Ms. Barrie summarized Report COA2022-095. The purpose of the application is to sever a surplus farm dwelling. The land intended to be severed is +/- 1.43 hectares for non-farm residential use; the land intended to be retained is +/- 63.0 hectares for agricultural use.
Ms. Barrie noted a typo on page 1 of the report stating "The consent is requested for 915 Lorneville Road" not a variance.
Comments received today from the Supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems noting, a sewage system installation report was located for property under file E-22-04. The installation report indicates the sewage system is located east of the dwelling. The sewage system area depicted in the sketch does not appear to be a concise representation of the sewage system layout and size as noted from the installation report. Based on the information reviewed, we have some concerns that the sewage system will not be wholly contained within the new property boundaries or it will not have the required property line clearance distance as stipulated under the Ontario Building Code. In order to ensure the sewage system is wholly contained with appropriate clearance distances the proposed lot area may have to be increased or modified. As such, the Building and Septic Division would request a deferral on the consent proposal in order to have the sewage system further evaluated.
Ms. Barrie spoke to agency comments contained within the report. If the Committee wishes to approve the application, comments from Engineering and Corporate Assets and Public Works would be incorporated into the conditions. However for reasons explained, the Planning Division are recommending that Consent application for the current configuration be denied.
The Committee had the following questions:
1) How many dwelling units are there on this parcel?
Ms. Barrie replied only one dwelling on 915 Lorneville Road.2) If the severance is approved would the remainder of the parcel be classed as Prime Agricultural?
Ms. Barrie replied yes Prime Agricultural.
3) If the Prime Agricultural parcel is purchased in the future with the intent of building a dwelling, would that be permitted?
Ms. Barrie replied a subsequent zoning amendment would be recommended and put in place that would prohibit any new residential units being built on the balance of the retained parcel.
4) The recommendation is to deny the application. What are the alternatives?
Ms. Barrie stated there are 3 options as follows;
Option 1- Approve the consent as applied for/ to approve with modification/ to approve subject to any conditions the Committee would like to impose.
Option 2 - Defer for a reason.
Option 3 - Deny the application.
5) Has a discussion taken place with the owner and if we defer the application would it promote further discussion between the City and the owner to allow for a compromise?
Ms. Barrie responded.
6) If the Committee denies the application can the owners continue to live in the dwelling of 915 Lorneville and are there any impacts?
As far as staff are aware the owner lives at 938 Lorneville Road. Not aware of any impacts.
7) Any motion made today other than approval can be appealed?
Ms. Barrie replied correct they have a right to appeal.
8) Is there a plan of subdivision as per page 5 of 8 of the report?
Ms. Barrie, no there is not. Schedule 1, Relevant Planning Policies and Provisions. Plan of Subdivision Approvals, Criteria (f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots can be applied to a single lot. It is noted as a reference to allow the Committee, should they wish to add as a condition of approval.
9) Why can’t the owners keep the driveway as is and move the lot lines?
Ms. Barrie referenced the criteria of the Planning Act.
10) If the driveway is straightened would they lose the shed at the north end?
Ms. Barrie mentioned that it is not required to alter lot lines at the north end of the lot.
11) Are there rules to lot frontage?
Ms. Barrie responded by saying yes the zoning by-law dictates the minimum frontage.
12) It was indicated to the owner that an Official Plan Amendment was required and they declined, is that correct?
Ms. Barrie replied that is correct.
13) If the owner straightens the driveway would they still require an Official Plan Amendment?
Ms. Barrie, if they straighten the driveway that would eliminate the need for an Official Plan Amendment.
14) Does the issue with the location of the septic on the proposed lot line have to be addressed?
Ms. Barrie replied yes, to ensure the final severed parcel configuration contains the septic entirely within its own lot.
The applicant was not present.
The Committee understood the concerns of the owner and staff and suggested a compromise be made and proposed a deferral. Ms. Barrie supported the deferral as the applicant was not present and to allow discussions between owner and staff to consider a revised configuration of the property.
A motion was made to defer for 3 months, returning to the March 23, 2023 meeting, however if resolved can return sooner.
No further questions from the Committee or other persons.