Mr. Stainton summarized Report COA2021-024, to request relief in order to facilitate the construction of a two-storey boathouse and acknowledge the location of a garden shed within the front yard.
Mr. Stainton noted that the application was originally scheduled for the April 15, 2021 meeting. The supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems could not support the application as the proposal as referenced in Report COA2021-024. The Committee granted a deferral on April 15, 2021 to return to the May 20, 2021 meeting.
Agency comments received from Development Engineering (May 7, 2021) and Community Services (April 7, 2021): noted no objections.
Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (March 9, 2021): A site visit was conducted on September 17, 2020, which confirmed that the proposed boathouse will be outside of the floodplain for Sturgeon Lake. Kawartha Conservation issued a permit #2020-268 for the proposal and has no concerns with the proposed variances.
Building and Septic Division (May 6, 2021): The Building and Plans Examiner notes that although not a requirement of the minor variance, Building Division would note that the proposed cantilevered covered deck will require engineering or conventional support (posts and footings). No representation of the deck and roof being cantilevered 1.2 metres into the 3 metre setback has been presented on the site plan.
Planning response: The applicant has revised the proposal by eliminating the cantilevered covered deck from the proposal.
Building and Septic Division - Supervisor, Part 8 Sewage Systems (May 7, 2021): A sewage system permit to install has been issued to replace the existing system. The replacement system will be located in a manner to accommodate the proposed boathouse placement. The purpose of the second-storey will be for storage only. As such no objections to the proposed minor variance as it relates to private on-site sewage disposal.
Public comments were received in support from:
Brian and Jill Hoag, 6 Huntingdon Court (December 16, 2020).
Jennifer and Byron Allin, 604 Long Beach Road (December 7, 2020 and December 16, 2020).
Mr. Stainton noted that relief 3 requested for the garden shed meets the four tests of the minor variance. However reliefs 1 and 2, relating to the boathouse do not meet any of the four tests of the minor variance. Staff respectfully recommends denial of the reliefs pertaining to the additional storey as well as the increase in height proposed for the two-storey boathouse.
The Committee noted there are a number of two-storey boathouse in the neighbourhood and asked if they had been approved in the last 5 years. Staff responded by saying they could not attest to any boathouses being approved in the last 5 years. One was approved in 2012 and was contrary to staff’s recommendation. There may have been an issue with respect to the knowledge of the Official Plan. At that time the new Official Plan came out. Current decisions need to be based on the current policies and regulations in-place.
The Committee followed up by asking if any were approved in the last 8 years. Staff confirmed that they are aware of only two, two-storey boathouses that legally obtained permits on that stretch of shoreline.
The Committee noted that most of the agency comments received have no concerns or objections. Staff noted the only concern raised was through the Building Plans Examiner with respect to the cantilever of the deck, which has since been removed.
The applicant, Mr. Newhook was present and attended via electronic participation and presented his rebuttal, received May 20, 2021 in the morning which was forwarded to Committee members and staff immediately. The photos were received May 19, 2021 late afternoon, which were also forwarded to members and staff.
The Committee thanked Mr. Newhook for his presentation and confirmed to Mr. Newhook that the members did indeed receive the rebuttal and photographs, although the photographs were not able to be incorporated into the slideshow or displayed. Each of the Committee members and staff received a copied of the documents.
The Committee continued to say we have polices regarding boathouses, which is understood and yet Mr. Newhook noted there are all kinds of two-storey boathouse on Sturgeon Lake and Balsam Lake with owners coming forward to improve their properties. The Committee continued by saying that what is proposed is very attractive from the shoreline and fits in. Mr. Strangway put forward a proposal to approve the application with the two-storey boathouse.
The Chair stated to staff that in the past, generally with respect to additional conditions to applications whereby we do not permit habitable space within boathouses, however we have been told through the Provincial Policy Statement we are not to add conditions as there is a lack of housing whereby they were going to accept habitable space in boathouse. Referring to the Additional Residential Units, there has been polices and regulations in place through the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment that we are restricting that kind of habitation. The Chair asked for further clarification. Staff responded by saying the intent of the policy and regulations that were brought forward through the Official Plan Amendment as well as the amendment to the Zoning By-Law are to enable ARUs, however structures and restrictions on when those units can established in the case of water setbacks and hazard lands, the City does not permit ARUs.
The Committee asked for clarification on the motion as to whether it is as printed as the planner recommended. The Chair asked Member Strangway to clarify as we have a denial for Sections 1 and 2 of the report with respect to the boathouse. Member Strangway responded by saying I would like to approve all sections of the report including 3.1.5.3 and 3.1.5.3 (b).
Mr. Stainton suggested he would craft a recommendation with appropriate conditions. The Chair stated if we amend the report to grant approval for all the reliefs and that they meet the four tests of the minor variance, would that mean a requirement to add conditions? Mr. Stainton replied correct and that he had prepared an alternate set of conditions. Mr. Stainton read the conditions.
No further questions from the Committee or other persons.