Lakefield Herald Special Report

Large turnout for rezoning discussion

by Terry McQuitty

The Douro-Dummer council chambers were overflowing with people concerned about a proposed bylaw amendment concerning a residential development on Stoney Lake Tuesday evening.

A public meeting was held to address concerns with a single dwelling being constructed on Part Lot 31 and Part Lot 32, Concession 11 in Dummer Ward. The property in question is owned by the Kallaste family.

The conflict over this property development dates back approximately three years. The area is designated shoreline residential by the Township’s Official Plan and is zoned Limited Services Residential. The lot is approximately a third of an acre and on private services.

The issue of concern is the Kallaste’s request to change the zoning from Limited Service Residential to a Special District Zone.

The reason for the application to amend the bylaw is that a previous request to Douro-Dummer Committee of Adjustment to reduce the setback from the water and to reduce the setback from the rear lot was approved, however an appeal was made to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and the ruling was overturned.

The OMB allowed the reduction of setback from the waterfront but denied the reduction in setback from the rear lot. The request was to reduce the setback from 15 metres to nine metres.

It was deemed insufficient as the rear lot would only allow space for parking and a septic system and not fulfill the definition of a rear lot.

One of the main issues is the parking situation. Regulations state that there must be parking for two vehicles on the proposed lot.

The OMB decided that the original configuration would not allow for this without trespassing on neighbours’ properties. The application for the amendment had a revised parking plan, but those opposed did not believe that the revisions were sufficient.

John Dunn spoke against the amendment. Dunn stated that the OMB decision had been misrepresented. Dunn said that the waterfront variance was allowed as applied for, however the application was point to point across the front of the proposed dwelling lining the configuration of the building rather than the actual frontage.

In regard to the rear lot Dunn stated, “The size was so small that the OMB rejected the application deeming that this one problem is so important that it trumps all other concerns.” Because of this the OMB did not go into great detail regarding the parking issues and right of ways.

The other main concern regarding the development is the construction being done to the right of way on the road. In order to make the lot accessible it was necessary to raise the elevation of the road, which those in opposition claim makes the roadway unsafe.

The road has been built up leaving a relatively steep drop which could be hazardous in the winter.

Dr. Robert Semmler shares the right of way with the Kallastes and claimed the alterations to the roadway have made it impossible for him to launch his boat from his boat ramp, pointing out that the incline on the new driveway is too steep. Semmler also stated that the alterations to the road have made it dangerous.

Semmler also stated concern that the two story building would be obtrusive to his privacy and did not fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood. The dwelling will be one of the largest buildings in the neighbourhood while situated on one of the smallest lots.

Mr. Davenport, the planner representing the Kallastes countered these objections by stating the right of way is not a throughway and he has adhered to standard rules implemented in municipalities across the country. There is no reason that there should be room for two vehicles to pass as only two families will be using this stretch of road.

Davenport also pointed out that Semmler could address his boat launch problem simply by laying some gravel to adjust the grade.

In regard to the parking situation Davenport stated that two vehicles would be able to maneuver on the property without trespassing on the neighbours land. Davenport went on to say that he did his testing with large SUV’s in order to satisfy any objections.

Regardless of the differences in opinions concerning the development of this property there was one thing both sides had in common. It was agreed that the lot is buildable.

Return to The Herald Home Page