, except as otherwise provided in the Planning Act, you will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceedings. NOTICE OF DECISION - If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of this application, you must submit a written request to the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. PLEASE NOTE: THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT IS A JUDICIAL BODY WHICH MAKES DECISIONS SOLELY ON INFORMATION GATHERED AS A COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Dated this 28 th day of August, 212. Andrea Glazier, Acting Secretary-Treasurer A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 82 of 149

83 CHEROKEE CRES 111 ANDS I. (R59) KEY PLAN THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY INFORMATION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES FAIR-LEE PARK ROYAL MUSKOKA I. SAGAMO BLVD Johns Bay A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake NORTH BOHEMIA I. (R8) KATE I. OUCHY I. (R7) 1 HARRABY I Marys Bay LAKE ROSSEAU TREASURE I Page 83 of BARB

84 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA REPORT TO: Chair Edwards and Members of the Committee of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 7, 212 SUBJECT: A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Rosseau, Parts 2 and 4, Plan 35R-21698, (Medora), Civic Address: Not Assigned. Roll #: RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application (A-55/12) be approved. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Matt Ellis, Planner 3/8/12 Original signed by M. Ellis Acknowledged By: John Curran, Interim C.A.O. 3/8/12 Original signed by J. Curran PLANNING DATA: Official Plan Designation: Waterfront Lake Category: Category 1 (Lake Rosseau) Existing Zoning: Waterfront Residential (WR3) Lot Frontage: 959 feet Lot Area: 1.9 acres Section Number 7.2.A A.6 Description Requirement Variance Applied For Proposal Reconstruction of a dwelling unit where only one is permitted and more than one exists Reconstruction of Damaged Existing Non- Complying Buildings or Structures The reconstruction of a dwelling unit is not permitted where only one dwelling unit is permitted and more than one dwelling unit exists. Nothing shall prevent the repair, replacement or reconstruction of any legal non-complying building or structure, which is damaged by causes beyond the control of the owner provided that the new building or structure has the equivalent or reduced dimensions as the damaged building. Replace two dwellings destroyed by fire where two dwellings would exist Replace two previously existing legal non-complying dwellings destroyed by fire. The new dwelling would have a different configuration than the two dwellings that existed. Replace two previously existing dwellings destroyed by fire Page 1 of 5 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 84 of 149

85 ORIGIN: Relief is requested from Section 7.2.A.6 of By-law 87-87, as amended, being that the reconstruction of damaged existing non-complying buildings are to be located in the same location with the equivalent or reduced dimensions and a Building Permit Application being submitted within one year of the date upon which it was damaged. The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR3) and is located on a Category 1 Lake (Lake Rosseau). The applicant wishes to replace two existing dwellings that were damaged by fire in 212. The proposed dwelling will have a different configuration than the two that were existing. This variance, if granted, will permit a new dwelling to be constructed in a different configuration than the two that were existing. The proposed floor area is equivalent to the combined floor area of the two dwellings that were existing. Relief is also requested from Section 7.2.A.1 of By-law 87-87, as amended, being that an extension to an existing Dwelling Unit or Sleeping Cabin is not permitted where there is more than one dwelling on a lot. Prior to the fire, there were three dwellings and one sleeping cabin on the subject property. This variance, if granted, will permit the reconstruction of a dwelling where more than one dwelling exists. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Background The two main dwellings in the centre of the property were destroyed by fire in 212. The dwellings were connected by a narrow passage way. The applicant has now applied for a minor variance to re-construct the two dwellings that existed prior to the fire with one dwelling. The new dwelling is to have the same floor area as the two dwellings that existed, but in a slightly different configuration. When the new dwelling is constructed, the property would have two dwellings and one sleeping cabin. 2. Official Plan The polices of the Waterfront Designation of the Official Plan state that natural form should dominate the character of the Waterfront and shorelines shall be encouraged to be maintained in a predominately natural state with vegetation retained as development occurs (Section B 5.2). Where development occurs, it shall also complement the natural and built form and should enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to character (Section B 5.4). Page 2 of 5 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 85 of 149

86 Permitted uses in the Waterfront designation are limited to the following: a) Residential uses, which shall be limited to single detached dwelling units, and home-based businesses; b) Commercial uses including; resorts, marinas, waterfront contractors, tent and trailer parks, children s camps, churches, and institutional uses with lodging, any existing industrial uses, and related staff accommodation; c) Open space uses including parks and recreational uses (golf courses in conjunction with tourist resorts); d) Public uses; e) Accessory structures and buildings to the above-noted uses; and, f) Existing development as defined in an implementing zoning by-law (Section B 5.7). Section B 5.12 explains the purposes of front yard setbacks. Land based buildings and structures (unless otherwise specified in the Plan) shall be located a minimum of 2 metres (66 feet) from the normal or controlled high water mark of a waterbody. However, consideration may be given to alternatives where such setbacks are not possible due to terrain or other constraints (Section B 5.13). Section B 5.18 states redevelopment of existing properties shall be encouraged to follow current development standards, as closely as possible, to be compatible with and consistent with sound planning principles including environmental considerations. In addition, encouragement shall be given to restoring and preserving natural shorelines. Where development is proposed, a natural undisturbed buffer is required at the water s edge to generally meet a target of 15 metres (5 feet) in depth from the high water mark. Where little or no natural buffer exists, re-naturalizing will be required, where possible (Section B 5.51). One dwelling and one sleeping cabin shall be permitted per residential property (Section B 1.3). The policies of the Implementation Section in the Official Plan state in considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations (Section F 1.6.4). The criteria that are relevant in evaluating this application are: o Impact of decisions on future development in the Township; o Setback and buffering of the proposed dwelling from the lake; o Setback and buffering of the proposed dwelling from neighbouring properties; o Visual impact and impact on the natural shoreline (Section F 1.6.5). Page 3 of 5 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 86 of 149

87 Due to carefully planned origins of certain provisions of the zoning by-law, exemptions may not be granted for second dwellings/sleeping cabins. These origins must be considered in relation to any such application (Section F 1.6.8). 3. Zoning By-law The property falls within the Waterfront Residential (WR3) zone of the Zoning By-law. The reconstruction of a dwelling unit is not permitted where only one dwelling unit is permitted and more than one dwelling unit exists (Section 7.2.A.1). As mentioned earlier, the applicant wishes to replace the two dwellings that were destroyed by fire. If the new dwelling is constructed, the property will contain two dwelling units and one sleeping cabin. Nothing in the Zoning By-law shall prevent the repair, replacement or reconstruction of any legal non-complying building or structure, which is damaged beyond causes beyond the control of the owner (including fire) provided that: a) The new building has the equivalent or reduced dimensions (as there is no increase in floor area) as the damaged building; b) The application for a Building Permit to reconstruct, repair or replace the damaged building is submitted within one year of the date upon which the building was damaged; and, c) The reconstruction, repair, or replacement of the building is commenced within two years of the date upon which the damaged building was damaged (Section 7.2.A.6). The new dwelling will have the same floor area as the previously existing dwellings, but would be in a slightly different configuration. 4. Site Characteristics The property was visited on August 23, 212. The subject lot is well vegetated and consists of varying slopes with bedrock outcroppings at the water s edge. The property currently contains a single storey dwelling, single storey boathouse with docks on the northerly portion of the property, a sleeping cabin with a finger dock in front of it on the southerly portion of the property, a garage, playhouse, treehouse, workshop and a shed. As the two previously existing dwellings are to be replaced with one dwelling, the number of dwellings on the property would be reduced from three to two. The two previously existing dwellings had a combined ground floor area of 3,9 square feet. The proposed (replacement) dwelling will maintain this same ground floor area. The previously existing northerly and southerly dwellings were located 45 feet and 47 feet from the high water mark at their closest point, respectively. The proposed dwelling is to be located 48 feet from the high water mark at its closest point. Page 4 of 5 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 87 of 149

88 The site of the previously existing dwellings has been cleared since the fire. The proposed dwelling is to be built in this location. Therefore, no trees are required to be removed to construct the proposed dwelling. The property contains a stone retaining wall in the front yard and a raised stone patio at the water s edge. No changes to these structures are proposed. 5. By-law Administration The applicants could re-construct the two previously existing dwellings that were destroyed by fire, as of right. However, because the proposed dwelling has a slightly different configuration than the previously existing dwellings and more than one dwelling exists on the property after the new dwelling is complete, a Minor Variance is required. A reduction in the number of habitable buildings on the property, in return for a dwelling that is farther from the water (albeit slightly) and which does not require the removal of any trees, is a good trade-off. Therefore, Planning staff can support this application. 6. Conclusions The proposed minor variance, meets the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning Bylaw. The proposed minor variance is an appropriate and desirable development of the land and is minor in nature. Page 5 of 5 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 88 of 149

89 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 89 of 149

90 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 9 of 149

91 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 91 of 149

92 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 92 of 149

93 Hull Photo Supplied by applicant s agent, received on August 23, 212 The previously existing dwellings prior to fire from the lake Hull August 23, 212 A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake The cleared site of the former dwellings and proposed dwelling Page 93 of 149

94 Hull August 23, 212 Looking towards the existing dwelling from the site of the proposed dwelling Hull August 23, 212 The existing dwelling A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 94 of 149

95 Hull August 23, 212 The sleeping cabin from the dock Hull August 23, 212 The boathouse from the dock in front of the sleeping cabin A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 95 of 149

96 Hull August 23, 212 The garage Hull August 23, 212 Looking to the west of the proposed dwelling location A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 96 of 149

97 Hull August 23, 212 Looking towards the sleeping cabin from the proposed dwelling location A-55/12, Hull, Part of North Bohemia Island, Lake Page 97 of 149

98 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 98 of 149

99 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE # A-56/12 ROLL # NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O., 199, c.p.13,45(5), R.R.O., 198, Reg. 787 APPLICATION MADE BY: Estate of Annie Spence, c/o Brian Spence, th Sideroad, King City, ON, L7B 1K5 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Part of Lot 5, Concession 3, Lot 4, Plan 21, (Wood), Civic Address: 13 Ann Street, Unit #7, Zoning Schedule: 44 EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT: Relief is requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the maximum coverage of buildings on a lot to be 5% of the lot area (lot coverage). The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR2). The applicant wishes to construct a two storey garage with a dwelling in the second storey. The subject property has a lot area of 16, square feet. The maximum coverage of building permitted is 8 square feet. The proposed dwelling is to be 1,45 square feet or 9%. The variance requested is 65 square feet over what is permitted. NOTICE that an application under the above file number will be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on the date and at the time shown below. DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 212 TIME: 1: P.M. PLACE AND ADDRESS: Township of Muskoka Lakes, Municipal Offices, (corner of Joseph and Bailey Street), Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) PUBLIC HEARING - You are entitled to attend this public hearing in person to express your view about this application or you may be represented by counsel for that purpose. If you wish to make written comments on this application they may be forwarded to the Secretary - Treasurer at the address shown below. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: - There may be additional information relating to the proposed variance application available from staff located in the Planning Department, Municipal Office, (corner of Bailey and Joseph Street), Port Carling, Ontario on week days between 8:15 a.m. and 4 p.m. or by mail at The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) Please quote the Committee s file number noted above. A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 99 of 149

100 Notice of Hearing A-56/12, Spence FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING - If you do not attend the hearing it may proceed in your absence and, except as otherwise provided in the Planning Act, you will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceedings. NOTICE OF DECISION - If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of this application, you must submit a written request to the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. PLEASE NOTE: THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT IS A JUDICIAL BODY WHICH MAKES DECISIONS SOLELY ON INFORMATION GATHERED AS A COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Dated this 28 th day of August, 212. Andrea Glazier, Acting Secretary-Treasurer A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 1 of 149

101 1641 KEY PLAN THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. INFORMATION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES WALKER'S POINT LAKE MUSKOKA ANN STREET LAKE MUSKOKA A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 11 of

102 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA REPORT TO: Chair Edwards and Members of the Committee of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 7, 212 SUBJECT: A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Concession 3, Lot 4, Plan 21, (Wood), Civic Address: 13 Ann Street, Unit #7. Roll #: RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application (A-56/12) be approved, subject to the following condition: That the Ground Floor Area of the Dwelling Unit is a minimum of 75 Square Feet. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Matt Ellis, Planner 3/8/12 Original signed by M. Ellis Acknowledged By: John Curran, Interim C.A.O. 3/8/12 Original signed by J. Curran PLANNING DATA: Official Plan Designation: Waterfront Lake Category: Category 1 (Lake Muskoka) Existing Zoning: Waterfront Residential (WR2) Lot Frontage: 12 feet Lot Area:.37 acres (16, square feet) Section Number Description Requirement Variance Applied For a Lot Coverage 5% of the lot 9% (65 sq. ft. area over) Proposal Construct two storey garage with dwelling in the second storey ORIGIN: Relief is requested from Section a of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the maximum coverage of buildings on a lot to be 5% of the lot area (lot coverage). The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR2). Page 1 of 5 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 12 of 149

103 The applicant wishes to construct a two storey garage with a dwelling in the second storey. The subject property has a lot area of 16, square feet. The maximum coverage of buildings permitted is 8 square feet. The proposed dwelling is to be 1,45 square feet or 9%. The variance requested is 65 square feet over what is permitted. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Background By-law was passed by Council on March 6, 1995, to recognize the subject lot as a legal building lot as it does not meet the minimum lot frontage and area requirements of 2 feet and 1 acre respectively for Existing Lots of Record zoned WR2 (Waterfront Residential Backlot). The applicant now wishes to construct a two storey garage with a dwelling in the second storey. However, due to the small lot area, the proposed garage/dwelling would result in a lot coverage of 9%. Lots zoned WR2 (Waterfront Residential Backlot) are restricted to a maximum permitted lot coverage of 5%. 2. Official Plan An objective of the Official Plan is to ensure development of small lots is compatible with development in the area (Section B 4.24). The policies of the Waterfront Designation of the Official Plan state that natural form should dominate the character of the Waterfront and shorelines shall be encouraged to be maintained in a predominately natural state with vegetation retained as development occurs (Section B 5.2). Where development occurs, it shall also complement the natural and built form and should enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to character (Section B 5.4). Waterfront lots should be of sufficient dimension and size to accommodate the use proposed, related structures, and services within acceptable standards. As such, a variety of lot sizes, water frontages, setbacks, and structural limitations are expected in recognition of the natural and built influences in the Waterfront (Section B 5.8). In recognition of the built character of a waterbody, the density of development on lots shall be limited based on a lot frontage and lot area criteria, as detailed in an implementing zoning by-law. More specifically, the density shall be controlled by limiting lot coverage to a maximum percentage of that portion of the lot area within 6 metres (2 feet) of the normal water s edge (Sections B 1.5 and 1.6). The policies and implementing zoning by-law provisions regarding density shall be strictly adhered to in accordance with Section F.1.6 of the Official Plan (Section B 1.9). Residential development shall generally be either linear development, consisting of individual dwellings situated along the shoreline which constitutes traditional development form or backlot development, consisting of individual dwellings within the Waterfront designation, separated from a waterbody by a legally separate developable piece of patented land (Section B 1.1). Page 2 of 5 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 13 of 149

104 Where a public road passes through the Waterfront designation approximately parallel to a shoreline, not more than a single-tier of building lots may be permitted between the shoreline and such road. Similarly, not more than a single-tier of building lots shall be permitted beyond such road (Section B 1.2). Backlot development shall have a minimum lot area of 2 hectares (5 acres) frontage on a year-round maintained public road of 2 metres (66 feet) (Section B 1.15). Small lots are defined as an individual property or island that has less than 61 metres (2 feet) of frontage and 1 acre in area (Section B 16.1) Two storey dwelling units shall be the maximum allowed on small lots. The maximum height requirement shall be noted in the implementing comprehensive zoning by-law. Any development of a small lot shall also be subject to Site Plan Control (Sections B 16.3 and B 16.4). The policies of the Implementation Section in the Official Plan state in considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations (Section F 1.6.4). Section F of the Official Plan sets out various criteria that staff shall consider when evaluating a minor variance application. The criteria that are relevant in evaluating this application are: 3. Zoning By-law o Impact of decisions on future development in the Township; o Buffering from neighbouring properties; o Location of buildings on neighbouring properties, and; o Visual impact. On Lots zoned WR2 (Waterfront Residential Backlots), the maximum permitted lot coverage is 5% of the area (Section a). In the case of the subject property, this amounts to 8 square feet. The proposed garage/dwelling would result in a lot coverage of 1,45 square feet or 9.%. The minimum required ground floor area for a main building (which in the subject property, must be a Dwelling) is 75 square feet (Section a). Ground Floor Area is defined as the maximum area of that portion of a lot occupied by a building or structure measured to the outside walls, excluding, in the case of a Dwelling any Private Garage, porch, verandah, or sunroom, unless such area is habitable at all seasons (Section 8.47). An Attached Garage is defined as a Private Garage attached to a Dwelling by a common wall and/or common roof and shall be considered to be part of the Main Building (Section 8.48A). Although the garage within the first storey is attached to the Dwelling and is part of the Main Building, it is not included as part of the Ground Floor Area for the Dwelling. In the case of a Through Lot, the lot line that abuts the street front which access is primarily gained is considered the front lot line (Section 8.76.iii.a). A Through Lot is Page 3 of 5 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 14 of 149

105 defined as a lot bounded on both the front lot line and the rear lot line by streets (Section 8.79). The subject lot has frontage on Ann Street and Walker s Point Road. Access to the lot is gained from Ann Street and is the front lot line. A Dwelling Unit or Dwelling is defined as one of more habitable rooms designed for use by an occupation by not more than one family in which sanitary facilities and one one separate kitchen are provided for the use of such a family, with a private entrance from outside the building or from a common hallway or stairway inside the building (Section 8.37). 4. Site Characteristics The property was visited on August 27, 212. Given its small size, the subject lot is well vegetated and consists of gentle slopes towards Ann Street and the lakw with bedrock at or below the surface. The property is vacant. As mentioned earlier, the property is a Through Lot, with the front lot line along Ann Street and the rear lot line along Walker s Point Road. Also, as mentioned earlier, access to the lot is gained from Ann Street. The proposed garage/dwelling complies with the minimum Zoning By-law requirements of 66 feet and 15 feet for the front and rear yard setbacks respectively. The property has been cleared for the building envelope. At the time of the site visit, it did not appear that the property has been cleared recently. No trees would be removed to construct the proposed garage/ dwelling. A row of trees buffers the location of the proposed garage/dwelling from Walker s Point Road at the rear and the closest abutting property to the west. Due to the row of trees along the rear lot line that abuts Walker s Point Road, the proposed garage/dwelling would only be partially seen from Walker s Point Road. 5. Use of First Storey The first storey of the proposed garage/dwelling is to be used as a garage and work shop. The garage is unheated and not included as part of the ground floor area of the proposed dwelling. The workshop is heated and included as part of the ground floor area of the proposed dwelling. The ground floor area (workshop and associated entry) of the proposed dwelling is approximately 55 square feet. To bring the proposed building into compliance with the Zoning By-law for the minimum required ground floor area for a dwelling, the workshop and entry must be increased by 2 square feet (for a total of 75 square feet). To ensure this compliance, Planning staff recommends a condition that requires the submission of a first storey floor plan that reflects these revisions. Alternatively, the application could be re-circulated to include an additional variance to permit a dwelling that has a ground floor area of less than 75 square feet. 6. Sewage Disposal Prior to the passing of By-law on March 6, 1995, it was noted by Planning staff that due to the small size of the lot, it should be confirmed if the lot is suitable for water and septic services prior to the passing of a By-law exemption to deem the subject lot a building lot. The Township s Septic Inspector, Sandy Bos, has confirmed the subject property can satisfactorily accommodate a septic system to service the proposed garage/dwelling. Page 4 of 5 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 15 of 149

106 7. By-law Administration On Waterfront Residential (WR) zoned properties, Planning staff traditionally recommends denying applications that exceed the maximum permitted lot coverage. Staff notes that Committee has approved variances of up to 1% over the maximum permitted lot coverage in the past. However, staff can be more lenient in this case as the property is zoned WR2. Backlot properties are typically larger than other Waterfront Residential lots on the opposite side of the road that have frontage on the water (also referred to as the waterside lots). It should also be noted, provided the property is on a Category 1 Lake, the other Waterfront Residential Zones (WR, WR1, WR3, WR4, WR5, WR6 and WR8) permit a maximum lot coverage of 1%. The proposed garage/dwelling would, therefore, comply with the Zoning By-law for lot coverage if it was not zoned WR2. A maximum permitted lot coverage of 5% affords a building envelope of only 8 square feet, which is very modest and not much larger than the minimum permitted floor area of 75 square feet for a dwelling. Furthermore, the subject property has already gained approval to be considered a building lot with By-law The trees that would buffer the proposed garage/dwelling from Walker s Point Road at the rear of the lot and the dwelling on the abutting lot to the west are mitigating factors for approving this application. Although the proposed building may only appear to be a garage when viewed from the ground, the second storey falls within the definition of a Dwelling. However, the definition of Ground Floor Area in the Zoning By-law excludes a private garage, meaning only the workshop and associated entry (approximately 55 square feet) are included as part of the ground floor area for the main building. As mentioned earlier, Planning staff recommends Committee approve this application, with the condition that requires the ground floor workshop/entry be increased by 2 square feet. The alternative to approving this application is to adjourn it and require the application be re-circulated to include an additional variance to permit a dwelling with a ground floor area of less than 75 square feet. 8. Conclusions The proposed minor variance (with conditions) meets the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. The proposed minor variance (with conditions) is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature. Page 5 of 5 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 16 of 149

107 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 17 of 149

108 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 18 of 149

109 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 19 of 149

110 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 11 of 149

111 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 111 of 149

112 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 112 of 149

113 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 113 of 149

114 Spence August 27, 212 The property from Ann Street Spence August 27, 212 The proposed garage/dwelling location A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 114 of 149

115 Spence August 27, 212 Looking towards the abutting property to the west of the proposed garage/dwelling location Spence August 27, 212 A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Looking towards the abutting property to the east of the proposed garage/dwelling location Page 115 of 149

116 Spence August 27, 212 Looking towards the proposed garage/dwelling location and the rear of the property from Walker s Point Road A-56/12, Estate of Annie Spence, Part of Lot 5, Page 116 of 149

117 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 117 of 149

118 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE # A-57/12 ROLL # NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O., 199, c.p.13,45(5), R.R.O., 198, Reg. 787 APPLICATION MADE BY: Robert Hossack and Timothy Hossack, 569 Hancock Way, Mississauga, ON, L5H 4L5 LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Plan 18, (Wood), Civic Address: 151 Hudson Point Road, Unit #1, Zoning Schedule: 43 EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT: Relief is requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum front yard setback requirement for a sundeck in a Waterfront Residential (WR1) Zone. The property is located on a Category 1 Lake (Lake Muskoka). Where there is an existing sundeck less than 5 feet from the high water mark, the front yard setback is the existing building line or 25 feet whichever is greater. In this case, an existing sundeck is 32 feet from the high water mark and, therefore, the minimum front yard setback for a sundeck is 32 feet. The applicant wishes to construct a sundeck in front of the existing dwelling. The proposed deck will connect two existing side decks. The proposed sundeck is to be 25 feet (at the closest point) from the high water mark. The variance requested is seven feet. Relief is also requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. The proposed sundeck is to be six feet from the southerly side lot line. The variance requested is nine feet. Upon review of the history of the subject property, it was found that the dwelling was constructed in 199. The existing dwelling does not comply with certain requirements of By-law 87-87, as amended. Relief is requested from Section being the minimum lot frontage requirement of 1 feet for an Existing Lot of Record. The subject property has a by-law frontage of 95 feet. This variance, if granted, will permit a dwelling on a lot that has 95 feet of frontage. A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 118 of 149

119 Notice of Hearing A-57/12, Hossack Relief is requested from Section a. being the minimum front yard setback requirement of 35 feet and the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. The existing deck at the north-easterly corner (front) of the dwelling is 32 feet from the high water mark. The variance requested is three feet. The existing dwelling is 33 feet from the high water mark (at its closest point) and three feet from the southerly side lot line (at its closest point). The variances requested are two feet and 12 feet respectively. The existing deck at the north-easterly (front) corner of the dwelling is 13 feet from the side lot line. The variance requested is two feet. The existing deck at the south westerly (rear) corner of the dwelling is feet from the side lot line. The variance requested is 15 feet. NOTICE that an application under the above file number will be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on the date and at the time shown below. DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 212 TIME: 1: P.M. PLACE AND ADDRESS: Township of Muskoka Lakes, Municipal Offices, (corner of Joseph and Bailey Street), Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) PUBLIC HEARING - You are entitled to attend this public hearing in person to express your view about this application or you may be represented by counsel for that purpose. If you wish to make written comments on this application they may be forwarded to the Secretary - Treasurer at the address shown below. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: - There may be additional information relating to the proposed variance application available from staff located in the Planning Department, Municipal Office, (corner of Bailey and Joseph Street), Port Carling, Ontario on week days between 8:15 a.m. and 4 p.m. or by mail at The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) Please quote the Committee s file number noted above. FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING - If you do not attend the hearing it may proceed in your absence and, except as otherwise provided in the Planning Act, you will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceedings. NOTICE OF DECISION - If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of this application, you must submit a written request to the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. PLEASE NOTE: THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT IS A JUDICIAL BODY WHICH MAKES DECISIONS SOLELY ON INFORMATION GATHERED AS A COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Dated this 28 th day of August, 212. Andrea Glazier, Acting Secretary-Treasurer A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 119 of 149

120 NIXON HEMLOCK POINT N 12 BARLOCHAN SMITH HUDSONS POINT KEY PLAN THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. INFORMATION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES LAKE MUSKOKA C A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, MARINA Page 12 of

121 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA REPORT TO: Chair Edwards and Members of the Committee of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 7, 212 SUBJECT: A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Plan 18, (Wood), Civic Address: 151 Hudson Point Road, Unit #1. Roll #: RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application, (A-57/12), as it relates to proposed deck, existing dwelling, existing deck at the north-easterly corner of the dwelling, and lot frontage be approved. That Minor Variance Application, (A-57/12), as it relates to proposed deck, existing dwelling, existing deck at the north-easterly corner of the dwelling, and lot frontage, be approved. That Minor Variance Application, (A-57/12), as it relates to the existing deck/stairs on the southerly side of the dwelling, be denied. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Matt Ellis, Planner 3/8/12 Original signed by M. Ellis Acknowledged By: John Curran, Interim C.A.O. 3/8/12 Original signed by J. Curran PLANNING DATA: Official Plan Designation: Waterfront Lake Category: Category 1 (Lake Muskoka) Existing Zoning: Waterfront Residential (WR1) Lot Frontage: 95 feet Lot Area:.4 acres (17,424 square feet) Page 1 of 8 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 121 of 149

122 Section Number Description Requirement Variance Applied For a Minimum Front 32 Feet 25 Feet yard setback for (Variance of 7 an existing legal feet) non-complying deck a Minimum side yard setback Minimum front yard setback Minimum side yard setback 15 Feet 6 Feet, southerly side (variance of 9 feet) 35 Feet 33 Feet (Variance of 2 feet) 15 Feet 3 Feet, southerly side (variance of 12 feet) Proposal Construct new deck Legalize existing dwelling Minimum front yard setback Minimum side yard setback Minimum frontage for an Existing Lot of Record ORIGIN: 35 Feet 32 Feet (variance of 3 feet) 15 Feet 13 Feet, northerly side (variance of 2 feet) Feet, southerly side (variance of 15 feet) 1 Feet To permit a dwelling on a lot with less than 1 feet of frontage (95 ft) Legalize existing deck Legalize existing dwelling and deck Relief is requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum front yard setback requirement for a sundeck in a Waterfront Residential (WR1) Zone. The property is located on a Category 1 Lake (Lake Muskoka). Where there is an existing sundeck less than 5 feet from the high water mark, the front yard setback is the existing building line or 25 feet whichever is greater. In this case, an existing sundeck is 32 feet from the high water mark and, therefore, the minimum front yard setback for a sundeck is 32 feet. The applicant wishes to construct a sundeck in front of the existing dwelling. The proposed deck will connect two existing side decks. The proposed sundeck is to be 25 feet (at the closest point) from the high water mark. The variance requested is seven feet. Relief is also requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. The proposed sundeck is to be six feet from the southerly side lot line. The variance requested is nine feet. Page 2 of 8 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 122 of 149

123 Upon review of the history of the subject property, it was found that the dwelling was constructed in 199. The existing dwelling does not comply with certain requirements of By-law 87-87, as amended. Relief is requested from Section being the minimum lot frontage requirement of 1 feet for an Existing Lot of Record. The subject property has a by-law frontage of 95 feet. This variance, if granted, will permit a dwelling on a lot that has 95 feet of frontage. Relief is requested from Section a. being the minimum front yard setback requirement of 35 feet and the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. The existing deck at the north-easterly corner (front) of the dwelling is 32 feet from the high water mark. The variance requested is three feet. The existing dwelling is 33 feet from the high water mark (at its closest point) and three feet from the southerly side lot line (at its closest point). The variances requested are two feet and 12 feet respectively. The existing deck at the north-easterly (front) corner of the dwelling is 13 feet from the side lot line. The variance requested is two feet. The existing deck at the south westerly (rear) corner of the dwelling is feet from the side lot line. The variance requested is 15 feet. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Background The existing dwelling and decks were constructed in 199 under Building Permit The Building Permit stipulates a front yard setback of 35 feet and a side yard setback of 16 feet. However, the dwelling was constructed at 33 feet from the high water mark and three feet from the southerly side lot line. The existing deck at the north-easterly corner of the dwelling was constructed at 32 feet from the high water mark and 13 feet from the northerly side lot line. The existing deck at the south-westerly corner (rear) of the dwelling encroaches onto the abutting property. The applicants wish to construct a sundeck on the front of the dwelling. The application was submitted for a front yard and southerly side yard setback of 25 feet and 6 feet respectively for the proposed deck. In reviewing the history of the property, it was found the existing dwelling and decks do not comply with the Zoning By-law for lot frontage and front/side yard setbacks. Additional variances to legalize the dwelling and decks are, therefore, required and were added to the application prior to the Notice being circulated to the surrounding property owners. 2. Official Plan The policies of the Waterfront Designation of the Official Plan state that natural form should dominate the character of the Waterfront and shorelines shall be encouraged to be maintained in a predominately natural state with vegetation retained as development occurs (Section B 5.2). Where development occurs, it shall also complement the natural and built form and should enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to character (Section B 5.4). Section B 5.12 explains the purposes of front yard setbacks. Land based buildings and structures (unless otherwise specified in the Plan) shall be located a minimum of 2 metres (66 feet) from the normal or controlled high water mark of a waterbody. However, consideration may be given for existing development as defined the Zoning By-law, or to alternatives where such setbacks are not possible due to terrain or other constraints (Section B 5.13). Page 3 of 8 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 123 of 149

124 Section B 5.14 explains the purposes of side yard setbacks. In the case of land structures, these purposes are to maintain a natural area between buildings so as to reduce the dominance of the built form on the natural environment, maintain privacy, attenuate noise, connect habitat, ensure compatibility, and contribute to the aesthetic qualities of the waterfront. However, consideration may be given where such setbacks are not possible due to terrain or other constraints. Where development is proposed, a natural undisturbed buffer is required at the water s edge to generally meet a target of 15 metres (5 feet) in depth from the high water mark. Where little or no natural buffer exists, re-naturalizing will be required, where possible (Section B 5.51). Existing lots of record which do not meet the lot or site compliance provisions of this Plan may be recognized as building lots in a zoning by-law provided that the general intent of this Plan is maintained (Section F 1.1.3). Section F of the Official Plan states in considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations. Section F of the Official Plan sets out various criteria that staff shall consider when evaluating a minor variance application. The criteria that are relevant in evaluating this application are: o Impact of decisions on future development in the Township; o Whether the development contains habitable space; o Setback and buffering of the dwelling and deck from the lake; o Buffering and location of buildings on neighbouring properties; o Terrain and possible building locations; o Visual impact, and; o Impact on the natural shoreline. 3. Zoning By-law A) Proposed Sundeck Where there is an existing sundeck less than 5 feet from the high water mark, the front yard setback is the existing building line or 25 feet whichever is greater (Section a). In this case, the existing deck is located 32 feet from the high water mark at its closest point and, therefore, the minimum front yard setback is 32 feet. The proposed sundeck is to be 25 feet from the high water mark. The minimum required side yard setback for land based structures is 15 feet (Section a). The proposed sundeck is to be located six feet from the southerly side lot line. B) Existing Dwelling and Sundeck The minimum required front yard setback, when the existing dwelling was constructed in 199, was 35 feet. The existing dwelling is located 33 feet from the high water mark, at its closest point. The existing deck on the front of the dwelling, at the north-easterly corner, is 32 feet from the high water mark. Page 4 of 8 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 124 of 149

125 The minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet for land based buildings and structures in the Zoning By-law, has not changed from when the existing dwelling and sundeck were constructed in 199. The existing dwelling is located three feet from the southerly side lot line, at its closest point. The existing deck on the front of the dwelling at the north-easterly corner is located 13 feet from the northerly side lot line, at its closest point. The existing deck on the rear of the dwelling at the south-westerly corner is located zero feet from the southerly side lot line. The minimum required lot frontage and area for an Existing Lot of Record is 1 feet and 15, square feet respectively (Section 7.3.1) in a WR1 zone. New buildings and structures are not permitted, unless the lot complies with these requirements. The subject property has a straight-line (by-law) frontage of 95 feet and an area of 17,424 square feet. 4. Site Characteristics The property was visited on August 24, 212. The subject lot is generally well vegetated and consists of varying slopes towards the water with bedrock outcroppings. The property contains a 1.5 storey dwelling with a walkout basement, and a dock. The proposed deck on the front of the dwelling, the dwelling itself and the exisitng decks at the north-easterly corner and southerly sides of the dwelling could all be considered as separate buildings/structures. Therefore, the proposed deck, dwelling and exisitng decks are discussed separately in the Site Characteristics section of this report. A) Proposed Deck The proposed deck is to be a second storey deck in front of the windows on the dwelling that look out towards the lake. Due to its close proximity to the proposed deck, one large tree may need to be removed in front of the dwelling to construct the proposed deck. The proposed deck is to be approximately 662 square feet in area. The area of the proposed deck that is to be within the minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet is small, approximately 142 square feet. The proposed deck is to be located no closer to the southerly side lot line than the existing dwelling, at its closet point. The proposed deck is to be buffered by vegetation from the dwellings on the abutting lots to the north and south. A deck at the north-westerly (rear) corner of the dwelling is also proposed. However, this deck would comply with the Zoning By-law for the minimum required side yard setback and is, therefore, not related to the application. B) Existing Dwelling and Deck i) Existing Dwelling Due to the small frontage of the subject property, (straight-line frontage of only 95 feet) and the location of the septic tank to the north of the dwelling, it would have been difficult to construct the dwelling in compliance with the Ontario Building Code (for the minimum Page 5 of 8 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 125 of 149

126 setback from a septic tank) and the Zoning By-law for the minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet. The dwelling is 1,792 square feet in area. A small portion of the dwelling on the southerly side, approximately 124 square feet, is within the minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet. Only the north easterly corner of the dwelling, less than 1 square feet, is within the minimum 35 foot front yard setback that was required when the dwelling was constructed in 199. ii) Existing Deck at North-Easterly Corner of Dwelling The existing deck at the north-easterly corner of the dwelling is very small, only 25 square feet in area and approximately 1 square feet of the deck is within either the minimum required 15 foot side yard setback or the minimum 35 foot front yard setback that was required when the deck was constructed in 199. iii) Existing Deck and Stairs on Southerly Side of Dwelling The existing deck on the southerly side of the dwelling is approximately 695 square feet in area. This deck is almost entirely located within the minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet. Approximately 26 feet square feet of the deck encroaches onto the abutting property to the south. The stairs to the deck on this side of the dwelling are entirely located on the abutting property. 5. Neighbour s Comments Due to the small side yard setback of the proposed deck from the southerly side lot line, this (affected) neighbour s comments will be important. However, Planning staff has received comments of no objection from the affected neighbour, as well as the neighbour on the non-affected (northerly) side of the subject property. It should be noted, the neighbours have not commented on the side yard setbacks of the existing dwelling and decks. 6. By-law Administration The proposed deck on the front of the dwelling, the dwelling itself and the existing decks at the north-easterly corner and southerly sides of the dwelling could all be considered as separate buildings/structures. Therefore, similar to the Site Characteristics section, the proposed deck, dwelling and existing decks are discussed separately in the By-law Administration section of this report. In cases where an existing building or structure is subject to an application, Planning staff recommends Committee view the application as though the building or structure does not exist. A) Proposed Deck As this application relates to the proposed deck at the front of the dwelling, the existing vegetation in the front yard and minimal amount of tree removal that may be required to construct the deck are mitigating factors. The proposed deck will also be buffered from the dwelling on the affected abutting property to the south and the dwelling on the nonaffected abutting property to the north. Staff can therefore support this application, as it relates to the proposed deck. Page 6 of 8 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 126 of 149

127 B) Existing Dwelling and Deck The straight-line (By-law) frontage of the property, measured as the distance between the side lot lines where they intersect with the high water mark, is 95 feet. The actual shoreline frontage of the property, which includes any indentations along the shoreline, is 1 feet. The discrepancy between the straight-line (by-law) frontage and the actual shoreline frontage of the property is a mitigating factor for this application, as it relates to permitting a dwelling on a property with insufficient frontage. i) Existing Dwelling The small area of the dwelling that is within the minimum required front yard setback of 35 feet and side yard setback of 15 feet, and buffering from the dwelling on the abutting (affected) property to south are mitigating factors for this application as it relates to the front and side yard setbacks of the dwelling. Planning staff would have recommended approval of this application for the front and side yard setbacks of this dwelling if it was applied for prior to it being constructed. ii) Existing Deck at North-Easterly Corner of Dwelling The small area of the existing deck at the north-easterly corner of the dwelling that is within the minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet and/or minimum required front yard setback of 35 feet, and the buffering from the affected neighbours dwelling to the north are mitigating factors for this application as it relates to this deck. Planning staff would have recommended this application be approved as it relates to the front and side yard setbacks of this deck if it was applied for prior to it being constructed. iii) Existing Deck and Stairs on Southerly Side of Dwelling Minor Variances cannot be granted for setbacks of buildings and structures that encroach onto an abutting property. Therefore, the application as it relates to this deck/stairs must be circulated for a side yard setback of zero feet. Planning staff would not have recommended approval for a side yard setback of zero feet of this deck/stairs if it was applied for prior to it being constructed. On one hand, the deck is well buffered from the dwelling on the affected neighbour s property, it was constructed more than 2 years ago and Planning staff has not received unfavourable comments from these neighbours in regards to the deck. These reasons could be seen as mitigating factors for this application as it relates to the side yard setback of the deck on the southerly side of the dwelling. On the other hand, Planning staff is concerned about similar applications in the future that request side yard setbacks of zero feet for a building or structure that encroaches onto an abutting property. Planning staff recommends this application be denied as it relates to the existing deck on the southerly side of the dwelling. A consent application for a lot addition from the abutting property is the preferred method of correcting the encroachment for the deck and associated stairs on the southerly side of the dwelling. Page 7 of 8 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 127 of 149

128 7. Conclusions The proposed minor variance (as it relates to proposed deck, existing dwelling, existing deck at the north-easterly corner of the dwelling, and lot frontage) meets the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. The proposed minor variance (as it relates to proposed deck, existing dwelling, existing deck at the north-easterly corner of the dwelling, and lot frontage) is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature. The proposed minor variance (as it relates to the existing deck/stairs on the southerly side of the dwelling) does not meet the intent of the Official Plan or the Zoning By-law. The proposed minor variance (as it relates to the existing deck/stairs on the southerly side of the dwelling) is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is not minor in nature. Page 8 of 8 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 128 of 149

129 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 129 of 149

130 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 13 of 149

131 Hossack August 24, 212 The dwelling and proposed deck location from the water s edge Hossack August 24, 212 A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, The dwelling on the abutting lot to the south from the existing deck Page 131 of 149

132 Hossack August 24, 212 The dwelling on the abutting lot to the north from the existing north-easterly deck A-57/12, Hossack, Part of Lot 9, Concession 3, Lot 3, Page 132 of 149

133 A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 133 of 149

134 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF MUSKOKA LAKES COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE # A-58/12 ROLL # NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING OF APPLICATION FOR MINOR VARIANCE Planning Act, R.S.O., 199, c.p.13,45(5), R.R.O., 198, Reg. 787 APPLICATION MADE BY: LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Kenneth Ross Naugler and Debora Anne Kraemer, 355 Westridge Drive, Waterloo, ON, N2L 5Y1 Part of Lot 27, Concession 12, Lot 1, Plan 54 (RCP), (Medora), Civic Address: 176 Sands Road, Zoning Schedule: 21 EXPLANATION OF THE PURPOSE AND EFFECT: Relief is requested from Section of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum lot frontage requirement of 1 feet for an Existing Lot of Record. The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR1) and is located on a Category 2 Lake (Bruce Lake). The applicants wish to construct a garage. The subject property has 97 feet of by-law frontage. The variance requested is three feet. This variance, if granted, will recognize the subject property as a legal building lot. Relief is also requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. The proposed garage is to be two feet from the side lot line. The variance requested is 13 feet. Relief is also requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the maximum coverage of buildings on a lot. The maximum permitted coverage of buildings on the lot within 2 feet from the high water mark is 8%. In this case, the lot area within 2 feet from the high water mark is 19,8 square feet. The maximum coverage permitted is 1,584 square feet. The proposed coverage of existing and proposed buildings within 2 feet from the high water mark is 1,689 square feet or 8.5%. The variance requested is 15 square feet over what is permitted. A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 134 of 149

135 Notice of Hearing A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer NOTICE that an application under the above file number will be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on the date and at the time shown below. DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 212 TIME: 1: P.M. PLACE AND ADDRESS: Township of Muskoka Lakes, Municipal Offices, (corner of Joseph and Bailey Street), Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) PUBLIC HEARING - You are entitled to attend this public hearing in person to express your view about this application or you may be represented by counsel for that purpose. If you wish to make written comments on this application they may be forwarded to the Secretary - Treasurer at the address shown below. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: - There may be additional information relating to the proposed variance application available from staff located in the Planning Department, Municipal Office, (corner of Bailey and Joseph Street), Port Carling, Ontario on week days between 8:15 a.m. and 4 p.m. or by mail at The Corporation of the Township of Muskoka Lakes, Box 129, Port Carling, Ontario, PB 1J. Telephone: (75) or FAX (75) Please quote the Committee s file number noted above. FAILURE TO ATTEND HEARING - If you do not attend the hearing it may proceed in your absence and, except as otherwise provided in the Planning Act, you will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceedings. NOTICE OF DECISION - If you wish to be notified of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment in respect of this application, you must submit a written request to the Committee of Adjustment. This will also entitle you to be advised of a possible Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. Even if you are the successful party, you should request a copy of the decision since the Committee of Adjustment decision may be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant or another member of the public. PLEASE NOTE: THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT IS A JUDICIAL BODY WHICH MAKES DECISIONS SOLELY ON INFORMATION GATHERED AS A COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT TO BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE TO AVOID A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Dated this 28 th day of August, 212. Andrea Glazier, Acting Secretary-Treasurer A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 135 of 149

136 KEY PLAN THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. INFORMATION FOR PLANNING PURPOSES Bruce Lake JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN JUDDHAVEN SANDS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS MORINUS A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 136 of 149

137 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA REPORT TO: Chair Edwards and Members of the Committee of Adjustment MEETING DATE: September 7, 212 SUBJECT: A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Concession 12, Lot 1, Plan 54 (RCP), (Medora), Civic Address: 176 Sands Road. Roll #: RECOMMENDATION: That Minor Variance Application, as it relates to the side yard setback of the proposed garage and lot frontage (A-58/12) be approved. That Minor Variance Application, as it relates to lot coverage (A-58/12) be denied. APPROVALS: Date Signature Submitted By: Matt Ellis, Planner 3/8/12 Original signed by M. Ellis Acknowledged By: John Curran, Interim C.A.O. 3/8/12 Original signed by J. Curran PLANNING DATA: Official Plan Designation: Waterfront Lake Category: Category 2 (Bruce Lake) Existing Zoning: Waterfront Residential (WR1) Lot Frontage: 97 feet Lot Area:.74 acres (32, 2 square feet) Section Number Description Requirement Variance Applied For a Lot Coverage 8% of the lot area within 2 feet of present water s edge (1,584 sq. ft.) Side Yard Setback Lot Frontage for Existing Lot of Record 8.5% (15 sq. ft. over) 15 Feet Two Feet (variance of 13 feet) 1 Feet To permit a garage on a lot that has 97 feet of frontage Proposal Construct garage A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 137 of 149

138 ORIGIN: Relief is requested from Section of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum lot frontage requirement of 1 feet for an Existing Lot of Record. The subject property is zoned Waterfront Residential (WR1) and is located on a Category 2 Lake (Bruce Lake). The applicants wish to construct a garage. The subject property has 97 feet of by-law frontage. The variance requested is three feet. This variance, if granted, will recognize the subject property as a legal building lot. Relief is also requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the minimum side yard setback requirement of 15 feet. The proposed garage is to be two feet from the side lot line. The variance requested is 13 feet. Relief is also requested from Section a. of By-law 87-87, as amended, being the maximum coverage of buildings on a lot. The maximum permitted coverage of buildings on the lot within 2 feet from the high water mark is 8%. In this case, the lot area within 2 feet from the high water mark is 19,8 square feet. The maximum coverage permitted is 1,584 square feet. The proposed coverage of existing and proposed buildings within 2 feet from the high water mark is 1,689 square feet or 8.5%. The variance requested is 15 square feet over what is permitted. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Official Plan The policies of the Waterfront Designation of the Official Plan state that natural form should dominate the character of the Waterfront and shorelines shall be encouraged to be maintained in a predominately natural state with vegetation retained as development occurs (Section B 5.2). Where development occurs, it shall also complement the natural and built form and should enhance and protect those qualities that contribute to character (Section B 5.4). Section B 5.12 explains the purposes of front yard setbacks. Land based buildings and structures (unless otherwise specified in the Plan) shall be located a minimum of 2 metres (66 feet) from the normal or controlled high water mark of a waterbody. However, consideration may be given to alternatives where such setbacks are not possible due to terrain or other constraints (Section B 5.13). Section B 5.14 explains the purposes of side yard setbacks. In the case of land structures, these purposes are to maintain a natural area between buildings so as to reduce the dominance of the built form on the natural environment, maintain privacy, attenuate noise, connect habitat, ensure compatibility, and contribute to the aesthetic qualities of the waterfront. Where development is proposed, a natural undisturbed buffer is required at the water s edge to generally meet a target of 15 metres (5 feet) in depth from the high water mark. Where little or no natural buffer exists, re-naturalizing will be required, where possible (Section B 5.51). A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 138 of 149

139 For lots on Category 2 (Medium-sized/High Development Lakes) Lakes, the maximum lot coverage shall be 8% of the lot area based on that portion of the area of the lot within 6 metres (2 ft) of the normal water s edge (Section B 9.2). Coverage is a means by which density is controlled, therefore, strict compliance is required. However, no Official Plan Amendment is required for a variation not exceeding 1/1 of the permitted coverage a variation to recognize coverage of existing structures (Section B 9.6). In recognition of the built character of a waterbody, the density of development on lots shall be limited based on a lot frontage and lot area criteria, as detailed in an implementing zoning by-law. More specifically, the density shall be controlled by limiting lot coverage to a maximum percentage of that portion of the lot area within 6 metres (2 feet) of the normal water s edge (Sections B 1.5 and 1.6). The policies and implementing zoning by-law provisions regarding density shall be strictly adhered to in accordance with Section F.1.6 of the Official Plan (Section B 1.9). Existing lots of record which do not meet the lot or site compliance provisions of this Plan may be recognized as building lots in a zoning by-law provided that the general intent of this Plan is maintained (Section F 1.1.3). Section F of the Official Plan states in considering applications, the potential impact of similar approvals will be considered. The cumulative impact of amendments on this and other lands will be considered to have greater weight than site specific considerations. Section F of the Official Plan sets out various criteria that staff shall consider when evaluating a minor variance application. The criteria that are relevant in evaluating this application are: o Impact of decisions on future development in the Township; o Whether the development contains habitable space; o Setback and buffering of the garage from the lake; o Buffering and location of buildings on neighbouring properties; o The portion of the garage not in compliance with by-law (subject to the application); o Terrain and possible building locations; o Visual impact, and; o Impact on the natural shoreline. 2. Zoning By-law On Category 2 Lakes, the maximum permitted lot coverage is 8% of the area within 2 feet of the high water mark (Section a). In the case of the subject property, this amounts to 1,584 square feet. The proposed garage will result in a lot coverage of 1,689 square feet or 8.5% within 2 feet of the high water mark. The minimum required side yard setback for land based buildings and structures, is 15 feet (Section a). The proposed garage is to be 2 feet from the westerly side lot line. The minimum required lot frontage and area for an Existing Lot of Record is 1 feet and 15, square feet respectively (Section 7.3.1) in a WR1 Zone. New buildings and structures are not permitted, unless the lot complies with these requirements. The A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 139 of 149

140 subject property has a straight-line (by-law) frontage of 97 feet and an area of 32,2 square feet. 3. Site Characteristics The property was visited on August 24, 212. The subject lot is well vegetated and consists of varying slopes towards the water with bedrock outcroppings. The property contains a single storey dwelling, a sleeping cabin, a shed and a dock. The proposed garage is to be located at the end of the existing driveway/parking area. Due to its location immediately adjacent to the proposed garage envelope, one tree at the north-westerly corner of the proposed garage, may need to be removed. However, according to the applicant, this tree is dead. Dead, dangerous or diseased trees are exempt from the Tree Preservation By-law (28-55). Due to the small width of the lot (1 feet), the proposed garage in this portion of the property cannot be constructed to either the east or west of the dwelling without requiring a Minor Variance from the minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet. Due to the slope on the property to the rear (south) of the dwelling and existing parking area, the proposed garage cannot be constructed in this location without excavating the slope. Due to the vegetation on the property, the proposed garage would only be partially visible when viewed from the lake. The proposed garage is to be 48 square feet in area (2 feet x 24 feet). Approximately 312 square feet of the garage (13 feet x 24 feet) is to be located within the minimum required side yard setback of 15 feet. According to the site plan, the proposed garage is to be located approximately 6 feet from the dwelling on the abutting lot to the west. The proposed garage would be well buffered from the dwelling on the abutting property. 4. Neighbour s Comments Due to the small westerly side yard setback of the proposed garage, this neighbour s comments will be important. However, Planning staff has received comments of no objection from this neighbour, as well as the neighbour on the non-affected (easterly) side of the subject property. 5. By-law Administration Planning staff recommends approval of this application, as it relates to the side yard setback of the proposed garage and the lot frontage, but the application be denied as it relates to lot coverage. Straight-line (By-law) frontage of the property, measured as the distance between the side lot lines where they intersect with the high water mark, is 97 feet. The actual shoreline frontage of the property, which includes any indentations along the shoreline, is 12 feet. Due to the discrepancy between the by-law frontage and the actual shoreline frontage of the property, Planning staff can support this application, as it relates to lot frontage. Planning staff traditionally recommends denying applications that exceed the maximum permitted 8% lot coverage on Category 2 Lakes and Rivers. However, the Committee A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 14 of 149

141 has approved variances of up to 1% over the maximum permitted lot coverage in the past. 6. Conclusions The proposed minor variance (as it relates to the side yard setback of the proposed garage and lot frontage) meets the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. The proposed minor variance (as it relates to the side yard setback of the proposed garage and lot frontage) is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature. The proposed minor variance (as it relates to lot coverage) does not meet the intent of the Official Plan or the Zoning By-law. A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 141 of 149

142 A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 142 of 149

143 A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 143 of 149

144 A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 144 of 149

145 A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 145 of 149

146 A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 146 of 149

147 Naughler/Kraemer August 24, 212 The proposed garage location Naughler/Kraemer August 24, 212 A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, The proposed garage location from the water s edge Page 147 of 149

148 Naughler/Kraemer August 24, 212 The abutting lot to the west of the proposed garage location Naughler/Kraemer August 24, 212 The dwelling from the water s edge A-58/12, Naugler and Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, Page 148 of 149

149 Naughler/Kraemer August 24, 212 The sleeping cabin Naughler/Kraemer A-58/12, Naugler and August 24, 212 Kraemer, Part of Lot 27, The shed Page 149 of 149