Summary of Comments

A-025-2020

1386 Maple Road

…/

COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEMORANDUMAPPLICATION NUMBER(S): A-025-2020RELATED APPLICATION(S): N/A

MEETING DATE: July 16, 2020

TO: Nicholas Skerratt, Secretary Treasurer Committee ofAdjustment

FROM: Steven Montgomery, BURPl. (Hons), MCIP RPPSenior Planner

SUBJECT: Minor variance application A-025-2020 seeking relief fromTable 4.2a of Zoning By-law No. 080-13 for interior side yardsetback

PROPERTY INFORMATION:Municipal Address 1386 Maple RoadLegal Description Plan 601, Part Lots 15, 17 to 19Official Plan Shoreline Residential (Schedule B12)Zoning By-law Residential 1 (R1) Zone

RECOMMENDATION:

The Planning Department recommends approval subject to the following condition:

CONDITION:

1.) That the 0.3m variance apply exclusively to the remainder of the existing one storeyvinyl sided addition housing the utility room, hot water tank and water meter, oncethe encroaching portion is removed in compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

REASON FOR APPLICATION:The applicant is proposing to demolish an encroaching portion of an addition on the side of anexisting single-detached dwelling that previously housed a water pump (prior to municipal waterservices) and currently houses a water tank, meter, and utility room. The addition would bereduced to an interior side yard setback of 0.3m, whereas 1.2m is required as per Table 4.2a.

ApplicationNumber

By-law Section Requirement Proposed Difference

A-025-2020 Table 4.2a 1.2m 0.3m 0.9m

Committee of Adjustment Memorandum July 16, 2020A-025-2020 – 1386 Maple Road Page 2 of 3

SURROUNDING LANDS:

North Single-detached dwellings and accessory structures, woodlands andvacant lands

East Single-detached dwellings and accessory structures, Maple RoadSouth Single-detached dwellings and accessory structures, Maple RoadWest Single-detached dwellings and accessory structures, Significant

Woodlands, Provincially Significant Wetland

ANALYSIS:Site Inspection Date June 29, 2020Maintains thepurpose and intentof the Official Plan:☒Yes☐No

The subject lands are designated Shoreline Residential on ScheduleB12 of the Official Plan, which permits single-detached dwellings. Thepolicies of this designation states that development shall beundertaken in conformity with the residential design policies of Section10.1 (Section 19.2.10).

Section 10.1.41 of the Official Plan states that built form of newdevelopment shall give consideration to the inclusion of architecturalelements that refence the elements and characteristics of thecommunities within which they are planned. The existing dwellinggenerally reflects the existing development pattern, but the existingvinyl sided addition encroaches onto neighbouring lands to thenortheast. The proposed elimination of the existing encroachment, byinstead providing a 0.3m setback to the interior side lot line, representsbetter planning more in line with existing zoning setbacks. ThereforeStaff support the proposed variance maintains the purpose and intentof the Official Plan policies.

Maintains thepurpose and intentof the Zoning By-law:☒Yes☐No

The subject lands are zoned Residential 1 (R1) Zone in Town of InnisfilZoning By-law No. 080-13, which requires a 1.2m interior side yardsetback. The purpose and intent of the 1.2m interior side yard setbackis to minimize visual bulk and massing of structures on a property,minimize shadowing and privacy issues, allow for appropriate lotgrading and drainage and to allow access to the rear yard andmaintenance access for the building.

The existing addition encroaches onto neighbouring lands and isrelatively small in scale. The proposed removal of a portion of thestructure to provide 0.3m interior side yard setback is an improvementover the existing encroachment situation. Staff understand theaddition is used for a water supply, utility room and hot water tank. Theproposal would slightly reduce shadowing and massing impacts.Access to the rear yard is available at the west side of the dwelling. Itis presumed lot grading and drainage would be improved by a lack ofencroachment. Maintenance concerns would be minimal for vinylsiding and the structure being only one storey in height. Staff supportthe variance meets the general intent of the Zoning By-law if thevariance is restricted to the existing addition and does not apply tofurther construction.

Committee of Adjustment Memorandum July 16, 2020A-025-2020 – 1386 Maple Road Page 3 of 3

The variance isdesirable for theappropriate/orderlydevelopment or useof the land:☒Yes☐No

The variance to 0.3m is considered desirable over the existingencroachment situation. As stated, the existing addition is small inscale, one storey, and presumably a relatively low maintenancebuilding. Primary access to the rear yard is on the west side of thebuilding. Shadowing and visual massing concerns are minimal.Considering these matters, Staff support the variance as desirable forthe orderly use of the land.

The variance isminor in nature:☒Yes☐No

While the variance is numerically large (1.2m to 0.3m), the proposal isan improvement over the existing situation, which is an encroachment.Staff understand achieving a full 1.2m interior side yard setback is notpossible due to the existing tank inside the addition, however 0.3m isconsidered reasonable improvement and eliminates theencroachment issue.

PREPARED BY:Steven Montgomery, BURPl. (Hons.), MCIP, RPPSenior Planner

REVIEWED BY:Nicholas Skerratt, Development Leader

1

Stuart Filson

From: Steven MontgomerySent: July 16, 2020 11:16 AMTo: Nicholas Skerratt <nskerratt@innisfil.ca>; Stuart Filson <sfilson@innisfil.ca>Subject: 1386 Maple Road A-025-2020

Nick and Stuart

Further to the letter dated July 15, 2020 by , Planning staff based information in the memorandum oninformation provided in the Committee of Adjustment application. Planning Staff recommends deferral until furtherinformation is provided on the application and alternative placement of the structure requiring a variance isconsidered.

Community Development Standards Branch

MEMORANDUM TO FILE

DATE: July 10,2020

FROM/CONTACT: Jocelyn Penfold ex 3506 jpenfold@innisfil.ca

FILE/APPLICATION: A-025-2020

SUBJECT: 1386 Maple Road

Comments to applicant/owner for information purposes (Comments help provideadditional information regarding the development of the subject lands to the applicant.Comments are not conditions of approval):

Condition of Approval (Conditions of Approval are specific enforceable conditions regardingthe subject lands should the Committee of Adjustment approve the application. For example:The applicant/owner shall apply for a building permit for the construction of a new dwelling tothe satisfaction of Community Development Standards Branch)

1. The proposed setback to the property line appears to impact the spatial separationrequirements regarding the proposed wall construction with regards to Fire ResistanceRating and type of construction. The proposed setback does not meet the BuildingCode requirement, a building permit to rectify this situation will be required. Theprescribed construction must be completed, and the associated permit closed to thesatisfaction of Community Development Standards Branch (Building Department).

Sent by E-mail: nskerratt@innisfil.ca July 2, 2020

File No: A-025-2020 IMS File No.: VA- 133821-070220

Mr. Nicholas Skerratt Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil, ON L9S 1A1 Dear Mr. Skeratt: Re: Minor Variance Application 1386 Maple Road Town of Innisfil

LSRCA staff have reviewed the above-noted Application for Minor Variance to permit the legalization of an attached addition to an existing dwelling with a sideyard setback of 0.3 m. Documents Received and Reviewed by Staff Staff have received and reviewed the following documents submitted with this application: • Applicant’s Site Plan Staff has reviewed this application as per our delegated responsibility from the Province to represent provincial interests regarding natural hazards identified in Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2020) and as a regulatory authority under Ontario Regulation 179/06. The application has also been reviewed through our role as a public body under the Planning Act as per our CA Board approved policies. Site Characteristics Existing mapping indicates that the subject property is partially within the setback of a Provincially Significant Wetland (Little Cedar Point). The property is partially regulated under Ontario Regulation 179/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act.

• The subject property is currently designated Agricultural, Shoreline Residential Area & Key Natural Heritage in the Town of Innisfil’s Official Plan.

• The subject property is currently zoned (R1) in Innisfil’s Zoning By-law.

Page 2 of 3

Delegated Responsibility and Statutory Comments: 1. LSRCA has reviewed the application through our delegated responsibility from the Province to represent provincial interests regarding natural hazards identified in Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020). The proposal is for an existing addition that is not within hazard lands and is therefore consistent with Section 3.1 of the PPS. 2. LSRCA has reviewed the application as per our responsibilities as a regulatory authority under Ontario Regulation 179/06. This regulation, made under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, enables conservation authorities to regulate development in or adjacent to river or stream valleys, Great Lakes and inland lake shorelines, watercourses, hazardous lands and wetlands. Development taking place on these lands may require permission from the conservation authority to confirm that the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land are not affected. LSRCA also regulates the alteration to or

Page 3 of 3

interference in any way with a watercourse or wetland. The proposal is not within a regulated area and therefore a permit from LSRCA is not required. Summary LSRCA is satisfied from a watershed management perspective that the application is consistent with the natural heritage and hazard policies of the PPS, and in conformity with provincial policies and the LSPP. Given the above comments, it is the opinion of the LSRCA that: 1. Consistency with Section 3.1 of the PPS has been demonstrated; 2. Ontario Regulation [179/06] does not apply to the subject site. The Applicant will not be required to obtain a permit from LSRCA. On this basis, any approval of this application should be subject to the following conditions:

1. The Owner shall provide payment of $500.00 to the LSRCA as per our approved Fee Schedule for

review of these Minor Variance applications.

Please advise our office of any decision made with regard to this matter.

Sincerely,

Shawn Filson Development Planner

CC Chris Currie

July 16, 2020

Innisfil Committee of Adjustments

2101 Innisfil Beach Road, Innisfil, Ontario, L9S 1A1

Re: Application A-025-2020; 1386 Maple Road

As the authorized representative of on its behalf, I wish to submit the following

letter in opposition of the above noted Application.

is the owner of 1390 Maple Road, which is the immediately adjacent property to the north, and upon which

the illegally built structure (the “Structure”) initially encroached until this past spring.

The applicants’ claim that the Structure has been in place since 1935 is false. The applicants have no evidence of

this, which became apparent when they could not show the Structure had been in place long enough to claim title

to the lands beneath it, and agreed to remove it.

The Structure was initially built as a pump house, and was constructed as a lean-to against the side of the house,

which is confirmed by a 1996 survey prepared by Peter Mansfield. The Structure was only enclosed and opened up

to the interior of the Applicants’ house once municipal water became available, which was less than three years ago.

The building department has confirmed that this was done without a permit. There is no evidence that the Structure

was initially constructed prior to the imposition of zoning by-laws, nor any that would support it being grandfathered

as legally non-conforming. It was not part of the original structure. It was only enclosed and added to the house after

town water was hooked up, 2-3 years ago, and done so illegally, in violation of the zoning by-law and the building

code. It should not now be legalized as a minor variance to the set back requirements.

There is no reason why the Structure could not reasonably be relocated to the front/rear of the house, or redesigned

in a manner that would bring it within the lot lines. The applicants’ request should not be granted simply because

they would prefer to avoid the extra work necessary to redesign the Structure in a manner that would comply with

Zoning By-law 080-13. Their application discloses no justification for why it should be granted.

will also be unfairly prejudiced if this application is approved. Permitting the Structure to remain within the

1.2m set back requirements of Zoning By-law 080-13 will reduce the market value of property. In addition

to it being aesthetically displeasing, particularly in contrast to the general aesthetics of the neighbourhood, potential

purchasers of property may be put off by how close the neighbouring Structure is. will also be

undeservedly prevented from redeveloping the house on its own property, as any expansion towards its southern

lot line will further ruin the aesthetics of the property. Doing so would mean that the Structure and the house on

property could legally be as close as 1.5m apart, which will deter potential buyers. Any renovation or

redevelopment by will then either be restricted by, or have to accommodate for, the close proximity of the

Structure, and in either case is prevented from achieving the greatest potential market value for its

property.

Allowing the application would create an unnecessary risk in the event of a fire, as per OFM, as the burn time

between the buildings would be greatly increased. The proximity of the Applicants’ house to house puts

both houses at greater risk of fire, decreasing the “fire time” between properties. Allowing the Structure to encroach

on the set back requirements would also create a hazard as it would obstruct access the rear yards of both

properties. This would be extremely dangerous in the event an emergency arose requiring vehicles to access either

backyard. The application should not be accepted unless the Town of Innisfil is prepared to accept liability for any

catastrophes or any negative impact due to their decision that may result from this increased risk.

Thank you for taking the time to consider concerns.

___________________________

Per:

For

1

[EXTERNAL]To be distributed to counsel.

To counsel,

Below are pictures of the lean to that was converted and opened to part of their dwelling in the past 2 to 3 years. Theconstruction is unacceptable to today’s building code and a fire hazard. now has also installed piping and paintedhighway yellow, again disturbing how our neighbourhood is looking and deteriorating and devaluing our propertyvalues.

1

Stuart Filson

From: Nicholas SkerrattSent: July 15, 2020 8:10 PMTo: ; Stuart FilsonCc: Steven MontgomerySubject: RE: Maple rd towns memorandum

Hi ,

Thank you for your comments. I have included Mr. Montgomery to review your comments.

Your comments will also be circulated to the Committee members for review.

Thank you

Attention: Due to the growing concerns over the COVID-19 pandemic, the Planning Services Department requests thatdevelopment application(s) are submitted digitally. Please visit our website to view the full list of Planning Applicationsand email planningservices@innisfil.ca for any questions or to submit your application. Thank you for yourunderstanding and cooperation during this time.

Nicholas SkerrattDevelopment Leader

705-436-3740 Ext. 33141-888-436-3710 (toll free)

This information is intended only for the person, persons, entity, or entities to which it is addressed; does not necessarilyrepresent the views of the Town of Innisfil; may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt fromdisclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If the reader is not the intendedrecipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are herebynotified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received thiscommunication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete the correspondence from yourcomputer.

From:Sent: July 15, 2020 7:15 PMTo: Nicholas Skerratt <nskerratt@innisfil.ca>; Stuart Filson <sfilson@innisfil.ca>Subject: Maple rd towns memorandum

[EXTERNAL]Dear sirs,

Steven Montgomery, BURPl. (Hons), MCIP RPP Senior Planner

After looking at the towns memorandum briefly you’ve mentioned that the small variance is better than theencroachment. At the time of this application there was no encroachment. How is the encroachment evenbrought up into the memorandum if it was not there at time of this application. Furthermore when there was a

2

encroachment prior to this application being made the town’s position was it’s a civil matter. We can not helpyou.

The encroachment was dealt with privately, and later the owners of 1386 Maple Rd. took a handsaw and cut theencroachment off no thanks or help from the town of Innisfil and now you have the audacity to say that thesmall setback is better than encroachment.

For the town to use the encroachment being eliminated and therefore the Impacted neighbour be satisfied, issimply ridiculous as a point of reasoning on the town‘s part. Both the encroachment and setback violation , areunlawful by the zoning by-law and civil law!

Again I would like to be informed how the encroachment that is not there and was not there at time ofapplication arise in this memorandum.

BUCK SULLY

Direct: 416-367-7680 Email: @keelcottrelle.ca Office: 416-367-2900 Fax: 416-367-2791

36 Toronto Street, Suite 920 Toronto, Ontario M5C 2C5

www.keelcottrelle.com | Est. 1987 | Toronto and Mississauga

July 15, 2020

Innisfil Committee of Adjustments 2101 Innisfil Beach Road, Innisfil, Ontario, L9S 1A1

Re: Application A-025-2020; 1386 Maple Road (the “Application”)

We are the solicitors for , which is the owner of 1390 Maple Road (“1390”). We have reviewed a copy of the Committee of Adjustment Memorandum prepared by Steven Montgomery and dated July 16, 2020 (the “Memorandum”) in response to this Application.

Having reviewed the Memorandum, we wish to highlight repeated inaccuracies throughout that the Committee of Adjustment should not rely on in making its decision.

1390 is the immediately adjacent property, and upon which the illegally built structure initially encroached until this past spring. We emphasize that it “initially encroached” because it was actually removed on March 28, 2020. This should have been addressed previously when the Applicants first converted the water pump shed into a utility room, but they also performed that conversion without applying for a building permit. We understand that the reason this Application is before the Committee of Adjustments is because the encroachment was then removed without a building permit, and a stop-work order was issued. Unless the Applicants receive a minor variance, they will be unable to obtain a building permit and recommence work.

It is then incorrect in each instance throughout the Memorandum where the author states:

“The proposed elimination of the existing encroachment…”

“The existing addition encroaches onto neighbouring lands and is relatively small in scale. The proposed removal of a portion of the structure to provide 0.3m interior side yard setback is an improvement over the existing encroachment situation.”

“The variance to 0.3m is considered desirable over the existing encroachment situation.”

“While the variance is numerically large (1.2m to 0.3m), the proposal is an improvement over the existing situation, which is an encroachment.”

Given that the encroachment has already been removed, it cannot now be used to justify allowing the minor variance because that would be “an improvement over the existing situation”. This mischaracterizes the existing situation, and we question on what basis the author came to these conclusions. The reason for the application is similarly inaccurate, as the applicant is not proposing to demolish an encroaching portion of the addition; this has already been done.

Page 2

The existing situation is simply that the structure in question was partially demolished in March of this year, without first obtaining a building permit to do so, and the remaining portion does not comply with Zoning By-law No. 080-13. The remaining structure will need to be rebuilt in compliance with the Building Code requirements. Given that the structure will need to be substantially renovated, if not completely demolished and rebuilt, to comply with the Building Code

requirements, there is no reasonable reason why the existing tank inside the structure, and the structure itself, could not be relocated by the 0.9m required to comply with the set-back requirements. It could simply be moved, or the entire structure could be relocated to another side of the house, and off of the setback requirements. The structure can be redesigned in a way that it would comply with the set-back requirements applicable to every other property owner. There is no reason why a minor variance is necessary here, and it cannot be justified as being better than the “existing encroachment” when there is no such existing encroachment. Any decision based on this incorrect belief would be unjustified, and vulnerable to appeal.

We understand our client has submitted its own letter in opposition to this Application, citing its own concerns that would result if the Application is approved. We will not repeat them again here, but respectfully request that the Committee of Adjustments take them into consideration.

Respectfully yours, KEEL COTTRELLE LLP Buck Sully

BAS/