Page 1 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Committee Chair W. Moore called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and the following were recorded as being present. Committee Members: Staff: Committee Member, K. Parlett (absent) Committee Member, W. Moore (Acting Committee Chair) Committee Member, A. Taylor Secretary-Treasurer, M. Holmes 2. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 28, 2010 MEETING Moved by: Seconded by: Committee Member, A. Taylor Committee Member, W. Moore That the Minutes of June 28, 2010 be approved. 4. MINOR VARIANCE MEETINGS 4.1 A14/10 by Ted Drenth and Judith Drenth for Part of Block A, Concession 13, Muskoka North Ward of the Town of Bracebridge being Parts 4 to 7 of Plan 35R- 15997: The applicants are requesting relief from Section 4.3.5 of By-law 2006-120, as amended, which requires a pool to be located no closer to the front lot line, being the Muskoka River, than the dwelling, to allow a pool to be installed with a front yard setback of 21.34 metres (70 feet) while the existing dwelling has a front yard setback of 30.48 metres (100 feet), a variance of 9.14 metres (30 feet). The subject lands are located at 1070 Beaumont Farm Road. Correspondence was received from Tom Hookings, Chief Building Official indicating that a pool fence permit will be required. Ted Drenth, applicant, attended on behalf of this application. Mr. Drenth stated that the property fronted onto Beaumont Farm Road and the septic system was on the road side of the dwelling, which is considered the rear yard. He said due to the location of the septic system, he had to place the pool on the river side of the dwelling, which is considered the front yard. He indicated that the subject lands had over 200 feet of frontage on the Muskoka River and the pool would be setback 70 feet from the river and 70 feet from the dwelling.
Page 2 Committee member Wayne Moore questioned the distance the pool would be to the neighbouring dwelling. Mr. Drenth indicated that the neighbouring dwelling would be located approximately 300 feet from the pool. Committee member Allen Taylor questioned if the pool would meet side yard setbacks. The Committee was informed that the pool would meet the side yard setbacks, however as the pool was not considered a structure it did not have to meet setbacks. The Committee was informed that the Zoning By-law only stated which yard the pool could be located in and the variance was to permit the pool to be located 30 feet within the front yard. ALLEN TAYLOR, WAYNE MOORE: THAT Application A/14/10 be APPROVED to allow a pool to be installed with a front yard setback of 21.34 metres (70 feet) while the existing dwelling has a front yard setback of 30.48 metres (100 feet), a variance of 9.14 metres (30 feet). REASONS: The application is minor in nature, as no concerns were expressed by neighbouring property owners. The application is appropriate, as the proposed location is the most appropriate location on the subject lands for the pool. The application meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law, as the pool will meet the front yard setback of Shoreline Residential Type 1 (SR1) Zone. The application meets the intent of the Official Plan, as the use will not have a negative impact on the Muskoka River. 4.2 A/15/10 by Henry Wesseling and Mary Wesseling for Lot 20 of Plan 15, Bracebridge Ward of the Town of Bracebridge: The applicants are requesting relief from Sections 3.2.3.1 and 4.3.3 ii) of By-law 2006-120, as amended, which requires a detached garage in a Residential Type 1 (R1) Zone to have a minimum interior side yard setback of 1.2 metres (3.94 feet), to recognize a detached garage that was constructed with an interior side yard setback of 0.9 metres (3.0 feet), a variance of 0.3 metres (0.94 feet). The subject lands are located at 67 Taylor Road. Mary Wesseling, applicant, attended on behalf of this application. James Wesseling, agent, attended on behalf of this application. Blake Morrison and Suzanne Ruttan of 71 Taylor Road, neighbouring property owners, attended on this application. Committee member Wayne Moore questioned if the garage has already been constructed. Mr. Wesseling stated that the garage was constructed 16 years ago. He stated that his parents are applying for a setback of 3 feet, however the garage only encroaches on the
Page 3 setback by a few inches. He stated that they were not positive the exact measurement and that is why they are requesting the foot variance. He stated that nothing is proposed to change on the property. Ms. Ruttan stated that she had paid to have a survey done on her property to put up a fence. She stated that they own a pitbull, which is why they are erecting a fence. She stated that she was concerned that the snow from the metal roof of the garage will do damage to the fence. Committee member Wayne Moore questioned if the string in the picture indicated the property line. Ms. Ruttan stated that the string did indicated the property line. She stated that there is continuous disputes with the neighbours in which the police have been called. She indicated that this is part of the reason for the fence and she asked the applicants for protection against damage to the fence. She stated that they had requested the applicant install snow stops and sign an agreement that if there is any damage to the fence due to snow from the garage roof, the applicants will be responsible for the repair of the fence. Mr. Morrison stated that two days after receiving the notice for the minor variance application, the applicants had installed snow stops on the roof. Committee member Allen Taylor questioned what type of snow stops had been installed. Mr. Wesseling stated that the snow stops where angled iron. Ms Ruttan stated that the snow from the roof would remove two sections of fence worth approximately $2000. Committee member Wayne Moore questioned how long Ms. Ruttan and Mr. Morrison had owned the house next door. Ms. Ruttan stated that she had purchased the house from her parents approximately 3 years ago. Committee member Allen Taylor questioned if there had been a fence built at that time. Ms. Ruttan stated that there had been a dilapidated fence along the rear property line previously when her parents owned the property. She stated that she had discussed installing the fence with all her neighbours and they were in agreement. Mr. Morrison stated that they were also installing the fence because they had installed hardwood floors in the living room and last year the applicants had broken their window while blowing snow and caused damage to the hardwood floors. Committee member Wayne Moore stated that a number of these issues are disputes between neighbours and cannot be resolved by this Committee. He indicated that the application before the Committee was for the setback on the garage.
Page 4 Ms. Ruttan stated that all they wanted was a condition that snow stops be put up and the applicants enter into an agreement that if there is any damage to the fence, the applicants will be responsible for the damage. Committee member Allen Taylor stated that even without an agreement, he believed the applicants would be responsible if they had caused damage to the fence. Mr. Wesseling stated that his parents had done their due diligences by constructing the snow stops and did not think entering into an agreement was necessary. The Committee was informed that the Town could not facilitate an agreement between two private property owners. ALLEN TAYLOR, WAYNE MOORE: THAT Application A/15/10 be APPROVED, to recognize a detached garage that was constructed with an interior side yard setback of 0.9 metres (3.0 feet), a variance of 0.3 metres (0.94 feet). CONDITION: 1) That proper snow stops are installed and maintained along the entire length of the garage roof closest to 71 Taylor Road. REASONS: The application is minor in nature, as only one corner of the garage encroaches on the setback. The application is appropriate, as the condition for proper snow stops addresses the neighbours concerns. The application meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law, as the garage have been constructed for 16 years. The application meets the intent of the Official Plan, as the use is permitted in the Residential Designation. 4.3 A/16/10 by Russell Page and Carole Page for Part of Lot 11, Concession 3, Monck South Ward of the Town of Bracebridge being Part 1 and Part of Part 2 of Plan 35R- 4177: The applicants are requesting relief from Section 4.3.3 of By-law 2006-120, as amended, which requires a shed to be located no closer to the front lot line than the dwelling, to allow a shed to be constructed with a front yard setback of 11.89 metres (39 feet) while the existing dwelling has a front yard setback of 29.57 metres (97 feet), a variance of 17.68 metres (58 feet). The applicants are also requesting relief from Section 4.3.3 of By-law 2006-120, as amended, which requires a detached garage to be located no closer to the front lot line than the dwelling, to allow a detached garage to be constructed with a front yard setback of 3.05 metres (10 feet) while the existing dwelling has a front yard setback of 29.57 metres (97 feet), a variance of 26.52 metres (87 feet). The subject lands are located at 1236 Golden Beach Road. Russell Page, applicant, attended on behalf of this application.
Page 5 Mr. Page stated that he had inquired at the Town of Bracebridge about erecting a shed but had not know that if could not be located in the front yard. He stated that the Building Inspector was in his area and had stopped to inform him that the building was not in compliance and he immediately stopped construction. He indicated that there was about 7 or 8 feet from the shed to the septic tile field. He stated that he intended to place trees around the shed. Mr. Page stated that he had applied for the variance for the garage to be able to store his equipment and hide the shed. He stated that he had looked at attaching the garage to the house but that would block one of the bedroom windows. He indicated that the location of the proposed garage would allow him to keep the property tidy. Mr. Page distributed photographs to the Committee of other sheds and garages in the area. Mr. Page stated that he had travelled around the neighbourhood and took pictures of other sheds and garages that were in character with his proposal. Committee member Wayne Moore stated that the photographs had no addresses. Mr. Page stated that the pictures were all taken on Golden Beach Road. Committee member Allen Taylor questioned the size of the shed. Mr. Page stated the shed was 10 square metres and therefore a building permit was not required. He stated that he proposed to finish the shed with the same siding as the house and install flower boxes on the shed. Committee member Wayne Moore questioned if the applicant could combine the shed and garage and place the garage in the location of the shed. He indicated that the proposed setback of 10 feet was too big an impact on the road for the garage. Mr. Page stated he couldn t locate the garage in the area of the shed due to the slope of the land. He stated that he was concerned about vandalism in the area as a number of mailboxes were damaged about a month prior. ALLEN TAYLOR, WAYNE MOORE: THAT Application A/16/10 be APPROVED, to allow a shed to be constructed with a front yard setback of 11.89 metres (39 feet) while the existing dwelling has a front yard setback of 29.57 metres (97 feet), a variance of 17.68 metres (58 feet). CONDITION: 1) That the shed be buffered from the road by a row of trees located not more than 10 feet in front of the shed. REASONS: The application is minor in nature, as no concerns were expressed by neighbouring property owners. The application is appropriate, as the shed will be in character with the neighbourhood. The application meets the intent of the Zoning By- Law, as the shed will be buffered from the travelled road. The application meets the intent of the Official Plan, as the use is permitted in the Rural Designation.
Page 6 ALLEN TAYLOR, WAYNE MOORE: THAT Application A/16/10 be DENIED, to allow a detached garage to be constructed with a front yard setback of 3.05 metres (10 feet) while the existing dwelling has a front yard setback of 29.57 metres (97 feet), a variance of 26.52 metres (87 feet). REASONS: The application is not minor in nature, as the garage will have a negative impact on the travelled portion of Golden Beach Road. The application is not appropriate, as the garage will not be in character with the neighbourhood. 4.4 A/17/10 by Wayne Taylor for Lot 17, Concession 3, Macaulay Ward of the Town of Bracebridge: The applicant is requesting relief from Section 3.6.2.3 (ii) of By-law 2006-120, as amended, which requires a hunt camp to have a maximum total floor area of 100 square metres (1,076 square feet), to permit a hunt camp with a total floor area of 160.53 square metres (1,728 square feet), a variance of 60.53 square metres (652 square feet). The subject lands are located on Taylor Road. Correspondence was received from Tom Hookings, Chief Building Official indicating that if any running water is proposed in the Hunt Camp, a septic permit will be required. Greg Corbett, agent of the applicant, attended on behalf of this application. Mr. Corbett indicated how the application meets the four tests of a minor variance in his professional opinion. Mr. Corbett stated that he feels the application meets the intent of the Official Plan as the Rural Designation permitted uses include recreation and wildlife management and the majority of the subject lands have been maintained in its natural state. He also stated that he feels the application meets the intent of the Zoning By-law as a Hunt Camp is a permitted use in the Rural (RU) Zone and the lot area provision and time requirements for the Hunt Camp will be satisfied. He also indicated that the interior and exterior of the building will continue to reflect that of a Hunt Camp. Mr. Corbett also indicated that he feels the application is minor in nature as the property is already developed for a Hunt Camp and the proposed addition would not appear to have impact on adjacent properties in his opinion. He also stated that he feels the application is desirable for appropriate development as the applicant has additional property in the area and if an addition to the existing Hunt Camp were not feasible, the applicant would construct an additional Hunt Camp in the vicinity, which would not be as desirable from an environmental or character perspective. Committee member Allen Taylor questioned if there was a well on site. Mr. Taylor indicated that there was not a well on site and they received there water from a plastic barrel that they pump out with a generator. He stated that due to the terrain of rock and swamp, they did not feel a well was feasible.
Page 7 Committee member Wayne Moore questioned if there was any correspondence. The Committee was informed that the only correspondence was from Tom Hookings, Chief Building Official. ALLEN TAYLOR, WAYNE MOORE: THAT Application A/17/10 be APPROVED, to permit a hunt camp with a total floor area of 160.53 square metres (1,728 square feet), a variance of 60.53 square metres (652 square feet). CONDITION: 1) That if a well is installed a proper septic system as required by the Ontario Building Code will be required to be installed. REASONS: The application is minor in nature, as no concerns were expressed by neighbouring property owners. The application is appropriate, as the hunt camp if location on a seasonal road with no permitted residential development. The application meets the intent of the Zoning By-Law, as the hunt camp will continue to be used for its intended purpose. The application meets the intent of the Official Plan, as the use is permitted in the Rural Designation. 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. ONGOING BUSINESS 6.1 A/12/10 by Sean Trohak for Part of Lots 22 and 23, Concession 1, Oakley Ward of the Town of Bracebridge: The applicants are requesting relief from Section 4.22.1 of By-law 2006-120, as amended, which requires any building or structure to be located with a minimum setback of 30 metres (98.4 feet) from a cold water stream, to allow a dwelling to be constructed with a setback of 20.4 metres (67 feet) from the Black River, which is classified as a cold water stream, a variance of 9.6 metres (31.4 feet). The subject lands are located at 1246 Miriam Drive. This application was previously heard on June 28, 2010 and was deferred to allow the applicant to provide a revised plan. Sean Trohak, applicant, attended on behalf of this application. Mr. Trohak stated that he had revised his plans and was now requesting a setback of 90 feet. He stated that he had shrunk the basement of the proposed dwelling. Committee member Wayne Moore stated that he was not opposed to the revised variance.
Page 8 Committee member Allen Taylor stated that he would recommend a condition that the building be sited by a surveyor. ALLEN TAYLOR, WAYNE MOORE: THAT Application A/12/10 be APPROVED to allow a dwelling to be constructed with a setback of 27.4 metres (90 feet) from the Black River, which is classified as a cold water stream, a variance of 2.6 metres (8.4feet). CONDITION: 7. CORRESPONDENCE 8. CLOSED SESSION 1) That the foundation of the proposed dwelling is located by an Ontario Land Surveyor REASONS: The application is minor in nature, as no concerns were expressed by neighbouring property owners. The application is appropriate, as the setback is in character with the neighbourhood. The application meets the intent of the Zoning By- Law, as will be buffered from the Black River. The application meets the intent of the Official Plan, as the use is permitted in the Waterfront designation. 9. RESOLUTIONS ARISING FROM CLOSED SESSION 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 6:30 p.m. The next regular meeting for the Committee of Adjustment for Minor Variances will be held on August 23, 2010. Chair Secretary-Treasurer