Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-2022Ciarftwn Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington June 16, 2022 Municipal Administrative Centre, Council Chambers 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville Preliminary Note 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: Brandon Weiler Jacob Circo Annette VanDyk Todd Taylor Shelley Pohjola Dave Eastman John Bate Secretary -Treasurer Acting Secretary -Treasurer Meeting Host Chairperson Member Member Member Noel Gamble Member Ron Warne Manager of Development Review Andrew Payne Planning Staff Tyler Robichaud Planning Staff Ruth Porras Planning Staff Nicole Zambri Planning Staff Absent with notice: Gord Wallace Member 1. Call to Order 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. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, April 28, 2022 Moved by N Gamble. Seconded by D Eastman. Minutes from June 16, 2022 Paae 2 "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on June 16, 2022, be approved." "Carried" 4. Swearing in of new Acting Secretary -Treasurer, Tyler Robichaud Moved by D Eastman, seconded by J Bate. "That Tyler Robichaud be sworn in as the Acting Secretary -Treasurer be approved." "Carried" 5. Applications: 5.1 A2022-0009 Owner: Mark McCormick Applicant: J Holmes Construction 4469 Liberty Street N Part Lot 10, Former Township of Darlington M McCormick, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. D Eastman asked a question to M McCormick — Noticed that there's a couple of conditions that the planning has recommended. Wondering whether Mr. McCormick's aware of them or if he's even read the report? M McCormick responded to D Eastman — Believed there was one condition to have the existing garage be demolished. D Eastman responded to M McCormick — It states you must obtain a demolition permit for the existing detached garage, and there's some storage and there's a condition that states the shipping containers need to be removed from the property. M McCormick responded to D Eastman — We told Planning Staff that it was part of my business? The containers come in, and I run a construction business in the area. Stuff is stored in the shipping containers and then they go to job sites, and then they come back. Mr. McCormick admits he wasn't aware of the condition to remove the shipping containers, because they run a business in Durham Region, and this is where they must store them until they get sent to a job site. Mr. McCormick did not understand why that is a condition and state he was not told about it because Holmes Construction told me that they explained that to Planning Staff that they come in and out. T Taylor stated is there any member of staff who can speak to this? Minutes from June 16, 2022 Page 3 N Zambri responded to T Taylor - There were some discussions about the shipping containers and what they were used for. Unfortunately, under our zoning, bylaw, shipping cargo containers are not permitted. We did have some discussions with applicants regarding the need for the shipping containers to be removed. There is an understanding that within the business that they come and go. However, when we issue the building permit for the accessory dwelling, we would like to see those off because they're not permitted under the Zoning By-law 84-63. D Eastman stated his concerns with the shipping containers and made motion that this application be tabled for up to 60 days until that issue sorted out with the applicant. No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to table A2022-0009 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by N Gamble. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0009, for minor variances to Section 3.1.c of Zoning By-law 84- 63 to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure (detached garage) with a height of 6.35 metres and a total floor area for all accessory structures of 180 square metres be tabled for up to 60 days to allow the applicant to discuss with Staff the condition of removing the storage/shipping containers from the property before the Committee can render a decision". "Carried" 5.2 A2022-0011 Owner: Jasmas Inc. Applicant: The Greer Galloway Group Inc. 2271 Highway 2 Part Lot 18, Concession 2 Former Township of Darlinqton J Crowe, via the Teams application with audio and video, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the applications. T Taylor stated J Crowe & Steve have you read the conditions of site plan approval Steve replied to Committee Chair T Taylor - yes read it over S Pohjola stated- the applicants mentioned a letter, will the letter be of assistance to the committee to hear in terms of the alteration of the use indicated the recommendation from the staff report is to tabling and asked if there was an objection? Minutes from June 16, 2022 Paae 4 T Taylor asked the applicants to read over the letter J Crowe gave a verbal reading of the letter to the Committee regarding the application with explaining in terms of the four-part test D Eastman asked a question to the applicants — Currently, how wide is the parking space? It says you want to reduce Section 3.1 by reducing the minimum width the parking aisle from six meters to three meters. It can be assumed it is somewhere along this length to three meters, is that going to be an adequate amount of space for vehicles? J Crowe responded to D Eastman - It would be, and we also calculated with a few more minor alterations so we can get through to 3.5 meters by clearing some of the brush and bringing the fence up to a better standard. D Eastman ask a question to J Crowe - Do you know what is narrowest point? J Crowe responded to D Eastman - It was approximately 2.95 metres at the very back. D Eastman ask a question to J Crowe - And that is where your parking is going to be or has been for other uses? J Crowe responded to D Eastman - That's where it has been for other uses of the building S Pohjola asked a question to J Crowe - Do you have a copy of the staff report? The Existing building aisle looking south, is that the drive aisle that we're speaking to in the picture in page 6 of the staff report? J Crowe et al. did not have a copy of the staff report but received it during the meeting during questions from the Committee Members S Pohjola asked a question to J Crowe - In the picture on page 6 of the Staff Report, it would not be here. By looking at the building from south to north, on the left, probably a lane there. You can see from the picture, that would be the drive aisle. It appears to be a one-way driving aisle. The town was asking for two-way. And the parking in the back is mainly for overflow. Most of the parking is still in the front, there is a large, paved area, where probably 80% of the customers will be parking most of the time. J Crowe responded to S Pohjola — correct, that is the drive aisle S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff — Two questions, first one pertains to page four of the background report on under Section 2.3, in August 2020 planning staff wrote that aesthetic dental operation was permitted to operate under the personal service shop definition. How did that come to be and what is an aesthetic dental operation? Minutes from June 16, 2022 Page 5 R Porras responded to S Pohjola - The reality is that the definition of personal service and medical clinic are different, they were able to clarify with Steve to advise that they had to go with a minor variance because it was not a medical service shop but a medical clinic, the medical clinic can be allowed, also he will need a site plan, we have enough records to show how it is progressing, the intent of going through minor variance. The intent of this process is to make sure that the right use, of course, and that there is no confusion So the applicant came to talk to staff and at the time, could be interpreted as a personnel CRPC, and that's how that was allowed to happen. S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff - In terms of the powers of the committee, we can make a minor amendment, wondering to the planning opinion to the committee's powers to change the use? R Porras responded to S Pohjola — The property has been used for a long time as a commercial use, all previous uses were personal service, the intensity and complexity of the use is higher, because medical treatment is being provided. The property and the building have been kept in the same way. The use of the driveway has been there for a long time, the parking and driveway sees improvement. The proposed use is compatible. B Weiler stated that when we look at the definition of medical and dental clinic, it encompasses a lot of things. What the applicant is looking to do is far more towards the aesthetic sides and the personal service sides of the definition. So we believe that the definition does kind of fall more towards the personal service definition then. Then majority of the uses and things that are identified within the medical and dental definition. However, there are a couple of crossover uses there. So for ease of making a clear interpretation, we wanted to pursue the variance to make sure that it was clear that it might fall kind of slightly towards the medical and dental definition. But we believe it is more like the personal service use just while we are going through the variance process. D Eastman stated is the basic difference that fact that you need a medical doctor for this clinic, whereas it was setting one you do not necessarily need one. Is that Is that correct? J Crowe responded to D Eastman — It is not a medical doctor it is a dentist. D Eastman stated is a dentist not a medical doctor? J Crowe responded to D Eastman - No, that is correct. Totally, different. A dentist is a tooth doctor, but you do not require a medical doctor in aesthetic dental operation. No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application Motion to approve A2022-0011 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded by S Pohjola. Minutes from June 16, 2022 6 Full text of decision: "That application A2022-011 for a minor variance to Section 9.3.26 of the Zoning By-law 84-63 to add the Medical or Dental Clinic as a permitted use; and to facilitate the use by varying: • Section 9.3.26.a) iv) by increasing the maximum gross floor area from 250 square metres to 312 square metres; • Section 3.16 d. by reducing the minimum width of the parking aisle from 6.0 metres to 3.0 metres; and Section 3.12 c. by reducing the minimum required number of loading spaces from 1 to 0. 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, subject to the following conditions: That the applicant/owner receive site plan approval and fulfill conditions for site plan application SPA2022-0006 within two years of the Committee's decision on minor variance application A2022-0011 ". "Carried" 5.3 A2022-0016 Owner: Thomas & Janelle Robinson Applicant: James Church 5 Phair Avenue, Courtice, Part Lot 18, Concession 2 Former Township of Darlington J Church, via the Teams application with audio and video, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the applications. T Taylor asked a question to J Church — have you read the staff report as the report in front of me says the rear yard setback is from 7.5 metres to 6.2 metres, which is a little different than what you said. And just want to make sure we are clear? J Church responded to Committee Chair T Taylor — You are correct, the surveyor asked for a little bit more just in case there was a little discrepancy but think the actual building is going to be 6.35 metres. But if requested 6.2 metres for maybe some stepper, something coming out the back. You are correct, we are asking for 6.2 metres No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0016 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded J Bate. Minutes from June 16, 2022 7 Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0016 for a minor variance to Section 12.2.d iv) of Zoning By- law 84-63 to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 6.2 metres 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 A2022-0017 Owner: Elizabeth Dahl & Allen Dahl Applicant: Allen Dahl 3 Sheco Court Part Lot 35, Concession 3 Former Township of Darlington A Dahl, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. Committee Chair T Taylor asked question A Dahl - The report in front of me says in a rear yard deck projection from 1.5 to 3.66 meters, leaving a 3.84 metre rear yard setback. And the coverage is increasing from 40% to 44.2. A Dahl responded to Committee Chair T Taylor - No, the current deck is not 1.5 meters, the current deck is about 3.03. It is approximately 10 feet. That is what the plans are shown with the house with the current deck, but looking at the plans from the builder, that is the same deck we have right now. T Taylor stated that they will have to confirm with staff before turning it over to the other Committee Members for questions. B Weiler stated that we cannot speak to the existing deck. Not sure if we have a building permit from when the existing house was built, does not give me the ability specifically speak to the existing deck, what I can say is that the by-law permission currently allows you to project 1.5 meters into the required minimum rear yard, which is where the number of 1.5 is coming up from on the numbers in front of you and the applicant is seeking to go to project into it 3.66 meters. So again, not being able to speak to the existing deck and whether a permit was received or more the deck was just built maybe by the previous owner or the builder without permission. But the current owner is looking to get a building permit. In order to do that, the projection needs to be increased from 1.5 metres to 3.66 metres, and that is why you are seeing those numbers. No Committee Members had questions or comments. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0017 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by D Eastman. Minutes from June 16, 2022 Paae 8 Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0017 for minor variances to Section 3.1 g. iv), Section 13.2 c. iv) and Section 13.2 e. of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a deck by increasing the rear yard deck projection from 1.50 metres to 3.66 metres, leaving a 3.84 metre rear yard setback and by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 44.20%, 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" 5.5 A2022-0018 Owner: Kelly Calderone Applicant: Kelly Calderone 3 Sheco Court Part Lot 33, Concession 2 Former Township of Darlington K Calderone, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. D Eastman asked a question to K Calderone — There appears to be an existing double garage, is proposal to add to those two spots. Is that right? K Calderone responded to D Eastman — Yes. No Committee Members had questions or comments. No other persons spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0017 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2021-0018 for a minor variance to Section 3.1.c. of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of detached garage by increasing the permitted maximum height from 4.0 metres to 4.7 metres 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. Other Business • The Committee had a discussion on voting rights of the Committee Chair. Minutes from June 16, 2022 9 7. Adjournment Next Meeting: July 28, 2022 Last Date of Appeal: July 6, 2022 Moved by S Pohjola, seconded by D Eastman. "That the meeting adjourn at 8:20 p.m." "Carried"