Mr. Harding summarized report COA2018-025. The application seeks to recognize the locations of the constructed vacation dwelling with attached deck, two sheds, and accessory building lot coverage. Relief is sought to also permit the construction of a fifth residential accessory building (shed).
The Committee questioned whether the variances granted in application D20-10-019 on May 13th, 2010 were in effect since the dwelling and deck were cited in the wrong location. Staff replied that the owner had met the required conditions of the 2010 decision, so the variances granted then were in effect, however the house does not comply with the variances from the water and interior side yard setbacks. Also the two sheds that were identified within the 2010 application sketch to be removed, remained.
The Committee had questions over whether the building identified as a "boathouse" in the application was converted to a "boathouse". The owner, Mr. Barbe, was present and replied that he applied for and received the change of use permit, but the building has not been fully converted yet. He went on to say that the building did not and does not contain any running water or a sewage disposal system. The lot used to have a privy.
Marie Ann Martin, neighbour was present and spoke also on behalf of other neighbours. Ms. Martin stated that the original building permit granted to build the dwelling shows the two sheds were to be removed and they were not. She also stated that the two sheds cannot be easily relocated because they are dug in, and that the building by the lake is a cottage, and has not been converted to a boathouse. She stated further that a sliding door and deck were recently added to that building, and half of the building sits over the Pigeon River rather than on the property. She stated that a dock was built on the water and a fence alongside it extending out into the water. Ms. Martin suggested that if the building near the water was to be used for storage there would be no need for additional sheds.
Mr. Barbe replied that he paid $200 to change use from cottage to boathouse. The Committee asked what was in the building. Mr. Barbe replied there were life jackets, paddles a tin boat, and futon, but continued to say that most of the building was used for non-marine storage. The Committee asked how a canoe could be stored in the building without a proper bay door. Mr. Barbe replied that the person door on the east side is sufficient for the tin boat.
The Committee asked staff if conditions could be attached to the decision to ensure the timely conversion for the building by the shoreline into a boathouse. Staff responded that as the construction of the dwelling is so far along, any conditions tied to the building permit process would not likely be enforceable.
The Committee asked Mr. Barbe why the two sheds were not removed, and why they were needed. Mr. Barbe responded that he believed he had more time to remove them. He continued to say that he was willing to remove shed 1, would be willing to relocate shed 2 elsewhere on the lot and would like to construct shed 3 so that it will have a similar architectural character to the dwelling.
The Committee asked the owner if he had a permit for the dock. The owner replied no. No further questions from the Committee.