Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSD-014-01 . , Cl~J!il1glOn REPORT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 Resolution #:6fflP-OI ]) I ?:;GO PSD-014-01 File # A2001/045 AND A2001/046 By-law # Date: Report #: Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2001 AND O.M.B DECISION ON A2001/020 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PSD-014-01 be received; and 2. THAT Council concur with decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on August 23,2001 for applications A2001/045 and A2001/046, and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. \ Su bmitted by: Reviewed be h::z:.-i2Q. -:... &...:J-tv David J. C e, M.C.I.P., RP.P. Franklin Wu Director of Planning Services Chief Administrative Officer SA*DJC*sh September 10, 2001 649 , ,. REPORT NO.: PSD-014-01 PAGE 2 1.0 MEETING OF AUGUST 23, 2001 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 AUGUST 23, 2001 Application Number Staff Recommendation Decision of Committee August 23, 2001 A2001/045 A2001/046 Approve Table as per CLOC Approved Approved with conditions 1.2 Application A2001/046 was recommended to be Tabled by Municipal staff as the Central Lake Ontario Conservation requires an Authority Board Hearing to consider the building permit concurrent with this minor variance application. The Authority Board Hearing is set for September 5, 2001. To ensure the applicant has adequate construction time this fall, Committee Approved the application, but made it's approval subject to approval of the Authority Board. If the Authority Board does not approve the building permit, the minor variance shall become null and void. Planning Staff have no concerns with the alternative decision granted by the Committee of Adjustment as the Conservation Authority concerns are addressed in Committee's decision. 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 the event of an appeal of any decision of the Committee of Adjustment. 650 , REPORT NO.: PSD-014-01 PAGE 3 2.0 APPEAL TO THE O.M.B. 2.1 Minor variance application A2001/020 was filed by Helen Elizabeth Lalonde requesting a reduction of the rear yard setback for a deck from the required 2.6 metres to 1.0 metres, and a reduction of the side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 1.0 metres. The Committee of Adjustment heard the application on April 26, 2001. Staffs comments to the Committee did not support the rear yard reduction. 2.2 The Committee considered all the issues, and decided a compromise between the zoning by-law requirements of 2.6 metres and the applicant's request of 1.0 metres was appropriate. The Committee approved the side yard setback of 1.0 metre and a rear yard setback of 1.9 metres. 2.3 Planning Staffs report to General Purpose and Administration Committee on Monitoring the Decisions of the Committee of Adjustment, recommended appealing the Committee of Adjustments decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Committee and Council concurred with staffs recommendation, and an appeal was filed. The OMB heard the matter on Tuesday July 31,2001. 2.4 Mr. Nick Macos was the legal counsel for the Municipality and Mr. Carlo Pellarin was the planning witness. After hearing all evidence, the OMB board member reserved his decision, 2.5 On August 23, 2001, the Board provided a written decision to allow the appeal. The Board found the minor variance was not minor in the circumstances of impact on the planned waterfront trail. Nor was it maintaining the intent of the zoning by-law when the site specific zone for this property already allowed for a significant reduction in rear yard setback for a deck. Thirdly, the possible conflict between public and residential use was deemed to make the variance inappropriate and undesirable. A copy of the decision is contained in Attachment 2. 651 '. REPORT NO.: PSO-014-01 PAGE 4 Attachments: Attachment #1 Attachment #2 Correspondence from lain Maciver Policy Regarding Memorial Tributes Interested party to be advised of Council's decision: Mr. I. Maciver 3299 Concession Rd. 3, RR #8 Newcastle, Ontario L 1 B 1 L9 CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T(905)623-3379 F (905)623-6506 652 ATIACHMENT 1 CJlu;;;'g'i;;n ONTARIO PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: LAUDER. PETER LAUDER, PETER 6436 CEDAR PARK RD., DARLINGTON PART LOT 15, CONCESSION 6 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON A2001/046 FILE NO.: PURPOSE: TO PERMIT RECONSTRUCTION OF PART OF THE FIRST FLOOR & ADD A SECOND FLOOR TO AN EXISTING LEGAL NON-CONFORMING DWELLING LOCATED WITHIN AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ZONE. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN & ZONING BY-LAW & IS DEEMED MINOR & DESIRABLE SUBJECT TO CLOC APPROVAL & REGIONAL HEALTH DEPT. APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. DATE OF DECISION: August 23,2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: September 12, 2001 653 _CJla;i';,g'i;;n ONTARIO PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: FLUTE. KENNETH FLUTE, KENNETH 35 SUNNY RIDGE TL., ENNISKILLEN PART LOT 20, CONCESSION 7 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON A2001/045 FILE NO.: PURPOSE: TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 5 METRES (16.4 FT) TO 5.9 METRES (18.35 FT). DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN & ZONING BY-LAW & IS DEEMED MINOR & DESIRABLE SUBJECT TO RECEIVING REGIONAL HEALTH DEPT. APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. DATE OF DECISION: August 23, 2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: September 12, 2001 654 ISSUE DATE: Aug. 23, 2001 ATTACHMENT 2 1W mrrm.., . 'IT'\I})1l..ra'.TIll\ ~\).\f",~\L;A\I/ IL.,~ AUG 2 4 2e01 DECISION/OROER NO: 1364 MUNICiPP,Li II Or GLi<.kll,G \ON , PLANNiNG ucPARTMEIH"" 010479 . The Municipality of Clarington 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 granted an application by Helen Elizabeth Lalonde numbered A2001/020 for variance from the provisions of By-law 84-63, as amended, respecting 86 Carveth Crescent O.M.B. File No. V010231 APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel*/AQent Municipality of Clarington N. Macos* . Elizabeth and Albert Lalonde E. LaLonde DECISION DELlVERRED BY N.C. JACKSON AND ORDER OF THE BOARD Elizabeth and Albert Lalonde own the premises at 86 Carveth Crescent in the Port of Newcastle area of the Municipality of Clarington. These premises are in the second phase of a plan of subdivision designed with a nautical theme to take advantage of proximity to Lake Ontario. Zoning is R2-'iO. Normally the rear yard setback for this single family zoning would be 7.5 metres and an unenclosed deck could encroach up to 1.5 metres into the required yard. The exception-10 was made to certain lots on the East side of Carveth so as to, among other changes, provide for a rear yard of 5 metres and projection of an uncovered deck to 2.6 metres from the rear lot line. The landowners planned a deck to project into the rear yard to 1 metre from the rear lot line requiring a variance in rear yard setback, They also seek a variance in side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 1 metre. The Committee of Adjustment permitted the side yard variance as applied for, The Committee reduced the variance in rear yard setback to permit a setback of 1.9 metres, The Municipality now appeals the granting of the rear yard variance but not the granting of the side yard variance. 655 -2- PL010479 The landowners' evidence, through Elizabeth Lalonde as witness, is that in their recent purchase of their lot they were misled as to the size of their lot and location of the home thereon. Their intention has always been to make the best use of their sloping rear yard to view Lake Ontario. They can as of right build an 8 foot deck but feel they need the additional 2 feet granted by the Committee of Adjustment to provide sufficient space for their needs with seating and tables. They cite that the grade difference will create a 6 foot elevation of the deck at the rear creating its own privacy. They say no neighbour has objected as being detrimentally impacted. In addition to the reduction in deck depth by the Committee of Adjustment (12 feet to 10 feet) they are reducing the length by abandoning 14 feet of the lower portion. They question the metric conversion measurements of the Municipality and state that the numerical size of the rear yard variance approved by the Committee of Adjustment at 31% is minor. Through photos filed as exhibits they question whether other nearby decks constructed meet by-law requirements and whether they are penalized through applying. Their evidence is that the builder constructed their present rear yard deck at 3 feet in width. They applied for a variance and have constructed a side yard deck some 7 feet in width. The evidence of the Municipality is through a qualified staff planner, Carlo Pallarin. It is his strong conviction that the variance even as amended does not meet the Planning Act tests of being minor, appropriate development and meeting the intent of the zoning by-law. He states that immediately behind the property in question is a planned waterfront trail recognized in the Official Plan. He states the waterfront trail will cross not only this Municipality but extend across the Greater Toronto area from Stoney Creek to Quinte West. He states that there has already been a change in the by-law to permit decks at this location to project into the rear yard to within 2.6 metres of the rear yard lot line while in other portions of the subdivision decks must be setback 6 metres from the rear lot line. He concludes that there has already been a reduction specifically for decks setback from the rear property line of 6 metres to 2.6 metres. He states that from the point of view of impact on the public amenity - the waterfront trail - no further reduction is warranted. He states that with a difference in grade a wall will appear. This will create, in his opinion, a potential conflict in use between residential use and use by the public of the waterfront trail. When questioned, he could not see any further variance as minor and then went on to question the wisdom of permitting a deck even to 656 - 3- PL010479 the point permitted by the by-law - that is to within 2.6 metres of the rear lot line. He maintained the need for trail users to not feel crowded in by abutting residential development since a feeling of openness is required for the best use of the trail by the public, He does not feel the variance is necessary when an approximate 8 feet deck in depth can be built under the by-law provisions. When questioned about use of a sloping rear yard other than for a deck he opined that notwithstanding current grading requirements an application was possible to permit leveling of the rear yard to make it more useable. The Board normally would carefully consider the merits of a reduction of 2 feet in rear yard setback when there may have been misleading material as to the size of the lot or configuration of the house. Further compromises are made. However the planning case made by the Municipality has convinced the Board that this application is not minor in the circumstances of impact on the planned waterfront trail. Nor is the intent of the zoning by-law maintained when a significant reduction in rear yard setback is already authorized by the Council through by-law amendment. The possible conflict between public and residential use makes the variance inappropriate and undesirable development. Accordingly, based upon the failure to meet three of the four Planning Act tests, the variance sought to rear yard setback to be within 1.9 metres of the rear lot line is not authorized and the appeal is aI/owed. The Board so Orders. The Board notes the concern about other decks constructed and accepts the evidence of the planner that such will be appropriately investigated and the by-law enforced by the Municipality. "N.C. Jackson" N.C. JACKSON MEMBER 657