Before proceeding with the evaluation of the report, Ms. Evans provided some background information regarding the public sign posted on the property under the Planning Act. Ms. Evans confirmed that the sign was posted on July 12th and photographic proof of posting was provided. On July 22nd, it was brought to staff’s attention that the sign was no longer posted on the property. The applicant was alerted and a new sign was prepared and posted by 12.45 pm on July 22nd.
Comments were received from the public indicating the sign was seen. In staff’s opinion the requirements of the Planning Act pertaining to public notification have been satisfied. The matter was discussed with the Manager of Planning and the Director of Development Services and both felt comfortable proceeding. The Committee deliberated, Chair Robertson, Councillor Yeo, Members S. Richardson, S. Strangway and B. Archer were in favour and Members G. Erickson and E. Finn were opposed. The Committee agreed to proceed with the application.
Ms. Evans summarized Report COA2024-062. The purpose and effect is to facilitate the addition of an attached garage to the existing dwelling. Relief sought: Section 12.2.1.3 b) ii) of the Zoning By-law requires a minimum interior side yard setback of 5.5 metres for a dwelling that is two storeys or greater; the proposed setback is 3 metres; and, Section 12.3.10.1 of the Zoning By-law provides that the rear face of a dwelling shall not be located within a minimum arc distance of 188.0 metres from an agricultural building housing livestock located at 2217 Pigeon Lake Road; the proposed attached garage is 144 metres from the livestock building.
Comments were received from three members of the public, which were provided to the Committee prior to the meeting. Concerns relating to the development of the subdivision, not specific to the minor variance or proposed garage. The Chair asked the Committee if they had read the public comments and reminded them that we are not dealing with enforcement issues only the minor variance requested.
Committee had the following questions:
1) What is the building located beside the dwelling?
Staff advised the building is a sales office trailer for the subdivision.
2) Is there a time line for when the trailer will be removed?
Staff deferred to the applicant.
3) What is the intended use of the second level of the garage?
Staff deferred to the applicant.
The applicant, Mr. deBoer of TD Consulting Inc. was present in person. Mr. deBoer stated that the house was the original house of a subdivision and was left when the subdivision was created. They subdivided lots around the house, which fronted on to Pigeon Lake Road. The developer intends to change the entrance to the property so it is off of Lakeview Crescent instead of Pigeon Lake Road which is required as part of the subdivision agreement. Mr. deBoer went on to discuss the challenges of where to locate the garage due to the location of the septic system and that the second level of the proposed garage is strictly for storage. There is no intention of adding another dwelling unit and if that were to change in the future, it would be required to go through an ARU process. The sales trailer is actually a construction trailer for the subdivision as this is still an active subdivision, which is not fully assumed by the municipality with building permits outstanding. Mr. deBoer is aware of the public comments and indicated that they are not related to the variance being requested.
The Committee asked the applicant if plumbing facilities would be roughed in. Mr. deBoer replied no.
Opposed to the application, Mr. Larrivee was present in person and spoke to the subdivision agreement and was advised that the original dwelling would be demolished. Mr. Larrivee disagreed that the minor variance meets the four tests.
The Committee asked Mr. Larrivee if his objection was the location of the garage and where would he suggest the location. Mr. Larrivee replied yes, there is plenty of space and does not need to be attached to the dwelling. The Committee followed up by asking if his site plan shows the location of the garage. Mr. Larrivee replied yes.
The Committee asked staff, if the site plan shows the location of the garage, can this be enforced. Staff deferred to the applicant for a response.
The Chair advised the public wishing to speak in opposition to the application that the Committee is not an enforcement entity and that general questions regarding the subdivision are not part of this Committees purview and encouraged the public to contact the City and Planning Division directly.
Opposed to the application, Ms. Parker of 35 Lakeview Crescent was present in person and noted for the record that she did not receive notification either by mail or email regarding the variance. She became aware of the minor variance when walking past the subject property and noticed the public sign. Ms. Parker spoke to the original plan of subdivision, which she felt, was not adhered to and that the Building Code has not been enforced.
Opposed to the application, Mr. de Vos of 53 Lakeview Crescent stated he also did not receive notification of the variance. He asked Committee if there is a penalty for removing the public notice sign from the property. He went on to reiterate to the Committee concerns previously received by email and circulated to the Committee. Mr. de Vos continued in length regarding the breach of the subdivision agreement and the four tests of the minor variance.
The Chair thanked the members of the public and acknowledged their concerns; however, the Committee cannot address subdivision agreement issues and again advised them to contact the City and Planning Division directly.
The applicant, Mr. deBoer spoke to two items that came up from the public:
1) MDS curve.
2) Location of the dwelling.
The Committee had the following questions:
1) Is there a list of requirements for a site plan?
Staff replied that there is not set requirements for a site plan. If a relief were required for lot coverage, measurements would be noted in the sketch within a text box.
2) Why were no other alternatives considered?
Staff replied that the goal is to attach the garage to the dwelling and to get it further away from the livestock building and avoid issues with the septic system. Mr. deBoer provided dimensions of the garage being 13 metres x 6.7 metres.
3) Is it possible to relocate the garage with different dimensions towards the front of the dwelling as this is a large property in a new subdivision?
Staff responded. Mr. deBoer noted other alternatives were considered however, this appeared to be the only feasible solution for an attached garage.
4) If the addition were only a one-storey garage what would be the required side yard setbacks?
Staff replied 3 metres, which is being proposed.
5) The City is required to mail notices to the public within a certain radius. For those members of the public who did not receive notice, can we assume they were not within the radius, is that correct?
Staff replied that is correct. The circulating radius is 60 metres. By circulating to the 60 metre radius and posting a sign, it has been demonstrated today that the sign was seen and served its purpose.
The Committee finished by acknowledging the public of their concerns and felt that staff have listened and encourage them to look into deficiencies of the subdivision agreement.
There were no further questions from the Committee or other persons.