Mr. Adebayo summarized Report COA2019-062, to request relief in order to permit existing installations on a waterfront property thus; a detached boat port, and additions to a single storey dwelling that comprises of an attached garage with supplementary living space above and a sunroom at the rear. The Committee deferred the application at its October 17, 2019 meeting for a maximum period of 2 months to allow sufficient time for the issues identified by commenting agencies to be addressed and to ensure the proposal can be supported by staff.
The building division enforcement process on the property is still active and subject to the outcome of a minor variance decision. The sunroom was built without permits whereas the physical build-out of the attached garage with living space above is largely inconsistent with the drawings provided for the building permit that was issued. A minor variance was recommended upon this discovery and the property owner/applicant was also required to get their property surveyed in company with the minor variance application submission. Planning staff noted that the construction of the attached garage with living space above is incomplete due to a stop-work-order issued by the Building Division. Staff are evaluating the proposal as if the installations subject to this minor variance were non-existent and newly proposed today.
Agency comments received from Kawartha Region Conservation Authority had no concerns. See preliminary comments in Appendix D3 of Report COA2019-062. Engineering and Corporate Assets had no objections. Building Division had no concerns.
Public comments received from Gail and Harold Kukasch, 268 Moorings Drive, advised that most of the construction on the subject property was done without permits and is causing their property to flood during spring.
Ms. Murchison, Chief Building Official was present and stated that an order to comply was issued not a stop-work-order. Ms. Murchison continued to give a brief overview of events that led to the issuance of an order to comply. Including that it took some heavy-handed effort to get the applicant to eventually comply.
The Committee questioned page 7 of the report, "Other Alternatives Considered". Ms. Murchison and The Manager of Planning, Mr. Holy agreed that a Juliette balcony is a loose term that could be misconstrued. It is better to say no decks or external floors in the wall-opening of the master bedroom except a guard to the outside wall. They suggested that a condition be added to prevent an upper level deck. Condition 4 was added and read "That an elevated deck or extension is not permitted in the rear yard". Previous Condition 4 now becoming Condition 5.
The Committee asked if it was confirmed that the boat slip installation is a cause of the flooding in spring. Staff replied that the objectors are aware of the area being a flood zone. Agency comments received together with staff analysis did not rationalize any of the installation as being a root cause of flooding in the area.
Applicant, Mr. Barber was present and spoke to the Committee. He also stated that the neighbour had filled the creek between the cottages which caused the flooding. And that they are looking to comply with building enforcement.
Committee asked if drainage control can be put in the interior side yard. Ms. Murchison responded that the through the building code, a side yard is typically graded with maybe a requirement to install swales. A lot grading and drainage plan only applies to new builds and not additions.
No further questions from the Committee or other persons.