Mr. Shahid brought to the Committees attention that the notice circulated did not include the language for the need for relief for the maximum number of permitted cabins. This was only in the language of the notice, and the site plan circulated did include all the labelled structures, this has been reflected in the report, which included all the required reliefs. It is staffs opinion that the application can proceed.
Committee asked who prepared the advertisement. Mr. Shahid replied that he prepared the advertisement and that it was a clerical error on his part. Mr. Connolly, Manager of Planning gave a brief overview, stating that in his professional opinion he would be comfortable to proceed and confirmed this would not impede the process. The Committee made a unanimous decision to proceed with the presentation.
Mr. Shahid summarized Report COA2024-049. The purpose and effect is to permit the demolition and reconstruction of a boathouse situated within the Open Space Exception One (O1-S1) Zone. Additionally, recognition of an existing cabin is required. Relief sought: Section 3.1.b. of the Zoning By-law requires accessory structures to be located in a side or rear yard. The existing cabin is located in the front yard. Section 3.1.c. of the Zoning By-law permits a maximum 8% lot coverage for accessory structures. The existing accessory structure lot coverage is 11.16% (252.83 square metres). Section 3.1.f. of the Zoning By-law permits only 1 cabin on properties where a cabin would be a permitted accessory use. The subject property is zoned to allow for the accessory use of a cabin, and currently has three existing cabins.
After the writing of the report, comments were received from Kawartha Conservation stating they have no concerns with the approval of the minor variance and that a permit has already been obtained from their office. A letter was received from the public however, it was not signed or contain any contact information, and as a result, the anonymous letter and its contents will not be discussed.
The Committee had the following questions;
1) With three cabins on the property, do the other two contain plumbing and kitchen facilities and why are the owners not applying for an additional residential unit (ARU)?
Staff responded, there is no plumbing or kitchen facilities in the other two cabins as they are used purely for sleeping accommodation. The ARU was discussed with the applicant and this is not their intention. If they wanted to convert to an ARU, reliefs would be required.
2) Under the Bobcaygeon Zoning By-law are there any concerns with the number of accessory structures?
Staff responded, the Bobcaygeon Zoning By-law requires lot coverage not a maximum number of accessory structures.
3) Page 3 of 10 of the report under "The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law" - Relief are also required from various provisions regarding the number of cabins, the locations of accessory structures, and accessory structure lot coverage. This is not reflected in the conditions. Committee asked Staff to clarify.
Staff responded, that this is referring to a relief and not a condition. The third relief noted in on page 1 of the report which was omitted from the notice of circulation as previously discussed.
4) If the reason for the minor variance is the lot coverage, was consideration given to removing the cabin?
Staff responded, lengthy discussion took place with the owner and applicant as a result they wanted to keep the cabin and remove the plumbing to comply with the definition of the Bobcaygeon Zoning By-law.
5) Committee asked staff about the size of the cabins. Staff responded with details.
6) Committee asked for clarification as to Relief 3 of the report as well as question 3 regarding accessory structures and plumbing fixtures not being addressed in the report?
Staff responded, the cabin in question today is the cabin recently constructed, the other two are existing. The third relief would be to allow 3 cabins. The cabin containing plumbing is part of an enforcement matter being addressed as part of this minor variance. The other two cabins are not related to the enforcement and not a part of the minor variance. The Bobcaygeon Zoning By-law has a maximum number of cabins but not a maximum number of accessory structures.
The Committee were still hesitant to approve the application and suggested a deferral for a month for further clarification. Although the application requested is straight forward, Committee found that the report does not clearly reflect the application.
The Chair asked Mr. Connolly, Manager of Planning to speak further to the concerns. Mr. Connolly responded and suggested that they take a five-minute break to allow planning staff to work on amending the wording in the conditions and address the concerns the Committee have. The Chair agreed and called for a break at 2:54pm. The Chair called the meeting back to order at 3:07pm and clarified that the meeting was paused at the request of the Manager of Planning with respect to the application.
Mr. Connolly gave a brief introduction and asked Mr. Shahid to begin by clarify questions asked by the Committee and then Mr. Connolly would summarize at the end.
Mr. Shahid referred to questions 3. "Relief are also required from various provisions regarding the number of cabins, the locations of accessory structures, and accessory structure lot coverage". This should now read “Reliefs are required ....", not "are also...". Mr. Shahid stated that Condition 2 was added to remove plumbing fixtures, systems and accommodations to be considered just a cabin. Relief number 3, speaks to the number of cabins permitted. The cabin that currently has plumbing, which is situated in the front yard, is the only cabin subject to the minor variance. Mr. Connolly followed up with a brief summary.
The Committee asked if there is a difference between a bunkie and a cabin, which both terms were used in the sketch provided by the applicant. Mr. Shahid responded.
The Chair thanked staff and felt comfortable to proceed.
The Committee asked staff; was the original application to demolish the boathouse and reconstruct a new boathouse? Mr. Shahid replied, the application was initially for a boathouse and then the cabin with plumbing fixtures was added as part of an enforcement file. Mr. McKinnon, Plans Examiner confirmed that the enforcement matter is purely to remove the plumbing in order to create a cabin.
The Committee thanked staff for taking the time to clarify the issues.
Mr. Wilcox was present via electronic participation.
There were no further questions from the Committee or other persons.