Bed and Breakfast OMB Appeal Statement:


Appeal of Town of Collingwood Zoning By-Law Amendment

This appeal is being filed relative to the following:

P2014-09 Amending Zoning By-law No. 2014-014; 9 Craigleith Court, Collingwood

On February 24, 2014 Collingwood Council voted in favour of approving the above
referenced Zoning By-law Amendment under the provision of Section 34 of the Planning
Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P.13, so as to permit the operation of a Bed and Breakfast at 9
Craigleith Court in Collingwood.
This appeal is being filed on the basis that the property in its current form and use,
contravenes the existing zoning for the area that being first tier residential R1, Section
4.4 of Zoning By-law No. 2010-040, being the Town’s comprehensive Zoning By-Law
passed April 12, 2010 and as a result it does not further conform to the recently
approved Amended Zoning By-law so as to allow for a Bed and Breakfast to which we
strongly object.
The grounds for filing this appeal are as follows:
As per the attached correspondence from the Town of Collingwood dated March 13,
2014, the Municipality’s Planning Services Department advises that “Accessory
Apartments” are permitted in single detached dwellings in all Residential zones
as long as certain criteria are met including compliance with the Building Code.
The property at 9 Craigleith Court has a detached garage which has subsequently
been converted into a guest house. As per the Town’s letter of March 13, 2014, the
Planning Services Department states they are “not aware of a guest house or
accessory apartment being located on the subject property.” Given this fact, we
contend that Planning Services was in no position to offer the appropriate advice and
guidance to the Municipality’s Council members regarding the grounds with which to
consider the request for the Zoning By-law Amendment when in fact they were unaware
as to the current use of the subject property and whether it conforms to the existing
zoning which it does not.
As per the March 13th correspondence, Collingwood’s Building Services Department
advised that “a building permit (Permit No. 75-96 copy attached) was issued in
April 1996 for new home construction with attached garage.” Building Services
further states “the attached garage was never built to be a guest house but rather
an extension of the house.”
As per Section 3.0 Defined Terms and Section 3.1 Definitions of Collingwood’s
Zoning By-law a copy of which is attached, “attached” is defined as: “Any building,
otherwise complete in itself, which depends on structural support or enclosure
upon a common wall shared with an adjacent building.” As per the attached photo,
the “attached garage” applied for under Permit No. 75-96 is in fact not attached as
defined per the above zoning by-law definition. The mere connection of two structures
at their respective eaves does not constitute “structural support” nor is there a
“common wall shared with an adjacent building.” We contend that the guest house
in its current format is in fact neither an attached garage nor is it “an extension of the
house” and as such does not meet the criteria for which Permit No. 75-96 was issued.
We further contend that the guest house on the subject property for which a building
permit was never issued is in contravention of the Municipality’s R1 zoning in that it
allows for one (1) single detached residential dwelling per lot whereas there are in fact
two (2).
The Building Services Department further goes on to say that a final inspection of the
subject property at 9 Craigleith Court was done in 2011 (copy attached) a full 15 years
after the issuance of building Permit No. 75-96. We question how a final inspection
could be done on the property including a guest house when in fact the attached garage
was never built to be a guest house, a building permit was never issued for such use
nor is Collingwood’s Planning Services Department aware of its existence or the fact
that it does not conform to both the prior or amended R1 zoning.
Collingwood’s Zoning By-law defines an “Accessory Apartment” as: An independent
and accessory secondary dwelling unit that is located within a single detached
dwelling. Again we draw your attention to the enclosed photos of the guest house on
the subject property. This “Accessory Apartment” is clearly not within a single detached
dwelling as defined and as such was an illegal non-conforming use to the existing nonamended
Zoning By-law and further fails to conform to Amended Zoning By-law 2014-
014.
Collingwood’s Zoning By-law further defines a “Bed and Breakfast” as: An accessory
use to a single detached dwelling engaged in providing short-term
accommodation. These establishments provide not more than three guest rooms
for lodging and may include, in the room rate, for the providing of meals served
by the owner or owner-supervised staff. Again, we contend that as defined in
Collingwoods’s Zoning By-law the guest house on the subject property which has now
been approved via Amended Zoning By-Law 2014-014 for use as a Bed and Breakfast
is a fully detached residential dwelling complete with a full kitchen and bathroom that is
not within a single detached dwelling as defined in Collingwood Zoning By-law and is
as required under the current R1 zoning.
In summary we contend that the Municipality has erred grievously in the matter
pertaining to Amending Zoning By-law No. 2014-014 for 9 Craigleith Court,
Collingwood. Several issues exist which did not meet the prior Zoning By-law
requirements of Collingwood’s Official Plan nor do they meet the Amended Zoning Bylaw
2013-014, the key points of which are as follows:
1.) The current structure on the subject property ie: the guest house for which
Building Permit No. 75-96 was issued is neither a “garage” nor is it “attached” as
stipulated by said permit.
2.) The existence of the guest house on the subject property unbeknownst to the
Municipality’s Planning Services Department is in violation of Zoning By-law
Section 4.10 Change In Use or Lot Size, Paragraph 4.10.1 “No person shall
change the use of any lot or building or change the size of any lot or
building or use, if the effect of such action is to cause the original or
resultant lot, building, or use to become non-conforming with respect to
the provisions of this Zoning By-law.” This in fact has been done.
3.) Collingwood’s Planning Services Department despite having no knowledge of
the existing guest house or accessory apartment on the property, went on to
advise Collingwood Council that accessory apartments were allowed without
knowing the details of said property including the fact that the accessory
apartment unit in question does not meet the Municipality’s Zoning By-law as
stipulated in Section 4.40 Accessory Apartments Paragraph 4.40.2 “An
accessory apartment shall only be constructed inside of a single detached
dwelling.” Said accessory apartment is in fact a stand-alone dwelling outside
the primary single detached dwelling on the subject property.
4.) Paragraph 4.40.6 of Collingwood’s Zoning By-law governing accessory
apartments states: “An accessory apartment shall only be permitted within
a single detached dwelling that is connected to both a municipal water
supply system and a municipal sanitary sewer.” The subject property is in
fact not on municipal sewers but is on septic.
Paragraph 4.40.7 goes on to say that approval may be given to an accessory
apartment that is not on full municipal services provided “it can be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town that the applicable provisions
of the Ontario Building Code are met.” How can the applicable provisions of
the Ontario Code be met when no building permit was issued for an accessory
apartment on the subject property?
5.) Approval was given to Amending Zoning By-law 2014-014 which involves a
“change in use” for the property with no stipulation that site plan approval was
required to satisfy access and parking requirements, landscaping, signage and
any other aspects regarding the operation of a Bed and Breakfast entity in a
strictly residential subdivision.
Despite strong public opposition to the approval of Amended Zoning By-law 2014-014
it is not our intention to judge the the pros and cons of a Bed and Breakfast operation.
Rather, via this appeal we believe we have demonstrated that numerous irregularities
and shortcomings exist with respect to the subject property’s conformance to
Collingwood’s Zoning By-law and Official Plan both before and after the approval of
Amended Zoning By-Law 2014-014. By their own admission, Collingwood’s planning
and building department personnel admit to having no knowledge of a guest house or
accessory apartment being located on the subject property and confirm that no building
permit was ever issue for same. As such, it is readily apparent the Municipality has
made ill and misinformed decisions absent of several material facts needed to make
sound planning decisions that are consistent with their own Official Plan. Via the fact
that no building permit was ever issued for the conversion of the originally intended
“attached garage” to a “guest house” or “accessory apartment” further leads one to
question as to whether the appropriate provisions under the Ontario Building Code have
been met.
While it should have no bearing on the matter, it should be further pointed out that the
property in question, 9 Craigleith Court in Collingwood is owned by the wife of and is the
principal residence of Collingwood’s current Deputy Mayor.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Bed and Breakfast OMB Appeal Statement:

  1. Being – like you Mr Nobody – a libertarian and suspicious of the ‘nanny state’, I really couldn’t care less what people choose to do with their garages. In this case I think that it is entirely possible that the little bridge thing is indeed supporting the structure of the garage, like an elegant flying buttress on a medieval cathedral. Either that or the owner accesses the out-building by crawling through it; thus keeping dry in inclement weather.

    I never even set foot in the Bunkertoad Mansion garage facilities until fairly recently. It is my normal practice to have my man bring the car around the front whenever I need it. However, a few sundays ago, when he had a day off, I ventured back there only to discover the Mercedes parked outdoors under a tarp, virtually exposed to the elements. Upon entering the garage I found a couch, a pool table, a dartboard, a life-size autographed cardboard cutout of Pamela Anderson and a fridge with a case of something called ‘Molson Canadian’ in it. Obviously this cretin is no longer in my employ.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s