Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-31-2022Ciarftwn Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington March 31, 2022 Municipal Administrative Centre, Council Chambers 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville Preliminary Note In response to the Province's Emergency Order and to maintain physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, this Committee of Adjustment meeting took place in an electronic format. Members listed as being "electronically present," as well as applicants and members of the public, participated though the teleconferencing platform Microsoft Teams, which allows participation through a computer's video and audio, or by telephone. Electronically present: Todd Taylor Brandon Weiler Jacob Circo Acting Annette VanDyk Shelley Pohjola Gord Wallace Dave Eastman John Bate Ron Warne Andrew Payne Josh Gibson 1. Call to Order Chairperson Secretary -Treasurer (sworn in) Secretary -Treasurer (sworn in) Meeting Host Member Member Member Member Manager of Development Review Planning Staff Public Works Staff The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest There were no pecuniary interests stated for this meeting. 3. Swearing in of new Secretary -Treasurer, Brandon Weiler Moved by D Eastman, seconded by S Pohjola. "That Brandon Weiler be sworn in as the Acting Secretary -Treasurer be approved." "Carried" Minutes from March 31, 2022 Paae 2 4. Swearing in of new Acting Secretary -Treasurer, Jacob Circo Moved by J Bate, seconded by G Wallace. "That Jacob Circo be sworn in as the Acting Secretary -Treasurer be approved." "Carried" 5. Applications: 5.1 A2022-0003 Owner: Michael Hackenberger & Wendy Korver Applicant: MD Renovations 350 King Street East Part Lot 8. Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington M Di Lella of MD Holdings, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. He explained the history and purpose of the application. S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff —Wondering who produced that plan that shows the movement of the floodline? And whether that plan was sent to Ganaraska Conservation Authority? R Warne responded to Committee Member S. Pohjola — I can't advise how that line was generated; the flood plan was from the applicant. M Di Lella stated this particular drawing was submitted on the original application that was approved previously, this was created by the actual owner. The planning department, the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority (GRCA) and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) have reviewed this plan, have accepted it, and approved this particular drawing as a location of the items that were created. In the previous application when the permit was granted, there was a tremendous amount of discussion and site visits from both the CLOCA and the GRCA to allow the approving of these particular plans that were created by the homeowner. M Di Lella clarified that flood plan came from the CLOCA and the GRCA. No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0003 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by S Pohjola. Minutes from March 31, 2022 Paae 3 Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0003 for a minor variance to Sections 3.1 a. of Zoning By-law 84-63 to permit an accessory structure (shed) with a total building height of 5.82 metres as an accessory structure to the existing residential use be approved as it is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, the Durham Region Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan". "Carried" 5.2 A2022-0005 and A2022-0006 Owner: The Foley Group Applicant: 2640714 Ontario Ltd 1442 Nash Road Part Lot 35, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington T Taylor introduced the applications A2022-0005 and A2022-0006 at the same time since both applications were on the same parcel of land. The Committee voted separately on each of the applications. M Fry of D.G. Biddle & Associates, via the Teams application with audio and video, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the applications: M Fry stated that there are two applications for minor variances at 1442 Nash Road in Courtice. M Fry mentioned that the property has proceeded through the land severance application process at the Region of Durham's Land Division Committee and received a conditional approval to create one new lot or set lot is identified as Part Two on your plan. M Fry explained that the variances that they're requesting are to reduce the rear yard setback of both of those lots because the existing house is going to be maintained and they are moving up the rear lot line closer to the rear of that house. There would be a reduction from 7.5 metres to 1.2 metres for the rear lot and a rear lot reduction on the new dwelling from 7.5 metres down to 5.6 metres. M Fry stated there was also a variance request to allow for the severance and that would be to reduce the lot area from 360 square metres down to 300 square metres. He explained his rationale for the applications meeting the 4 tests and stated the Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington Official Plans designate the property for residential use and the use proposed is residential. M Fry stated that the application complies with the entire Official Plan's general urban design requirements for a residential neighborhood because they are proposing that the new dwelling have the approximate same front yard setback as those existing on the Minutes from March 31, 2022 Page 4 property and at the same time, the same rear yard setback as the properties to the north. M Fry stated that they can show general conformance with the Durham Official Plan and the Municipality of Clarington's Official Plan M Fry stated that there is sufficient room on the retained plot to accommodate the outdoor amenity space and so that the rear lot line setback from 7.5m down to 1.2m does sounds like a lot but the intent is still there and that is the maintenance of the outdoor amenity space similar in with regard to the new lot where the 5.6m rear yard space is sufficient in depth and it's to provide ample outdoor amenity space for the new property owner. One of the intents of the rear yard setback is also to help maintain privacy and limit the overlook on the two adjacent properties. M Fry mentioned that the intent is maintained in his opinion because the rear of the new separate lot does have a wood fence that is existing. M Fry stated that there's a row of mature cedars along that fence which helps to mitigate the overlook, which helps to provide additional privacy. M Fry also mentioned the lot area is something that is typical for newer developments in and around Clarington; and it is not different with what has been developed through larger subdivisions. He stated that the last area of intent typically is to ensure that a building, outdoor amenity space and driveway can all fit onto the property so that there's little to no over alternate spillover of those uses onto adjacent lands or of course, no spillover of parking on two new streets. M Fry states the impact on the adjacent properties primarily, particularity to adjacent property to the west is less than 2m because the fences have trees that are existing. M Fry noted the impact on the adjacent property is minimized because there's little to no overlooking the privacy. M Fry stated that adjacent property owner to the West had brought forward information from 1993, which describes the process that the previous landowners had gone through in order to create a lot on this property and referred to a planning staff report from 1993. M Fry notes that there were four lots that were intended to be created and were to be reduced down to three. Following M Fry's verbal presentation, was questions from members of the Committee of Adjustment: T Taylor stated that this application was tabled to this meeting from the last meeting to allow the public an opportunity to share their oppostion to the project. T Taylor assured D Lawson that the committee has received briefing materials related to this application in advance of the meeting. T Taylor reiterated that the committee will hear the application on the merits of the 4 tests. T Taylor stated that the any issues relating to site plan adherence and the building permit process should be addressed to Clarington's Planning Staff G Wallace asked a question to M Fry — Can you clarify if the proposed building is going to have the same setbacks as the new houses in the north, that were buillt in 1993? Minutes from March 31, 2022 Page 5 M Fry responded to Committee Member G Wallace — Yes, setbacks for those houses are similar to what is being proposed. M Fry also noted that the 6m front yard setback is pretty standard since it allows for a car parking space in the front of the garage. G Wallace asked a question to M Fry — Regarding the rear setback on the lot to be severed; there was a general discussion. It was also asked if the applicants thinks that the proposed homes will be about the same as the houses in the north since the grading plan that was submitted shows a 7.5m setback? M Fry responded to Committee Member G Wallace — he reiterated that he doesn't have that information readily available. D Eastman asked a question to M Fry — what about the outdoor amenity space to the side yard? What is currently the side yard of the retained land? It might have a significant impact on any privacy. M Fry responded to Committee Member D Eastman — the outdoor amenity space would be immeadity adjacent to Varcoe Road which is a collector road. It is undertaken by the owner themselves to put up a fence or to reduce privacy. The outdoor amenity space does exist there. D Eastman asked a question to M Fry — Does the applicant currently live at 1442 Nash Road? M Fry responded to Committee Member D Eastman — I do not have the answer to that N Gamble asked a question to Planning Staff — Is the reduction of the rear yard setback of 7.5m to 1.2m minor in nature? R Warne responded to Committee Member — It is minor in nature because that lot fronts onto Nash Road so the rear yard is very often in that situation. A great deal of amenity space is in the exterior side yard. While the number itself from 7.5m to 1.2m doesn't seem minor, it will serve as an interior side yard to the north. It is a very common scenario to have at the corner, a rear yard reduced in order to provide the other property enough area for resonable amenity space. N Gamble asked a question to Planning Staff — to address the concerns to the west, was stated that it was clients intent to maintain the existing fence and Cedar Road in place to route, but what if the applicant doesn't do that? M Fry responded to Committee Member N Gamble — That is correct, there is no process to secure the cedar hedge expect the spread itself is a benefit to the future property owner in that it also helps to mitigate the overlook and protect the privacy of that future homeowner as well. T Taylor asked a question to M Fry — do you have an answer to Committee Member G Wallace's question? Minutes from March 31, 2022 Page 6 M Fry responded to Committee Member T Taylor and G Wallace — M Fry did review the grading plan and aerial photography. It appeared to M Fry that the house to the north of the conveyed lot looks to be cited in the wrong location. There's certainly less than 7.5m between the property line and in the rear of that house, and it might just be the the articulation of the rear of that house in that there are several bump outs. This was the only location where the house is further than the 7.5m. G Wallace disagreed with M Fry's answer and shared his screen to show the grading plan — there was general discussion regarding the rear yard setback of the proposed new lot. S Pohjola asked a question to M Fry — What were the conditions imposed by the Region of Durham's Land Division Committee? M Fry responded to Committee Member S Pohjola — The applicant enters into a consent agreement with the Municipality of Clarington, the application shall pay certain fees, and the referenced planner deposit. There are a couple of planning requirements which are, the applicant shall pay Clarington for cash in lieu of Parkland, the applicant shall apply for and receive approval for a minor variance to address deficiencies created severance, and the applicant was to remove or demolish the existing shed on the proposed severed lands. Additionally, the requirements for the building permit included a review for architectural control and urban design. The Municipality of Clarington is requiring a consent agreement. The consent agreement is something that's specific, that allows the municipality to secure certain things through a consent. If it's agreeable to the Committee of Adjustment, the Committee can apply a condition on the severance, which would require the maintenance of the fence and the role of the cedar trees at the rear of the lot. D Lawson, a member of the public, spoke in opposition to the application. D Lawson, via the Teams application with audio and video, gave a verbal deputation to speak in opposition to both applications. D Lawson raised grading concerns, privacy concerns, concern for the removal of the cedar trees. He stated that Planning's Staff Report does not encompass his concerns and the staff reports keeps calling the report, minor in nature. D Eastman asked a question to D Lawson — Are you using a septic tank or are you on municipal sewage for your home? D Lawson responded to Committee Member D Eastman — Municipal water is serviced to his home, but they have never hooked up to municipal sewage because of the size of their yard. D Eastman asked a question to D Lawson — Do you have any knowledge at the property at 1442 Nash and do you know if it is on municipal sewage? D Lawson responded to Committee Member D Eastman — He had no knowledge if the property at 1442 Nash Road was currently serviced by municipal sewage. However, he believes it was a condition of the severance at the time to allow the other three homes Minutes from March 31, 2022 Page 7 to be serviced by city services. That is why he mentioned that the old septic tank is probably in the ground still at 1442 Nash Road. S Pohjola asked a question to D Lawson — The 1993 rezoning was mentioned, and you mentioned that your concerns weren't addressed? The corporate report we received indicates in that report from 1993 that your concerns were adequately addressed. It that not the case? D Lawson acknowledged that his concerns were addressed in the meetings and discussions, and it is shown on paper. However, the concerns did not get addressed. He alluded to parking concerns, raised concerns for the traffic code on the road and the design, and driveway concerns. The greatest issued that didn't get addressed was drainage. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. T Taylor asked if the M Fry would like to say anything in response to what was mentioned from the members of the public. M Fry reiterated that the application was minor in nature and reiterated points from his opening verbal presentation. No other Committee Members had questions or comments. Motion to deny A2022-0005 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0005 for a minor variance to Section 13.2. c. iv) of Zoning By- law 84-63 to facilitate the creation of a single detached dwelling lot (Land Division File No. LD 090/2021) by reducing the minimum required rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 1.2 metres, be denied as it is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, the Durham Region Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan. Furthermore, the above is not desirable to the character of the neighbourhood". "Carried" Motion to deny A2022-0006 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0006 for minor variances to Sections 13.2.a. i) and 13.2. c. iv) and of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the creation of a single detached dwelling lot (Land Division File No. LD 090/2021) by reducing the minimum required rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.6 metres and the minimum lot area from 370square metres to 300 square metres, be denied as it is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, the Durham Region Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan. Furthermore, the above is not desirable to the character of the neighbourhood". "Carried" Minutes from March 31, 2022 Page 8 5.3 A2022-0007 Owner: Michael Verrelli Applicant: Michael Verrelli 5060 Bowmanville Avenue Part Lot 15, Concession 5, Former Township of Darlington M Verrelli, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. He explained the history and purpose of the application No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0007 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by G Wallace. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0007, for a minor variance to Section 3.6 b. of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of an addition having an area up to 130 square metres (including an attached garage) as well as the expansion and enclosure of a deck (having an area of up to 30 square metres) to the existing dwelling, be approved as it is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, the Durham Region Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan". "Carried" 5.4 A2022-0008 Owner: Sandra Long & John Babister Applicant: Sandra Long & John Babister 4301 Walsh Road Part Lot 18, Concession 4, Former Township of Clarke S Long and J Babister, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. He explained the history and purpose of the application No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0008 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: Minutes from March 31, 2022 "That application A2022-0003, for a minor variance to Sections 3.1 a. of Zoning By-law 84-63 to permit an accessory structure (shed) with a total building height of six metres as an accessory structure to the existing residential use be approved as it is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, the Durham Region Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan". "Carried" 6. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, January 27, 2022 Moved by S Pohjola. Seconded by J Bate. "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on January 27, 2022 be approved." "Carried" 7. Other Business • No other business. 8. Adjournment Next Meeting: April 28, 2022 Moved by D Eastman, seconded by N Gamble. "That the meeting adjourn at 8:03 p.m." "Carried"