HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-2-95DN: COFA.GPA REPORT
Meeting:
General
Purpose
and Administration Committee
File #
Monday,
January
9, 1995
Res. #��'�
Date:
PD -2 -95
A94/054 and A94/055
By -Law #
Repent #:
File #:
Subject:
MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE
MEETING
OF DECEMBER 22, 1994
FILE:
A94/054
AND A94/055
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD -2 -95 be received;
2. THAT Council concur with the decisions of the Committee of
Adjustment made on December 22, 1994; and
3. THAT Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario
Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of
Adjustment in the event of an appeal.
1.1 In accordance with Section 45 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990,
all applications received by the Municipality for minor
variance are scheduled to be heard within 30 days of being
received by the Secretary Treasurer. The Committee heard two
(2) applications at the December 22, 1994 meetings approving
one and tabling the other.
1.2 Application A 94/054, submitted by Sherri Allen proposed an
addition to an existing storage shed which would exceed the
maximum allowable coverage of 40% of the main building floor
area. The applicant's have an existing shed of approximately
70 m2 (750 sq. ft.) to which they proposed an addition of 50
m2 (540 sq. ft.) . The total floor area of the accessory
structure, if the variance was approved, would be 95% of the
floor area of dwelling, versus the 40% permitted.
....2
523
REPORT NO.: PD -2 -95 PAGE 2
1.3 Staff did not support the variance as being minor, or
desirable. In addition to Staff's recommendation for denial,
the Health Department provided written comments advising they
could not support the application. The proposed addition
would occupy the only suitable land available for a
replacement tile bed area, due to the well location.
1.4 The applicants advised that the Health Department had verbally
approved the application. Furthermore they suggested they did
not need a replacement tile field as they could use a holding
tank. The Committee TABLED the application, to allow the
applicant to clarify the Health Department's position.
1.5 Staff have reviewed the Committee's decision with respect to
the balance of the decisions and are satisfied that they
conform to the general intent of the Official Plan and the
Zoning By -law are minor in nature and desirable.
1.6 Council's concurrence with the Committee of Adjustment
decisions is required in order to afford Staff's official
status before the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an
appeal of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
CP *FW *cc
*Attach.
23 December 1994
Reviewed by,
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
FILE NUMBER: A94/054
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
APPLICANT: SHERI ALLEN
AGENT:
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
5243 OLD SCUGOG RD.
PART LOT: 13 CONCESSION:
TOWNSHIP: DARLINGTON
0111 kN ski III u13pi;
ZONING: RH
HEARING DATE: 22- Dec -94
APPEAL DATE: 21- Jan -95
DECISION: TABLED
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO ALLOW THE APPLIANT TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO AN ACCESSORY
BUILDING WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COVERAGE OF 40%
OF THE MAIN DWELLING TOTAL FLOOR AREA.
REASON FOR DECISION:
TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO REVISE THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION
52J
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A94/055
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
APPLICANT: C/O JOHN CARTER, EXECUTOR
AGENT: IRWIN A. HAMILTON
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
32 SECOND STREET, BOWMANVILLE
PART LOT: 1 CONCESSION: 2
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANVILLE
PLAN NUMBER: - -
ZONING: R
HEARING DATE: 22- Dec -94
DECISION: APPROVED
APPEAL DATE: 21- Jan -95
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO LEGALIZE AN EXISTING DWELLING SITUATED ON A LOT HAVING AN
EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 4.OM (13.2 FT.), MINIMUM REQUIRED 6M
(19.7 FT.) AND HAVING A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 3.08M (10.1 FT.),
MINIMUM REQUIRED 7.5M (24.6 FT.)
REASON FOR DECISION:
THAT AS THE APPLICATION IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE
O.P. & ZONING BY -LAW & IS DEEMED TO BE MINOR AND DESIRABLE, THE
APPLICATION BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS BEING
MOVED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING BY -LAW.