THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEVERN A. CALL TO ORDER COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, March 21, 2017 Council Chambers - Municipal Office 7:00 P.M. AGENDA B. C. APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY SECRETARY-TREASURER DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF D. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Page # 1 Committee of Adjustment - Februray 21, 2017 3-12 E. ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS "NIL" F. NEW APPLICATIONS Page # 1 A-03-17 (Costa) - 3323 Lake Saint George Blvd 13-18 2 B-01-17 (Albert) - 3390 Beachview Avenue 19-24 3 B-02-17 (River House) - 1726 Earl Haid Avenue 25-31 G. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS "NIL" H. CORRESPONDENCE Page # 1 River House re: Application B-02-17 32-34 2 Severn Falls Marina re: Application B-02-17 35 3 Anne Stock re: Application B-02-17 36-37 I. OTHER BUSINESS "NIL"
J. ADJOURNMENT Page 2 of 37
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT HELD IN THE ADMINISTRATION OFFICE, 1024 HURLWOOD LANE, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2017 AT 7:00 P.M. D-1 Present: Chair Allen Vivian Members Bill Hill Mark Vandergeest Douglas Hamilton Emily Silk Staff: Secretary-Treasurer, Planner Katie Mandeville A. CALL TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at. 7:00 p.m. and explained the meeting process and the time frame for appeals to those persons present. B. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST NONE C. ADOPTION OF MINUTES The following motion was adopted: Motion # 17-01 MOVED by Mark Vandergeest and SECONDED by Bill Hill THAT the Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment meeting held in the Council Chambers on December 20 th, 2016 be adopted as printed and distributed. CARRIED D. ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS NONE E. NEW APPLICATIONS 1. Variance Application No.: A-30-16 Owner: Helmar & Siegmar Pischkitl Roll Number: 4351 050 004 08900 0000 Municipal Address: 4134 Graham Road The Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application(s) and outlined the correspondence received, as follows: Page 1 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 3 of 37
Proposal: The 7,284 square metres (1.8 acre) property is currently occupied by a dwelling, privy and a recently constructed dock and unenclosed deck with a gazebo type structure, which has been dismantled. The applicants originally requested the following minor variances: 1. An unenclosed deck measuring 48.1 square metres whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended limits the floor area to 30.0 square metres. 2. A maximum cumulative width of 18.28 metres for a dock whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended limits the width of shoreline structures to 25% of the lot frontage to a maximum of 15.0 metres. 3. A dock envelope of 18.28 metres by 6 metres whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended states that docks must fit within a 8.0 metre by 10.0 metre rectangular area or envelope adjacent to the shore. 4. A front yard setback of negative 2.4 metres for a gazebo whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended establishes a minimum setback of 4.0 metres from the shoreline. At its September meeting, the Committee passed Motion COA 16-25 which stated: THAT Application No. A-30-16 be adjourned to a future Committee of Adjustment meeting pending a revised proposal for the minor variance requested, excluding the minor variance for the location of the gazebo. Also Notice is to be reissued for the Application so the public can issue further comments. The applicants reassessed their situation and determined that the exact location of the shoreline is somewhat different from what was reflected in their original submission. This resulted in a shift in the area considered to be part of a shore deck (i.e. over land) or unenclosed deck and what constitutes the dock area (over water). The proposed structure is not changed, only how its component are classified under the Township s Zoning By-law. The revised list of requested minor variances from the November 2016 Committee of Adjustment meeting were as follows: 1. A maximum cumulative width of 18.28 metres for a dock whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended limits the width of shoreline structures to 25% of the lot frontage to a maximum of 15.0 metres. 2. A dock envelope of 18.28 metres by 6.1 metres whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended states that docks must fit within a 8.0 metre by 10.0 metre rectangular area or envelope adjacent to the shore. 3. A maximum dock surface area of 55.7 square metres whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended states that the combined maximum surface area of a dock and fingers shall not exceed 45.0 square metres. At its November 2016 meeting, the Committee passed Motion COA 16-30 which stated: THAT Application No. A-30-16 be adjourned to a future Committee of Adjustment meeting pending a revised application that comes into closer compliance with the provisions of the Zoning By-law. Also Notice is to be reissued for the application so the public can issue further comments. The revised application is to be submitted prior to January 15/17. The applicants submitted a revised proposal in January 2017 which would reduce the cumulative width of the dock to 17 metres (55.8 ft.), a reduction of 1.28 m (4.2ft.). The revised list of requested minor variances submitted in January 2017 are as follows: Page 2 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 4 of 37
1. A maximum cumulative width of 17 metres for a dock whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended limits the width of shoreline structures to 25% of the lot frontage to a maximum of 15.0 metres. 2. A dock envelope of 17 metres by 6.1 metres whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended states that docks must fit within a 8.0 metre by 10.0 metre rectangular area or envelope adjacent to the shore. 3. A maximum dock surface area of 55.2 square metres whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended states that the combined maximum surface area of a dock and fingers shall not exceed 45.0 square metres. Agency Comments: None Public Correspondence: At the September 2016 meeting, under the original submission, a document book containing a report and pictures was submitted to staff and the Committee by Heather Bird and Glen Grunwald, 1038 The Spur, in opposition to the application. Staff received confirmation from the authors that their objection still stands and the correspondence is still on record. At the September meeting, under the original submission, written comment was submitted from Doug Roberts on behalf of the Tea Lake Cottagers Association, in opposition to the application. A document book containing pictures from Tea Lake and information pertaining to the Ontario Human Rights Commission was submitted by the applicants at the November 2016 meeting. A document prepared by Pat Naughton on a review of the governance of the Tea Lake Property Owners Association was submitted at the November 2016 meeting. A letter of correspondence dated February 17, 2017, from Lyndal and Andrew Walker, 1042 The Spur, was received and read aloud at the meeting in opposition of the application. A letter of correspondence dated February 20, 2017, from Glen Grunwald and Heather Bird, 1038 The Spur, was received and read aloud at the meeting in opposition to the application. Staff Report D17-001: The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report. The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what was presented - the applicant was present and submitted photographs. The applicant made the following remarks: The photos including represent the character of the existing shoreline, 120 cottages, only a portion were submitted in Ms. Bird s previous submission. The dock is utilizing the existing footprint. Large construction projects such as dredging are ongoing by contractors. Page 3 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 5 of 37
Two large, four season rental business are on the lake. Ms. Bird built a large addition, right on the water. They only have a one season cabin, modest and small, the only renovation has been the dock. The dock/deck in question is used for 2 months of the year. Previous correspondence submitted by Tea Lake Association was not representative of the cottage owners, the President should be helping to resolve issues not taking sides. The Chair reminded everyone to focus on the matter of the minor variance at hand and asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application. Oral submissions were as follows: Heather Bird, 1038 The Spur, stated that she too would like matters to stick to the dock. The applicant stated that there was a large dock at the top of Tea Lake for a rental property. The applicant further pointed to examples of the photos submitted to show the size and character of structures. The Chair asked if anyone else in the audience had any comments on this application, since none were forthcoming, the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed. The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. The Committee comments were as follows: Member Vandergeest commented that the Committee had requested that the application be brought more into compliance at the last couple of meetings and therefore he would not be supporting this application. Member Vandergeest further stated that he believed the applicant could have a deck/dock within the parameters of the Zoning By-law. Member Hill stated that he originally stated he was not in support of the application and that nothing has been provided to change that position. Member Silk stated that she agreed with Member Vandergeest that the owners could have a dock/deck that conforms to the By-law. Member Vandergeest inquired what the process would be if the Committee denied the application. The Planner advised that the Building Department would be in touch with the applicants. As there was no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote on the application. DECISION DENIED Variance Application A-30-16 (Pischkitl) THE PURPOSE and EFFECT of the application is: The following variance to the provisions of Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended: 1. A maximum cumulative width of 17 metres for a dock whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended limits the width of shoreline structures to 25% of the lot frontage to Page 4 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 6 of 37
a maximum of 15.0 metres. 2. A dock envelope of 17 metres by 6.1 metres whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended states that docks must fit within a 8.0 metre by 10.0 metre rectangular area or envelope adjacent to the shore. 3. A maximum dock surface area of 55.2 square metres whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended states that the combined maximum surface area of a dock and fingers shall not exceed 45.0 square metres. The Committee has considered the Application and, based upon the evidence provided, issues the following Decision on the 21 st day of February, 2017: DECISION: DENIED EFFECT of written and oral submissions on the decision: None THE REASONS for the Committee s Decision are that: This application does not meet the 4 tests of the Planning Act. AND the Secretary-Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign any documents required to give effect to this Decision. CARRIED 2. Variance Application No.: A-01-17 Owner/Applicant: Rick & Jean Hayward Roll Number: 4351 010 011 28402 0000 Municipal Address: 8007 Highway 11 North The Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application and outlined the correspondence received, as follows: Proposal: The 5,584.8 square metres (1.38 acre) property is currently occupied by a dwelling and two accessory structures. The applicant would like to construct a new pole barn type accessory structure attaching it to the existing garage on the property, to be used for personal storage. The following variance is requested in order to permit the construction of the new addition to the accessory structure: 1. A variance to permit a maximum size of 264.8 square metres (2,850 sq. ft.) for an accessory structure whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended, establishes a maximum size of 110 square metres or 75% of the gross floor area of the principle building, within a residential zone Agency Comments: A letter of correspondence was received, dated February 15, 2017, from the Corridor Management Officer, Ministry of Transportation stating that MTO had no concerns but that the applicant would be required to obtain an MTO Building & Land Use permit. Page 5 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 7 of 37
Public Correspondence: None Staff Report D17-002: The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report. The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what was presented - the applicant was present and stated that he owns 12 classic cars, a pontoon boat, two tractors among other toys that he would like to keep inside. The applicant also spoke with his neighbour to the north that he shares a driveway with and they have no objections. The Chair asked if anyone in the audience had any comments on this application, since none were forthcoming, the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed. The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee comments were as follows: Member Hill asked the applicant about the second garage shown on the site plan. The applicant stated that he was told to show his proposal for the entire property and that he is proposing a small garage to be located closer to the dwelling. The planner confirmed that the proposed structure was taken into account and would not result in any issues with the By-law provisions. The Chair asked the Secretary-Treasurer to review the proposed conditions of the decision. The applicant was asked if he was aware of the proposed conditions and was in agreement with them. The applicant confirmed this. The Chair then called for a vote on the application. DECISION APPROVE Variance Application A-01-17 (Hayward) THE PURPOSE and EFFECT of the application is: The following minor variance to the provisions of Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended: 1. A maximum size of 264.8 square metres (2,850 sq. ft.) for an accessory structure whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended, establishes a maximum size of 110 square metres or 75% of the gross floor area of the principle building, within a Residential Zone. The Committee has considered the Application and, based upon the evidence provided, issues the following Decision on the 21 st day of February, 2017: DECISION: APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Municipal Taxes to be paid to date. 2. That the existing vegetation on the property shall be preserved and enhanced as Page 6 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 8 of 37
much as possible, with particular attention paid to the interior lot lines and waterfront sides of the building. 3. That the property owner apply for and obtain a MTO Building and Land Use Permit prior to a Township Building Permit. 4. That the construction is in substantial compliance with the plans submitted with the Application. EFFECT of written and oral submissions on the decision: None THE REASONS for the Committee s Decision are that the request is minor in nature, conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan and is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. AND the Secretary-Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign any documents required to give effect to this Decision. CARRIED 3. Minor Variance Application No.: A-02-17 Owner: 1522417 Ontario Limited Applicant/Agent: Josh Morgan, Morgan Planning Roll Number: 4351 010 007 18406 0000 Municipal Address: 3488 Timberline Avenue The Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application(s) and the correspondence received, as follows: Proposal: The approximate 649.4 square metres (0.16 acre) property is currently vacant. The lot was recently created through the approval of the Grand Tamarack subdivision (County of Simcoe File No. SV-T-1002). The applicant would like to construct a new dwelling with an attached garage on the property. The following minor variance is requested in order to permit the construction of a new dwelling: 1. A rear yard setback of 6.2 metres for the main dwelling whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended, states the minimum rear yard setback for the Residential One Exception Twenty Nine (R1-29) Zone is 7.5 metres. Agency Comments: None Public Correspondence: None Staff Report D17-003: The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report. The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what was presented - the agent was present and provided drawings to clarify the rear lot line, Page 7 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 9 of 37
Environmental Protection (EP) Zoning and stated that he believed the application met the four tests of the Planning Act. The Chair asked if there were any comments from anyone in the audience, since none were forthcoming, the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed. The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee comments were as follows: None. The Chair asked the Secretary-Treasurer to review the proposed conditions of the decision. The agent was asked if he were aware of the proposed conditions and was in agreement with them. The agent confirmed this. The Chair then called for a vote on the application. DECISION APPROVE Variance Application A-02-17 THE PURPOSE and EFFECT of the application is: The following minor variances to the provisions of Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended: 1. A rear yard setback of 6.2 metres to the main dwelling whereas Zoning By-law 2010-65, as amended, states the minimum rear yard setback for the Residential One Exception Twenty Nine (R1-29) Zone is 7.5 metres. The Committee has considered the Application and, based upon the evidence provided, issues the following Decision on the 21 st day of February, 2017: DECISION: APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Municipal Taxes to be paid to date. 2. That the approved setback and building placement is reflected in the Lot Grading Plan required for the building permit application. EFFECT of written and oral submissions on the decision: None THE REASONS for the Committee s Decision are that the request is minor in nature, conforms to the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan and is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land. AND the Secretary-Treasurer is hereby authorized to sign any documents required to give effect to this Decision. CARRIED 4. Variance Application No.: A-04-17 Owner/Applicant: Dave Armstrong Roll Number: 4351 050 003 40200 0000 Page 8 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 10 of 37
Municipal Address: 1745 Island Road The Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment outlined the application(s) and outlined the correspondence received, as follows: Proposal: The approximately 6,556 square metres (1.62 acre) property is occupied by two single detached dwellings and one accessory building, being a detached garage as well as associated docking. The property is considered to be non-conforming if the two single family dwellings were legally and lawfully established as the SR3 zone only permits one dwelling. Furthermore, one of the dwellings is considered to be non-complying as the dwelling is located closer to the water than the minimum front yard setback established by Zoning By-law 2010-65. The following minor variance is requested: 1. To permit the reconstruction of a non-conforming dwelling with a maximum footprint size of 1380 square feet and a front yard setback of 13.1 m., whereas Zoning Bylaw 2010-65 states that replacement of a non-conforming building may not result in an increase to the original foot print, building size or location. The existing dwelling currently has a footprint size of 990 sq. ft. and has a front yard setback of 9.1 metres. Agency Comments: None Public Correspondence: None Staff Report D17-004: The Planner provided a brief summary of the staff report. The Chair asked if the applicant or agent were present and had anything to add to what was presented - the applicant was present and stated that he spoke with builders today and that he should be renovating the existing instead of building new. The Chair asked if there were any comments from anyone in the audience, since none were forthcoming, the Chair declared the public portion of the meeting closed. The Chair asked if the Committee had any comments on this application. Committee comments were as follows: Member Vandergeest stated that he is in support of the deferral for the applicant to explore additional avenues and for Township staff to review the septic. The Chair stated he also supported a deferral for the applicant to look into the septic system with staff. The following motion was adopted: Page 9 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 11 of 37
Motion # 17-02 MOVED by Mark Vandergeest and SECONDED by Bill Hill THAT Application No. A-04-17 (Armstrong) be adjourned to a future Committee of Adjustment meeting pending the receipt of additional information from the applicant. Notice is to be reissued for the application so the public can issue further comment. The revised application is to be submitted prior to Dec. 31/17. CARRIED E. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS NONE F. CORRESPONDENCE NONE G. OTHER BUSINESS NONE H. ADJOURNMENT The following motion was adopted: Motion # 17-03 MOVED by Douglas Hamilton and SECONDED by Emily Silk THAT the Committee of Adjustment meeting be adjourned at 8:00 p.m. on February 21 st, 2016. The Committee will reconvene at 7:00 p.m. on March 21 st, 2017 unless the Secretary-Treasurer has not received a complete application for the Committee s consideration. CARRIED Katie Mandeville, Secretary-Treasurer Page 10 of 10 COA Minutes February 21, 2017 Page 12 of 37
Page 13 of 37 F-1
Page 14 of 37
Page 15 of 37
Page 16 of 37
Page 17 of 37
Page 18 of 37
Page 19 of 37 F-2
Page 20 of 37
Page 21 of 37
Page 22 of 37
Page 23 of 37
Page 24 of 37
Page 25 of 37 F-3
Page 26 of 37
Page 27 of 37
Page 28 of 37
Page 29 of 37
Page 30 of 37
Page 31 of 37
H-1 We purchased the restaurant in july, 2009. In 2010 we purchased the adjoining property because the frontage of the restaurant was owned by the adjoining property and we were concerned that a new owner of it might place picnic tables or chairs in front of the restaurant and detract from the restaurant. In 2011 we contacted the township of severn with regard to installing a patio. David Parks, the Planner at that time attended at the property and advised us to put the patio on the roadside as it had been previously approved by the township - 2 owners before us. We installed the patio encroaching on township property and there was no mention of a problem with the holding tank encroaching. In September 2012-3 years after we purchased the restaurant, we received notification from the township that they required proof of insurance on the holding tank. this was the first indication that there was any problem. No survey available at the time of our purchase disclosed this problem and there was nothing on title to indicate the problem. At the time of our purchase our lawyer did what has become common practice - we purchased title insurance to correct any title defect that could arise. We attempted to get the insurance on the holding tank that the township required. We were unable to do so unless the township agreed to an environmental assessment on the property and the township was unwilling to do so. In December 2012 Jeff Andross attended at the property. He advised us that the township did not want more holding tanks. It was determined that because we owned the property next door a septic system could go where the driveway was located if we severed off the land and added it to the restaurant. We attended council and asked if we could purchase the land where the tank is located and were told that the township would not agree to sell us the land. We then applied for the severance of the driveway portion of the residence as we had no other alternative at the time. We also commenced a claim against title insurance to get funds to put in a septic system. The adjuster for the insurance company then contacted the township and after the codes were investigated by Mr. Andross, it was determined that we could have another holding tank on our property because the property is zoned commercial. We then got estimates for removing and replacing of the tank as well as a new septic system and found that there was only going to be approximately 30,000.00 difference. We were negotiating to take the money we could get towards a new holding tank in an insurance settlement and put it towards a septic system as we could not afford to put it in ourselves. We have spent almost $60,000.00 to date in this lawsuit which would have given us the funds to complete the septic system as was the intention all along. Because of the resolution passed by council December 1, 2016 forcing us to purchase the land where the tank is located, we are going to be unable to recover the funds from the insurance company to put in the system and don't know how much of our expenditure to date we will get back. Page 32 of 37
We have always been co-operative and signed the agreement as required by the end of December, 2016 and delivered the deposit of $6500.00 to the Township Solicitor. We tried to talk to the Clerk as well as Jeff Andross about whether the tank needs a minor variance to remain where it is based on the land size being conveyed - we asked for a full copy of the survey in order that our lawyer could review same - we never received the survey or any information on the variance we were concerned the tank requires. We were under the impression it had to be 5 feet from the property line or a variance would be needed. We couldn t read the small PDF copy we received. The restaurant in this location has operated with a holding system in its present location for over 50 years and can continue. We saw photos of the restaurant located there in the 1960s and verified with previous owners families that the holding tanks were in place then. The store located in Severn Falls also has a holding tank as well as the rainbow painted house across Upper Big Chute Road as well as other properties along the river. We would never have severed the driveway off the house next door if there had been any alternative but we were led to believe there was no other alternative. It makes the house a difficult sale as prospective purchasers do not want to purchase a property knowing that part of it can be dug up and that they would have no control of how it would look. In early January, 2017 before Andrew Fyfe retired I had a meeting with him. He was not opposing the driveway being deeded back go the house The application did not go in at that time as he wanted me to verify with Dale Eplett and our lawyer whether we needed to amend the size of the land being severed back to the house under the planning Act. I did this and re-attended at the township office for assistance from Katie Mandeville with the paperwork. She advised me not to bother as she would be opposing our severance and would see that even if we went to the OMB we wouldn t be allowed to do so. I attempted to contact Andrew Fyfe but was advised by Mr. Sander that he would not be allowed to assist me and that our application would be blocked. All we are asking for is to return the house property to the state that it was before this all began. There is no need to adjourn this decision for staff report as we have been informed by Katie Mandeville and by Henry Sander that they will oppose any request we make to deed this driveway portion of the property back to the house. We are asking that council give us a yes or a no as we are planning to list the restaurant for sale immediately after this meeting, The stress both financial and emotional of dealing with the township and lawyers constantly for the past 4 1/2 years has taken its toll on us and even our own relationship and we cannot carry on here any more. We have tried our best to maintain and enhance the Severn Falls community with the regatta, santa clause parade, outdoor music, staying open in the winter for locals and sledders even though we don t make any money in the winter. We purchased the restaurant in good faith - full of happiness. It has turned into a nightmare of legal problems because of the holding tank problem. We can hardly remember a week in the past 4 1/2 years that we haven t had to deal with either coming before council or dealing with Page 33 of 37
lawyers - all through no fault of ours. Had we known on the purchase of the problem with the holding tank we never would have purchased. If the Township had done its due diligence and collected insurance confirmation from all the owners from 1998 to us - it would have been disclosed to us on closing and we never would have proceeded because we would have known then that we couldn t get the insurance. We were led down the garden path. Page 34 of 37
Page 35 of 37 H-2
H-3 1770 Granny Stock Garden, Coldwater, Ont. March 17. 2017 Katie Mandeville, Planning Dept., Mayor Burkett, Councillors, Committee of Re file # B-02-17 (Riverhouse Restaurant ) Adjustment, By law Officers in Township of Severn At a Committee of adjustment meeting Dec. 17, 2013 Ed and Mary Chmiel applied for a relocation of property line in order to accommodate a proper septic system for this restaurant. File # B-17-18-13. Committee members agreed to the proposal saying it was in the best interest of the community. Residents present at the meeting indicated it was a positive step and nobody objected. In the new application it appears that the Chmiels are no longer satisfied with this decision and wish for it to be reversed. The original placement of the holding tank on Township property should never have been allowed- that and the encroachment of the building on a Township road. There have been many such mistakes made in the past in this community, but in 2017 I do not understand how the Township can continue to facilitate these mistakes. Nor should the township be releasing this road allowance to allow this to happen. This road is used by delivery trucks, people loading and unloading their boats to get to their cottages, parking for the restaurant store and indeed parking for the Chmeils. Page 36 of 37
This is an opportunity to correct mistakes by insisting on a proper septic system and not releasing road allowance. It is in the best interests if the residents, the property owners along the river who draw water from that source, future purchasers of the property and the integrity of the mayor, councillors, by law officers, planners and adjustment committee members. Please use your wisdom to refuse this application. I regret that I cannot attend this meeting. Respectfully, Anne Stock Page 37 of 37