Mr. Harding summarized Report COA2021-045, to request relief from yard location, maximum lot coverage, and the setback from an Environmental Protection Zone in order to permit the construction of a detached garage.
Mr. Harding noted an error on page 2 above the section "Background”. The report number should read COA2021-045 and not COA2021-034.
This application was previously before the Committee at the May 20th Committee of Adjustment meeting and was deferred to allow the City to consult with the Municipal Heritage Committee on concerns brought forward by the abutting land owner. They have reviewed the proposal and a copy of their comments are in the appendix attached to the report.
Staff noted that there is a building enforcement issue going on with this parcel. The parking pad and garage have exchanged positions. The garage was required to be moved away from the west lot line due to structural collapse issues. The analysis is based on where that garage was before the building order was issued.
The application meets the four tests of the minor variance. Staff respectfully recommended the application be approved subject to the conditions identified in the report.
The Committee questioned comments received from Kawartha Municipal Heritage Committee regarding the third point - suggesting the construction of a new garage be contingent on a smaller footprint more in keeping with the width of the lot and with a roof of a style which has less of a visual impact on views from the road. Staff replied that a larger garage is proposed to provide storage for other items including a motor home that are currently stored outside.
The Committee asked if the garage is larger than the dwelling. Staff replied that the garage would be larger than the dwelling.
The Committee asked whether locating the garage into the rear yard had been considered. Staff replied that aside from the functional aspects that allows the parking to be contained within the front yard, the sewage system is in the back yard which may cause significant locational challenges when planning the garage footprint of any size. Placement of the garage within the rear yard would also bring it closer to Mariposa Brook.
The Committee asked whether there was any Environmental Protection (EP) Zone on the subject property. Staff clarified that the EP Zone was on the abutting lands, not the subject property.
Committee noted that proposed Condition 3 was partially missing in the report. Staff replied it was a formatting issue and read the full contents of Condition 3 to the Committee. The Committee also suggested adding a condition "That notwithstanding the definition of front yard, the granting of the variance will not be interpreted to permit the placement of any other structure or accessory building between the front wall of the dwelling and the front lot line". Staff was agreeable to adding the condition if Committee saw merit in adding it.
The Committee asked if a permit was issued to install the driveway entrance culvert. Staff replied that the size of the entrance culvert was examined through the pre-screening process, and it was determined that the owner had received a permit from the Roads Department to widen their driveway entrance to the current width.
The Committee also asked about the dumping and fill concerns raised within Ms. Twomey’s letter. Staff replied that any fill placement issues would need to be addressed by the KRCA.
The Committee asked staff what the outcome would be if it were not to approve the application. Staff deferred to Ms. Murchison, Chief Building Official. Ms. Murchison spoke to the background of this application and that initially a permit was requested for a foundation repair. Through processing the file with the owner, it was discovered that they intended to include an addition. The Building and Septic Division is now dealing with the unsafe condition of the building and required it be moved away from the lot line in case it did collapse to ensure it didn't land on the neighbouring property. The owner now intends to build an entirely new structure. From their office’s perspective, any new garage, regardless of size, will be classed as new construction.
The applicant, Mr. Davis, was present and spoke to the Committee. He explained that he moved the garage to build a new foundation which he applied for. He applied for a permit for widening the driveway, which was accepted. He also inquired with the City to build a new garage. He stated that the garage was always there. The intent was to keep the garage in the original place but it grew in size to accommodate the motor home he owns. He outlined that no one took issue with the proposal until recently.
In opposition to the application, Ms. Twomey of 1201 Salem Road spoke to the Committee reiterating her comments which is found on Appendix F attached to the report. She further stated that a front yard garage location was more industrial. She finished by saying that she would have no objection to the garage going back to the original footprint and location. She referred to the Provincial Policy Statement’s protection of viewscapes.
The Committee asked for staff to comment on Ms. Twomey’s statement.
Staff noted the substantial vegetative buffering around the subject property, the historic use of the front yard as a storage space, and that placing the garage in the backyard would bring it closer to Mariposa Brook and the dwelling at 1201 Salem Road. Staff also clarified that the concerns with respect to the EP Zone were addressed in Test 3 of the report. The KRCA had also reviewed the proposal and had no concerns from an environmental perspective. A permit for the proposed works has been issued by their office. Staff also made reference to the heritage provisions within the Official Plan, and the analysis in the report. The protected attributes of Ms. Twomey’s parcel relate to the architectural attributes of the building both on exterior and interior. Staff does not believe the designating by-law for this property includes viewscape protection, but deferred to the Heritage Officer for comment.
Ms. Turner, Heritage Officer was present and spoke to the Committee and elaborated on what Mr. Harding had conveyed. The PPS and Official Plan does allow for views to be listed as a heritage attribute. The designating by-law for 1201 Salem Road was updated in 2018. The by-law did not list views as a protected attribute for the property. Today, the City would generally include views as an attribute of most heritage properties. This is an accepted practice in terms of by-law writing presently. The Municipal Heritage Committee comments did recognize that the view is not a protected attribute.
The applicant, Mr. Davis spoke further to the placement of the garage. He stated that the garage is moving further back from the road.
The Chair spoke to Ms. Twomey and asked if she had any further comments.
Ms. Twomey of 1201 Salem Road stated that she was not concerned with the location of the garage, but its height. The scale of the current garage blocks the view of her house for vehicles travelling east along Salem Road. She stated that she will approach the Municipal Heritage Committee and pursue adding the views to her property as a protected heritage attribute of the designating by-law for per property. Ms. Twomey urged the Committee to make a decision on the variance application like the by-law for her property had listed views as a protected heritage attribute.
The applicant, Mr. Davis concluded by saying the height of the building is not a problem as there is nothing to see because of all the trees around his lot.
A motion was made to approve the application with the amendment to add the portion of Condition 3 that was partially missing from the staff report and to add a new Condition 4:
- That notwithstanding the definition of front yard, the granting of the variance will not be interpreted to permit the placement of any other structure or accessory building between the front wall of the dwelling and the front lot line.
The previous Condition 4 now becomes Condition 5.
No further questions from the Committee or other persons.