Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office
Bureau des audiences sur l’escarpement du Niagara
ISSUE DATE:
April 12, 2021
CASE NO.:
20-045
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsections 25(5.1) and 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended
Appellant:
See Appendix 1 - Appellant List
Applicant:
Frank Medeiros
Respondent:
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Subject of appeal:
Approval of a Development Permit Application to construct a one and a half storey accessory building on a lot with an existing single-dwelling
Reference No.:
S/R/2020-2021/307
Property Address/Description:
Part Lot 37, Concession 12
795385 Collingwood-Clearview Townline
Municipality:
Township of Clearview
Upper Tier:
County of Simcoe
NEHO Case No.:
20-045
NEHO Case Name:
Close v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel+/Representative
Frank Medeiros
Mina Youssef+
David Close
Self-represented
Steve Sam Cohen
Self-represented
Mary Ruby
Self-represented
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Judy Rhodes-Munk and Natalia Gerrard
HEARD:
March 2, 2021 and March 29, 2021 by telephone conference calls
ADJUDUCATOR(S):
Laurie Bruce, Hearing Officer
PROCEDURAL ORDER
1The matter before the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO”) is the appeal of a Development Permit issued to Frank Medeiros for the construction of a one and a half storey four-car garage with an elevated storage area on his 4.26 hectare (“ha”) property. The Niagara Escarpment Commission (“Commission”) conditionally approved his Development Permit application.
2Five appeals of the Development Permit were received from the following appellants:
a. David Close
b. Susan de Souza-Close
c. Steve Sam Cohen
d. Wood Hill
e. Mary Ruby
3Two Pre-hearing Conferences (“PHCs”) have been held by telephone conference call (“TCC”) during which the parties discussed issues of concern. These PHCs were held on March 2, 2021 and March 29, 2021. Between the first and the second TCC, Mr. Medeiros and his consultant, Babek Naghash, re-designed and re-located the proposed garage. The re-designed garage now includes recreation facilities including fixtures (i.e. toilet, sinks and shower) that will require water and sewage servicing. The re-design was provided to the appellants shortly before the March 29th TCC.
4This Order provides procedural directions which were set to help advance discussions between the parties on the Development Permit and the re-designed and re-located garage.
5Since the re-designed garage now requires sewage servicing, the NEHO has asked Mr. Medeiros to identify how the sewage will be handled. Specifically, Mr. Medeiros will need to determine if the existing septic system has adequate additional capacity and if not, how the sewage will be managed. If a modified or second septic system is required, available information on location and design should be provided to the Commission, the parties and the NEHO, in advance of the next PHC. Mr. Medeiros expressed confidence that this information could be obtained quickly.
6The appellants wished to see a requirement in the Conditions of Approval for vegetative plantings to screen the garage. Mr. Medeiros committed to vegetative plantings to create a visual buffer. The Commission advised the Parties that the requirement for a landscape plan could be an additional condition of the Development Permit in addition to the site plan. The Commission will provide draft wording to address this suggested condition.
7The Commission stated that a second dwelling is not permitted on this property. While Condition 8 speaks to use, Judy Rhodes-Munk, planner with the Commission, stated that if the recreation facility as set out in the re-designed garage had been included in the original application, there would have been an additional condition, which would be registered on title stating that the garage cannot be used as a second dwelling. Ms. Rhodes-Munk agreed to provide the wording that the Commission typically uses when including this condition.
8Ms. Ruby raised a concern about the relative height of the garage in comparison to the house. Mr. Cohen also expressed concern that the two buildings located close together created a visual wall. In response to these concerns, Mr. Medeiros and his consultant, Mr. Naghash, agreed to produce a graphic depicting the vertical and horizontal relationship between the residence and the proposed garage.
ORDER
9The NEHO orders that:
a. A third PHC will be held at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 28, 2021. The dial-in information will be provided to the parties by the Case Coordinator.
b. Mr. Medeiros will identify how the sewage from the re-designed garage will be managed and will provide this information to the parties by Thursday, April 22, 2021.
c. Mr. Medeiros will have a drawing prepared that depicts the vertical and horizontal relationship between the residence and the proposed garage. This will be provided to the parties by Monday, April 26, 2021.
d. The Commission will provide draft wording for a condition that requires a landscape plan to be provided along with the site plan. This information will be provided to the parties by Monday, April 26, 2021.
e. The Commission will provide draft wording for a condition that restricts the use of the garage as a second dwelling. This information will be provided to the parties by Monday, April 26, 2021.
Procedural Directions Ordered
“Laurie Bruce”
LAURIE BRUCE
HEARING OFFICER
If there is an attachment referred to in this document,
please visit www.olt.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.
Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office
Environmental Review Tribunal
A constituent tribunal of Ontario Land Tribunals
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
Appendix 1 – Appellant List
Appellant Name
File No.
David Close
20-045
Susan de Souza-Close
20-046
Steve Sam Cohen
20-047
Wood Hill
20-048
Mary Ruby
20-049