Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-041-03 ..~ -",,~ . ~ OJ Leading the Way REPORT PLANNING SERVICES Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 ])/3. Co G!II-/7fiX3 Report #: PSD-041-03 File #: A2003/005, A2003/00a, By-law #: A2003/007 and A2003/008 Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF APRIL 10, 2003 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-041-03 be received; 2. THAT Council concurs with decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on April 10, 2003 for applications A2003/00a, A2003/007 and A 2003/008 and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment; and 3. THAT the decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving application A2003/005 be APPEALED to the Ontario Municipal Board and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend this position. s"mn_~~f-'-;;p /' ~~ector of Planning Services Reviewed by: U~ 4Jl..- ~ Franklin Wu, Chief Administrative Officer AR*DJC*SN April 15, 2003 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE~ ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-0830 " 620 < REPORT NO.: PSD-041-03 PAGE 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.0 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. Application Number A2003/005 A2003/006 A2003/007 A2003/008 DECISIONS OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR APRIL 10,2003 Staff Recommendation Approve in Part Approve Approve Deny Decision of Committee Approved in Full Approved Approved Denied 1.2 Application A2003/005 was an application to recognize the length of an existing parking space at 4.66 metres instead of the required 5.7 metres. This situation arose because the townhouse dwellings were constructed closer to the road allowance than permitted, creating a shorter driveway as a result. The dwellings received a minor variance for front yard setback at the March 20th, 2003 meeting. The issue of the length of the parking space was tabled to allow Staff to review revised measurements. Staff recommended that the minor variance be approved for a reduction to 5.69 metres from the required 5.7 metres for the interior unit - 23 Birchfield Drive (See Attachment 2), but that the request for the minor variance to 4.66 metres for the end unit - 33 Birchfield Drive be denied. Staff questioned the appropriateness of the minor variance and its necessity because the driveway could be widened into the side yard and the by-law met. Furthermore, it was noted due to the deficiency in the length of the parking space a vehicle, although it may not project over the sidewalk, would be located within the Municipality's road allowance. This raises safety and liability issues for the Municipality if an accident were to happen. Committee, in reviewing the application, did not concur with Staff and approved the application as requested. 621 " REPORT NO.: PSO-041-03 PAGE 3 In consideration of the Committee's decision, staff respectfully request that the application to approve the existing parking space length of 4.66 metres for 33 Birchfield Drive be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Planning Services and Engineering Services staff would appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend this position. 1.3 Application A2003/006 was to allow the construction of a shed and rear deck with a lot coverage percentage of 43% instead of the permitted maximum of 40% and was approved. The raised bungalow style of dwelling occupied a large building footprint, necessitating the minor variance. 1.4 Application A2003/007 was for a minor variance to recognize an existing lot in Burketon with a lot area of 0.74 ha (1.84 ac) instead ofthe required 0.8 ha (1.97 ac). 1.5 Application A2003/008 was a minor variance to recognize existing accessory buildings that increase the total lot coverage for accessory buildings from the permitted maximum 40% to 52.5% of the existing dwelling's total floor area. The two existing accessory buildings under consideration were a detached garage (75 m2 in area) and a cabana/gazebo structure (currently measuring 148 m2 but proposed to be reduced in size to 83 m2 in area). The owner applied to Committee of Adjustment in October 2001 for a minor variance to recognize existing accessory structures with lot coverage for accessory structures of 75% of the floor area of the dwelling. Committee denied the minor variance and the owner appealed the application to the Ontario Municipal Board. In July 2002, the Board dismissed the appeal for the minor variance citing that the requested increase was not minor in nature. Committee concurred with Staffs recommendation that the structure, although reduced in size, was not minor and thus could not be addressed through a minor variance. The application was denied. 1.6 Staff has reviewed the Committee's decisions and is satisfied that the applications that received approval, with the exception of A2003/005, are in conformity with the Official Plan policies, consistent with the. intent of the Zoning By-law and are minor in nature 622 REPORT NO.: PSD-041-Oa PAGE 4 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. ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING - A2002/066 On November 21, 2002, Committee of Adjustment allowed a minor variance requested by Mr. Daren Gibney to recognize an existing shed and backyard deck. The minor variance permitted the existing shed with a rear yard setback of 0.29 metres and a side yard setback of 0.25 metres instead of the required 1.2 metres and an existing deck with a rear yard setback of 3.98 metres instead of the required 6 metres. A neighbour, Mr. Scott Jones, appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Board heard the appeal on March 13, 2003 and on April 1, 2003, issuing a written decision dismissing the appeal as the requested variance meets the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and represents good planning. The decision is attached. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Periodic Report of the Committee of Adjustment Attachment 2 - Key map for A2003/005 Attachment 3 - Memorandum of Oral Decision Delivered by D.J. Culham on March 13, 2003 and Order ofthe Board Interested parties to be notified of Council's decision: H. F. Grander H. F. Grander Co. Ltd. P.O. Box 616 Port Perry, Ontario L9L 1A6 Raymond D. Holland Walter Schleiss clo 1277 Wilson Road N Oshawa, Ontario L 1 K 2B8 623 ATTACHMEINT 1 CJ. U L~~ PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: H. F. GRANDER CO. LTD. HOLLAND, RAYMOND 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19,21,23,25,27,29,31 & 33 Birchfield Dr PART LOT 34, CONCESSION 3, FORMER TOWNSHIP OF DARLINGTON A2003/005 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO RECOGNIZE THE lENGTH OF AN EXISTING PARKING SPACE OF 4.66 METRES INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5.7 METRES DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING PARKING SPACE lENGTH OF 4.66 METRES FOR 33 BIRCHFIELD DR. AND OF 5.69 METRES FOR 23 BIRCHFIELD DR. INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 5.7 METRES BE APPROVED AS REQUESTED AS IT MEETS THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW, IS MINOR IN NATURE AND DOES NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. DATE OF DECISION: April 10, 2003 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: April 30, 2003 624 PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: PRICE, MARK PRICE, MARK 14 LAURELWOOD ST." BOWMANVILLE PART LOT 12, CONCESSION 2 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF BOWMANVILLE A2003/006 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO ALLOW THE CONTRUCTION OF A SHED AND DECK WITH A LOT COVERAGE OF 43% INSTEAD OF THE PERMiTTED MAXIMUM OF 40%. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED BE APPROVED AS IT is CONSIDERED TO BE MINOR IN NATURE AND WOULD NOT HAVE A DETRiMENTAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AND MEETS THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND INTENT OF THE ZONING BY-LAW. DATE OF DECISION: April 10, 2003 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: April 30, 2003 625 CJ. U L~~ PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: Fowler, Michael, L. GEBHARDT, DAVID 6 TANGLEWOOD CT." BURKETON PART LOT 20, CONCESSION 10 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON A2003/007 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING LOT WITH A LOT AREA OF 0.74 HA (1.84 AC) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 0.8 HA (1.97 AC) DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING LOT WITH A LOT AREA OF 0.74 HA (1.84 AC) INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 0.8 HA (1.97 AC) BE APPROVED AS IT MEETS THE 4 TESTS OF THE PLANNING ACT. DATE OF DECISION: April 10, 2003 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: April 30, 2003 626 CJaIj. II Leadingl~ PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: FILE NO.: STRIKE, SALMERS & FURLONG EWINGTON, PENNY 4659 LAKESHORE RD." CLARKE PART LOT 5, CONCESSION BF FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF CLARKE A2003/008 PURPOSE: TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS THAT INCREASE THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS FROM THE PERMITTED MAXIMUM 40% TO 52.5% OF THE EXISTING DWELLING'S TOTAL FLOOR AREA. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED TO RECOGNIZE THE LOT COVERAGE FOR THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN EXCESS OF WHAT THE BY-LAW PERMITS AS IT IS NOT MINOR. DATE OF DECISION: April 10, 2003 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: April 30, 2003 627 ATTACHMEINT 2 / / ~- / A (4-1' cS 'v /~ / I ~ I I ?~9 '\ <--, ,,0, - '\" ~Q-t \~ ~ ~ ?'v I I I / "- Q " I "LAN lOM BLOC/r !.?? < @) '..,., , , / I @ I./i)- , I ! I @ '... I I I @ 4...(bl4P;- I I I ! @/ , 787 e/~C. 1f.e-/~ l.l) IJ ~Ia,~ Courtlce Key Map =""'" A2003/005 Minor Variance Adjustment 21,23,25,27,29,31 and 33 Birchfield Drive, Courtice i J 628 ATTACHMEINT 3 ~ Ontario Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario Scott Jones 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 granted an application by Daren Gibney numbered A-2002l066 for variance from the provisions of By-law 84-63, as amended, respecting 30 Poolton Crescent O.M.B. File No. V020615 Apr. 1, 2003 W-IE(C c2IrwJE@ APR z - 2003 ISSUE DATE: DECISION/ORDER NO: L021168 0426 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel*/AQent Daren Gibney Scott Jones MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. J. CULHAM ON MARCH 13.2003 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD Scott Jones, the resident at 120 Buyson Crescent in Clarington, filed a complaint about his neighbour Daren Gibney's backyard shed at 30 Poolton Crescent. On receiving the enforcement notice, Mr. Gibney applied for a minor variance for both the shed and a backyard deck. The required variance for the deck became known at the time of the site inspection. Mr. Jones appealed to the Board the decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving Mr. Gibney's applications. The property is located within a neighbourhood subdivision south of Highway 2 and west of Concession 2 in the former Township of Clarington, now the Municipality of Clarington. Mr. Jones is the neighbour to the rear of the Gibney's lot. The requested variances are as follows: 1. Permission to retain an existing rear yard shed with a rear set back of 0.29 metres (1 ft.) and a side yard set back of 0.25 metres (0.8 ft) whereas By-law 84-63 requires 1.2 metres (3.9 ft); 2. Permission to retain a rear yard deck with a rear setback of 3.98 metres (13.6 ft) whereas By-law 84-63 requires 6.0 metres (19.7 ft). This is a new hearing on the matter. Mr. Jones testified in support of his appeal. Mr. Gibney testified in support of his application. Mr. Gibney submitted the Planning 629 . - 2 - PL021168 Staff recommendations to the Committee of Adjustment as an Exhibit. Mr. Jones submitted a number of photographs. Mr. Jones' testimony reveals that the problem began in 1991 over the construction of the rear yard fence. Mr. Jones felt insulted on not being fully consulted prior to the completion of the fence, though he admitted that he had not volunteered his preference. The completed fence did not have an upper latticework but instead this portion was built of solid cedar. Mr. Jones refused to pay his share of the material costs because no discussion had occurred with respect to this upper portion. Mr. Gibney had earlier informed him of his intention to build a rear 2-metre fence of cedar, and he did not thinking that the texture of the upper portion was an issue. Mr. Gibney is a carpenter. The Parties informed the Board that Mr. Gibney built the rear yard shed sometime in 1998 or 1999 and not in 1996, which appeared on the application in regard to the existing shed. No one complained. Mr. Jones testified that he became concerned about Mr. Gibney's activities in 2002. He strongly objected to Mr. Gibney doing carpentry work within his garage and storing supplies behind the shed. Photographs revealed some materials but none of the materials are visible from Mr. Jones backyard, or indeed, from Mr. Gibney's backyard. Not visible in the photographs, are the ladders that Mr. Gibney volunteered are placed behind the shed from time to time. No one else complained of Mr. Gibney's activity. The front door of the garage is not visible from Mr. Jones' backyard or the rear of his home. Mr. Jones agreed that the design and construction of the shed is of good quality but he wanted it moved. In his testimony, Mr. Jones did not reveal any physical impacts upon his property or the enjoyment of his backyard. He thought that moving the shed would reduce even further the minimal visual impact from his backyard. Yet he conceded that the height of the existing shed is 2 metres less than the By-law permits as pointed out by the Planning staff report. The visual impact, which is then permitted by the Zoning By-law, would be potentially greater if the shed, moved to a compliance distance, is constructed to the permitted height. The Board assesses the potential improvement to be insignificant. 61r] . -->...,; . - 3 - PL021168 After reviewing all the testimony and the documents placed in evidence, the Board makes the following findings. 1. There is no issue of appropriate regard for the Provincial Policy Statement. 2. The Board finds, based upon the testimony and the Staff Report dated November 6, 2002, that the requested variance maintains the general intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. 3. In regard to whether the variance is minor, the Board finds that it is. There are no negative or adverse impacts to this development as a result of these variances. 4. As to whether, the shed and deck, which result from the variances, is desirable and appropriate for this lot in this neighbourhood, the Board finds that they are. Both are of pleasing design, materials and construction within an abundance of backyard floral plantings. In conclusion the Board finds that the requested variances meets the 4 tests of Section 45(1) of Planning Act and represent good planning. As a result, the Board dismisses the appeal by Scott Jones under Section 45(12) of the Planning Act and authorizes the requested variances. The Board so orders. "D. J. Culham" D.J. CULHAM MEMBER 631