Mr. Harding summarized Report COA2019-043, to request relief to permit a detached garage to be converted into a dwelling. He outlined comments received from Community Services Department since the writing of the report noting no concerns.
Mr. Harding identified a wording error in the staff report for the variance to be denied. He recommended the first recommendation be rephrased to read the following:
That relief requested from Section 3.1.4.1 (c) in minor variance application D20-2019-030 be DENIED, as the application is not minor in nature, nor desirable and appropriate for the use of the land, nor in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, as set out in the tests under Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
Mr. Harding further recommended the following alterations be made to the conditions within the staff recommendation:
- To delete condition 5 on the advice of the Chief Building Official since the building exists,
- The references to a building permit in conditions 3 and 4 be rephrased to a change of use permit, and
- Condition 4 be restructured to state: That prior to the issuance of the change of use permit the owner shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division for the east side porch and stairs.
The Committee asked staff if the garage was converted into a dwelling without a permit. Staff replied, yes.
The Committee asked for clarification as to the building enforcement issue. Ms. Murchison, Chief Building Official, spoke to the Committee. A little over a year ago a foundation for a small addition, including plumbing being roughed in, was added to the side of the existing garage with the intent to create a washroom. Building Division staff attended for enforcement purposes and an additional permit was applied for. This permit application remained inactive while Building Division waited for the property owner to address zoning and encroachment issues. Follow up on the dormant file led to the discovery of other modifications which had occurred without permits on the interior of the structure. Building Division again advised the applicant they required permits. During the last year the interior was completed.
Mr. Harding clarified that the detached garage was constructed prior to the passing of the Township of Mariposa's first zoning by-law in 1978. In around April 2018 Planning Division became aware that the detached garage was being converted into a dwelling without permits when the pre-screening application was filed.
The Committee asked staff if the application would have been supported if a new building was proposed in that location. Staff replied that Realty Services would be engaged first and staff would consider that information when deciding if the application is supportable.
The Committee asked whether portions of the garage encroach on the road allowance. Staff responded that the front wall of the garage is on the road allowance. The Committee also asked when the septic permit was issued. Staff replied 2016. Ms. Murchison added that the permit was originally issued to build a new house not a garage.
The owner was not present, and no representative was sent.
In opposition to the application, Ms. Wieleba, neighbour at 43 Marsh Creek Road spoke to the Committee. Ms. Wieleba stated that the building had previously been a garage with three bay doors: two on the front and one at the back that had a ramp for a riding lawnmower. She advised that the work started in 2017. She witnessed the building inspector come out and issue a stop work order. The contractor, after a phone discussion with the owner, advised her that the stop work order would be ignored and work continued. The applicant removed the three garage doors and replaced them with windows and doors, removed the ramp and converted a tool shed, which is labelled as a boathouse in the application, into a sauna. Ms. Wieleba advised that the porch area is adjacent to her bedroom and kitchen porch, and that the frequent activity on the porch and side yard on the subject property results in a loss of privacy and generates noise.
Ms. Wieleba also stated that the garage was very close to her home. She outlined a conversation she had with Mr. Harding stating that a new dwelling could be constructed closer to the lot line than the garage. She did not believe a property owner would place a dwelling so close to the lot line given the generous size of the property. She believed a new dwelling would be placed in the centre of the property away from neighbours.
Ms. Wieleba stated her concern that the recently installed drilled well was too close to the subject property’s septic system, and enquired as to whom regulates spatial separation between those two features.
Ms. Wieleba produced a copy of a purchase agreement which allowed her the first right to purchase the subject property between 2005 and 2008. She did not purchase the property because she was told that the City would not support the conversion of the garage to a dwelling.
Mr. Harding responded that the by-law does permit a single storey dwelling to be 1.3 metres from the lot line, with each additional half or full storey adding another metre of distance. Therefore, a two storey building could be constructed closer to the side lot line than the existing garage to be converted.
Ms. Murchison clarified that a stop work order was not issued: the owner was instructed to stop construction. The area inspector updated the CBO that there was also an application pending for deck at the rear of the building and that the septic was installed larger than required for the existing change of use to the garage because it was originally applied for with the intent of constructing a new, larger dwelling on the property. However, services can be installed larger than the submitted design will require. She further clarified that, with respect to the well being added to the property, as the sewage system was installed first with permits, responsibility for complying with Ontario Building Code spatial separation falls upon the well driller rather than the City.
The Committee asked if the Ontario Building Code has different requirements for a dwelling as opposed to a garage. Ms. Murchison replied that lots of upgrades are required to convert the garage into a dwelling. Should Committee approve the application, the owner will be required to demonstrate to the Building Division that all required upgrades have been completed.
The Committee questioned the comments from the Kawartha Region Conservation Authority (KRCA) about elevation requirements. Mr. Harding replied that this will be dealt with through the building permit process as a KRCA permit is applicable law.
The Committee asked if there was parking elsewhere on the property aside from the interlock parking pad within the road allowance. Staff replied that there was space to the west of the dwelling which could be accessed through gates in the wrought iron fence.
The Committee motioned to deny the application.