Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-16 MinutesMinutes of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington May 16, 2019 Municipal Administrative Centre, Council Chambers 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville Present Todd Taylor Dave Eastman Shelley Pohjola Gord Wallace Mark Jull 1. Call to Order Chairperson Member Member Member Acting Secretary -Treasurer Chairperson, Todd Taylor called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest There were no pecuniary interests stated for this meeting. 3. Applications: 3.1 A2019-0016 Applicant: Kraco Carpentry/Rudy Kraayvanger Owner: Kraco Carpentry/Rudy Kraayvanger 16 Metcalf Street, Newcastle The applicant, Rudy Kraayvanger, made a verbal presentation to the Committee in favour of the application. The explanation for the proposed variance was similar to what was outlined in the report prepared for this application. Committee member Shelley Pohjola asked if the applicant was aware of the condition (about registering a warning clause on title of the property). The applicant stated he had not seen the staff report and was unaware of the condition. Staff member Mark Jull provided the applicant with a copy of the report, pointed to the condition outlined in section 9.21 of the report, and asked him to take a moment to read it. Committee member Shelley Pohjola asked staff member Mark Jull as to why staff recommended the condition. He explained that it was on there to make sure future property owners would be aware of the situation as we were under the impression the applicant was applying for the minor variance to help sell the property. The applicant stated he did not want to have that warning clause on title, explaining there are other houses nearby to barns that do not have this warning clause and that it would be a disadvantage to selling the property. Committee of Adjustment Minutes March 21, 2019 Willie Woo, past Clarington councilor, spoke in favour of the application. He explained he had lived in the area a long time, and said the barns in the area would not have livestock in them in the future and that the area is more residential than agricultural, and a house should be built on the subject property. Gord Wallace moved to approve the application (quoted in full below). When Gord Wallace read his motion, he did not include the aforementioned condition that is outlined in section 9.1 of the staff report. Chair Todd Taylor spoke to confirm that the motion was to approve without the condition. Gord Wallace affirmed that he made a motion to approve without the condition. Seconded by Dave Eastman. "Based on our review of the application, all verbal comments received and the agency comments submitted, the application is deemed minor in nature, is considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plans. The application for a minor variance to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation for a livestock barn at 32 Metcalf Street from 95 metres to 80 metres in order to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling at 16 Metcalf Street, Newcastle be APPROVED." "Carried" 3.2 A2019-0017 Applicant: Rob McKay Owner: Rob McKay 8653 Enfield Road, Enniskillen The applicant, Rob McKay, together with his wife, Karen McKay, made a verbal presentation to the Committee in favour of the application. The explanation for the proposed variance was similar to what was outlined in the report prepared for this application. The applicant stated his neighbours have no objection to the application, the area of the proposed building is a "good, level area," and the building will be beneficial to the agricultural uses of the property. Moved by Shelley Pohjola, Seconded by Gord Wallace. "Based on our review of the application, all verbal comments received and the agency comments submitted, the application is deemed minor in nature, is considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plans. The application for a minor variance to permit a proposed agricultural building by reducing the interior side yard setback from 15 metres to 3 metres be APPROVED." "Carried" Committee of Adjustment Minutes March 21, 2019 3.3 A2019-0018 Applicant: Garth Hutchinson Owners: Michael Polsky and Marta Polsky 59 Frank Wheeler Avenue, Courtice Michael Polsky, made a verbal presentation to the Committee in favour of the application. The explanation for the proposed variance was similar to what was outlined in the report prepared for this application. The applicant stated the dwelling has a walkout basement and the proposed deck with stairs would allow him and his family to access the backyard from the main floor. Moved by Shelley Pohjola, Seconded by Dave Eastman. "Based on our review of the application, all verbal comments received and the agency comments submitted, the application is deemed minor in nature, is considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plans. The application for a minor variance to permit a proposed deck by increasing the permitted lot coverage from 40% to 46% and to increase the permitted deck projection from 1.5 metres to 2 metres be APPROVED." "Carried" 3.4 A2019-0019 Applicant: Kevin Adams Owner: Peter Sainovski 119 King Street West, Newcastle Kevin Adams, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee in support of the application. He began by pointing out he received a copy of the staff report only that afternoon. He stated that a stationary refreshment vehicle conforms to the plans for the area. He stated the business would only be "scoopable ice cream" — not splits or milkshakes. The applicant stated the stationary refreshment vehicle would not be powered by a generator, but by electricity through Lexicon Services. He stated the only noise would be a "slight hum like a residential a/c unit." He went on to say he had considerable support from the Newcastle community from social media and emails. He also stated he did not agree with or want the conditions: he did not want to have to amend the site plan, hire a noise engineer, and he wanted to keep it on the site year round. However, he had no objection to removing the shipping container now on the property. Committee member Dave Eastman asked about parking. Staff member Mark Jull responded by stating the site is already over -serviced with parking and the required parking would be provided with the refreshment vehicle. Committee member Gord Wallace asked the applicant about the location — would he be ok with the setback requirements as outlined in the staff report? The applicant did not clearly answer the question. Committee of Adjustment Minutes March 21, 2019 Committee member Shelly Pohjola asked about the resolution passed at council and the applicant stated he liked it. Pohjola then asked if the applicant had seen the existing site plan. The applicant said no. Pohjola asked the applicant if there would be a generator and the applicant clearly stated no. Pohjola then asked what he would do if he was not allowed to store the refreshment vehicle on the site over the winter months and the applicant said he would just store it elsewhere. Committee member Dave Eastman asked staff why the report recommended not allowing the refreshment vehicle to be stored over the winter months. Staff member, Mark Jull, deferred to the Senior Planner, Ruth Porras, who authored the report. Porras stated that the refreshment vehicle is not allowed to be stored because the outdoor storage of a refreshment vehicle is not a permitted use. Committee member Gord Wallace asked why the committee was provided with a letter from the BIA in support of the application but did not receive copies of the letters or emails in opposition. Staff member Mark Jull replied that the BIA's letter came in late afternoon and their comments could not be incorporated in the report. The comments from the emails in opposition to the application were incorporated into the staff report (section 6.2). Committee member Dave Eastman stated he still did not understand why the refreshment vehicle could not be stored over winter. Ruth Porras gave a similar answer: because storage is not a permitted use, outdoor storage is not permitted in the secondary plan and does not fit with the character of the neighbourhood. Eastman responded by saying this was an application for a variance, so "not a permitted use" was not a satisfactory answer to him. Committee member Shelly Pohjola asked why the refreshment vehicle could not be stored over the winter and Porras gave a similar answer. Pohjola then asked if there are other refreshment vehicles stored year round. Porras responded that she did not know. At 7:49pm, Chair Todd Taylor put the application on hold and asked by a show of hands who in the public gallery wanted to speak in favour of or against the application.. Greg Lewis is a resident of Newcastle and owns commercial property in the area. He stated he was in support of the application and claimed the applicant's proposal would be allowed were it not for the 60 metres rule (that a refreshment vehicle cannot be within 60 metres of a restaurant). He stated the applicant did not need a site plan, should not have to get rid of the shipping container or have any conditions imposed at all. He stated that people on Facebook said that Newcastle needs a food truck. Jeff Marchant stated he built the interior of the restaurant/pub on the subject property. He stated that small towns should have ice cream and that he would be glad to see the shipping container gone. Willie Woo stated the report was well-written and very clear. He pointed to section 8.7 and agreed with it — the ice cream truck is a good use of land. He stated that Newcastle has a vibrant downtown and the ice cream truck would add to this vibrancy. He noted that the Official Plan designates the land to have street -related commercial and suggested the ice cream truck should be placed between the two driveways and as close to Baldwin Street as permitted. He also stated he was aware there would be very good quality "litter containers" to deal with garbage. Committee of Adjustment Minutes March 21, 2019 Rudy Kraayvanger stated he was present for his own application (A2019-0016) and just now heard about this ice cream truck and felt compelled to speak in favour of it. He stated there are dust and noise by-laws that will deal with those issues. He stated that the truck will not deteriorate because if the truck deteriorates, then sales would deteriorate. Angela Baltkois stated she lived in Newcastle for five years and is in support of the application and was "baffled" that anyone would be upset. She stated there is support for the ice cream truck on Facebook and then she read the letter written by the Newcastle BIA. Patricia Norton, resident at 112 Emily Street, was the first to speak in opposition to the application. She presented a petition signed by what she said were 12 of the 14 immediate neighbours. She made a comment about only learning about this ice cream truck a few days ago. She argued the ice cream truck would result in increased traffic which would be dangerous. She expressed concern over rodents, garbage, and seagulls, saying the property had not been well-maintained over the years. Patricia Norton explained how she was part of a group of residents who were involved with the rezoning of the property in 2003 and 2004. She argued that she and the neighbours had negotiated in good faith and asked the Municipality to honour that. She read the permitted uses in the C1-40 Zone of Zoning By-law 84-63 and highlighted that refreshment vehicle is not a permitted use. She argued these uses are to be in a building, not a trailer. She again asked the committee to uphold the existing Zoning By- law. Committee member Gord Wallace asked Patricia Norton, "doesn't selling ice cream count as retail?" Patricia Norton did not believe an ice cream truck counted as `retail commercial establishment.' Wallace then asked staff member Mark Jull what the variance was for, what was the variance being asked for? Mark Jull explained that the variance requested is to permit `refreshment vehicle' as a permitted use in the C1-40 zone. Wallace also asked for clarification from staff regarding a claim made earlier that, had there not been the prohibition on a refreshment vehicle within 60 metres from a restaurant, the applicant would not need to apply for any variance could have opened up his ice cream truck. Jull explained that this was not true, that both `stationary refreshment vehicle' and `mobile refreshment vehicle' are defined in the zoning by-law and are only permitted in specific zones and, by extension, where they are not listed as permitted use, they are prohibited. Committee member Shelley Pohjola asked staff member Mark Jull a question about notice as a follow up to Patricia Norton's comment she only just found out about the application. Jull stated that he, himself, visited the site on the day the sign was to be posted (May 7) and confirmed it was there and has photos to prove it. He also explained that, to the best of his knowledge, the appropriate notices went out at the appropriate time to those within the prescribed radius, which he thought was 60 metres but could not be sure since it is a Clerk in the Planning Department that handles public notices. Daniel Norton spoke next also in opposition to the application. He began by pointing to the shield that hangs in the Council Chambers that reads "Wisdom, Knowledge, and Trust" and asked the Committee Members to honour that in light of the work he and his neighbours did when crafting the C1-40 zoning in 2004 and to make sure it is not a falsehood: in 2004 and 2005 he had attended 4 or 5 meetings for the C1-40 zone. He Committee of Adjustment Minutes March 21, 2019 also stated the rezoning resulted in specific setbacks from his house. Committee member Shelley Pohjola asked for clarification on this and he said there is a 6 foot setback "in the plan." Staff member Mark Jull stated this was not in the zoning, but that Daniel Norton is most likely referring to the site plan agreement. Daniel Norton also explained how there is always a mess on the subject property and that garbage blows onto his property regularly. He went on to explain that he had been part of many good developments in the area, and it had kept him very busy and that we should blame the shipping container on him — that he had been so busy as a resident involved in the new LCBO and other nearby developments, he did not have time to see to the removal of the shipping container. Pohjola asked if he would prefer the site remain vacant. Daniel Norton responded he would like to see a permanent building with a use that conforms to the zoning. Jeff Woodbeck, resident of 122 Emily spoke in opposition to the application. He stated he has been a resident for 16 years directly behind the subject property. He stated he has made his backyard a nice place to relax and feels the ice cream truck will be loud and messy and there will be problems with parking. He stated there is already a lot of garbage around the property. Gary Woodbeck, also a resident of 122 Emily spoke in opposition. He argued there is a safety concern at the intersection of Baldwin and Highway 2 — that it is difficult to see with illegally parked cars on Highway 2. He argued that if everyone believes the ice cream truck will be so successful, then what about the traffic? He also wondered how much parking would be lost? Where are all the cars going to go? He also stated that many people are using the laneway to access the new LCBO and with children getting ice cream there is a concern with safety. Committee member Gord Wallace asked how the proposed ice cream truck would be different than a bakery (which is a permitted use). Gary Woodbeck stated that someone would address that if there were such an application. Committee member Shelley Pohjola asked when the parking lot was at capacity — all the time? Gary Woodbeck stated it was full from around lunch until the restaurant/pub closes up. He also stated that people leaving the restaurant/pub sometimes have loud conversations that wake up his household. At 8:41 pm, Committee member Gord Wallace asked the applicant Kevin Adams back to the podium. Wallace asked Adams about potential noise from the ice cream truck. Adams stated it was a "self-contained unit" with "R24 insulation". Wallace asked if it could be heard from 15 feet away and Adams firmly replied "no". Committee member Shelley Pohjola asked staff how the applicant, who is not the owner, could amend the site plan as per one of the recommended conditions. Staff member Mark Jull stated that the owner (Peter Sainovski, who was present in the audience) would have to provide the applicant permission to operate on his lot and should therefore be responsible to amend the site plan. Jull also stated that he was not sure about the status of the site plan to which Pohjola stated that it would be registered on title. Jull stated he was unsure of the status of the site plan agreement. Committee member Shelley Pohjola asked how the recommended noise study could be enforced. Jull responded that this would be enforced through the site plan amendment. Patricia Norton, resident at 112 Emily Street, from her chair in the audience asked staff Committee of Adjustment Minutes March 21, 2019 member Mark Jull how to appeal a decision to which he responded that she ought to come to the Planning Department the following morning and he would provide some assistance on the process. Committee member Shelley Pohjola asked staff to produce a map showing the location of the addresses on the petition submitted by Patricia Norton. Staff member Mark Jull was unable to produce such a map on the spot and offered to make one but that it would take 10 or 15 minutes. Patricia Norton had such a map (she was provided this map when she visited the Planning Department a few days prior) and offered it to staff member Mark Jull. Jull provided it to Pohjola. Committee member Shelley Pohjola moved to approve the motion (quoted in full below) but with different conditions than staff's recommended conditions. When the Committee members signed the decisions, they worked together to ensure the text of signed decision accurately reflected what they voted to approve. "Based on our review of the application, all verbal comments received and the agency comments submitted, the application is deemed minor in nature, is considered desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plans. The application be APPROVED to permit one stationary refreshment vehicle, subject to the following conditions: a) That the existing shipping container on the property be removed; and b) That the refreshment vehicle be located a minimum of 20 metres from the southerly limit of the property and a minimum of 12 metres from the easterly limit of the property." "Carried" 4. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting Committee member Shelley Pohjola had a concern about the minutes from April 18, 2019. She stated that the minutes only have "committee members" without stating who exactly they were. Pohjola also stated that during the meeting it was established that all decks in the Tooley Mills complex conformed to zoning and that this needed to be reflected in the minutes (referring to application A2019-014, 52 Washburn Path). Moved by Shelley Pohjola, seconded by Gord Wallace. "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on April 18, 2019, be APPROVED, except for those pertaining to application A2019-014." "Carried" 5. Other Business: There was discussion about whether the minutes from the March 21, 2019 meeting needed to be approved. There had been some updates to the language. Moved by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Committee of Adjustment Minutes March 21, 2019 "That the updated minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on March 21, 2019, be APPROVED. "Carried" x Appeal date for the foregoing applications is June 5, 2019. x Next Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment is June 6, 2019. 6. Adjournment Moved by Shelley Pohjola, seconded by Dave Eastman. "That the meeting adjourn at 9:17 pm."