The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPSD-127-08 Clarii ;�on REPORT - Leadirsg the way PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION MEETING Date: Monday, December 1, 2008 2e5oll _ I Report#: PSD-127-08 File No's: A2008-0033 By-law #: Subject: .1 MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 13, 2008 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-127-08 be received; and, 2. THAT Council does not concur with the decision of the Committee of Adjustment made on November 13, 2008 for application A2008-0033 and authorizes staff to appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. Submitted by: Reviewed by: = ZL JCrom DaVie, MCIP, RPP Franklin Wu, Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer November 20, 2008 MK/CP/sh/av CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 I REPORT NO.: PSD-127-08 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 All applications received by the Municipality for minor variance are scheduled for a hearing within 30 days of being received by the Secretary-Treasurer. The purpose of the minor variance applications and the Committee's decisions are detailed in Attachment 1. The decisions of the Committee are summarized below. DECISIONS OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR NOVEMBER 13, 2008 Application Number Staff Recommendation Decision of Committee Approve in part with Approved in part with conditions and Deny in conditions and Denied in A2008-0033 part part 1.2 Following a complaint made by a resident regarding a shed being too close to the property line, application A2008-0033 was filed to permit the construction of multiple accessory buildings and structures (all existing) on the subject property. During a site inspection by Staff, it was discovered that in addition to the shed being too close to the property line, there were multiple other Zoning By-law infractions. The purpose of the application was as follows (see Attachment 1): • To permit an accessory building (existing shed #1) by decreasing the northerly interior side yard setback and the rear yard setback from 1.2 m to 0.13 m and 0.08 m respectively; and • To permit an accessory building (existing shed #2) by decreasing the rear yard setback, southerly interior side yard setback, setback to the pool deck and setback to the pool from 1.2 m to 0.3 m, 0.3 m, 0.3 m, and 0.6 m respectively; and • To permit an accessory structure (existing pool deck) by decreasing the southerly interior side yard setback from 1.2 m to 0 m; and • To permit an accessory structure (existing above-ground pool) by decreasing the southerly interior side yard setback from 1.2 m to 1.1 m; and • To permit an accessory structure (existing gazebo) by decreasing the northerly interior side yard setback from 1.2 m to 0.8 m; and • To permit an accessory structure (existing fireplace) by decreasing the northerly interior side yard setback and setback to the gazebo from 1.2 m to 0 m and 0.55 m respectively. Planning Services Staff recommended approval of the reduced northerly interior side yard setback for the gazebo, approval of the reduced southerly interior side yard setback for the pool and approval of the reduced setback to the pool for the shed #2. Staff recommended denial of the remainder of the application as the proposed setbacks did not provide sufficient space between structures for proper maintenance and drainage on the property. REPORT NO.: PSD-127-08 PAGE 3 i The Committee concurred with Planning Services Staffs recommendation to approve a reduced northerly interior side yard setback for the gazebo, to approve a reduced southerly interior side yard setback for the pool and to deny a reduced northerly interior side yard setback and setback to the gazebo for the fireplace. However, the Committee considered Staffs opinion and decided to approve the remainder of the application as follows: • To approve a reduction in northerly interior side yard setback and rear yard setback from 1.2 m to 0.6 m to the wall of the shed #1 and from 1.2 m to 0.3 m to the eaves of shed #1; • To approve a reduction in rear yard setback, southerly interior side yard setback, setback to the pool deck (deck #2) and setback to the pool from 1.2 m to 0.3 m in each case, for shed #2; • To approve a reduction in southerly interior side yard setback from 1.2 m to 0.6 m for the pool deck #2. A reduced interior side yard and rear yard setback of 0.3 m for shed #2 does provide enough space between structures (fence and shed #2) for proper maintenance of those structures. It does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law, is not minor in nature and is detrimental to the neighbourhood. 2.0 COMMENTS 2.1 Council's concurrence is required with staff's opinion that an appeal by the Municipality on the decision made by the Committee of Adjustment on November 13, 2008 for application A2008-0033 is warranted; and Council's authorization is required in order to afford staff official status before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend its original recommendation. Attachments: Attachment 1 — Sketch of property for A2008-0033 Attachment 2 - Periodic Report for the Committee of Adjustment Attachment 1 f To Report PSD-127-08 EXISTING STRUCTURES AND LAYOUT OF REAR YARD 11 CHERRY BLOSSOM CRESCENT N FIREPLACE SHED #1 DECK #1 s POOL DECK #2 SHED #2 'SNOT TO SCALE Attachment 2 r] n To Report PSD-127-08 Leadtngthe Way PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: LINDA-MARIE PERKINS OWNER: LINDA-MARIE PERKINS PROPERTY LOCATION: 11 CHERRY BLOSSOM CRESCENT, COURTICE PART LOT 34, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON FILE NO.: A2008-0033 PURPOSE: n • TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BLDG (SHED#1) BY DECREASING THE NORTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 M TO 0.13 M AND 0.08 M RESPECTIVELY;AND • TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BLDG(SHED#2) BY DECREASING THE REAR YARD SETBACK, SOUTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK, SETBACK TO THE POOL DECK AND SETBACK TO THE POOL FROM 1.2 M TO 0.3 M, 0.3 M, 0.3 M AND 0.6 M RESPECTIVELY;AND • TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE(POOL DECK) BY DECREASING THE SOUTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 M TO 0 M;AND • TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (POOL) BY DECREASING THE SOUTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 M TO 1.1 M; AND • TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (GAZEBO)BY DECREASING THE NORTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 M TO 0.8 M;AND TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE(FIREPLACE) BY DECREASING THE NORTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SETBACK TO THE GAZEBO FROM 1.2 M TO 0 M AND 0.55 M RESPECTIVELY. I° DECISION OF COMMITTEE: • TO APPROVE A REDUCTION IN NORTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 METRES TO 0.6 METRES AND 0.6 METRES TO THE WALL OF SHED #1 RESPECTIVELY AND FROM 1.2 METRES TO 0.3 METRES AND 0.3 METRES TO THE EAVES OF SHED#1 RESPECTIVELY; TO APPROVE A REDUCTION IN REAR YARD SETBACK, SOUTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK, SETBACK TO THE POOL DECK (DECK #2) AND SETBACK TO THE POOL FROM 1.2 METRES TO 0.3 METRES, 0.3 METRES, 0.3 METRES AND 0.3 METRES RESPECTIVELY FOR SHED#2; • TO APPROVE A REDUCTION IN SOUTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 METRES TO 0.6 METRES FOR THE POOL DECK#2; • TO APPROVE A REDUCTION IN SOUTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 METRES TO 1.1 METRES FOR THE POOL; • TO APPROVE A REDUCTION IN NORTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 METRES TO 0.8 METRES FOR THE GAZEBO; SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • THAT THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE FIREPLACE FROM THE PROPERTY FORTHWITH; AND • THAT A POOL ENCLOSURE PERMIT BE ISSUED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHIN 60 DAYS AS IT MEETS THE INTENT OF BOTH OFFICIAL PLANS AND ZONING BY-LAW, IS CONSIDERED MINOR IN NATURE AND IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. • TO DENY A REDUCTION IN NORTHERLY INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK AND SETBACK TO THE GAZEBO FROM 1.2 METRES TO 0 METRES AND 0.55 METRES RESPECTIVELY FOR THE FIREPLACE AS IT DOES NOT MEET THE INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW IS NOT CONSIDERED MINOR IN NATURE AND IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. DATE OF DECISION: November 13, 2008 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: December 3, 2008