This document can be made available in other accessible formats as soon as practicable and upon request AGENDA Committee of Adjustment Meeting 206 Toronto St. S., Markdale, ON DECEMBER 9, 2015 - 5:00 pm Page 1 Call to Order 2 Declaration of Pecuniary (Financial) Interest, Direct or Indirect 3 Adoption of Minutes 3 - 15 3.1 Minutes of November 10th, 2015 Resolve, That the Committee of Adjustment approves the minutes of November 10, 2015 as circulated / amended 4 Business Arising from the Minutes 5 Deferred Files 16 - 33 5.1 B10.2015, Tacoma 6 New Files 34 - 52 6.1 A08.2015, Smeltzer, Block B, Registered Plan 21; Easement over Parts 1 and 2, Plan 17R-3374 (Artemesia) Planning Report PL.15.64 *Additional comments - Grey Sauble Conservation Authority 53 - 69 6.2 B12.2015, Alexandra Gott, Part Lot 21, Concession 12 (Osprey) Planning Report PL.15.65 70 - 87 6.3 B13.2015, Sprott, Lots 62-65, Concession 1 SDR (Osprey) Planning Report PL.15.66 *Planning report is the same Page 1 of 122
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
This document can be made available in other accessible formats as
soon as practicable and upon request
AGENDA
Committee of Adjustment Meeting
206 Toronto St. S., Markdale, ON
DECEMBER 9, 2015 - 5:00 pm
Page
1 Call to Order 2 Declaration of Pecuniary (Financial) Interest, Direct or
Indirect 3 Adoption of Minutes 3 - 15 3.1 Minutes of November 10th, 2015
Resolve, That the Committee of Adjustment approves the minutes of November 10, 2015 as
circulated / amended
4 Business Arising from the Minutes 5 Deferred Files 16 - 33 5.1 B10.2015, Tacoma 6 New Files 34 - 52 6.1 A08.2015, Smeltzer, Block B, Registered Plan 21;
Easement over Parts 1 and 2, Plan 17R-3374 (Artemesia)
2 Declaration of Pecuniary (Financial) Interest, Direct or
Indirect
No declarations.
3 Adoption of Minutes
3.1 Adoption CoA15-19
Little - Silverton
Resolve, That the Committee of Adjustment approves the minutes of October 14, 2015 as circulated
CARRIED.
4 Business Arising from the Minutes
No business arising.
5 Deferred Files
No Deferred Files
6 New Files
6.1 A05.2015, May, Part Lot 31, Concession 8, Part 1, RP 17R1355 (Artemesia)
Planning Report PL.15.55
Application for Minor Variance: A05.2015
Registered Owner: Scott and Brenda May
Assessment Roll: 42.08.180.007.06200.0000
In Attendance: Scott and Brenda May
This Public Meeting was called under Section 45 of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, with respect to an application for amendment to By-law 2004-50, file A05.2015
by Scott May affecting lands owned and described as being:
• Part Lot 31, Concession 8, Part 1, RP 17R1355 (former
Township of Artemesia)
The notice of this Public Meeting was mailed by first class mail
on the 16th day of October 2015, to the property owner and to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject
property, in addition to all agencies and persons identified in the Planning Act.
The Chair read the regulations and confirmed that signage
was in place.
Municipal Planning Consultant Kristine Loft presented Report
PL.15.55.
Proposal: To vary the provisions of Section 7.4.3c) of the Grey
Highlands Zoning By-law where a building or structure may be
Page 3 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
enlarged (including the construction of a basement) to dimensions which equal the width of the existing building or
structure (11.3 metres), and which is proposed to be situated away from the lake but within the 30 metre setback; where
the proposed new building or structure is wider than the existing building or structure (13.0 metres).
Comments Received (Summary):
The County of Grey Planning Department - Comments
dated October 28, 2015 – If municipal planning staff are satisfied that requirements of the Conservation Authority and the municipal works department can be satisfied in
addition to appropriate water and septic servicing, the County would have no further concerns with the subject
October 26, 2015 – We have no objection to the proposed
minor variance as the proposed development will be set back further from the lake than the existing development.
The Municipality of Grey Highlands Building Department - Comments dated October 19, 2015 - No concerns with
application. In building a new residence on the property, a Demolition Permit, Building Permit and Septic Permit will be required.
Municipality of Grey Highlands Transportation and Public Safety Department - Comments dated October 29, 2015 –
The Building Department has no concerns at this time. Grey Highlands Fire and Emergency Services - Comments
dated October 20, 2015 - Application does not raise any
fire safety concerns at this time.
Conclusion:
When reviewing the merits of this application Planning Staff found that the application did meet all tests of a minor
variance. All four tests of a minor variance can be satisfied and as such Staff are able to recommend the variance for
approval.
Presentations by Applicant or Agent: Applicant in attendance and available to answer any questions.
Call for any objections or support: No objections or general questions.
No further discussion.
Members Vote:
Little - approve
Trimble - approve
Silverton - approve
Risk - support
McQueen - support
Application approved.
Adjourned this portion of the meeting at 5:09 pm
Page 4 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
6.2 A06.2015 Rudland/Antes, Part of Block 1, Plan 850 being Part 15, Plan 17R-3580; and Lot 15, Plan 836 (Artemesia)
Planning Report PL.15.56
Application for a Minor Variance: A06.2015
Registered Owner: Gregory J. Rudland and Hermina Antes
Purpose: To vary the provisions of Section 5.6(b) and Section
7.4.2(d) of the Grey Highlands Zoning By-law where 10 metres front yard setback is required and 4.576 metres is
provided.
Legal Description: Part of Block 1, Plan 850 being Part 15,
Plan 17R-3580; And Lot 15, Plan 836 in the Municipality of Grey Highlands (formerly Township of Artemesia) County of Grey
Assessment Roll Number: 42.08.180.007.18400.0000
In Attendance: Hermina Antes
Comments Received (Summary):
The County of Grey Planning Department: Comments dated October 28, 2015 – County planning staff
recommend that comments from the Conservation Authority be considered prior to requesting an EIS. There
are no further concerns with the subject application Grey Sauble Conservation Authority - Comments dated
October 27, 2015 – The GSCA has no objection to the
approval of the minor variance to permit the construction of a garage within the front yard setback, as the
development will be located away from the natural hazard areas on site and it is not anticipated that any new negative impacts to potential natural heritage features will
result from the works. A permit is required from the GSCA for the proposed garage prior to the commencement of
construction. The Municipality of Grey Highlands Building Department -
Comments dated October 19, 2015. No concerns with application.
Municipality of Grey Highlands Transportation and
Environmental Services Department - Comments dated October 29, 2015 – No concerns at this time
Grey Highlands Fire and Emergency Services - Comments dated October 20, 2015 - Application does not raise any fire safety concerns.
Conclusion:
When reviewing the merits of this application Planning Staff found that the application as applied for does not meet all tests of a minor variance.
Staff would recommend a reduced variance where 4.5 metres is requested, staff would support a 6 metre setback from the
front lot line, where 10 metres is proposed. This would maintain an acceptable distance from the hydro corridor and would also still maintain a separation distance to the existing
shed.
Applicant was contacted and Staff explained the reasons. She
indicated that measurements would be done to see that the 6 metres would suffice.
Page 5 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
Presentation by applicant or agent; Applicant advised that she is okay with 6 metres.
Objection or support: No objections or support and no general questions
Comments from committee - agree with 6 metres.
signage was in place.
As amended to 6 metres:
Trimble - in favour
Risk - support with amendment
Silverton - support amended recommendation
Little - support amended recommendation
McQueen - support amended recommendation
Amended Application was approved.
Adjourned at 5:20 pm
6.3 A07.2015 Gott Enterprises Inc., Part Lot 15, Concession 9 and Part Lot 15, Concession 10 (Osprey)
Planning Report PL.15.57
Application for a Minor Variance: A07.2015
Registered Owner: Gott Enterprises Inc.
Purpose and Effect: To vary the provisions of Section 9.1.2(h)
where a maximum height of 11 metres is required and 15.478 metres is provided. This is a variance of 4.478 metres. The
variance would be for a roof area of approximately 64 square metres.
Legal Description: Part Lot 15 Concession 9, Part Lot 15 Concession 10 Former Township of Osprey
Assessment Roll Number: 42.08.140.006.05800.0000
This Public Meeting was called under Section 45 of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, with respect to an application for amendment to By-law 2004-50, file A07.2015
by Gott Enterprises Inc. affecting lands owned and described as being:
● Part Lot 15, Concession 9 and Part Lot 15, Concession 10
(former Township of Osprey)
The notice of this Public Meeting was mailed by first class mail on the 16th day of October 2015, to the property owner and
to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject property, in addition to all agencies and persons identified in
the Planning Act.
Comments Received (Summary):
The County of Grey - Comments dated October 28, 2015 –
County Planning Staff have no concerns with the application. The subject lands abut Grey Road 2, which is a County Road.
Comments have been received from Transportation Services stating no objection.
Page 6 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority - Comments dated April 15, 2014 - No objections.
The Municipality of Grey Highlands Building Department - Comments dated October 19, 2015 - No concerns.
The Municipality of Grey Highlands Transportation and Environmental Services - Comments dated October 29, 2015 - No concerns.
The Municipality of Grey Highlands Fire and Emergency Services Department - Comments dated October 20 2015 - No
fire safety concerns.
Comments from applicant: None
Applicant or Agent - None
Object or support - No objections or support or general questions
signage was in place
No further discussion
Members vote
Silverton - support
Risk - Support
Trimble - support
Little - support
Mcqueen - support
Adjourned at 5:26 pm
6.4 B10.2015 Tacoma Severance Application,Part Lot 5, Concession 4 (Euphrasia)
Planning Report PL15.54
Application for Consent: B10.2015
Registered Owners: Jack Tacoma and Tet Tacoma
Applicant: Chris Hachey, Grey Sauble Conservation Authority
Purpose: The purpose is twofold:
1) To sever approximately 18.72 ha of rural (conservation) land (Part 1) and to retain a 3.15 ha residential parcel (Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). The severed parcel will be conveyed to the
adjacent lands known as the Old Baldy Conservation Authority lands (Roll No. 420839004100301)
2) To establish an easement (Part 3) measuring 0.07 ha in favour of the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (Old Baldy Conservation Area) (Roll No. 420839004100301) for public
trail/pedestrian access.
The purpose of the application is to permit the conveyance of
the rural lands to be merged with the adjacent Grey Sauble
Page 7 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
Conservation Authority lands known as the Old Baldy Conservation Area.
Legal Description: Part Lot 5, Concession 4, The Former Township of Euphrasia
Assessment Roll Number: 42 08 390 041 02800 0000
This Public Meeting was called under Section 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, with respect to an application for amendment to By-law 2004-50, file B10.2015
by Jack and Tet Tacoma affecting lands owned and described as being:
● Part Lot 5 Concession 4 in the Former Township of Euphrasia
The notice of this Public Meeting was first mailed by first class mail on the 16th day of October 2015, to the property
owner and to all property owners within 120 metres of the subject property, in addition to all agencies and persons identified in the Planning Act.
Site Plan identifies proposed easement.
Comments Received (Summary):
The County of Grey - Comments dated October 28, 2015 – At this time County staff is unclear if any parking area is
proposed for people accessing the Conservation Area via the proposed easement. We would recommend that municipal staff consider parking within the Village as part of the consent
process. County planning staff recommends that approval of the consent is subject to the severed parcel merging
successfully with the Conservation Authority lands so that no new lot is created and that Council considers resolving any unresolved access issues on adjacent lands. ey
Grey County Transportation Services have reviewed the file and have no objection to the proposed consent.
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority - Comments dated October 26, 2015 – We have no objection to the proposed
severance for lot addition.
The Municipality of Grey Highlands Building Department -
Comments dated October 26, 2015 – The building department has no issues or concerns with the consent application.
The Municipality of Grey Highlands Transportation &
Environmental Services Department - Comments dated October 29, 2015 – No concerns at this time.
The Municipality of Grey Highlands Fire & Emergency Services – Comments dated October 20, 2015 – The proposed consent does not raise any safety concerns.
NEC provided comments on November 9th.
Clarification that pedestrian traffic and that the public can use
it.
Page 8 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
Signage was in place.
Applicant presentation: Chris Hachey from Grey Sauble
Conservation Authority. Just south of access and Kimberley the Conservation Authority (CA) owns a narrow piece of property that has a walking trail to reach top of old baldy and
existing trails. Not anticipating any extra parking in area. Not looking to increase access by cars at new access point. Mainly
an exit for future trails.
Clarification provided that it is not intended to promote trail on
top, but to have a new trail on proposed property that would be a stand alone trail and then trail on upper half.
Allows access to lower half should someone get hurt on Old
Baldy.
Parking spaces were identified as three or four cars and has
been enough to meet demand. Planner suggested signage posted that parking available at the south CA property and the
CA supported that suggestion.
The trail will be envisioned through public consultation session (Friends of Kimberley Forest, interested residents). Similar
process to that of the Bruce Trail and designated path. Small walking foot print. Defined easement and part of reference
plan. Landowners use the property as it is the location of their home. Mr. Hachey advised that the GSCA maintains and ensures the trail is appropriately marked. up driveway and
follows proposed parcel. Bruce Trail has similar access across private lands to designated trail systems. Trail is open to
general public. Footpath for walking only.
Anyone in opposition or support of the application:
John and Frances Foresi appeared at the hearing to provide possible solutions as they have significant objections to the
application. Want amicable, however very firm in what looking for. Mr. Foresi advised that he spoke with Mr. Hachey and tried to contact Mr. Tacoma and since unable to contact they
are appearing before the Board.
Mr. Foresi stated that they respect the NEC and CA to fulfill
their mandates.
Mr. Foresi stated that in 2006 he spoke with NEC (Rick Watt)
who indicated the lands are protected and the character would not be changed.
Investment in building their home.
Risks environmentally. Mr. Foresi has cameras in that area. Many more people and dogs using the lands. Have seen bear,
wolf, bald eagles and cougar tracts. National treasures that need big undisturbed areas and compromise that treasure.
Confirmed with leading Canadian conservationist for this kind of path will have negative impact on species. No need for trail.
Mr. Foresi noted that it was an extension of the Tacoma’s
Page 9 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
business. They cut a deal and using the easement as marketable for their business.
Mr. Foresi is in real estate and stated that easements place a discount on property.
23 km of paths in Kimberley. Have access to other walking paths.
Not warranted - redundant development.
O ne environmental expert speaks to this not being suitable.
What is being asked to be approved is to use walking path for
art studio/retail store in forest.
Mr. Foresi provided a solution for the property be kept in tact as is and serve as better legacy, however, if selling, then he
asked the Tacoma’s to sell to them at 5% more than what CA offered. In the deed it would state that nothing occurs in
perpetuity and out of family's control. Feels strong to save this treasure. If not accepted, that proves that the purpose is financial.
Read the CA mission and mandate - can use money to do good for other properties. Not sure why not accept proposal.
Short term the Tacoma’s will get more, long term that when sell or pass on to their heirs they will have more value on
property as no easements and not as much traffic.
Questioned why the Conservation Authority is here and misleading as applicant. With CA as applicant it is intimidating
and far from fair and transparent process. The CA is wearing too many hats. The application went to them to approve their
own application. Asking that they recluse themselves.
Mr. Foresi asked that the Committee of Adjustment do the
right thing and turn the application down. Full closure and if approved, then it will be appealed. Has financial and will power to do it.
This application will not stand up. Stop the application about going forward. Not confrontational but emotional.
Mr. Foresi submitted the following written summary following the meeting.
In summary, the proposal for the severance and easement related to the Tacoma property should be rejected by the Municipality because:
1. There are obvious business and financial motivations for the repurposing of this land in terms of driving business to
Kimberley, which at the core is not the purpose of this environmentally pristine land that has an exceptionally unique biodiversity that needs to be left untouched with no further
encroachment.
2. The proposed changed use of the land is inconsistent with
the representations made to me by the NEC, the higher governing body that is not present in this room tonight, when
Page 10 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
I purchased our property in 2006. I was told by the NEC that nothing would be allowed in the sensitive area zoned
“significant woodlands” either on my property or the adjacent property (The Tacoma’s) that would change the character of
this environmentally sensitive land. This proposal is inconsistent with that representation.
3. This project represents a serious and unnecessary threat to wildlife (bears, wolves, bobcats, fishers, bald eagles and as I have stated we even have pictures of cougar tracts on the
property).
4. With 23kms of managed trails and 30km+ of total walkable
trails, with the public already having peripheral access to the lands in question, this is a completely redundant project and a completely unnecessary assault on an environmental and
wildlife treasure.
5. I have a 3rd party, independent wildlife and environmental
expert who has both a national and international profile, who also has responsibility for community interactions, who has
looked at this project and confirmed there is no reasoned justification for this project.
6. The unnecessary environmental and wildlife threat this
project represents puts it in direct conflict with the GSCA’s stated mandate.
Grey Sauble Conservation Authority Website:
“Grey Sauble Conservation is a community-based
environmental agency which owns and manages 28,995 acres of some of the most scenic and environmentally sensitive
lands in Grey and Bruce Counties. Working along side private landowners, we strive to protect and enhance a healthy watershed environment.”
"Our mission is to promote and undertake sustainable management of renewable natural resources and to provide
responsible leadership to enhance biodiversity"
7. The proposed purchase price by the GSCA is not at Fair
Market Value, (FMV) as I have demonstrated by being willing to pay a higher price for this property than the price offered by the GSCA. The execution of this proposal thereby puts the
GSCA and the municipality at risk of legal liability. The legal definition of FMV is: “the amount for which a property would
sell on the open market if put up for sale”. I do not know the terms of the transaction but I am nonetheless making a blind financial offer for this property that is greater than the GSCA’s
offer by 5% (including in the offer the right for the GSCA to access and audit the property without restriction of time or
frequency to ensure that I am in full compliance of doing “nothing” on this piece of pristine land which will allow the GSCA to use their resources to do good in other locations;
there is a win-win-win here). Furthermore, the GSCA is a regulatory body operating in the public marketplace with
enforcement powers entering into a private market transaction using tax payer funds. The GSCA has refused to
disclose, based on multiple requests, the specifics of this transaction. This is an overt attempt by a public organization,
Page 11 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
using public funds, to attempt to control the price of a private transaction. I want to highlight to this committee that that
kind of willful behavior that likely carries legal liability in any jurisdiction. Furthermore, the municipality should not approve
a financial transaction by a public enforcement agency, using tax payers’ funds, operating in its jurisdiction without full public disclosure of all terms and conditions, including
financial. The manufactured opaqueness of this transaction combined with a process that is riddled with conflict of interest
is not consistent with the public interest.
8. The GSCA should not even be the applicant for this
proposal. It is not their land and they are terribly conflicted in approving their own proposal. This is a governance nightmare.
9. Public funds should not be used, nor should precious land
be compromised against its zoned purpose, to act as a “business driver”.
10. There is a significant inequitable enforcement of standards for this application. This past year I applied to build a pond in
a field that is not zoned as nearly as restrictive as the lands under question. This pond had obvious biodiversity enhancing outcomes, acknowledged by all including the GSCA. I was
required to get 3rd party, independent expert verification of the impact and design of this pond from structural engineers,
geo-technicians, hydrologists and landscape architects. Before a shovel has gone in the ground, I have been required to spend enough money to build a small house. This is not a
complaint. Those are the rules and I willingly abide by them for the greater good of the environment and I expect the
same from the GSCA. Yet for this application, which on land that is zoned the most environmentally sensitive, not one stitch of 3rd party independent scientific based piece of
analysis has been completed even though I have 3rd party independent validation that this project will have irrefutable
negative implications to the environment and biodiversity. This certainly goes to the overall governance concerns that I have and the complete lack of impartiality that exists.
In fact, it is stated in the application documents regarding Policies 2.1.5 and 2.1.8 of the Provincial Policy Statement
(PPS): “the development and site alteration shall not be permitted in ANSI’s significant woodlands or the adjacent
lands to these features unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts to the features or their ecological functions.” When you have had nesting bobcats on
the property how do you think that introducing people and their dogs daily to the area is not going to damage the wildlife
and biodiversity of this area?
According GSCA documents related to this application “there will not be any negative impacts on the natural features or
their ecological function as a result of this consent application. Rather, there should be a net benefit to these features”. Not
only is this statement not true, it is an impossibility.
11. I disagree with the Committee’s opinion that the proposal
is not development. What is being proposed is changing the use and character of land for commercial purposes as stated previously to us as a “business driver”, that is a quintessential
Page 12 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
definition of development.
12. As part of the Provincial Policy Statement of 2014, it says
“avoid the need for the unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of infrastructure.” This easement and pathway is in
fact unjustified infrastructure when there is already 23 kilometers of supervised paths in Kimberley and many more
kilometers of unsupervised paths. This is a text book example of “unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion of infrastructure.”
13. In Appendix 3 of the application, it says the purpose of the transfer is to “transfer a significant portion of the lands to a
conservation body which will assist in protecting the natural features and functions of the land”. The GSCA intention with this environmentally sensitive land is to do the exact opposite
of protect.
Consulting Planner responded as follows:
- Application is by the Tacoma’s, however typical that an Agent applies on the owners behalf (owner provides
authorization)
- Legal transaction isn’t before the Committee and not involved in any real estate transactions. Clarification that what is before the Committee is the consent and easement. Not
privy to real estate and agreement. Clarification that Committee has three options: Defer, Approve or Deny
- Regarding PPS and Environment matters mentioned - whether development or not, usually with any application the
NEC is involved - identified that had to complete studies that NEC has. In this case, no NEC permit required for consent -
consent is considered development (creation of lot). Typically, before seeing the consent they already have Development Permit. NEC signed off and no new development proposed.
- PPS – Staff (Municipal, County and NEC) all deal with
PPS as well. Opinions need to have respect to PPS and is consistent with PPS.
No questions to presenter.
There were no other objections to the application.
Mr. Jack Tacoma spoke in support of the application.
Mr. Tacoma advised he is a retired professional engineer – he has worked with many CAs across Ontario and NEC. Hard on
rules, not heavy handed. Finished building house. Purchased land after previous owner got property. Revised as wanted small cottage. Until half an hour ago he didn't know he was
running a business. No intent to run business or retail.
Usage of trail - expect pretty low - coming into Kimberley two to three years and other access point will be linked. One car at other access. Very rarely see cars and doesn’t expect much
human access. Approached CA and asked if they would like to purchase and agreed. Like to see CA own rather than any
private party. Important on this property as have a few things to protect. Face of old Baldy. Initial or old heritage water supply is on this property (locked - structure there). Beautiful
waterfall at foot. Should be protected. Member of Bruce Trail. All along Bruce Trail in heavily walked areas (Hamilton area)
Page 13 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
no more than 3 cars. Don't expect heavy use or threat to wildlife - they believe proposal will protect rather than change.
Already a path existing. Suspect that people can enter and come down our laneway and property and don't object. Seen
how used on rest and haven't seen people go off and don’t expect a threat.
No questions from committee
Call for any other questions Mr. Foresi stated that he was also a member of the Bruce Trail and not having anything against
GSCA. Not against the GSCA owning, but don't want trail system. Only environmental risk. Not opposed to severance
but opposed to easement and walking path.
Chris Hachey - clarification - with regard to trail and when spoke to trail coming through community. Natural link to
come south across easement and link back up with conservation south. Walk through community and may
patronize some business and library. Parking lot of 3 -4 cars and not an economic driver. Ccommunity trail. Not
advertising.
Is the possibility to have decision of severance split and to only approve half and deny other? If deferring part
(easement) then defer all. However, Committee clear on deferral of what it to bring back.
Request by Member Little for Staff to provide what is germaine to decision making from presentation. Consultant Planner asked for written submission (which was provided
following the meeting).
Consulting Planner provided further clarification: proposal is
for lot addition to conservation lands. Trail system hasn’t been considered to potentially cause negative to property. When
processing staff rely on agencies to comment. Were deemed complete without any other work. No comments identified further environmental work. Lot addition is what committee is
deciding on, not trail system. Staff is not of opinion that application would cause negative impact on lands.
CA is commenting agency, same as other agencies. Staff could send to Ministry - one window planning for a review on
ANSI, significant forest, etc.
Any other comments from gallery? Mr. Tacoma noted that use of trail is already existing so people with or without dogs are
existing. Top of escarpment is already Bruce Trail. Assumption or insinuation that may be increasing impact is
hard to understand.
Clarification that what is before the Committee is an easement for pedestrian traffic that is not existing now. Easement
documents would indicate pedestrian.
Mr. Foresi - environmentally - trail and impact of garbage.
Page 14 of 122
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES - NOVEMBER 10, 2015,
Conditions were read.
Ask quickly as possible and bring back to next month
(December) or January meeting. No guarantee that Ministry will comment. Mr. Foresi stated he was opposed to easement and footpath. Committee could refer back to Staff for Ministry
review.
No further discussions.
Members vote
Little - support
Trimble - defer
Risk - defer
Silverton - not ready to come before - defer
McQueen - defer as want clarity on items
If comments received, then it will come back in December.
Reason for deferral - circulate to Ministry for comment.
Deferred.
Signage in place.
Adjourned at 7:04 pm
7 Other Business
8 Next Meeting
December 9, 2015
9 Adjournment
9.1 Adjournment CoA15-20
Silverton - Trimble
Resolve, That the Committee of Adjustment adjourn until the Call of the Chair.
Time: 7:05 pm
CARRIED.
Paul McQueen, Chair
Debbie Robertson, Deputy Secretary-Treasurer
Adopted as amended this 9th day of December, 2015.
Page 15 of 122
Page 16 of 122
.1.I_..I.I.fLI.L
I.I.I.-r...1.l.I.—_.-..|I—
II.
I.'.-lf
:1
u.I.J__I
"_..H.F|L
"L.h
..__.h._.u..u...mI.......m
H ..u? ......”+..n_".n.._I.”..-.h..._-.-|.n.._4...-|..1..........-.lnL
Arran-Elderslie, Chatsworth, Georgian Bluffs, Grey Highlands Meaford, Owen Sound, South Bruce Peninsula, Blue Mountains
December 4, 2015 Mrs. Debbie Robertson, Clerk
Municipality of Grey Highlands 206 Toronto St South, Unit 1 Box 409 Markdale ON N0C 1H0 Dear Mrs. Robertson: RE: Application for Minor Variance – A08.2015
Applicant: Carol and Joe Smeltzer
Part of Lot 30, Concession 9; Roll Number: 42-08-180-007-12000-0000 Municipality of Grey Highlands, formerly Artemesia Township Our File: P11803
Subject Proposal It is our understanding that the subject application proposes to amend the zoning on the subject lands to add an accessory structure including a picnic shelter as an additional use to the definition of “Passive Recreation” as it relates to the Open Space zone. The Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) has reviewed this proposal in accordance with our mandate and policies for natural hazards, for natural heritage issues as per our Memorandum of
Agreement with the Municipality of Grey Highlands and relative to our policies for the implementation of Ontario Regulation 151/06. We offer the following comments. Site Description The subject property is located on the north side of Lakeshore Drive, approximately 185 metres west of Sideroad 30 on the south shore of Lake Eugenia in the former Artemesia Township. The property is currently fully vegetated as a young maple woodlot, with scattered mature trees. The north side of the property is bound by Eugenia Lake and the provincially significant Eugen ia Lake wetland (PSW) complex. No development currently exists on the property
GSCA Regulations The entire property is regulated under Ontario Regulation 151/06: Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. The regulated area is associated with Eugenia Lake and its applicable regulated allowances, the Eugenia Lake PSW, and the area of interference surrounding this wetland feature. Under this regulation, a permit is required from this office pr ior to the construction of buildings or structures, the temporary or permanent placement of fill within the designated area, interference with a wetland, and/or the straightening, changing, diverting or in any way interfering with an existing channel of a river, lake, creek, stream or watercourse.
Page 48 of 122
Mrs. Debbie Robertson
Application for Minor Variance – A08.2015
Part of Lot 30, Concession 9, Municipality of Grey Highlands (Artemesia Township)
December 4, 2015
Our File No. P11803
2 of 4
A permit is required from our office for the proposed structure. Provincial Policy Statement 3.1 Natural Hazards Natural hazards identified on the subject property are associated with the potential for flood and erosion along Eugenia Lake. This setback is typically mapped as 15 metres inland from the apparent high water mark of the lake.
This hazard area does not appear to be accurately reflected in the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law. Future iterations of this document should include the hazard area as shown on the attached mapping. 2.1 Natural Heritage Several provincially significant natural heritage features are identified on or adjacent to the subject lands. These include provincially significant wetland (PSW), significant woodlands and fish habitat. This property abuts and appears to partially overlap the provincially significant Eugenia Lake wetland (PSW) complex. Policy 2.1.4(a) of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) states that development and site alterations shall not be permitted in significant wetlands.
The County of Grey Official Plan (OP) identifies the woodlands on the property as significant woodlands. Policy 2.1.5(b) of the PPS states that development and site alterations shall not be permitted in significant woodlands unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no neg ative impacts to this feature. Lake Eugenia and the Beaver River are considered fish habitat. Policy 2.1.6 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in fish habitat except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. Policy 2.1.8 of the PPS states that development and site alteration shall not be permitted on
adjacent lands to these features unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts to the adjacent lands or their ecological functions. The adjacent lands to the above noted features are 120 metres, 50 metres and 30 metres, respectively. On existing, developed lots on Lake Eugenia, we have generally accepted 30 metres as an appropriate development setback, subject to receiving a permit for development from our office. The proposed development would occur almost entirely within the 30 metre setback from the lake and wetland features.
The GSCA provided the owners and the Municipality with pre-consultation comments in November 2014. At that time our office indicated that any development of the property may trigger the need to demonstrate consistency with the PPS. At this point, it has not been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts to the above noted natural heritage features. Municipality of Grey Highlands Comprehensive Zoning By-Law (2004-50) The GSCA provides technical support to the Municipality of Grey Highlands on a variety of land use planning issues related to natural hazard and natural heritage issues through a service agreement between the Municipality and the Conservation Authority. As such, the GSCA has reviewed this
proposal, relative to the Municipal Zoning By-Law, for these potential issues.
Page 49 of 122
Mrs. Debbie Robertson
Application for Minor Variance – A08.2015
Part of Lot 30, Concession 9, Municipality of Grey Highlands (Artemesia Township)
December 4, 2015
Our File No. P11803
3 of 4
Section 5.5(c)(i) of the by-law states that, except where specifically defined in the by-law, no building or structure shall be constructed, and no site alteration shall occur closer than 30 metres from the high water mark of a stream or lake. Review of the subject proposal relative to the edge of the lake suggests that the majority of the proposed structure falls within this 30 metre setback.
Section 5.5(d) of the by-law states that, all lands located within 120 metres of a PSW are subject to a holding provision and that no buildings or structures shall be erected and no site alteration shall occur within 120 metres of a PSW unless the holding provision is removed. The entire property is within 120 metres of the identified PSW, and is therefore, presumably subject to a holding provision. Municipality of Grey Highlands Official Plan Section 4.4.2(d) of the Municipality of Grey Highlands Official Plan states that buildings and structures will be setback 30 metres from all lakes.
Additionally, Section 4.8.2(c) of the Official Plan states that all buildings, structures and septic disposal systems will be setback a minimum of 30 metres from the high water mark of Eugenia Lake. The proposed minor variance would change the zoning to allow a structure within this area. It should be noted that the current zoning does not appear to allow structures in private ownership on this property. County of Grey Official Plan Section 2.8.6(5) of the County of Grey Official Plan states that no development shall be permitted
within 30 metres of the banks of a stream, river, lake or Georgian Bay. Section 2.8.4(1) of the County Official Plan states that no development or site alteration may occur with significant woodlands unless it has been demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions. Section 2.8.3(2) of the County Official Plan states that no development and site alteration may occur within adjacent lands of the Provincially Significant Wetlands designation unless it has been demonstrated through an EIS that there will be no negative impacts on the natural featur es or their ecological functions.
Additional Comments Based on our review of the subject application and the relevant policies, it appears that this application is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law, the local Official Plan and the County Official Plan with regards to new development near a waterbody and/or wetland feature. Further, the following items have not been addressed through this application: 1. The application has not demonstrated consistency with 2.1.5 and 2.1.8 of the PPS;