Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-2022Ciarftwn Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington July 28, 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: Jacob Circo Acting Secretary -Treasurer Annette VanDyk Meeting Host Todd Taylor Chairperson Shelley Pohjola Member Dave Eastman Member John Bate Member Noel Gamble Member Gord Wallace Member Toni Rubino Planning Staff Jane Wang Planning Staff Tyler Robichaud Planning Staff Nicole Zambri Planning Staff 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, June 16t", 2022 Moved by D Eastman Seconded by S Pohjola "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on June 16, 2022, be approved." "Carried" Minutes from July 28, 2022, 4. Applications: 4.1 A2022-0009 Owner: Mark McCormick Applicant: Jordan Holmes Construction 4469 Liberty Street N Part Lot 10, Former Township of Darlington Paae 2 J Holmes, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor asked a question to J Holmes — The conditions that are before us in the planning report, have you had an opportunity to review them and are you agreement with them? J Holmes responded — Yes, and I have one question, the agreement currently states that grading plan is required for the property. Why is a grading plan requested for the property when all the adjacent properties to the McCormick's are hundreds of feet away from the property? The water runoff to any exterior building, that is going in, is very minimal at this point. T Taylor deferred the question to Planning Staff N Zambri responded to J Holmes — Did this request come from Public Works? Where did you see that in the report? J Holmes responded — I have an email here from Planning Staff that had a request for a grading plan to be done for a site survey. For a site survey, I am very unsure why when we're hundreds of feet away from all adjacent properties that this is requested? T Taylor asked a question to N Zambri — Is this discussion, outside of the application before us? What I see in front of me in the report overview, I do not see a reference to a grading plan requirement. N Zambri responded — It is under department comments in Section 5 of the report and that would a part of the building permit process. The comment that can be found in department comments of the staff report, is a standard comment from Public Works. Public Works just wants to make sure that the grades are not being altered with the new accessory building that is being put up. In general, that is a standard sort of comment when you submit your building permit. It is not a condition for the minor variance. J Holmes responded to N Zambri — Can the grading plan be removed as we are such a significant amount away from all adjacent properties? N Zambri responded — Would have to confirm with our Public Works Department as I cannot speak on their behalf. This is Public Work's comment, it is not a part of the conditions for the approval of the minor variance, but we can have a further discussion Minutes from July 28, 2022, Page 3 where you are coming in for your building permit on what the specific requirements are, in that case, because it would be required as per your building permit application. T Taylor asked if any Committee Members had any questions. D Eastman asked a question to J Holmes — The applicants mentioned the storage containers have been removed. There is also another condition that a demolition permit be obtained for the existing detached garage. Has this been done? J Holmes responded — Once the minor variance is passed, then we will be obtaining the demolition permit for the existing garage. D Eastman replied — That is correct, the demolition permit is a condition of approval. No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0009 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded by G Wallace. 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 approved subject to the following conditions being completed prior to the issuance of the building permit for the new accessory building: That the applicant/owner obtain a demolition permit for the existing detached garage; and That the storage/shipping containers be removed from the property. 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" Minutes from July 28, 2022, Page 4 4.2 A2022-0019 Owner: Ian Ogilvie Applicant: Ian Ogilvie 78 The Cove Road Part Lot 33 & 34, Concession 1, Former Villaae of Newcastle Ogilvie, via the Teams application with audio and video, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the applications. T Taylor asked if Committee Members had any questions G Wallace asked a question to Planning Staff — This question was submitted by email to Planning Staff, but no answer was given. The road (The Cove Road), it is not a public road, it is a private road, and they are subjected to the same conditions as if it's a public road? J Circo responded - Within the zone of R2-16, the by-law states that there is a 5m setback to the mobile home park road, because this property is close to the road, or is considered a corner lot. That is the provision that has been applied here from the R2-16 zoning provisions. G Wallace responded — We are going from 5m to 4.15m. Where were these numbers developed from? J Circo replied - Looking at the drawing that was provided in the staff report, the projection from the addition is dipping into the 5m setback, which is leaving the 4.15m setback. G Wallace asked — How is the road defined? J Circo deferred to N Zambri N Zambri responded - As part of this application, there was a sitting plan from the condo corporation (Wilmot Creek) for the lot within this development. Wilmot Creek has siting plans for where the placement of the buildings are and the road network. This was submitted as part of the application. G Wallace responded — I just have to accept that the road is defined? Is there is current setback of the house to the road? Do we understand where the house is in relationship to the road? N Zambri responded — Wilmot Creek has siting plans. G Wallace stated that Committee Members were not privy to this information Minutes from July 28, 2022, Page 5 N Zambri responded— It is typical for these lots within that type of development because there is no parcel fabric. Planning Staff are relying on the information provided to us in application and from the condo corporation (Wilmot Creek). N Zambri then shared their screen via Teams to illustrate and explain Wilmot Creek. N Zambri stated that Planning Staff are relying on the information that has been provided to us. We have no way of verifying this otherwise, through a survey or anything like that, because there are no such lot lines. G Wallace asked if we are just guessing these numbers? We have no way of verifying or cross-referencing that they are correct? N Zambri stated that it is a private road (The Cove Road), and that Planning Staff have no way of verifying lot lines. No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0019 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded by J Bate. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0019 for minor variances to Section 13.4.16 c. ii. c), of Zoning By-law 84-63, to facilitate the construction of an addition to a mobile home and/or single detached dwelling by reducing the minimum required setback from the private road from 5.0 metres to 4.15 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" 4.3 A2022-0020 Owner: Victoria Tallon Applicant: Victoria Tallon 18 Kelman Place, Bowmanville, Part Lot 17, Concession 6, Former Township of Darlington V Tallon, via the Teams application with audio and video, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the applications. T Taylor asked a question to V Tallon — With regards to the condition that is presented within the staff report, the condition is with regards to all the existing drainage patterns Minutes from July 28, 2022, P N. remain un-altered and the proposed staircase does not exceed 1.1 metres in width to allow for the side yard drainage swale to retain its functionality. Are you in agreement with the condition? V Tallon agreed. No other Committee Members had questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0020 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by S Pohjola. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0020 for a minor variance to section 3.1 g. iv) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of an exterior stairwell by reducing the minimum side yard setback from 0.6 metres to 0.4 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, subject to the following condition: All the existing drainage patterns remain un-altered, and the proposed staircase does not exceed 1.1 metres in width to allow for the side yard drainage swale to retain its functionality". "Carried" 4.4 A2022-0021 Owner: Pauline Wells Applicant: Pauline Wells 3340 Concession Road 8, Leskard, Part Lot 32, Concession 8, Former Township of Clarke P Wells, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. No Committee Members had questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0021 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0021 for minor variances to Section 4 f. ii. b) and Section 4 f. ii. d), of By-law 2021-82 as amended in Zoning By-law 84-63, to facilitate the construction of a new Additional Dwelling Unit in an accessory structure by decreasing the permitted interior side yard setback from 1.8 metres to 0.61 metres and increasing the permitted Minutes from July 28, 2022, Page 7 maximum height from 6.5 metres to 6.6 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" 4.5 A2022-0022 Owner: Ganesh Bhagavathiappan Applicant: Ganesh Bhagavathiappan 285 Bruce Cameron Drive, Bowmanville, Part Lot 13, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington, 40M-2606 Lot 86 G Bhagavathiappan, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. No Committee Members had questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0022 as recommended by G Wallace, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0022 for a minor variance 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 4.22 metres, leaving a 3.28 metre rear yard setback and by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 45% to 46% 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" 4.6 A2022-0023 Owner: Diana Jones Applicant: McGean Architecture & Design Inc. 82 Arthur Street, Newcastle, Part Lot 27, Concession 2, Former Town of Newcastle A McGean with McGean Architecture & Design Inc., through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. Minutes from July 28, 2022, Page 8 No Committee Members had questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0023 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by G Wallace. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0023 for a minor variance to Section 12.2 d. ii) of Zoning B-law 84-63 to permit the construction of an addition (garage) to the existing detached dwelling by reducing the exterior side yard setback from the required 6 metres to 1.2 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" 4.7 A2022-0024 Owner: Baseline Properties Ltd. Applicant: D.G. Biddle & Associates 1675 Baseline Road, Courtice, Con BF, Part Lot 30, Former Township of Darlington A Prescott with D.G. Biddle & Associates, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. T Taylor asked if any Committee Members had any questions. N Gamble asked a question to Planning Staff - There is a comment in the staff report, which says property is within the ongoing Courtice transit -oriented community and the GO Station Area Secondary Plan. Once complete, the secondary plan will guide this area's growth. Curious as to staff's rationale for this? Once the secondary plan is approved what happens the building since it falls right within an area that is being developed? T Rubino responded - The Courtice transit -oriented community and GO Station Area Secondary Plan is ongoing. At this time, the secondary plan is not in place. Clarington does not have an interim control bylaw in place to prohibit any development at this time. Since the proposal does comply with the Official Plan, which is currently in force, as well as the zoning, there would be nothing to prohibit this use moving forward. If secondary plan were to be enforced and in place at this, then it would be different situation for this proposed development. No other Committee Members had questions or comments. Minutes from July 28, 2022, Page 9 No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0024 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0024 for minor variances to Sections 3.16 a. and 3.12 c. of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the development of 19 self -storage buildings (warehouse) and an accessory office by reducing the minimum number of parking spaces from 46 to 24 and reducing the minimum number of 4 metre by 11 metre loading spaces from 4 to 2, 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" 4.8 A2022-0025 Owner: Mohammed Khaleque Applicant: Mohammed Khaleque 96 Monroe Street West, Newcastle Village, Part Lot 28, Concession 2, Former Village of Newcastle M Khaleque, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. T Taylor asked if any Committee Members had any questions. D Eastman said he noticed that there is a picture of where this structure is going to be erected. Is that that fence that is going there in the tree line? Is that going to be impacted by construction? M Khaleque responded to D Eastman — No, it will not be impacted by the construction. The fence will remain as is. T Taylor acknowledged that there was a written submission in opposition to this application from a member of the public that received to the Committee of Adjustment prior to the meeting. The opponent was not present at the meeting to speak on their objection to the application. No Committee Members had questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. No other written submissions were received in support or in opposition to the application. Minutes from July 28, 2022, Page 10 Motion to approve A2022-0025 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded by S Pohjola. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0025 for a minor variance to section 12.2 d. iii) a). of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of an attached garage by decreasing the permitted side yard setback from 1.20 metres to 0.66 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" 4.9 A2022-0026 Owner: Gordon Paul Applicant: Judith Wright 3 Lowe Street, Bowmanville, Part Lot 11, Concession 1, Former Town of Bowmanville G Paul, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. No Committee Members had questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0026 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by G Wallace. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0026 for a minor variance to Section 3.1 c. of Zoning By-law 84-63 to permit an accessory structure in the front yard, with a setback of 0.6 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. Other Business The Committee continued a discussion from the last meeting on voting rights of the Committee Chair. T Taylor stated in his position as Chair, while he does not express his vote at each meeting, his position is concurring with the votes of the committee, unless stated otherwise. The Committee members held a discussion on the voting rights of the chair. Minutes from July 28, 2022, Page 11 Towards the end of the discussion, a consensus was reached by Committee Members on the voting rights of the Chair. A motion was put forward by Committee Member S Pohjola. Motion to approve as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded by N Gamble. Full text of decision: "That the Chairperson of the Committee of Adjustment has the ability to vote on all applications, and indicates concurrence, and will voice objection at the meeting on the application if they so desire" "Carried at 8:07 p.m." 6. Adjournment Next Meeting: August 25, 2022 Last Date of Appeal: August 17, 2022 Moved by D Eastman, seconded by N Gamble. "That the meeting adjourn at 8:08 p.m." "Carried"