Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-017-03 ~ ~ '1 , Cl~-!lJgron REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, February 24, 2003 c::/I) -/0/-03 Report #: PSD-017-03 File #: J) J 3C0 By-law #: Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2003 FILES: A2002/041, A2003/001 AND A2003/002 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1, THAT Report PSD-017 -03 be received; and 2, THAT Council concurs with decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on February 6, 2003 for applications A2002/041, A2003/001 and A2003/002 and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. '\ Reviewed by: 0 ~ ~~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer AR*DJC*lw February 14, 2003 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0830 601 ~. . REPORT NO.: PsD-017-03 PAGE 2 1.0 MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6TH 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 No.1. The decisions of the Committee are detailed below. DECISIONS OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR FEBRUARY 6, 2003 Application Number A2002/041 A2003/001 A2003/002 Staff Recommendation Table Approve Table Decision of Committee Tabled Approved Tabled 1,2 Application A220/041 was for a commercial building that required site plan approval. The applicant had appeared before Committee in July 2002 and the application was tabled at that time for up to six (6) months to resolve issues with staff. The applicant returned after the 6 month period passed and Committee again advised the applicant pursue an amendment to the existing site plan and the application was tabled for up to 6 months, Similarly, A2003/002 was for an industrial development. Also in this case, the applicant was advised to pursue the necessary amendment to the existing site plan and the application was tabled for up to 6 months, Application A2003/001 was for a sunroom addition and was approved, 1,3 Staff has reviewed the Committee's decisions and is satisfied that the applications that received approval are in conformity with the Official Plan policies, consistent with the intent of the Zoning By-law and are minor in nature and desirable. 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 any decision of the Committee of Adjustment. 602 ..... ~. REPORT NO.: PsD-017-03 PAGE 3 2.0 ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING - A2002/062 (G. BRIDGER) 2,1 Mr, Gary Bridger appealed the decision of Committee of Adjustment to deny application A2002/062 on September 26, 2002. The owner of 2 Merryfield Court, Bowmanville, was seeking a variance to reduce the exterior side yard setback requirement from 6 metres to 0.6 metres, to permit the construction of a detached garage. Committee of Adjustment found the application not to be minor in nature and that it was not in keeping with the neighbourhood, 2.2 Susan Ashton, Planner, gave evidence in support of the Committee's decision that the intent of the Zoning By-law was to maintain a sense of openness in the streetscape with 6 metre setbacks on both front and exterior side yards. Photographic evidence and sun shadow calculations were presented to illustrate that the detached garage was not desirable for the neighbourhood. 2,3 The Board member gave a verbal decision at the OMB Hearing, January 29, 2003, dismissing the appeal as the application for the minor variance did not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law, was not minor in nature and was not desirable for the neighbourhood. A memorandum of the oral decision was prepared and is attached. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Periodic Report of the Committee of Adjustment Attachment 2 - Memorandum of Oral Decision by OMB of Gary Bridger appeal 603 ATTACHMENT 1 CJ~mglOn PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: SWAN. ROGER SWAN, ROGER 2320 HOLT RD", DARLINGTON PART LOT 21 ,CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON A2002/041 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STORAGE BUILDING ON A COMMERCIAL LOT BY REDUCING THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 5 METRES TO 0,6 METRES, DECISION OF COMMITTEE: TABLED UP TO 6 MONTHS TO ALLOW OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPLICANT TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES INVOLVED, DATE OF DECISION: February 6,2003 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: February 26, 2003 , 604 (!!1lington PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: LIFESTYLE SUN ROOMS INC, WROBLEWSKI, HELlNA 10 CARVETH CR", NEWCASTLE VILLAGE PART LOT 29, CONCESSION BFC FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF NEWCASTLE VILLAGE A2003/001 FILE NO.: PURPOSE: TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 5,0 METRES TO 4,73 METRES TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNROOM ADDITION, DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 5,0 M TO 4,73 M TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNROOM ADDITION, AS PER STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, DATE OF DECISION: February 6, 2003 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: February 26, 2003 . 6J5 (!~J!:JlJgron PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: TUNNEY PLANNING 1151223 ONTARIO LTD, 175 OSBOURNE RD", COURTICE PART LOT 26, CONCESSION BFC FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON A2003/002 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO REDUCE THE INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5,0 METRES TO 0 METRES AND REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 7,5 METRES TO 0 METRES TO ALLOW THE ZONE BOUNDARY REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET FOR A LOT WITH MULTIPLE ZONES, DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLED FOR UP TO 6 MONTHS TO ALLOW FOR RESOLUTION OF SITE PLAN ISSUES, DATE OF DECISION: February 6,2003 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: February 26, 2003 . 60r .)0 ISSUE DATE: Feb. 13, 2003 DECISION/ORDER NO: 0215 ATTACHMEINT 2 ~IECC1EITW'lElm FEB 1 4 2003 '- MUNICIPW i;, C;' CU'KII,G fON PLANNINC UEPARTMENT PL020978 Gary Bridger has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S,O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the Municipality of Clarington which dismissed, in part, his application numbered A2002l062 for variance from the provisions of By-law 84-63 respecting 2 Merryfield Court O.M,B. File No. V020486 APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Gary Bridger Municipality of Clarington N. Macos MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M.F.V. EGER ON JANUARY 29. 2003 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD At the conclusion of the hearing on January 29, 2003, the Board dismissed the appeal. The following are the Board's written reasons. Mr. Bridger's residence is located at 2 Merryfield Court in Bomanville. His lot is at the comer of Merryfield Court and Orchard Park Drive. The property has a frontage of 18 metres and depth of 32 metres. The lot was developed as part of a residential plan of subdivision in 1995. The existing residence is two-storeys with an attached two- car garage. In 1998, Mr. Bridger added a shed in the rear yard. He now wishes to construct a separate garage on the lot to store his extend i-cab truck. The proposed garage is 4.5 metres by 9.1 metres to be located in the exterior side yard. Mr. Bridger indicates that the existing garage is not large enough to store the truck inside and be able to move around the vehicle with the doors opened. In August 2002, Mr. Bridger applied for variances to yard setbacks to recognize the existing shed and to permit the proposed second garage. The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances related to the shed but refused the variances for a reduction in the exterior side yard setback from 6.0 metres to 0.6 metres to facilitate the 607 -2- Pl020978 garage. Mr. Bridger appealed the Committee's refusal to the Board causing this hearing. The Board heard evidence from Mr. Bridger in support of his application for variances to permit the garage. Ms Ashton is a planner with the Municipality of Clarington. It is her opinion that based on the required analysis pursuant to the Planning Act, the variances should not be authorized. Mr. Bridger examined all other corner lots in the subdivision. He found one home on one comer lot had been granted a variance for a reduced exterior side yard from 6 metres to 3.91 metres. He felt that the reduction in setback for his garage, which is a smaller structure, would be less of an impact. Ms Ashton's photo evidence (Exhibit 5) satisfies the Board that this variance maintains the intent of the By-law. He also presented an example of a garage in an exteriorlrear yard in the Town of Ajax as support for his application in Bomanville, This latter example is not helpful to the Board as it cannot be readily compared with the planning policies and standards established by the Municipality of Clarington for the subject neighbourhood. The subject and surrounding lands are designated Urban Residential. The development of the lands for low density residential uses and an accessory building is consistent with this designation. The lands are zoned R1. The existing development of the lot for residential purposes, including the existing shed, is also consistent with the intent of the By-Law. Section 12.2 of the By-law requires front yard and exterior side yards to be a minimum of 6 metres. Ms Ashton indicates that these standards result in a development pattem with consistent setbacks from public streets and results in larger houses being permitted on small lots while maintaining a feeling of openness. Exhibit 5 contains photographs of many other developed comer lots in the immediate vicinity, which clearly demonstrate this concept. It is Ms Ashton's opinion that the location of garage in the northeast comer of the lot in the exterior side yard would have a "huge" presence on Orchard Drive. The proposed size and location of the garage are not consistent with the maintenance of openness, She also indicates that there are no other lots in this subdivision developed in the manner proposed by Mr. Bridger, 60B " - 3- PL020978 The Municipality also conducted a sun/shade analysis of the proposed garage construction for the period between October and ApriL The Municipality analysis concluded that at certain times the rear yard of the property to the immediate north would be 43 % in shade, Ms Ashton concludes that this would result in a significant impact on the residential rear yard to the north. She also distinguishes the shade created by the proposed structure as being more solid and a greater impact than the filtered shade trees or fencing provide and which could be located in the Bridger rear yard, Mr. Bridger's preferred to construct the garage with a second access off of Orchard Park Drive. The Municipality would not grant the second entrance to the lot Should the garage be permitted, in addition to the existing driveway, the driveway access to the new garage would extend from the existing driveway on Merryfield Court and extend across the front yard and down the east side yard, While this pattem of development would not be in conflict with any other standard for landscaped open area or site line triangle concems, the Board finds it is not consistent with the planned development for lots in this subdivision and on that basis is not desirable. On the basis of the evidence and submissions, the Board finds that the proposed garage is not desirable from the perspective of impact of shadowing on the rear yard to the north; it would not be in keeping with the overall pattem of built form in this new neighbourhood; the garage is taller and larger than other accessory sheds, which are generally screened; and there are no other garages in side yards in the prescribed neighbourhood requiring access across the front yard, The appeal is dismissed and the variances related to the garage are not authorized. So orders the Board. "M, F. V. Eger" M. F. V. EGER VICE-CHAIR 609