COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 24, 2017

Transcription

1 COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 24, 2017 Present: Don Davis, Chair Scott Fisher, Member Joan Truax, Member Dan Tucker, Member Also Present: Bev Mansbridge, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Colleen Healey, Manager of Planning and Development Adriana Barbosa, Planning Intern The Chair, Don Davis, called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. and explained the meeting process and the time frame for appeals to those persons present. He advised that all statements and evidence given before the Committee are of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act. MINUTES: The Minutes of January 27, 2017 were accepted by the Committee. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST: There was no disclosure of interest. APPLICATIONS: A1/17 HUNTER Old Mill Road Relief of Height and Maximum Size Accessory Structure Mr. Ryan Hunter of 5830 Old Mill Road attended the meeting. The Planner's report was presented by C. Healey. Colleen Healey informed of two objection letters received from neighbours. The Chair asked whether the applicant had any details to add and the owner said it would not be used as a dwelling unit. He added that the balcony was only to look nice. He stated he did not need this but wanted extra storage. Mr. Hunter added that his current garage is full and needs storage for RV vehicles, which will all be stored inside. D. Davis, Chair, indicated a deferral of the application until more information was heard. Audience attendee, Jim Mccann asked "What more information was needed"? C. Healey noted revised plans for the height, a lot grading and drainage plan and.. 1

2 applicable deposit. She added that other lots have required the same thing so as not to affect neighbours. Others have been asked for similar engineered lot grading plans. The Committee deferred the application pending further information, revised plans and lot grading plan. At that point, proper notification will be provided to neighbours. A2/17 POITRAS 2 Trillium Lane Relief of Maximum Sized Accessory Structure and Relief of Front Yard Setback Applicant, Mr. Mike Poitras, attended the meeting. He stated his application is requesting consideration of a two car garage and an art studio. C. Healey presented the Planning Report. Colleen informed Committee that a neighbour had expressed concern for an easement for her Bell line. The applicant did note that the Coopers (Mrs. Kidd) did have a Bell telephone line running down an easement approximately feet away. This proposed building will not affect the line or this part of the property. There were no questions heard from the audience. The Committee considered all public comments received and weighed all evidence available, and voted and approved the minor variance application for relief of maximum sized accessory structure and relief of front yard setback. A3/17 BARRETT 7086 County Road 21 Relief of Maximum Sized Accessory and Relief of Height Landowner Mr. Sheldon Barrett attended the meeting. He stated his application is requesting relief of accessory building size and height. C. Healey presented the Planning Report. She further noted that the NVCA has no objection but has requested conditions. The NVCA had requested that 7 maple trees be planted on the property as the applicant has extended further into the wetland and the NVCA wishes to rehabilitate in the form of replanting. Chair, D. Davis then asked about the height? The applicant informed that they need storage for a trailer/camper and are requesting extra height to allow 14 feet. He added that the upstairs storage will include a loft and thus the request for relief of height. Mr. Barrett had no intentions whatsoever to use this building for residential uses and offered to sign an agreement saying so. He added windows which will provide for lighting. Colleen asked what will be stored upstairs in the building. The owner said that he will store patio furniture, etc. He further offered that he calls this a driveshed as it will be a drive thru at one end, and out another. He wants this to look like a country barn.. 2

3 The Owner wants it to look like a cottage and can have a much cheaper design if he changed, however, he wanted his to look nice. The Chair suggested that the applicant may want to consider going higher than the plans, as some RV units (air conditioners) won't go through the door. The applicant noted that there is a walking area upstairs only 8 feet tall because of overhead plate. Committee Member Dan Tucker asked if there were any neighbour concerns? Colleen responded no. No questions were heard from the audience. The Chair then asked to sign an acknowledgement. C. Healey provided the acknowledgement form and the landowner provided his signature. The Committee considered all public comments received and weighed all evidence available, and voted and approved the minor variance application for relief of maximum sized accessory structure and relief of height. 81/17 NORTHERN DIVERSIFIED 52 & 54 Margaret St Creation of New Lot Applicant agent, Kate Oatway attended the meeting on behalf of the application. Colleen Healey, Manager of Planning and Development presented the Planning Report. She added that the NVCA had no objections. C. Healey then noted that the CAO and Public Works office requested that the applicant ensure both properties have their own entrance. She also added that the neighbouring landowner "Melchior'' has no concerns. It was noted that the property had undergone a rezoning to R3 some time ago. The Committee considered all public comments received and weighed all evidence available, and voted and approved the consent application with conditions. 83/17 ROUGHLEY 5881 Scotch Line Lot Addition Mr. Don and Trisha Roughley, applicants, attended the meeting. Colleen offered a coloured photo to the Committee and the applicant had extra copies which were made available to the Committee depicting the geothermal on these lands. The Planning Report was read by C. Healey, Manager of Planning and Development. The owner had nothing to add. No questions were heard from the Committee. It was noted that the NVCA had no objections. The landowner suggested that the lands were only used for fallow and had never been cropped. Mr. Roughley explained his brother-in-law is the owner of the adjacent lands. The applicant said that you can't do anything with the lands. He doesn't want to dig up his geothermal. He added that the 3

4 current use was intended for perpetuity. He further noted that there is no impact to the portion of the property that was being added. D. Roughley also noted that legally, if the house is sold in the future, it must have the geothermal with the house (on title). The Chair agreed, this makes sense and be sure the geothermal stays with the property. Mr. Roughley asked that additionally, the lands to the south, in the amount of.25 ac. could also be considered? He noted there was a fence line in the grassed area which is currently the front lawn for his kids to play and added that the farm house already exists. Committee Member Scott Fisher asked what area is left or how many acres are being cropped. The landowner explained just south of the house - there is 2 acres cropped currently. The Committee voted and approved the consent application as amended to contain the additional area. OTHER BUSINESS: 66 Margaret Street Right of Way Colleen explained that the vacant lands are owned by Melchior. This lot was created in 2004 when the Rainbow Mall had severed the Medical Building, etc. and the area was being developed then. The lot was created in 2004 and apparently a Committee decision was made at that time. Melchior has now sold 66 Margaret St and can't confirm the legal right-of- way (ROW) registered on title. Their lawyer was speaking to Colleen and the party purchasing is not confident that a Committee decision was made so that a Part gives ROW to the property at 66 Margaret, to allow a legal access. The Township is in receipt of the Planning Report and Decision, however, the emphasis then was for a maintenance agreement for a ROW. The purchaser is not clear and wants to be sure all has been looked after. C. Healey informed this is a private laneway. She also informed Committee of another apartment block located at 40 Margaret Street - this was a part of what was severed in The Township is not concerned with the maintenance agreement at this point since it will be mandatory with future development of 66 Margaret St, as a part of the normal development agreement. A Resolution was recommended and prepared by Colleen Healey. The Committee discussed and agreed to pass the resolution. A certificate may also be provided to resolve any outstanding issues. A1/13 Tim Hortons 1 Roth Street Neighbour, Mr. Blakely attended the meeting. Tim Hortons was not in attendance. Colleen Healey noted that a privacy fence was put up on Township property without 4

5 permissions for the "encroachment". She explained the Blakelys are seeking some privacy now with the fence gone. C. Healey informed that the Township's Fence By-law does not allow for a fence in the front yard. C. Healey suggested a chain link fence is allowed by by-law and that if Mr. Blakely wanted something in the form of relief from the Committee, he should ask. Colleen noted she is not clear on what Mr. Blakely is asking for? She noted that the CAO, Greg Murphy, may be able to assist if in excess of "minor" or an encroachment. This could be taken to Council for consideration. The neighbour noted that Committee discussed at the time that a fence could not go out to the road and that a 1.8 m setback from front property line would be permitted (of 11 Roth Street). He noted he grudgingly agreed but was not happy with this. Mr. Blakely added that his concerns then are now exasperated as two lanes of traffic are lined up and backed up to road's edge. He also noted this is Essa's busiest property. He has added concerns including the daily lights; pollution, and concern for his daughters. He noted difficulties encountered with his daughters when they are in the front yard - and now hesitates to use their own front yard. He noted the fence was there for 3 years, 1 m from the front property line. The Township did ask to move this back, however, the fence has been taken down to the rear of his home. Colleen noted that the CAO may need Council's permission. This matter concerning a fence cannot be determined by the Committee, unless addressing a new variance application. She added the Tim's fence was already there, and not a legal encroachment. The request of the business owner at the time, was the requirement of a variance for landscaping by the lane extension. Colleen then noted that the Committee cannot stipulate conditions to put up a fence on someone else's property. CAO Greg Murphy suggested this matter could go to Council. Colleen noted that if Mr. Blakely is not building a fence then Council can address the matter. She reiterated that the Committee of Adjustment cannot authorize anyone to build a fence on someone else's property. Further discussion took place. Committee Member Scott Fisher asked whether there is sufficient site room/appropriate fence now on their own property. It was confirmed the fence is only to the back limit of the house. Previously, C. Healey explained, there were trees in the neighbour's front yard which helped with privacy. Neighbour Mr. Blakely noted a separation from residential zone to commercial zone and stated that Tim's is the busiest property in the Township. Discussion was held on other issues including the safety of children who walk on the sidewalk. Mr. Blakely suggested there were two sidewalks on either side of the road. Discussion on the concern for public safety was held. The neighbour suggested he purchased his property in agreement with a 6 foot fence. Dan Tucker asked about the extent of the Tim Hortons' property. comments were read. Greg Murphy's 5

6 The Chair asked how many feet of fence was taken down? The neighbour responded almost 60 feet. Colleen confirmed fence panels have been taken down to the edge of where the Township owns. Some discussion took place on the Committee's prior decision and the variance requested for relief of landscaping. Further discussion on the fence took place noting it was not located on the Tim's property or with proper permissions. The neighbour noted there were hundreds of vehicles daily, with traffic lined up and that he had met with S. Macdonald with his concerns. It was confirmed that the application before the Committee was from Tim Hortons and the decision was based on Tim's own property. It was noted that Mr. Blakely had offered comment as a neighbour at that time. Discussion on the length of time the fence had stood and it was confirmed about 3 years. Correspondence had been sent to Tim Hortons whom did not address up until this time. C. Healey offered that the Committee want to assist you, but there is no application before the Committee, from this neighbour. A lengthy discussion was held. It was noted that this must be resolved through Council and the Committee cannot address this situation - but will endeavor to help anyway they can. Colleen wanted to be clear that the Committee can only address applications requested from an applicant. Colleen confirmed this matter could be taken to Council. The Chair noted he did not recall where Township property ended and Tim's property began. Colleen noted that there were two meetings, however, she had not attended one of the meetings. D. Davis, Chair, noted, he/the Committee may have been under the assumption that this fence was only on Tim's property- not aware of Township limits or property owned by the Township. The Chair noted that this is all that can be done for now. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11 :15 a.m. Don Davis, Chair 6 Bev Mansbridge, Se retary-treasurer