ISSUE DATE: September 26, 2012 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario IN THE MATTER OF subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Variance from By-law No: Property Address: Municipality: Municipal File No: OMB Case No: OMB File No: Minor Variance 2213-78 as amended 118 Stemmle Drive Town of Aurora A(30A)11 IN THE MATTER OF subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Variance from By-law No: Property Address: Municipality: Municipal File No: OMB Case No: OMB File No: Minor Variance 2213-78 as amended 118 Stemmle Drive Town of Aurora A(30C)11 PL120259 IN THE MATTER OF subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Subject: Variance from By-law No: Property Address: Municipality: Municipal File No: OMB Case No: OMB File No: Minor Variance 2213-78 as amended 118 Stemmle Drive Town of Aurora A(30B)11 PL120258 A P P E A R A N C E S : Parties Counsel K. Hill Participants Robert Fedrigoni
- 2 - DECISION DELIVERED BY A. CHRISTOU AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (Applicant) owns a number of vacant undeveloped lots in two registered plans of subdivision south of Bloomington Side Road, north of Henderson Drive in the Town of Aurora (Town). Most of the lots have developed with detached dwellings. Some of the lots are situated in a Natural Heritage designation and abut woodland to the south. The following variances to the Town s Zoning By-law No. 2213-78, as amended, were required to accommodate the construction of two-storey single detached dwellings. The Committee refused to authorize these variances at its February 9, 2012 meeting and the applicant has appealed the Committee s decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (Board). The Variances 1. A minimum front yard setback of 4.55 m; whereas the by-law requires 6 m. 2. A minimum distance separation of the steps from the front lot line of 2.95 m; whereas the by-law requires 4.5 m for all Lots except Lot 102. 3. A minimum distance separation of the steps from the front lot line of 3.05 m; whereas the by-law requires 4.5 m for Lot 102. 4. A minimum (southerly) side yard of 1.25 m for Lots 102 and 103; whereas the bylaw requires 1.5 m for a two storey structure. 5. To allow the construction of a detached dwelling and amenity uses within the minimum vegetation protection zone (of the Oak Ridges Moraine). Background and evidence Three variance applications were filed with the municipality as indicated in the title of proceedings above. Mr. Hill, Counsel for the Applicant advised the Board that the houses on two of the lots have been redesigned to meet the by-law requirements, and files PL120258 - Variance A(30B)11, and PL120259 Variance A(30C)11, were being
- 3 - abandoned. Only Lot 15, RP 65M-2806 (Registered on June 1, 1990), File - Variance A(30A)11 for 118 Stemmle Drive (Exhibits 5 and 6), was dealt with at this hearing. Therefore, variances 3 and 4 were also excluded, as they do not apply to Lot 15. The Board heard planning opinion evidence in support of the variances from two qualified land use planners: Jim Kyle, the Town s Manager of Policy Planning, under subpoena; and Howard Friedman, the applicant s consulting planner. According to Mr. Friedman, the land is a lot of record and it was zoned in 1989 to permit single detached dwellings. Because it is located within a Settlement Area designation, the Town froze development pending further study. The applicant submitted a Natural Heritage Evaluation to the Town to deal with the proposed development in the vicinity of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan permits development if the land was zoned before November 15, 2001. Mr. Friedman opined that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan (OP) and the Heritage Evaluation supports the reduced setback from the Moraine. Detached dwellings are permitted in the by-law and the front yard and front steps variances do not compromise the general intent and purpose of the by-law. The proposed development is compatible with other properties; the lot is zoned appropriately and respects the woodland feature. The variances would allow the implementation of the last lot in a registered plan of subdivision and are therefore desirable and appropriate for the development of the area and they are minor. The variances raise no issues with the Regional Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement or the Growth Plan. Therefore, the variances represent good planning. Mr. Kyle testified that in his opinion the proposed dwelling, with a 6 m buffer from the woodlot, would not impact the ecological integrity of the Moraine (based on the botanical diversity of the feature), and as such, staff support the variances. The buffer conforms to Section 3.13.3.g of the OP and the variances comply with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Also, the front yard and side yard variances comply with the intent of the OP.
- 4 - Lot 15 is zoned Detached Dwelling Second Density Residential (R2-31) Exception Zone in By-law 3076-89, with a portion of the land also being zoned Woodlands - Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone. According to Mr. Kyle, the variances for front yard and minimum distance required for the front steps are required to deal with the existing steep grades of the property. The property fronts on a cul-de-sac and allowing the front steps to be closer to the front lot line would not affect the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. The driveway would still be of sufficient length to accommodate parking of a vehicle. He opined the proposed variances will not affect the use of the property for residential purposes and would not impact the general character and natural heritage of the area. The variances would provide for desirable, compatible and appropriate development and use of the land and are minor, because they would not create any adverse impacts. He recommended that the Board authorize the variances subject to the conditions in Exhibit 14. The applicant agrees to follow and implement all staff reports and department requirements and conditions that apply to this application. Mr. Fedrigoni, owner of the abutting property to the north, indicated some concerns with the construction of the proposed dwelling, given the slope of the land. However, following a short discussion with the applicant, he was satisfied with the revised proposal to develop the site. He asked that the municipality not allow fill to be brought in to level the property. Analysis The Board heard uncontradicted planning opinion evidence from two qualified land use planners in support of the variances. The variances are required for the development of a difficult site of steep slopes. The variances would allow the last lot in a plan of subdivision to be developed with a detached dwelling, consistent with development in the area. The municipality reviewed the applicant s Natural Heritage Evaluation and the Town s Manager of Policy Planning supported a reduced setback variance as it adequately addresses the natural vegetation of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
- 5 - The Board is satisfied that the variances, individually and collectively meet the four-part test in subsection 45 of the Planning Act. The variances for front setback and the front steps would provide for a minor deviation from the normal, because the property fronts a cul-de-sac. The abutting neighbor to the north is satisfied with the revised proposal and has no objections to the new dwelling, provided no new fill is allowed by the municipality. No such proposal has been advanced at this hearing. Both the Town and the applicant have agreed to a comprehensive list of conditions found in Exhibit 14, which the Board will attach to this decision. Variances 3 and 5 do not apply to the subject lot and the applicant has abandoned the variances for the two other properties that were subject to the appeals. THE BOARD having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, and the Board having determined as provided for in subsection 45(18.1) of the Planning Act that no further notice is required; THE BOARD ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and variances 1, 2 and 5, to the Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 2213-78, as amended, are authorize with respect to Lot 15, RP 65M-2806, subject to the conditions in Attachment 1 to this decision. This is the Order of the Board. A. Christou A. CHRISTOU MEMBER
- 6 -
- 7 -