Mr. Harding summarized Report COA2020-003, to request relief to construct a detached garage as the only building on an existing lot.
Mr. Harding also stated that since the writing of the report comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation noting no concerns.
The Committee asked whether merging the lots via a deeming by-law was an option. Staff replied that this was an available option to the owner.
Bruce Gibson, applicant, was present and stated that from an economical view, he did not see an advantage or need to merge the lots.
The Committee had questions regarding the relationship of the vacant lot to 50 Birch Glen Drive was important in considering the proposal, whether the garage could be constructed in other locations on the lot, how the property would be accessed, and whether driveway access was required from the road on the same lot in order for development to proceed.
Mr. Harding replied that the relationship between the vacant lot and 50 Birch Glen Drive and the steep topography were key considerations in supporting the variances. He further stated that the topography on the lot restricted development to the location where the garage was proposed. He further clarified that the zone category for the property did not require the lot to have access to a road for development to proceed, and that access is proposed from 50 Birch Glen at this time since the owner of that lot would be utilizing the garage. Should ownership of the lot containing the garage change, then a separate driveway access would need to be applied for or an easement for a right-of-way would be required over 50 Birch Glen Drive.
Mr. Gibson stated that he is the owner of 50 Birch Glen Drive and the vacant lot and that his intent is to build a garage on his vacant lot with access from 50 Birch Glen Drive.
The Committee asked if 50 Birch Glen Drive had space to build garage. Staff replied yes on existing parking pad area, but that is where vehicles can also maneuver to navigate the steep driveway.
The Committee questioned what the requested reliefs in bullet point 4 accomplished. Staff responded that this point established standards to construct a detached garage on the lot as the primary building. If a cottage were to be constructed at a later date, these reliefs would no longer apply.
The Committee asked if a cottage could be constructed on the lot in the future. Staff replied they could as there is sufficient room to build with a sewage system as per comments received from the Building Division – Part 8 Sewage Systems Branch.
Further discussion ensued.
The Committee asked for clarification as to whether the Building Code stipulated road access in order to issue a building permit. Ms. Murchison, Chief Building Official spoke to the Committee and stated that the Code did not require direct access to a road. However, she also stated that access is in the property owner’s best interests in order to bring building materials to the building site.
The Committee asked whether a condition of approval should be that an application for easement for a right-of-way be filed.
Staff replied that an easement agreement is not required at this time as the owner owns both lots. Should the owner decide to sell the vacant lot with the proposed garage, the new owner would have to build a new driveway or apply for an easement over 50 Birch Glen Drive.
The Committee asked if there is room for a driveway to be installed on the vacant lot if it sells. Staff replied that it is up to a contractor to design a suitable driveway, but that the vacant lot is of the same size and topography as the other nearby developed lots.
At 2.15pm, Member, Mr. O'Bumsawin left the meeting.
The Committee asked if a condition be included that would prohibit human habitation within the garage.
Richard Holy, Planning Manager spoke to the province’s direction on accessory dwelling units.
Further discussion ensued.
The Chair stated that the intent of this application is noble and straight forward The owner would like to build a garage on an adjoining lot which they own, access will be from 50 Birch Glen Road, and that they have no intention of selling the lot at this time.
The Committee asked about the intent of proposed Condition1. Staff replied that the vacant lot was actually two vacant lots and the garage was proposed entirely on one of those two. The condition was constructed to ensure that each lot was not entitled to utilize the variances if they are granted.
The Committee questioned the purpose and effect for the relief requested in bullet point 1 and asked that it be rephrased or removed.
At 2:40pm - Break. At 2:47pm meeting called to order.
Staff stated that they are prepared to amend Section 19, which read: "…Definitions to vary the definition of 'Accessory Building' to include one detached building ancillary to a developed residential lot that abuts the subject property;" to: "…Definitions to vary the definition of 'Accessory Building' to include one detached building;".
No further questions from the Committee of other persons.