HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-019-09Leadiag the Way
~~-~~~ REPORT
PLANNING SERVICES
Meeting: GENERAL PUI~~POSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEiE /J C,
Date: Monday, February 23, 2009 ~SC~~(,t'[16n~ ~~~J-J3(~~ /
Report #: PSD-019-09 File #: A2008-0033 By-law #:
Subject: ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD DECISION -APPEAL OF A2008-0033
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
THAT Report PSD-019-09 be received for information.
Submitted by:
DavidJ~rome, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning Services
Reviewed by:
Franklin Wu,
Chief Administrative Officer
~~~
MK/CP/sh/df
6 February 2009
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830
REPORT NO.: PSD-079-09 PAGE 2
1.0 An Ontario Municipal Board hearing was held on February 3, 2009 for an appeal made
by the Municipality of Clarington with respect to a decision of the Committee of
Adjustment for minor variance application A2008-0033. The applicant requested
several variances to the by-law to allow for her existing structures (pool, pool deck,
two sheds, gazebo and fireplace) to remain in their current locations. The
Committee's decision on November 13, 2008, permitted an accessory structure with a
0.3 metre interior side yard and rear yard setback. Staff did not support the
Committee's decision and requested Council appeal the decision. Council concurred.
2.0 This application was originally submitted prior to the general amendment to the Zoning
By-law being approved. The amendment reduced the required setback for accessory
structures to 0.6 metres for both the interior side yard .and rear yard setbacks.
Although the application was considered by the Committee after Council's approval of
the zoning by-law amendment, it had not yet come into full force and effect.
3.0 Prior to the hearing, a meeting was held between Staff and the applicant regarding the
appeal. At that time, the applicant was unwilling to discuss or negotiate a settlement
with the Municipality.
4.0 On the day of the hearing, Staff were prepared to provide evidence to the Board
supporting the appeal made by the Municipality and to demonstrate that a 0.3 metre
interior side yard and rear yard setback for an accessory structure was not appropriate
as it would provide insufficient space for proper maintenance of structures and proper
drainage on the property. At the hearing,. the applicant made it clear to the Board
member that they had not prepared any evidence to support their application and that
they were willing to move the existing accessory structures on the property to a
location that met the current zoning provisions relating to accessory buildings and
structures.
5.0 The Ontario Municipal Board member made a verbal decision to allow the appeal
made by the Municipality and made note that the Municipality would provide the
applicant with a deadline for the relocation of structures in their yard. Staff are
prepared to provide up to 8 months from the date of decision to relocate the
structures. A letter has been forwarded to the land owner confirming this.
6.0 This report has been prepared for the information of Council.