KENILWORTH – Three minor variances were approved in Wellington North during a public meeting in which no members of the public voiced questions, comments or concerns.
The minor variances permit additional detached homes and a farm storage building on three different properties.
County of Wellington planners reported no concerns with any of the applications.
The meeting took place on March 24 and involved properties on Sideroad 3 East and Concession 11, both in Kenilworth, and Martin Street in Mount Forest.
Notices were posted at each address and mailed to appropriate agencies and properties within 60 metres of each location, Wellington North staff state.
7513 Sideroad 3 East, Kenilworth
Paul Wideman applied for a minor variance to permit a second home, accessory to his farm at 7513 Sideroad 3 East.
The variance is needed because the proposed location for the building is 76 metres (250 feet) away from the main residence, and the maximum distance allowed between the main house and an accessory residence is 61 metres (200 feet).
The home is set to be 77 square metres (832 square feet).
The county’s official plan designates the land as primary agriculture, core greenlands and Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority (SVCA) regulated hazard lands. The township zoning is agriculture and natural environment.
The proposed dwelling is not located within the core greenlands designation or natural environment zoning.
According to the official plan, “an accessory residence needed for farm help may be allowed, provided that it is established within the main building cluster on the property and adequate water supply and sewage disposal systems are available.”
County planner Asavari Jadhav-Admane said “the location of the proposed second dwelling provides operational efficiency (and a) reduced amount of farmland used.”
Councillor Lisa Hern asked why the new building needed to be more than the permitted 77 metres from the main house.
“I ideally always like to keep the farm cluster as small as possible, so I’m just looking for a specific reason why it needs to be back a little bit further,” she said.
Jadhav-Admane said it appears to be due to a row of trees in the way.
SVCA officials called the application acceptable and noted “the natural features affecting the property include a tributary of Bell’s (Bethel) Creek and its related flood and erosion hazards, including the valley slope of the creek.”
No SVCA permit is needed for the building or its sewage disposal.
8970 Concession 11, Kenilworth
Mary and Bart Clemmer applied for a minor variance for a farm storage building on their property at 8970 Concession 11.
The variance is needed because the proposed location for the building does not meet the minimum interior sideyard setback requirements.
The existing bylaw requires that the building be at least 18.3 metres (60 feet) from the property line, whereas the interior sideyard setback proposed is three metres (10 feet).
Jadhav-Admane said “the proposed location of the farm shed is due to the existing natural features on the subject property, and it is indicated that the shed provides operational efficiency with respect to the overall farm.
She called the setback “minor in terms of impact with respect to the overall size of the farm.
“The setback also provides enough space for the maintenance of the building such as cutting grass, painting, maintenance and other things,” she notes.
The building is set to be 780 square metres (8,400 square feet). The property is designated primary agriculture, core greenlands, and greenlands.
The township zoning is agriculture and natural environment.
“Identified features include significant wooded areas, provincially significant wooded areas and Maitland Valley Conservation Authority (MVCA) regulated wetlands,” county staff state.
Mayor Andy Lennox asked whether the building would require a permit from the MVCA, and CBO Darren Jones said “not necessarily a permit, but definitely consultation with the conservation authority. There’s been many conversations that have gone on about the location of this new shed.
The property includes a watercourse and two wetlands, MVCA officials note.
“The applicant has received a technical clearance (approval) for the future construction of the farm storage building located on this property – future development plans and location of development are known and permissible,” the MVCA continues.
Councillor Penny Renken said “I find 50 feet not quite a minor variance, but because the building is situated near a property line that just has agriculture on the other side and the building is close to the farm cluster, I’m quite happy with that.”
610 Martin St., Mount Forest
Ken Babey submitted a minor variance application to permit an already existing standalone residential home at 610 Martin St within Mount Forest’s urban core.
The building was previously permitted because of a site specific temporary (10 year) zoning that allowed a garden suite.
That temporary zoning has now expired and the resident applied to have the garden suite recognized as an additional dwelling unit.
“The additional dwelling units were not permitted at the time the garden suite was established,” Jadhav-Admane noted.
The minor variance is needed because the existing residential zoning at the site specifies that additional dwelling units are only allowed if they’re located within an accessory structure.
The building is 53.1 square metres, or 572 square feet.
Parts of the property are also zoned natural environment and designated urban core greenland.
“The natural hazard features affecting this property include the South Saugeen River and its related flood and erosion hazards, including the valley slope of the river,” SVCA officials state.
The garden suite is located just outside of these areas, and the SVCA reports no concerns with the application.
They note the garden suite is located within the area regulated by the SVCA, “however, as no new dwelling is proposed, the applicant does not require a permit from the SVCA.”
Wellington Source Water Protection commented “This property is located in a vulnerable area (wellhead protection area, issues contributing area, intake protection zone, etc.), but the activity(ies) as indicated would not create a significant drinking water threat.”
Lennox said the application “seems pretty straight forward in that it’s already existing. This is a permanent resolution – it was a temporary solution before.”
