Port Stanley Foodland
BRENDA JOHNSTON RE/MAX Sales
Port Stanley News
The Bluffs Golf Club
Elgin Chrysler Dodge Jeep
Mackies, Port Stanley, Ontario

Port Stanley News RSS Feed  News Drainage Issues in Belmont

News

by Doug Harvey
Drainage Issues in Belmont

Public Meetings, Planning Applications for Monday, March 20th, 2017

Committee of Adjustment


1. 6:10 p.m. - COA 9-17, 7047 Centennial Road

Background: The applicant is proposing to construct a 24ft x 36ft attached garage a minimum of 4ft from the northerly side lot line, whereas the Open Space Zone 1( OS1) requires a side yard depth of 15ft.

The Committee of Adjustment voted unanimously to support this Minor Variance Application.

2. 6:20 p.m. - COA 8-17, Lot 8, 136 Finch Ave, Belmont

Background: Craigholme Estates Limited have filed five minor variance applications concurrently, two of the applications are for the purpose of reducing the rear yard setback requirement for 156 Wintermute Court and 146 Finch Court (COA04/17 & COA07/17) and the other three applications are for the purpose of reducing the exterior yard setback requirement for 270 Snyders Avenue, 136 Finch Court and 137 Finch Court (COA05/17, COA06/17 & COA08/17).

The subject lands are municipally known as 136 Finch Court, the lot is currently vacant and the applicant is proposing to construct a single detached residential dwelling. A minor variance is being requested to permit an exterior side yard setback of 3.5m, whereas the Zoning By-Law requires a rear yard setback 4.5m.

The Committee of Adjustment voted unanimously to support this Minor Variance Application.

3. 6:30 p.m. - COA 7-17, Lot 13, 146 Finch Ave, Belmont

Background: Craigholme Estates Limited have filed five minor variance applications concurrently, two of the applications are for the purpose of reducing the rear yard setback requirement for 156 Wintermute Court and 146 Finch Court (COA04/17 & COA07/17) and the other three applications are for the purpose of reducing the exterior yard setback requirement for 270 Snyders Avenue, 136 Finch Court and 137 Finch Court (COA05/17, COA06/17 & COA08/17).

The subject lands are municipally known as 146 Finch Court, the lot is currently vacant and the applicant is proposing to construct a single detached residential dwelling. A minor variance is being requested to permit a rear yard setback of 6m, whereas the Zoning By-Law requires a rear yard setback 10.5m.

Barbara Rosser, planning consultant for Craigholme Estates Limited told the Committee of Adjustment that a dwelling could be constructed on the lot in full conformity of the By-law, but that it would have to be a two-story. The builders preference is to put a one-story on this lot, and in phase three of Craigholme Estates there were similar lots that had a two-story and a split-level built, but in the builder's opinion a two-story on this lot would be inappropriate massing, and that is the basis of our request for this variance. We are in full agreement with staff that this would meet the tests of the Planning Act, and as the committee is aware that each application is to be considered on it's own merit, and there is not to be a numeric evaluation as the basis for a committee decision. We feel that this is an appropriate variance which would lead to a good development of this particular lot.

A resident whose property abuts the subject lands was in attendance and was disappointed in the fact that when he bought his property, he bought a premium lot, and now these lots are smaller, and with the variance will be 20 feet from the fence line, and if a deck goes in less than 10 feet which doesn't suit the area. When he bought he was told that the next phase would have similar size lots, but that it hasn't turned out that way. His solution was to take the three lots and turn them into two lots, and that this would satisfy most of the people that had filled Council Chambers that evening, and by doing this, there would be no need for a variance.

Mr. McCoomb commented that there was public meetings for the sub-division, there was public notice of that given and at that time there was an opportunity for the public to view the lot layout. The sub-division has been approved and now in the final phase could be past that point where changes can be made to the lot layout.

Another resident that paid for a premium lot commented that the residents were unaware of the public meeting that took place concerning the new subdivision, and that with the new plan of smaller lots next to the premium lots, was a contradiction to what she was told when she bought, and was seeking reimbursement for the extra money she paid for a premium lot.

A third resident that paid for a premium lot commented that if people that buy this property want a deck and a pool with only 20 feet behind the house, well all this will devalue my property.

Mr. McCoomb suggested that the committee might want to consider deferral, so that staff can meet with the applicant to discuss the points that have been raised, relative to these lots, gather information about the subdivision plan that can be brought back to Council, and for meetings with the residents that brought up concerns about the lots.

The decision was deferred until a more detailed report can be prepared by staff.

4. 6:40 p.m. - COA 6-17, Lot 18, 137 Finch Ave, Belmont

Background: Craigholme Estates Limited have filed five minor variance applications concurrently, two of the applications are for the purpose of reducing the rear yard setback requirement for 156 Wintermute Court and 146 Finch Court (COA04/17 & COA07/17) and the other three applications are for the purpose of reducing the exterior yard setback requirement for 270 Snyders Avenue, 136 Finch Court and 137 Finch Court (COA05/17, COA06/17 & COA08/17).

The subject lands are municipally known as 137 Finch Court, the lot is currently vacant and the applicant is proposing to construct a single detached residential dwelling. A minor variance is being requested to permit an exterior side yard setback of 3.5m, whereas the Zoning By-Law requires a rear yard setback 4. 5m.

The Committee of Adjustment voted unanimously to support this Minor Variance Application.

5. 6:50 p.m. - COA 5-17, Lot 7, 270 Snyders Ave, Belmont

Background: Craigholme Estates Limited have filed five minor variance applications concurrently, two of the applications are for the purpose of reducing the rear yard setback requirement for 156 Wintermute Court and 146 Finch Court (COA04/17 & COA07/17) and the other three applications are for the purpose of reducing the exterior yard setback requirement for 270 Snyders Avenue, 136 Finch Court and 137 Finch Court (COA05/17, COA06/17 & COA08/17).

The subject lands are municipally known as 137 Finch Court, the lot is currently vacant and the applicant is proposing to construct a single detached residential dwelling. A minor variance is being requested to permit an exterior side yard setback of 3.5m, whereas the Zoning By-Law requires a mar yard setback 4.5m.

The Committee of Adjustment voted unanimously to support this Minor Variance Application.

6. 7:00 p.m. - COA 4-17, Lot 15, 156 Wintermute Court

Background: Craigholme Estates Limited have filed five minor variance applications concurrently, two of the applications are for the purpose of reducing the rear yard setback requirement for 156 Wintermute Court and 146 Finch Court (COA04/17 & COA07/17) and the other three applications are for the purpose of reducing the exterior yard setback requirement for 270 Snyders Avenue, 136 Finch Court and 137 Finch Court (COA05/17, COA06/17 & COA08/17).

The subject lands are municipally known as 156 Wintermute Court, the lot is currently vacant and the applicant is proposing to construct a single detached residential dwelling. A minor variance is being requested to permit a rear yard setback of 6m, whereas the Zoning By-Law requires a rear yard setback 10.5m.

Barbara Rosser, planning consultant for Craigholme Estates Limited gave the Committee of Adjustment the same proposal details as was given for 146 Finch Ave as both proposals were identical.

A resident whose property abuts the subject lands was in attendance to comment on the number of variance's that are occurring. The separation of the home should be roughly 34 to 36 feet from the back of the home to the fence line, but the variance will reduce the distance to roughly 19 feet. If a deck, pool, or shed is added to the property, further encroachment will occur. The result would be a decrease in property value, and an eyesore if the house is that close. The new homes are huge, and the footprint is rather large and is not appropriate for a lot of this size. But with the amount of variance's requested in the area, this has to be considered more carefully.

Another resident commented that he agreed with the previous comments but would like to know why the need for all these variance's if all these lot density requirements were defined in the approved subdivision. He stated that the area residents felt penalized for purchasing in good faith a premium lot, and expecting after being told that the same style would continue in the next phase. He thought that the need for all these variance's was due to very poor planning, and that he hoped that this type of planning exercise could be avoided in the future. He stated that he was in disagreement with the four tests of the Planning Act and the Official Plan. We should not be shoehorning these lots into these subdivisions for the purpose of developer, and seller benefits, but do it right, by making the lots large enough for the homes proposed without having the need for all these variance's.

A third resident commented that she thought that the proposed 1,600 square foot home proposed for this lot was too large for the lot, and that a smaller home of 1,200 square feet was more appropriate for the lot, so that a variance would not be needed.

A fourth resident commented on the smaller lots changing the pattern that was followed in previous phase, and because of this, a devaluation in property values would occur.

Barbara Rosser, planning consultant for Craigholme Estates Limited commented that the need for these concurrent variance's were the result of out-dated regulations, and that if updated to reflect the current standards, would not be necessary.

The decision was deferred until a more detailed report can be prepared by staff.

Zoning By-law Amendment

1. 7:10 p.m. - ZBA, Robin Ridge Estates

The subject lands, which are located south of Robin Ridge Drive and east of Belmont Road, have approximately 30,000 m2 (7 acres) in lot area. Municipally known as 14168 Belmont Road, they may be legally described as being Part of Lot 24, Concession 6, geographic Township of South Dorchester, now Municipality of Central Elgin, and are further identified as Part of Part 1 on Reference Plan 33R-19119.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the lands to support a new development proposal consisting of 40 single detached dwellings in the vacant land condominium ownership format. Access to the site will be provided via a new public street which will be extended from Robin Ridge Drive.

The subject lands are located within the Institutional (I) Zone of the Village of Belmont Zoning By-law No. 91-21, as amended. The I zone permits a full range of Institutional uses including day nursery, home for the aged, fraternal halls, library, municipal offices, places of worship and accessory uses. A zoning by-law amendment is required in order to permit the proposed residential development on the subject lands.

Correspondence was received concerning drainage issues in the area and that the party was requesting that this drainage issue be resolved before any consideration be given to a new development in the area.

Area residents were in attendance to offer their concerns about ongoing grading and drainage issues that are still occurring in the area. They also had concerns about separation from the new and existing homes, and of devaluation of their properties by the density of homes being proposed for this new development.

Mr. McCoomb commented that current information other than the proposal was not available, and that when more information concerning this new development was made available, it would be open to the public by more meetings, and suggested that local residents watch for any notices of additional public meetings that may be posted in order to find out the details of this new development.

Another area resident was concerned about construction access to the the proposed development after experiencing damage to drainage tiles by heavy construction equipment using a private laneway, and was there to make sure that this does not continue with this new development.

After the engineer stating that they had been delayed on addressing this area drainage issue because of the weather, and the statement that all work would be based on sound engineering practices, Fiona Roberts asked if a temporary solution could be found in the meantime to address this because of significant rainfalls that have been occurring and that this "Could be the Big One" that causes a flooding issue.

Another area resident commented that the rezoning of this property should not occur until the ongoing drainage issues get resolved in the existing development, otherwise these issues may never get resolved.

More residents brought up the drainage issue in the area, and offered comments that suggested that drainage of surface water was non-existent, and that with no proper drainage in the area, property damage was a serious issue.

Lloyd Perrin commented that the grading is incomplete in the area and that other issues have been identified that have to be addressed by the engineering firm. Staff believes that the original plan was not followed and that this is the reason for the problems in the area. He also commented that need for sump pumps in the area will always be there because of the heavy clay not allowing water to pass through.

The Public Meeting was then concluded, and the Zoning By-law Amendment will be considered at a future meeting of Council.

2. 7:20 p.m. - ZBA, 7987 Fairview Road

The subject lands, which are located on the west side of Fairview Road, south of Southdale Line, have approximately 484 metres of frontage on Southdale Line and are approximately 38.40 hectares (94.9 acres) in lot area. Municipally known as 7987 Fairview Road, they may be legally described as being Part of Lot 7, Concession 6, geographic Township of Yarmouth, now Municipality of Central Elgin.

The applicant is proposing to rezone the retained lands from a severance of a surplus farm dwelling (LDC Application E79/16), to prevent a new dwelling from being built, in accordance with the Municipality's policies for surplus farm dwelling severances. The applicant is also seeking to permit rural-residential use of the severed surplus dwelling lot.

The subject lands are located within the Open Space Zone 2 (OS2) and Open Space Zone 1 (OS1-14) of the Township of Yarmouth Zoning By-law No. 1998, as amended. The OS2 zone permits farm uses, rural-residential uses existing at the time of passing of the by-law, home occupations and accessory uses. The OS1-14 zone only applies to the southerly end of the subject lands and permits a gravel pit. A zoning by-law amendment is required in order to prohibit new dwellings from being constructed on the retained lands in accordance with the condition on severance application E79/16, and to permit rural-residential use of the existing house on the severed parcel.

With no correspondence received and no questions presented, the Public Meeting was then concluded, and the Zoning By-law Amendment will be considered at a future meeting of Council.

Last Updated: Tuesday, 21 March 2017 13:11:46 PM EST

Follow Us

Tuesday, July 25, 2017 | | Welcome Guest !

World's 1st Proportional Viewing News Web Site. February 5, 2008. Copyright © PortStanleyNews.com

Copyright © 2004 - 2017 Port Stanley News.com All Rights Reserved ISSN 1718-8695