The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPSD-036-01 .~ "'" Cl~mglOn REPORT PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Date: Monday, November 5,2001 P/3C.o Resolution #:r::;Itl- 5702 --u / Report #: PSD-036-01 File:A2001/047, By-law #: A20011050 TO A2001/055 INCLUSIVE Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2001 Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1, THAT Report PSD-036-01 be received; and 2. THAT Council concur with decisions of the Committee of Adjustment made on October 18, 2001 for applications A2001/047, A2001/050 to A2001/055, inclusive, and that Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. Submitted by: pavi . Crome, M,C,I.P.,R.P.P. Director, Planning Services Reviewed by: 0 ~.....:.....~ Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer SA*DJC*SH October 22, 2001 619 ~ , REPORT NO.: PSD-036-01 Page 2 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 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 1, The decisions of the Committee are detailed below. DECISIONS OF COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FOR OCTOBER 18, 2001 Application Number Staff Recommendation Decision of Committee October 18, 2001 A2001/047 Approve Approved A2001/050 Approve Tabled A2001/051 Approve Approved A2001/052 Approve Approved A20011053 Table Tabled A2001/054 Approve Approved A2001/055 Approve Approved 1,2 Application A2001/050 was tabled to the November 1, 2001 meeting as Committee was unsure that the rear yard reduction requested was the actual measurement on the property. The site inspection by both Staff and the Committee members indicated a smaller rear yard setback. The applicant had not physically measured the setback requested, rather had made an estimate based on a survey of the subject property. 1.3 Application A2001/053 was also tabled to the November 1, 2001 meeting as the application has been amended to include all accessory buildings and structures, As such, a new public notice, new sign and re-circulation of the application is required. 1.4 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 620 ~ , REPORT NO.: PSD-036-o1 Page 3 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 Staffs official status before the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an appeal of any decisions of the Committee of Adjustment. 2.0 APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD (OMB) 2.1 Minor variance application A2001/030 was filed by Craig Dalley requesting an increase in total lot coverage by accessory buildings and structures from the maximum permitted 40% of the minimum prescribed floor area of the zone to 162% or 178.4 m2 (1920 ft2). The Committee of Adjustment heard the application on May 24, 2001. Staffs comments to the Committee did not support the increase requested and recommended a lesser amount of 55% or 60.5 m2 (651 fe) 2.2 The Committee considered all the issues, and decided that an increase to 65% or 71.5 m2 (770 ft2) would meet the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and be minor in nature and desirable. 2,3 Planning Staffs report to the General Purpose and Administration Committee on "Monitoring the Decisions of the Committee of Adjustment" did not recommend appealing the Committee of Adjustment's decision, rather leaving that to the applicant. The applicant filed an appeal the week following the Committee of Adjustment meeting, June 1, 2001. The OMB heard the matter on Tuesday, September 27,2001. 2.4 Mr. Nick Macos was the legal counsel for the Municipality and Mrs. Susan Ashton was the planning witness. At the hearing the applicant introduced new information regarding a 186 m2 (2000 ft2) barn that he stated had been located on the property until 1996. He stated that this detached garage would replace this barn, The board member gave this information some weight in the decision rendered verbally at the hearing by increasing the amount of the variance to gg% or 109 m2 (1172 ft2). 621 REPORT NO.: PSD-036-01 Page 4 .... 2.5 On October g, 2001 the Board provided a written decision to allow the appeal, granting Mr. Dalley an increase to gg%. The Board found this variance to meet the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, stating that gg% is smaller than the prescribed minimum floor area of the zone and thus accessory to main use. The Board also maintained that such an increase was minor in nature and a desirable form of development. A copy of the decision is contained in Attachment 2. Attachment 1 -Periodic Report for Committee of Adjustment Attachment 2 - Ontario Municipal Board Decision CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L 1C 3A6 T (905) 623-3379 F (905)623-0830 622 '- Cl!J!mglOn PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: MJM DRAFTING CHIUSOLO, JOHN 3110 MORGANS RD., , CLARKE PART LOT 17, CONCESSION 3 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF CLARKE A2001/047 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO RECOGNIZE TWO EXISTING ACCESSORY BLDGS THAT INCREASE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE BY ACCESSORY BLDGS FROM THE MAX OF 40% TO 70% OF FLOOR AREA OF DWELLING. TOTAL GROUND FLOOR AREA OF ACCESSORY BLGS. IS 388.8 M2 DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AT 70% AS IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN & ZONING BY-LAW AND IS DEEMED MINOR AND DESIRABLE. DATE OF DECISION: October 18, 2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: November 7, 2001 623 ~ CliKiygron PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: LYNCH, DARLENE LYNCH, BEN 8724 BEST RD." CLARKE PART LOT 29, CONCESSION 8 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF CLARKE A2001/050 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE USE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY REDUCING THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR AN AGRICULTURAL BUILDING FROM 15 M (49.2 FT) TO 9.75 M (32 FT). DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLED TO NOVEMBER 1,2001 TO PERMIT THE APPLICANT TIME TO VERIFY THE SETBACK. DATE OF DECISION: October 18, 2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: November 7,2001 624 Cl. 11 L~m1!JglO PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: LANIEL, YVAN LANIEL, YVAN 95 MCFEETERS CR., , BOWMANVILLE PART LOT 8, CONCESSION 1 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF BOWMANVILLE A2001/051 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SUNROOM BY REDUCING THE EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THE REQUIRED 6 METRES TO 2.2 METRES, DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AT 2.2 METRES AS IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AND IS DEEMED MINOR AND DESIRABLE. DATE OF DECISION: October 18, 2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: November 7,2001 625 '-- C[lJl-!lJgron PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: TRICKETT, LUCILLE TRICKETT, NEIL 1 FOXHUNT TL.. j COURTICE PART LOT 33, CONCESSION 1 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON A2001/052 FILE NO.: PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK BY REDUCING THE EXTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 6 METRES (19.7 FT) TO 1.5 METRES (5 FT). DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED TO REDUCE THE EXISTING DWELLINGS EXT. SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 4.4 M & THE DECK & HOTTUB TO 1.5 M AS IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AND IS DEEMED MINOR AND DESIREABLE. DATE OF DECISION: October 18, 2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: November 7,2001 626 ~" CJ. U L~~ PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT FILE NO.: AMYOTTE, LEANNE AMYOTTE, LEANNE 6 SUMAC RD." BURKETON PART LOT 18, CONCESSION 10 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON A2001/053 APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: PURPOSE: TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING STRUCTURE (TREE FORT) 23.2 sa. M IN AREA THAT INCREASES THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE BY ACCESSORY BLDGS & STRUCTURES FROM 48% (81.3 sa M) GRANTED BY COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT IN 1997 TO 62 % (104.5 sa M). DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE TABLED TO NOVEMBER 1,2001 TO ALLOW THE AMENDED APPLICATION TO BE CIRCULATED AS PER THE PLANNING ACT. DATE OF DECISION: October 18, 2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: November 7,2001 627 ClaJj- f1 Leadingt~ PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: Veenstra Construction CAMBELL, BOB 306 COVE RD." BOWMANVILLE PART LOT 11 ,CONCESSION BFC FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF BOWMANVILLE A2001/054 FILE NO.: PURPOSE: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THAT WILL INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FROM 5 M TO 7.2 M, REDUCE THE SOUTHERLY SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 1.2 TO 1.07 M, REDUCE THE SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN THE DWELLING'S DECK AND ACCESSORY BUILDING'S DECK FROM 1.2 M TO 0 M. DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR AS IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AND IS DEEMED MINOR AND DESIRABLE. DATE OF DECISION: October 18, 2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: November 7,2001 628 Cladn fl Leading the Way ~ PERIODIC REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICANT: OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: FILE NO.: PALTER, MCCARTHY GIBSON, ROSE 610 REGIONAL RD 42 , DARLINGTON PART LOT 1, CONCESSION 1 FORMER TOWN(SHIP) OF DARLINGTON A2001/055 PURPOSE: TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE WITH A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 0.46 M & FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 11 M INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 15 M & AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 10.9 M INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 15 M, DECISION OF COMMITTEE: THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR AS IT IS CONSIDERED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AND IS DEEMED MINOR AND DESIRABLE. DATE OF DECISION: October 18, 2001 LAST DAY OF APPEAL: November 7,2001 629 L--r ISSUE DATE: OCt. 09, 2001 ]~JE(cEIIWJ!~ OCT 1 0 2001 MU NIC I flfi!bO t1f.)B&~ NGTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECISION/ORDER NO: 1635 Craig Dalley has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.s.a. 1990, c, P.13, as amended, from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment of the Municipality of Clarington. which dismissed his application numbered A- 20011030 for variance from the provisions of By-law 84-63, as amended, respecting 4540 Fices Road. a.M.B. File No. V010293 APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel*IAQent Municipality of Clarington N. Macos' C. Dalley MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N.C. JACKSON ON SEPTEMBER 27. 2001 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD Craig Dalley is the owner of premises described as 4540 Fices Road in the Municipality of Clarington. The lot size is approximately 82 feet in frontage by 528 feet in depth, one acre. He purchased the property in 1996. He then commenced the demolition of an existing pole bam which was in a state of disrepair, that pole bam being approximately 40 by 50 feet. He was then unable to rebuild immediately for financial reasons. His present application is for an accessory building, 32 feet by 60 feet. The zoning by-law in question 84-63 permits an accessory building up to 40% of the size of the residence or 40% of the prescribed minimum lot area in the zone, whichever is the greater. There is a small residence of approximately 940 square feet. The application sought a variance to floor area 40% to 162% and heigh~ 5 metres to 5,8 metres, The Committee of Adjustment approved the height variance but reduced the floor area variance to 65%. The applicant then appealed to this Board. He now seeks to amend the floor area variance to permit a building 32 feet by 40 feet removing some 20 feet in length. In the hearing, the application was further amended to permit an accessory building of 32 by 36 feet. 630 ~- -2- PL010587 The applicant testifying on his own behalf stated that there was no objection from his neighbours and presented a petition to that effect. He reviewed what existed on his street as to detached accessory buildings. He indicated that his purposes were for the storage of his boat, car and personal effects only and that no commercial use was intended. He stated that there was mature tree vegetation on his and abutting properties. He proposes to locate the accessory stucture 155 feet from the front lot line. Susan Ashton, a planner familiar with Committee of Adjustment matters in Clarington, testified for the Municipality. She confirmed that the Municipality had not appealed the height and modified variance as to building area approved by the Committee for the detached building. She opined, however, that an increased floor area as further amended to 32 feet by 40 feet amounted to 108% of the minimum floor area requirement. This, she states, does not conform with the general intent of the zoning by- law which refers by definition to incidental and subordinate in the term accessory building. She also raised the desirability and minor nature of such an application in the circumstances of what exists in the immediate neighbourhood. This witness pointed out she had not recommended the refusal of this application as approved by the Committee. She nevertheless returned to the importance of the accessory building being incidental or subordinate to the principal use. In determining how much of a variance should be considered she referred to what exists on Fices Road. She referred to the largest detached building in immediate view from the road in front of the appellant's property. That property at 4570 Fices Road has three accessory detached structures totaling 72% of the minimum floor area permitted by the by-law. That use may have predated the by-law. One other home had 45% for the accessory building calculation. She acknowledged that further down Fices Road at 4486, a Quonset hut accessory structure could exceed both the 40% of the minimum principal building area and 100% of the same calculation. That structure estimated in size, she indicated, could not be seen from the road in front of the appellant's property but from could be seen from his rear yard. This property was not in her view property in the immediate neighbourhood. The Municipality does not contest the varied height or varied by the Committee floor area. It continued to contest the amended applications for floor area proposed for the accessory building. Key to the application is the intent of the by-law since no 631 .' - 3 - PL010587 detrimental impact on the neighbours is alleged nor proven. The final amended application is for an accessory building of 32 by 36 feet. The Board permits this amendment to the application under the Planning Act without further notice. It is important in recognizing the intent of the by-law to understand that the by-law regulates floor area of an accessory building by either 40% of the floor area of the existing principal use or 40% of the minimum floor area prescribed in the zone, whichever is the greater. There exists a small modest home and in this case the Municipality applies 40% of the minimum floor area prescribed in the zone since it is larger than the floor area of the principal use existing, The amended application for the accessory building provides for a floor area slightly less than 100% of the prescribed floor area of the principal use in the zone and in the Board's determination is subordinate to the principal use by calculation. Subordinate use should be determined from the evidence in relation to the two uses. The Board finds in the amended application in terms of the use of the proposed accessory building relating to the principal use that an accessory, subordinate and incidental relationship will exist from the storage use planned. In considering the desirability, appropriateness of the application and whether it is minor in these circumstances of this application the Board has considered that the by-law requirement for the floor area of accessory buildings has not been complied with for all properties on Fices Road. The Board finds that the amended application of 32 by 36 feet to be in accordance with the general intent of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan, is an appropriate and desirable form of development and is minor in the circumstances. The appeal in the amended form is allowed. The height as varied will remain at 5.8 metres. The Board is appreciative of the Municipal evidence and argument. The circumstances of this case, including history of the use of the subject property and all properties on Fices Road warrant the result. All of the above is so Ordered. "N.C. Jackson" N.C. JACKSON MEMBER 632