The Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes

Minutes

Committee of Adjustment Meeting

COA2022-012
-
Council Chambers
City Hall
26 Francis Street, Lindsay, Ontario K9V 5R8
Members:
  • Councillor Emmett Yeo
  • Betty Archer
  • Gerald Erickson
  • Sandra Richardson
  • Lloyd Robertson
  • Alexandra Scarr
  • Stephen Strangway
Accessible formats and communication supports are available upon request. The City of Kawartha Lakes is committed to accessibility for persons with disabilities. Please contact [email protected] if you have an accessible accommodation request.

Mr. LaHay, Secretary-Treasurer called the meeting to order at 1:00pm.

Councillor E. Yeo and Members L. Robertson, S. Strangway, S. Richardson, B. Archer, A. Scarr and G. Erickson were in attendance in person.

M. LaHay, Secretary-Treasurer, C. Crockford, Recording Secretary, L. Barrie, Manager of Planning, K. Evans, Planner II and M. Peck, Planner II were in attendance in person.

Staff, S. Murchison, Chief Building Official and I. Walker, Planning Officer of Large Developments were in attendance via electronic participation.

Secretary-Treasurer, M. LaHay called for nominations for position of the Chair. As this is the first meeting of the year for Committee of Adjustment, the first order of business is to elect the Chair Person to conduct today's meeting and subsequent meetings for 2023. Nominations were requested.

Mr. Robertson was nominated. Mr. LaHay asked Mr. Robertson if he wished to let his name stand for Chair of Committee of Adjustment. He consented to the nomination.

Mr. LaHay called a second time for nominations for the position of Chair.

Mr. LaHay called a third and final time for nominations for the position of Chair.

Mr. LaHay declared nominations for the position of Chair for the Committee of Adjustment closed.

Mr. LaHay declared Mr. Robertson as Chair of the Committee of Adjustment.

Mr. Robertson assumed the position as Chair of the Committee of Adjustment.

Chair Robertson called for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair.

Member Strangway was nominated. Chair Robertson asked Member Strangway if he wished to let his name stand for Vice-Chair of the Committee of Adjustment. Mr. Strangway consented to the nomination.

Chair Robertson called a second time for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair.

Chair Robertson called a third and final time for nominations for the position of Vice-Chair.

Chair Robertson declared nominations for the position of Vice-Chair for the Committee of Adjustment closed.

Chair Robertson declared Mr. Strangway as Vice-Chair of the Committee of Adjustment.

December 1, 2022
Committee of Adjustment Agenda

  • CA2022-122
    Moved ByB. Archer
    Seconded ByA. Scarr

    That the agenda for December 1, 2022 meeting be approved.

    Carried

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest disclosed.

The Chair initiated a discussion as to the content of the minutes, referring to motions, amended motions and conditions. Moving forward the Committee would like to see amended motions and friendly motions reflected in the minutes.

Ms. Barrie spoke to the structure of the report and Staff’s approach to the conditions of approval which are numbered within the report and that are lifted into the draft notice of decision. The motion is the stage that the conditions get endorsed, or revised or removed by the Committee. On occasion additional information is brought to the Committee. A motion can then contain additional language which may not necessarily require a condition but just an advisory notice which would not prevent a building permit from being issued.

Ms. Barrie noted that the Committee has the opportunity to review the draft minutes which are published a week before the meeting.

October 27, 2022
Committee of Adjustment Minutes

The Chair initiated a discussion as to the content of the minutes, referring to motions, amended motions and conditions. Moving forward the Committee would like to see amended motions and friendly motions reflected in the minutes.

Ms. Barrie spoke to the structure of the report and Staffs approach to the conditions of approval which are numbered within the report and that are lifted into the draft notice of decision. The motion is the stage that the conditions take effect, be revised or removed by the Committee. Sometimes additional information is brought to the table to the Committee. A motion can then contain additional language which may not necessarily require a condition but just an advisory which would not prevent a building permit from being issued.

Ms. Barrie noted that the Committee has the opportunity to review the draft minutes which are published a week before the meeting.

  • CA2022-123
    Moved ByS. Richardson
    Seconded ByB. Archer

    That the minutes of the previous meeting held October 27, 2022 be adopted a printed.

    Carried

Leah Barrie, Manager of Planning
File Number: D20-2022-019
Location: Vacant Land, Balsam Lake Drive
Lots 2 and 4, RCP 566
Geographic Township of Bexley
Owner: Beverley Laidlaw
Applicant: LLF Lawyers LLP (Emily McCaveney)

Ms. Barrie summarized Report COA2022-084. The purpose and effect is to endorse the re-creation of a lot that has merged on title. Relief sought: Section 7.2.1.1 of the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot area of 25 hectares. The existing undersized parcel is 17.45 hectares; the severed parcel is 10.31 hectares, and the retained parcel is 7.14 hectares.

There were no concerns or issues received from the public or commenting agencies. After the writing of the report comments were received from KRCA noting the parcel is within the regulated area and that future development would require a permit.

The Committee had the following question:
Was the lot (with an existing residence) subject to this particular severance?
Ms. Barrie responded that that particular lot with an existing residence is not part of this application.
Committee followed up by asking for confirmation that the previous severance was not dated at the same time as the two other lots merged? Ms. Barrie confirmed that it was separate and not related.

The applicant, Ms. McCaveney was present via electronic participation. Ms. McCaveney spoke to the history of the small parcel with the residence which was severed in 2004, which predated the merger in 2013.

There were no further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-124
    Moved ByS. Richardson
    Seconded ByCouncillor Yeo

    That minor variance application D20-2022-019 be GRANTED, as the application meets the tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions

    1. That the lot configuration related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-084, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision.

    2. That the lot configuration related to the minor variance be completed within a period of twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the companion consent application D03-2022-009.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-084. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the Minor Variance to be considered final and binding.

    Carried

Katherine Evans, Planner II
File Number: D20-2022-076
Location: 6 Cedarhurst Avenue
Part Lot 13, Concession 2 (being Lot 17, Plan 153)
Geographic Township of Verulam
Owner: David Wylie

Ms. Evans summarized Report COA2022-085. The purpose and effect is to facilitate the raising of the existing dwelling for the construction of a basement. Relief sought: In addition to the minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres required by Section 8.2 d) of the By-law, Section 5.18 of the By-law requires an additional 10 metre setback from the centre of the road allowance; the existing reduced setback is 4.13 metres from the front lot line, and 8.7 metres from the centreline of the road allowance.

Comments received from circulated agencies cited no issues or concerns.
Public comments received from Mr. Peplinskie in support of the application.

The applicant, Mr. Wylie was present via electronic participation. He spoke to the proposed application and that the property has belonged to his family since the 1950's.

There were no questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-125
    Moved ByB. Archer
    Seconded ByS. Strangway

    That minor variance application D20-2022-076 be GRANTED, as the application meets the tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions

    1. That building construction related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-085, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. That building construction related to the minor variance shall be completed within a period of twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the first Building Inspection.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-085. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the Minor Variance to be considered final and binding.

    Carried

Katherine Evans, Planner II
File Number: D20-2022-078
Location: 181 McGuire Beach Road
Part Lot 2, Concession 6 (being Part Lot 11, Plan 336; and , Lot 11A, Trent Canal, Plan 2102A
Geographic Township of Carden
Owner: Gord Johnston

Ms. Evans summarized Report COA2022-087. The purpose and effect is to facilitate the construction of a residential addition to the existing dwelling. Relief sought: Section 2.2 d) requires an interior side yard setback of 3 metres on one side and 1.2 metres on the other side plus 1 metre for each additional or partial storey above the first; in this instance, the nature of the addition constitutes a partial storey and as such requires a setback of 2.2 metres. The existing setback on the east side is 3.13 metres (NE corner)/0.97 metres (SE corner) and the proposed setback for the addition on the west side is 1.2 metres.

Ms. Evans noted that an amendment to the report is required. The report states existing setback at the north east corner of the property as 1.4 metres, should read 3.13 metres.

Comments received after the writing of the report from Engineering and Corporate Assets citing no concerns with the application.

Public concerns were received from Mr. Catarino of 175 McGuire Beach Road:
1) Use of trailer on the property during the summer.
2) Capacity of septic system.
3) Proximity of existing accessory structure to the property line.
4) Setback of the dwelling and deck to the water.

Ms. Evans responded. There is a garage on the property in the front yard which complies with the setbacks of the zoning by-law. The wood shed in the rear yard does encroach into the interior side yard and south west corner. It is existing and not an issue regarding lot coverage and number of accessory structures. The capacity of the septic system is not an issue as per comments received by the Supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems contained within the report. The dwelling is setback 25 metres from the water, exceeding the required 20 metre setback. The issue with the use of a trailer during the summer months would be a Municipal Law Enforcement issue, not planning.

The Committee had the following questions:
1) Were the concerns from Mr. Catarino addressed regarding the dwelling that already has a two storey home with finished basement?
Ms. Evans responded by indicating the storeys were addressed in the presentation and that as the basement is classed as the first storey, the addition is a partial storey above the first requiring the extra side yard setback.
2) Page 2 of the report, second line of Condition 2 "This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the first Building Inspection”. When does the first inspection take place?
Deferred to Ms. Murchison CBO. Ms. Murchison replied the first inspection occurs when the footings are down.
3) Front step within setback area?
Ms. Evans replied there is no issue with the front steps. Front yard setbacks to dwelling is 42.39 metres.
4) Whose property are the trees on where the proposed addition is to be located?
Ms. Evans noted the trees appear to be on the subject property but without a survey showing the trees, this cannot be determined for sure.

The owner, Mr. Johnston was present via electronic participation and thanked staff. He confirmed that he had a survey completed in the summer showing the trees. The intent is to trim the trees and not remove.

There were no further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-126
    Moved ByS. Strangway
    Seconded ByA. Scarr

    That minor variance application D20-2022-078 be GRANTED, as the application meets the tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions

    1. That building construction related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-087, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. That building construction related to the minor variance shall be completed within a period of twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the first Building Inspection.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-087. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the Minor Variance to be considered final and binding.

    Carried

Megan Peck, Planner II
File Number: D20-2022-079
Location: 7 Lila Court
Lot 14, Concession 7 (being Lot 3 on Plan 243)
Geographic Township of Emily
Owner: Esther Miriam Clark
Applicant: Kawartha Lakes Construction Company Ltd. (Mike Forth)

Ms. Peck summarized Report COA2022-088. The purpose and effect is to reconstruct and enlarge an existing non-conforming boathouse. Relief sought: As per By-law Section 3.1.5.2, a boat house or dock located within the water setback shall not be permitted to project beyond the shore lot line, the boathouse reconstruction and enlargement maintains the existing (non-complying) encroachment 9.8 metres beyond the shore lot line; By-law Section 5.1 permits conservation uses, bird or wildlife sanctuaries, flood and erosion control works and docks and forestry uses in the ‘EP’ zone, a residential accessory use (boathouse) will remain in the ‘EP’ zone. By-law Section 5.2 permits only the construction of flood and erosion control works or docks in the ‘EP’ zone, the boathouse reconstruction and enlargement takes place in the ‘EP’ zone.

Ms. Peck noted an amendment to the report on page 3, paragraph 5 that the encroachment is listed as 7.4 metres but should read 9.8 metres as per site plan on Appendix C.

There were no concerns from commenting agencies or the public.

Since the writing of the report, comments were received from KRCA noting a permit was issued for the proposed work which addressed the matter related to natural hazards and heritage features.

The Building Division noted that a building permit is required and the foundation design may need to be prepared by a professional engineer.

The Committee had the following questions:
1) Have staff recommended approval of the reconstruction of the boathouse because it is an existing boathouse?
Ms. Peck replied yes as the use has existed prior to the passing of the Emily Zoning By-law.
2) Do the owners require approval from Trent Severn Waterways?
Ms. Peck replied yes but will defer to the applicant for confirmation that this approval has/will be sought.
3) Clarification required on Relief 1, encroachment “+/- 4/7” metres beyond shore lot line (page 1 of report) versus Page 3 of the report, paragraph 5, +/- 7.4 metres without further encroachment.
Ms. Peck spoke to the corrections in her presentation that should now read “The proposed +/-9.55 square metre boathouse addition intends to extend the existing non-complying distance beyond the shore lot line of +/- 9.8 metres without further encroachment".
4) Does the Committee see many legal non complying issues and in what instance would the Committee decline?
Ms. Barrie, Manager of Planning responded by saying that the applications are vetted and reviewed to make sure they are appropriate and supportive by staff before bringing them to Committee.

The applicant, Mr. Forth was present via electronic participation and thanked staff. He confirmed that the TSW application was submitted as well as KRCA application submitted and received with conditions.

No further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-127
    Moved ByCouncillor Yeo
    Seconded ByB. Archer

    That application D20-2022-079 be GRANTED, as the application satisfies Section 45(2) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions

    1. That building construction related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-088, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. That building construction related to the application shall be completed within a period of twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the first Building Inspection.

    3. That the applicant/owner provide written authorization for the proposed works approved by The Trent Severn Waterway as part of their Building Permit submission.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-088. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the decision to be considered final and binding.

    Carried

Megan Peck, Planner II
File Number: D20-2022-080
Location: 22 Henry's Road
Part of Lot 20, Concession 3
Geographic Township of Verulam
Owner: Lisa Karagianis
Applicant: TD Constructing Inc. (Tom deBoer)

Ms. Peck summarized Report COA2022-089. The purpose and effect is to recognize the property's existing residential use to facilitate the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing single detached dwelling and new detached accessory structure (garage) with frontage on an unimproved road. Relief sought: By-law Section 19.2. c. ii. requires a minimum front yard depth of 10 metres, a minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres (porch) and 6.7 metres (dwelling) are proposed; By-law Section 19.2.5. requires a minimum rear yard depth of 10 metres, a minimum rear yard depth of 8.7 meters is proposed; By-law Section 19.2.6. permits a maximum lot coverage of 10%, a maximum lot coverage of 18% is proposed; By-law Section 5.12.1 only permits the construction of buildings or structures on lots that have unobstructed driveway or passageway to an abutting improved street, building construction on an unimproved street is proposed.

Agency comments were received by DS-Septic, Supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems, DS-Building, Plans Examiner and Kawartha Region Conservation Authority included in the report.

There were no comments of concerns raised by the public.

The applicant, Mr. deBoer of TD Consulting Inc. was present via electronic participation and thanked staff.

The Committee asked if the applicant intends to abandon the building application for the deck.
Mr. deBoer responded that the application for the deck will be redundant as no longer required.

There were no further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-128
    Moved ByS. Strangway
    Seconded ByCouncillor Yeo

    That application D20-2022-080 be GRANTED, as the application satisfies Section 45(2) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions

    1. That building construction related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-089, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. That building construction related to the application shall be completed within a period of twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the first Building Inspection.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-089. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the decision to be considered final and binding.

    Carried

Katherine Evans, Planner II
File Number: D20-2022-081
Location: 81 Pine Villa Road
North Part of Lot 7 and Part of Lot 8, Concession 1, Unit 18, Condo Plan #25
Geographic Township of Laxton
Owner: Matt Simmons
Applicant: TD Consulting Inc. (Tom deBoer)

Ms. Evans summarized Report COA2022-090. The purpose and effect is to facilitate a screened room addition to the existing modular dwelling unit. Relief sought: Section 13.2 g) permits a maximum lot coverage of 30%; the proposed lot coverage is 36.7%.

Ms. Evans brought to the attention of the Committee that there is an amendment to the report. Upon completing the site inspection she noted a shed and covered porch attached to the dwelling which contribute to lot coverage. Through discussion with the applicant, lot coverage was recalculated.

Relief sought, Section 13.2g) permits a maximum lot coverage of 30%; the proposed lot coverage is to now read 36.7% not 33.8%.

There were no concerns received from commenting agencies or the public.

The Committee referenced Slide 33 of the presentation illustrating a set of stairs on the left side of the dwelling and asked if that would present privacy issues. Ms. Evans responded.

The applicant, Mr. deBoer of TD Consulting Inc. clarified the screen room will be looking at the blank side of the adjacent dwelling and that the steps are at the rear of the deck of the dwelling and would not cause any privacy issues.

There were no further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-129
    Moved ByB. Archer
    Seconded ByA. Scarr

    That minor variance application D20-2022-081 be GRANTED, as the application meets the tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions

    1. That building construction related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-090, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. That building construction related to the minor variance shall be completed within a period of twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the first Building Inspection.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-090. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the Minor Variance to be considered final and binding.

    Carried

Megan Peck, Planner II
File Number: D20-2022-083
Location: 97 Meachin Drive
Part of Lot 12, Concession 7 (being Part 1 on Reference Plan 57R857)
Geographic Township of Verulam
Owner: Rudy Sawatzky
Applicant: RWH Construction (Kassie Holtom)

Ms. Peck summarized Report COA2022-092. The purpose and effect is to permit a detached accessory structure located in the front yard. Relief sought: Section 5.1.3. b. permits accessory structures in interior side or rear yards only; the detached accessory structure (detached garage with upper-level ARU) is located in the front yard.

There were no concerns from the commenting agencies or public.

After the writing of the report, public comments were received from Cheryl Hudson. Those concerns were resolved and withdrawn after an explanation of the location of the proposed garage being in the front yard.

The Committee had the following questions:
1) Is the proposal on Balsam Lake or Sturgeon Lake?
Ms. Peck confirmed Balsam Lake.
2) The Committee noted in the last 18 months receiving similar applications with living space above the garage which were turned down. What has changed?
Ms. Barrie, Manager of Planning responded that the Committee is being asked for approval of the location of the garage and not the use. However, at the end of 2020 there were two amendments to the Official Plan to allow the use without additional relief. At the end of 2020, Council adopted and applied this to the City, Fenelon Falls Official Plan and Victoria County Official Plan. Following that all (19) zoning by-laws were amended to implement the changes.
The Chair noted that a discussion on ARU’s will follow after the meeting.
3) The Committee asked for definition of an intersection and corner lot.
Ms. Peck spoke to the Verulam Zoning By-law and what defines an intersection and corner lot. The Committee requested that a copy of the Verulam Zoning By-law be sent to them. Ms. Peck assured the Committee that it is being addressed in the City's Rural Zoning By-law consolidated project.
4) Typically a 24 month timeline is given in the conditions to complete construction. Condition 2 states 4 months, is that correct?
Ms. Peck replied it is a typo and should read 24 months.
5) During the site visit, Member Erickson noted the 911 sign and notice was lying down beside the driveway.
6) Is one septic bed sufficient for the property?
Ms. Peck spoke to comments received from the Supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems stating a sewage system permit to install has been issued for this property under file SS2022-0142. The proposed garage location will not encroach on the area for the proposed sewage system. The sewage system can be sized to accommodate the ARU proposal. As such no concerns.
7) Is the garage already under construction?
Ms. Peck replied no.
8) The neighbour commented on the blank wall (aesthetics) and that the planner noted in the presentation that this proposed garage was in line with the rest of the neighbourhood. The member noted that all but one garage in the neighbourhood are in the back, closer to the road. Why does the planner feel the application is representative of the neighbourhood?
Ms. Peck referred to the site plan showing the proposed garage would be closer to the road rather than the shoreline.
9) The Committee asked for clarification again as to which lake the property is on?
Ms. Peck stated that GIS mapping is showing it on Balsam Lake but in fact it is on Sturgeon Lake.

The applicant, Mr. Hayter was present via electronic participation and thanked staff. He clarified that the property is on Sturgeon Lake and that the 911 and notice sign will be erected.

There were no further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-130
    Moved ByCouncillor Yeo
    Seconded ByS. Strangway

    That minor variance application D20-2022-083 be GRANTED, as the application meets the tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions

    1. That building construction related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-092, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. That building construction related to the minor variance shall be completed within a period of twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the first Building Inspection.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-092. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the Minor Variance to be considered final and binding.

    Carried

Katherine Evans, Planner II
File Number: D20-2022-084
Location: 34 Joseph Street
South Part of Lot 9, w/s Joseph Street, Plan 70
Geographic Village of Bobcaygeon
Owner: Jason Girard and Emily Woods-Girard

Ms. Evans summarized Report COA2022-093. The purpose and effect is to facilitate the raising of the existing dwelling for the construction of a basement. Relief sought: Section 5.2 c) requires a front yard setback of 7.5 metres; the existing setback is 6.62 metres.

Comments were received from circulating agencies before and after the writing of the report citing no concerns with the report.

The Committee noted the structure was built in the 1900's and asked if there were comments received regarding heritage.
Ms. Evans said that she is not aware of any heritage implications for the dwelling.

The applicant, Ms. Woods-Girard was present via electronic participation. She thanked staff and confirmed the basement plans are for additional living space.

No further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-131
    Moved ByS. Strangway
    Seconded ByA. Scarr

    That minor variance application D20-2022-084 be GRANTED, as the application meets the tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions

    1. That building construction related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-093, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. That building construction related to the minor variance shall be completed within a period of twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon completion of the first Building Inspection.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-093. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the Minor Variance to be considered final and binding.

    Carried

Ian Walker, Planning Officer, Large Developments
File Number D20-2022-085
Location: Vacant Land, Highway 35 and Colborne Street West
Part of Lot 22, Concession 4 (being Part of Part 3, 57R-6839
Geographic Township of Ops, Town of Lindsay
Owners: Lindsay 2017 Developments Inc. (Juan Bernal)
Applicants: Parcel A - MHBC Planning, Urban Design and Landscape Architecture (David McKay); and
Parcels B and C - D.G. Biddle and Associates Ltd. (Michael Fry)

Mr. Walker brought to the Committee's attention that there are two applicants on this proposal as the subject land will be divided into 3 separate parcels. Applications for the consents are forthcoming but not being considered at this time. D.G. Biddle and Associates Ltd. requested that reliefs 2 to 5 be deferred to allow the applicant an opportunity to make further refinements to the remainder of the buildings on ‘Parcels B’ and ‘C’ prior to entering into an Amending Site Plan Agreement for the final approval of ‘Buildings B’ through ‘F’.

Mr. Walker summarized Report COA2022-094 pertaining to Relief 1 only.

 

 

Relief sought:

1) Section 16.3.10 j.v. to reduce the required parking ratio for ‘Building A’ from 1 space per 20 square metres of gross floor area to 1 space per 30 square metres of gross floor area, and to exempt the ancillary garden centre from the requirement for any parking to permit the construction of a new commercial building on ‘Parcel A’ of the property.

Comments received from MTO and the Building Division with no concerns to variance proposal. KRCA are addressing their concerns relating to technical design through Site Plan Application D19-2019-001, which is running concurrently with this variance.

Since the writing of the report comments were received from Engineering and Corporate Assets citing no concerns with the relief requesting a reduction in parking.

Mr. Walker noted to the Committee that D.G. Biddle has been advised that should the variances change and require more relief than previously advertised, they would be required to re-advertise at their expense before coming to the Committee.

The Committee has the following questions:
1) Location of the garden centre and the months it is open and are parking spaces lost?
Mr. Walker noted the outdoor garden centre will be located on the west side of the building attached and will not generate additional parking issues.
2) How many parking spaces are proposed?
Mr. Walker stated the application proposes 320 spaces for parcel "A". The zoning by-law states 475 spaces.
3) Should a condition be added to address reliefs 2-5 being deferred?
Mr. Walker agreed a condition may be added however the intention is to enter into a site plan agreement in January which will facilitate the entire plaza which will have to comply with the existing zoning.

Applicant. Mr. Kemal of MHBC on behalf of Mr. McKay was present via electronic participation and thanked staff.

The Chair motioned that application D20-2022-085 be amended to include Relief 1, be granted as the application meets the tests set out in the Planning Act.

Mr. Walker spoke to the deferral. He noted again the applicants will be entering into a Site Plan Agreement in January. This will include the entirety of the site. This will ensure the drawings have all the potential setbacks met based on existing zoning. The applicants must confirm proposed building B through F all meet the 9.1 metre set backs.

No further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-132
    Moved ByS. Strangway
    Seconded ByCouncillor Yeo

    That Minor Variance Application D20-2022-085, Relief 1. be GRANTED, as the application meets the tests set out in Section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions relating to Relief 1.

    1. That building construction related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-094, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. That the Site Plan Agreement for the subject property be executed and secured within twenty-four (24) months after the date of the Notice of Decision, failing which this application shall be deemed to be refused. This condition will be considered fulfilled upon registration of the Site Plan Agreement on title.

    This approval pertains to the application as described in report COA2022-094. Fulfillment of all conditions is required for the Minor Variance to be considered final and binding.

    Carried
  • CA2022-133
    Moved ByB. Archer
    Seconded ByS. Richardson

    That Minor Variance Application D20-2022-085, Relief 2. To 5. be DEFERRED, for a period of not more than six (6) months, returning at the latest to the June 22, 2023 meeting. The deferral is to allow the applicant an opportunity to make further refinements to the remainder of the buildings on ‘Parcels B’ and ‘C’ prior to entering into an amending Site Plan Agreement for the final approval of ‘Buildings B’ through ‘F’.

    Carried

Megan Peck, Planner II
File Number: D03-2022-026
Location: Vacant Lands, Lakebreeze Road
Part of Lot  27, Concession 8 (being Part of Private Drive on Plan 201)
Geographic Township of Fenelon
Owner: Alan Webster
Application: Victor Webster Farms Ltd. (Alan Webster)

Ms. Peck summarized Report COA2022-086. The purpose of the consent application is to create a +/- 778.8 square metre easement in favour of the abutting lands (48 Finch Street) for the purpose of obtaining legal access to an improved public street.

Ms. Peck noted that the Hart Lane right-of-way appears to transverse the subject property but after discussion with adjacent land owners, the location of the right-of-way is undetermined without a survey; however, believed to be located on the neighbouring property to the west. Ms. Peck noted that the aerial image used in the presentation is used for reference purposes only in the absence of a survey and continued to say that the effect of the application is to gain legal access from 48 Finch Street across property abutting Lakebreeze Road via easement over the owners own lands regardless of the location of right-of-way on Hart Lane.

Since the writing of the report public comments were received from Stew Low of Ball Real Estate Inc., Brokerage and Dan Jones. Neither were opposed to the easement but requested clarification as to the location of the traveled portion of the Hart Lane right-of-way as well as Finch Street right-of-way. The application is to achieve legal access over the owners own lands therefore location of existing right-of-way on Hart Lane does not anticipate any impact to the proposal.

There were no concerns or issues from circulated agencies.

Ms. Peck finished by noting an amendment to Appendix D, Condition 4 Stamping Fee. The fee should read $238 and not $476 as per the 2022 fees schedule.

The Committee referenced Appendix C of the presentation showing the property highlighted in pink and green and asked if the right-of way was on Finch Street or on the owners property and do the neighbours have access. Ms. Peck responded.

The Committee asked what the reason is for this application when the right of way exist.
Ms. Peck explained that the owner was advised by their lawyer to gain legal access to Lakebreeze Drive in the event that in the future Mr. Webster wishes to sell the back lot property abutting Lakebreeze Drive.

The Committee referred to 48 Finch and the larger lot adjacent and asked if they had ever been merged.
Ms. Peck replied no they are two separable conveyable lots.

Ms. Barrie, Manager of Planning followed up by saying the easement area within Mr. Webster’s own land is a far less cumbersome process than re-establishing easement over Hart Lane that includes participation of all known and unknown benefitting owners. This way if the larger lot should be sold in the future, 48 Finch will have continued access.

No further questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-134
    Moved ByCouncillor Yeo
    Seconded ByG. Erickson

    That consent application D03-2022-026 be GRANTED, as the application represents good planning, and is in accordance with Section 53(1) of the Planning Act.

    Conditions of Provisional Consent

    1. That lot configuration related to this approval shall proceed generally in accordance with the sketch in Appendix C submitted as part of Report COA2022-086, which shall be attached to and form part of the Committee’s Decision; and,

    2. See Appendix D
    Carried

Leah Barrie, Manager of Planning
File Number: D03-2022-006
Location: 915 Lorneville Road
Part Lots 6 and 7, Concession 7
Geographic Township of Eldon
Owner: Ron Ross (Charles William Ronald Ross)

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.

  • CA2022-135
    Moved ByS. Strangway
    Seconded ByB. Archer

    This is further to the Committee’s consideration of your application on December 1, 2022.  The Committee decided to defer your application for up to three (3) months, returning no later than the March 23, 2023 meeting.  The deferral is to allow further discussions between the applicant and staff with respect to a compromise.

    Carried

Leah Barrie, Manager of Planning
File Number: D20-2022-057
Location: 1023 Little Britain Road
Part Lot 6, Plan 79
Geographic Township of Mariposa
Owner: Raymond Zinsmeister

Ms. Barrie summarized the deferral memorandum to permit a detached accessory building (workshop/garage) at reduced setbacks, increased coverage and height to remain in place. The application came before the Committee at the August 18, 2022 meeting and a motion was made to defer to permit the owner and Kawartha Conservation to address violations on the property.

The owner has submitted an application to KRCA, however the permit cannot be supported by their staff and that the owner will be required to attend a Board Hearing with the Board of Directors. The owner is required to submit to the Board an elevation survey of the property and an engineering hydraulic analyses. KRCA is supporting an extension of 6 months as per memorandum circulated to the Committee members.

Staff recommend a deferral of six (6) months returning no later than June 22, 2023 or sooner upon receipt of comments from KRCA. Ms. Barrie noted that the owner has no objections.

There were no questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-136
    Moved ByCouncillor Yeo
    Seconded ByS. Richardson

    That Minor Variance application D20-2022-057 be deferred for a period of not more than six (6) months, returning at the latest to the June 22, 2023 meeting. The deferral is to facilitate on-going efforts between the owner and Kawartha Conservation.

    Carried

Leah Barrie, Manager of Planning
File Number: D20-2022-064
Location: 10 Leaf Street
Lot 7, Plan 234
Geographic Township of Fenelon
Owner: Ronald Decooman and Doreen MacPherson

Ms. Barrie summarized the deferral memorandum previously circulated to the members. The application is to permit a detached accessory building (workshop/garage) located within a front yard, and at a reduced front yard setback to remain in place.

The application was brought before the Committee at the September 22, 2022 meeting. Staff recommended a deferral as the Supervisor of Part 8 Sewage Systems requested that a field verification, inspection and further evaluation would be needed to address concerns with the placement of the garage in proximity to the sewage system.

The owner has now requested additional time to review the system requirements with his contractor, installer and the sewage system company. Further details contained within the memorandum.

A motion was made to further defer the application for not more than five (5) months, returning at the latest to the May 25, 2023 meeting.

There were no questions from the Committee or other persons.

  • CA2022-137
    Moved ByCouncillor Yeo
    Seconded ByB. Archer

    That Minor Variance application D20-2022-064 be deferred for a period of not more than five (5) months, returning at the latest to the May 25, 2023 meeting or sooner following completion of the forthcoming works in March 2023.

    Carried

The Chair asked for a motion to approve the proposed 2023 meeting dates, noting January meeting amended from January 26 to January 27.

  • CA2022-138
    Moved ByCouncillor Yeo
    Seconded ByG. Erickson

    That the proposed meeting dates for 2023 be approved as amended.

    Carried

The next meeting will be Friday, january 27, 2023 at 1:00pm in Council Chambers, City Hall.

  • CA2022-139
    Moved ByCouncillor Yeo
    Seconded ByA. Scarr

    That the meeting be adjourned at 4:32pm.

    Carried