Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-2022Ciarftwn Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington September 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 Tracey Webster Planning Staff Sarah Parish Planning Staff Absent: 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, August 25t", 2022 Moved by D Eastman Seconded by J Bate "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on August 25t", 2022, be approved." "Carried" Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 2 4. Applications: 4.1 A2022-0037 Owner: Quinton Hockey Applicant: Quinton Hockey 8 Jane Street Part Lot 10, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington Q Hockney, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. D Eastman asked a question to Q Hockney-are you aware of the condition in the staff report and that you are to remove the existing accessory structure within 90 days? Q Hockney responded — Yes, and we have a demolition permit with the Building Division. We will be demolishing the existing accessory structure after the minor variance is approved. 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 A2022-0037 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by S Pohjola. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0037, 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 4.5 metres and a total floor area for accessory structures of 80 square metres, be approved subject to the following condition being completed: That the owner demolishes the current accessory structure (shed) on the property 90-days from issuance of the building permit for the proposed accessory structure indicated on the site plan. 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 September 28, 2022, Page 3 4.2 A2022-0038 Owner: Rosalie Brent Applicant: Lifestyle Home Products 65 Prout Drive, Bowmanville Part Lot 11, Concession 2, Former Township of Darlinaton S Ahmed with Lifestyle Home Products, via the Teams application with audio and video, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the 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 A2022-0038 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by N Gamble. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0038 for a minor variance to Section 13.2.c.iii.a) of Zoning By- law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of an addition (sunroom) to a single -detached dwelling by reducing the minimum required interior side yard setback from 1.20 metres to 0.71 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 A2022-0039 Owner: Brad & Kristen Glaspell Applicant: Brad & Kristen Glaspell 3526 Sommerville Drive Part Lot 28, Concession 5, Former Township of Clarke B Glaspell, via the Teams application with audio and video, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the applications. T Todd asked a question to B Glaspell-are you aware of the condition in the staff report and did you receive a copy of the staff report? B Glaspell responded — Yes 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 A2022-0039 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded by D Eastman. Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 4 Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0039 for a minor variance to Section 3.1 c) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure (detached garage) by increasing the maximum permitted building height from 4.0 metres to 4.8 metres and to increase the total floor area for all accessory structures from 60 square metres to 70 square metres be approved subject to the following condition being completed post - construction of the new accessory building: That the existing storage shed (corner of lot) be removed from the property post -construction. 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" 4.4 A2022-0040 Owner: JY Maud Applicant: Intequa Designs 8 & 10 Elgin Street, Bowmanville, Part Lot 12, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington A Makur, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. T Todd asked a question to A Makur - are you aware of the two conditions in the staff report and did you receive a copy of the staff report? A Makur responded — Yes and will follow up with the Planning Department after the meeting to discuss the Architectural Design and Heritage comments. No other Committee Members had any questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0040 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded J Bate. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0040 for Minor Variances to Sections 3.1.g.v), 12.2.d.iv), and 12.2.1.c.ii.b), of Zoning By-law 84-63, to facilitate the construction of an addition to a semi-detached dwelling by increasing the rear yard stair projection from 1.50 metres to 2.77 metres, leaving a 4.73 metre rear yard setback, in addition to reducing the permitted minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 metres to 5.57 metres, and by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 35% to 38.66%, be approved subject to the Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 5 following conditions being completed prior to the issuance of the building permits for the subject property: Preservation of the mature tree in the front yard and the site plan should be revised to provide a detail of the hoarding that will be used to protect the tree; That the applicant continues to work with Planning Staff to ensure the proposed elevations are consistent with the architectural design of the physical character of the established neighbourhood while making efforts to preserve the heritage significance of the existing semi-detached building, as set out in Section 5 of this report. The buildings shall be subject to architectural controls subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development, 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 A2022-0041 Owner: Paradisaic Building Group Home Inc. Applicant: Jonathan & Stephanie Rogoza 15 Timberlane Court, Part Lot 10, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington J Ciesielski with Paradisaic Building Group Home Inc., through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. T Taylor asked a question to J Ciesielski — The Report before the Committee is recommending tabling, are you aware of this? J Ciesielski responded — Yes No other Committee Members had any questions or comments. Open to the Public for speaking: G Cleghorn spoke against the application said - I had a look at the topographical drawings for this proposed minor variance and the particular drawings do not show all of the accessory buildings and structures that are currently on the property. I am not 100% sure about lot coverage issues. My neighbors (the owners of 15 Timberlane) have done quite a bit of landscape, elevation grading changes, and that included things like integrated boulders, etc. There are some details in the zoning by-law that talks about Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 6 patios being considered parts of the accessory buildings and structures as long as they were, 200 millimetres above the grade. Therefore, I am not 100% sure about that, but the drawing does not reflect the current building of that property. The other issue is that this garage is going to stick out into the front yard, does not meet the setback of 15 metres from the front of the property. There are two other properties on our street, which do have detached garages that were added after currently having attached garages on the property already. These detached garages on the other 2 properties are quite large but they are in the back or the side of the property. I would not assume that those two properties got minor variances for what they have. Furthermore, there is no type of detached structure in the front yard, like the one proposed in this minor variance for any other property on the street. The height is for this proposed accessory structure is quite tall. I dispute the application saying its 5.8 metres in height. As far as I can tell, the real height is about 7.69 metres in height. and it's very close to my northern neighbour's property line. I am concerned about loss or sunlight from this proposed accessory structure. J Rogoza responded to G Cleghorn - The overall measurements are our tentative plans, as per the changes that we are looking for. Pointing out that we have also removed part of a structure that was attached to the house, so we're actually probably even less, currently 100 square feet less than the proposed amount for the maximum square footage required. G Cleghorn responded to J Rogoza - The height that I got was from the drawings that you presented. If you go from the grade to the top of the building, it is 7.69 metres. Yes, they did remove a sunroom from the building. However, they also added a gazebo. They've got a pool house, and a bunch of other things and sheds that do not show up on the drawing that they submitted to the application. So whether that is more than the allowed lot coverage or not, I have no idea but I'm just mentioning that and if people are going to get approved, then it should be approved with all the relevant details. J Lingen spoke against the application and said - The footprint of the home is so far outdated that it's going back many years. I have lived on this street since 1986. Now, the only thing that is showing on the plans is the new structure. It's not showing all the old structures that have been moved around in the backyard. Recently, I am going to guess approximately 100+ tractor trailer loads of fill, gravel, bricks, stone, everything that has raised the entire property. This particular property has always had an issue with water. The neighbour, Mr. Cleghorn, has had to put up with year-round water pumping into his ditch from the applicant's basement. The applicant decided to put in massive underground tank to hold the water. At the same time, the homeowners at 15 Timberlane have destroyed natural drainage. They are not presenting the drainage factors to the south and to the north. The proposed accessory structure is almost the size of the original house. Now that particular property over the years has gotten a lot a people loving the aesthetic appeal of the property and main dwelling. In the last two or three years, a lot of things have happened to build this massive accessory structure and a lot of trees have been cut down. Trees are there for a reason and the homeowner have taken a lot of trees out of the back. There is a good chance with the proposed structure being there, the square footage of the roof, the downpour of massive rainfalls, that's going to go on neighbours' properties because there is no place for the water to run. I do not understand why the homeowners need more space for their children, than the existing attached dual garage they currently have. They do not even use their Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 7 existing attached garage because their cars are always parked out front. Now they are going to put in a 900 square foot loft in the proposed accessory structure to put in some toys. I am under the impression that as the kids get older, that somebody's going to live on top of the proposed accessory structure. I do agree that this minor variance application needs to be tabled. The property needs to be checked because it has been elevated with all the fill that was brought in. Furthermore, there is this huge tank on the south side, which they just started up the building but it's not showing on the proposed drawings. J Ciesielski responded to J Lingen - I want to remind you that it's going to be an unfinished loft, it's not going to be a finished loft. The original drawing was the entire main floor and we cut it in half to reduce the square footage. Some storage is necessary. As for the draining, there will be proper draining as the garage, such as the weepers, etc., and it will be the proper draining that is required. B Levine is speaking against the application and said — I am homeowner of the property directly to the north of the subject property. I have some concerns about the comments from the applicant just now. It shows on the drawings that there is a lot designation, which is another 900 square feet in a second -floor configuration. So it shows that on the drawing and labels it as such, the fact that there are ceiling trusses there and finished plywood is not screwed down across the whole surface, does not mean that surface is not there. I did not quite understand what the applicant meant by only going to use 50% of the space? Is that 50% of the space now or 75% of his space, three years from now? All those things that the homeowner is asking for, is pushing against the maximum permitted total floor area, since they are asking for a maximum of 13, 178 square feet. My calculation, using the applicant/owner's version of only using half of that loft area, gets him to 1350 square feet. That is within 37 square feet of the maximum permitted total floor area. Furthermore, the north side property line, which is a property line between the proposed garage, the structure that they are proposing to build beside the garage, which is like a covered car park, which they call a covered patio. That does not comply with Building Code. B Levine continued- In terms of setback on the drawing, it shows measurements taken from the side of the proposed garage, it does show the measurements being taken from the for this protrusion of the structure, which typically would be the outside edge of eavestrough. It does stipulate that that building is going to have a one -foot overhang. However, it is currently designed to go into an area that's within that setback. I am also very concerned about the setback at the front. The current zoning provision code would be 49 feet, and on their current drawing, they have that setback at 31 feet 9 inches, which is 17 feet 5 inches too far west, that does not include the ends. This also does not include the numbers for the building overhang, which again, they didn't reference properly on the drawings for the proposed accessory structure. From my property, if the proposed accessory structure were to go in that position, they would virtually block off all sunlight, all wind. If you were to look at this in a north elevation of the blueprint, you would see that there's a 30-foot wide, it's 12 or 13 feet high, plus the cable then and it is 4 feet from my fence, which is clearly an obstruction. My understanding is that one of the considerations from Planning Staff is aesthetics. There are no structures on Timberlane Court that do not have a minimum of 50 front setback, which is the 15 metres from an enclosed garage and covered patio. It is a very large structure that Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 8 would impact sunlight, airflow view and the overall aesthetic of the street, because everywhere else, it's the estate homes, on estate lots with a house anywhere from a half to one-third from the front property line, and the plantings and landscaping and grasses. I think it be really valuable for committee members or anyone from Planning Staff to come out and see this street, which can give you an idea of seeing the street in terms of its aesthetics. T Taylor stated that Committee members do come and visit areas where there is a minor variance application on the agenda. B Levine responded to T Taylor - There is no drainage plan to my knowledge. That side of my property I built up with about a foot and a half of mulch, the original property line, which is where the water is going to set is blow the mulch layer. Given the amount of fill that they brought into that property, it is as high as my property is, or higher now, there was no integration of any swale to help with the flow of water. So the rise to the ditch by the street and then take itself. There is nowhere else for all that water to go but onto my property. My understanding is that we are not supposed to be introducing our groundwater to a neighbor's property. I think that is something that takes place in many municipalities. The other thing is this 30 by 30-foot garage, with a sort of 7 by 12-foot pitch, you can imagine the amount of water that that would generate, if it is a rainstorm, the amount of erosion that would be taking place, and all of that with 4 feet of my property. I can't see anything but potential problems down the road. I understand in talking to the fabulous staff, that the covered patio because it doesn't have sidewalls is considered part of this structure. I am also concerned about the building height of the proposed accessory structure. K Paley speaking against the application and stated — I have concerns with the aesthetics of the street being ruined by the monstrous size of the proposed accessory structure. Also raised concerns with the proposed accessory structure being in the front yard, when other properties along Timberlane do not have accessory structure within their front yard. D Eastman asked — Has Planning staff actually been to this site? I am concerned about the fact that there is fill put in, and now there seems to be drainage issues. I just wonder whether any of that is going to be addressed in should this get tabled? S Parish responded to Committee Member D Eastman — Yes, I have been to the property, but just at the front of the property, so I have not seen the drainage issues that may or may not be present. D Eastman stated — can the drainage please be investigated? S Parish responded to Committee Member D Eastman — Yes D Eastman asked a question S Parish - Also, it sounds like there's a number of other structures on the property that are not on this site plan. Maybe that should be updated so that we can get a better picture? Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 9 S Parish responded — Yes, if the application is tabled, that is one thing that we will communicate on with the homeowner/applicant. S Pohjola stated - I appreciate if the neighbors could speak to and that is over what period of time did the alleged filling occur? I think J Lingen has lived there since 1986? J Lingen responded — I have seen lots of trucks go in there the last six months with fill. About 80 to 100 trucks have gone in with loose gravel, fine gravel, and topsoil. Trees were also removed from the property to input fill and all the other materials that the trucks dropped off at 15 Timberlane. One of these trucks are capable of carrying between 15 and 20 cubic yards of soil. The entire thing has been leveling up. The front yard was a year ago, the backyard was now. S Pohjola stated — Mr. Chair, if I can summarize what Mr. Lingen just said, is that this all occurred within the last year. Would you say that? J Lingen responded - Yes S Pohjola stated — In regards permits to do this I am sure staff has recorded all of the comments made by the residents and concerns. That is something I would like to hear about in the staff report in terms of whether permitting was required for this fill and whether it was obtained by the homeowner? No other Committee Members had any questions or comments. No other member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to table A2022-0041 as recommended by J Bate, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0041, 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 5.8 metres and a total floor area for accessory structures of 128 square metres, be tabled for a period of up to thirty (30) days to allow the applicant time to consult with Municipal Staff regarding additional variances and for a revised public notice to be circulated". "Carried" Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 10 4.6 A2022-0042 Owner: Jason Ledrew Applicant: Jason Ledrew 67 Andrews Road Part Lot 27, Concession 5, Former Township of Clarke J Ledrew, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. No Committee Members had any questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0042 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded S Pohjola. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0042, 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 5.43 metres and a total floor area of all accessory structures of 87 square 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 A2022-0043 Owner: Esher Planning Inc. Applicant: John Mutton 112 Duke Street Part Lot 11, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington J Mutton, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. No Committee Members had any questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0043 as recommended by J Bate, seconded D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0043 for a minor variance to Sections 12.2.1 c) and 3.1 c) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a detached garage by increasing Minutes from September 28, 2022, Paae 11 the maximum permitted height from 4.0 metres to 4.96 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". 4.8 A2022-0044-to-A2022-0045 "Carried" Owner: D. G. Biddle Applicant: Geoffrey Ellis 7 Glenview Road Part Lot 29, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington A Prescott with D. G. Biddle, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. T Todd asked a question to A Prescott -are you aware of the two conditions in the staff report and did you receive a copy of the staff report? A Prescott responded — Yes No other Committee Members had any questions or comments. Open to the Public for speaking: Catherine spoke in opposition to the application — My concern that I have is since as was mentioned, we're all one storey bungalows surrounding. My property is adjacent to this property, and my backyard abuts against the south side of the property. All of us around that 7 Glenview are all on septic. We do have municipal water but are on septic systems. It is very important to us that the grading and water drainage not be affected. Since it does come down from the street into my backyard comes out into 7 Glenview and goes down into the drainage ditches. So if that is messed with grading, then we could have a very big problem on our hands if we flood and our septic flood. Additionally, since the property that was there, it very clearly looks like it was originally severed actually as the backyards off of my neighbor to the north 34 and Jane Street on the corner, it was already a separate lot from the backyards and then this is now being severed again. Please just to keep in mind that the increase from 30% to 34% for the lot area may not seem like a large variance change. But when the lot existed before, it was severed in January, that would mean that instead of there being a 34% lot coverage on that huge lot, it is now a 34% lot coverage on to smaller lots, which would total about 68% of the original lot before severance. Overall, the main concern is just the drainage and making sure that there is something in place that if these houses get built in a grading gets changed, and all of us get flooded out and our septic's overflow, that we have the ability to either come back to Municipality and say these concerns were brought up. If you approved it beyond that, we made it clear that this was an issue. M Fry responded - Our firm has prepared a grading and drainage plan. That is part of the separate requirements. One of the conditions of the severance. So we do have a grading advantage plan that has been submitted to the Municipality as part of the Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 12 severance area, are currently doing that, and those grading advantage plans will be reviewed again at the time of building permit and at the time of inspection. This has all been taken care of through the severance application and through the building permit applications. D Eastman asked a question to M Fry - Is this new development going to be on a septic system as well? Or are there municipal sewers in that area? M Fry responded to — The area is serviced by municipal water and sanitary sewage. No other Committee Members had any questions or comments. No other member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2022-0044 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0044 and A2022-0045 for a minor variance to Sections 12.4.32 c) ii) and 12.4.32 d) i) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a single- family dwelling by reducing the interior side yard setback from 1.5 metres to 1.2 metres and to increase lot coverage of each dwelling from 30% to 34% be approved subject to the following conditions being fulfilled: That the proposal maintains a minimum of 30% soft landscaped open space in the front yard. That at minimum, one tree is planted in each front yard. 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" Motion to approve A2022-0045 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded S Pohjola. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0044 and A2022-0045 for a minor variance to Sections 12.4.32 c) ii) and 12.4.32 d) i) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a single- family dwelling by reducing the interior side yard setback from 1.5 metres to 1.2 metres and to increase lot coverage of each dwelling from 30% to 34% be approved subject to the following conditions being fulfilled: That the proposal maintains a minimum of 30% soft landscaped open space in the front yard. That at minimum, one tree is planted in each front yard. Minutes from September 28, 2022, Paae 13 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 A2022-0046 Owner: Laura Ross, Frank and Susan Shane Applicant: Laura Ross, Frank and Susan Shane 5189 Main Street Part Lot 28, Concession 5, Former Township of Clarke F Shane, through the Teams Application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding both applications. D Eastman asked a question to the homeowners -It would appear that you have owned the home since December 2009, and it sounds like you have done a fair bit of work on the property. Were any permits taken out or even required? As far as you know, for any of those renovations? F Shane responded — The renovations we did consisted mostly just painting. We had the roof shingled. We had new windows put in it. We cleaned the yard up. We have not done anything that really requires a building permit. D Eastman responded to the homeowner — We have seen a lot of comments from other residents, and it sounds like you have had some bylaw issues. I think we will wait until we hear from some of the other residents, but I am just curious as to how much work you have done. N Gamble stated - My question is possibly for staff but to the applicant, Clarington Fire and Emergency Services expressed concerns with the property. Have there been any guidelines and fire on what to do? F Shane responded to Committee Member N Gamble — Clarington Fire & Emergency Services has told us to hold off on doing anything until the minor variance process is approved and completed. D Eastman asked - Clarington Fire and Emergency Services has issues with the building as it is now. I am not sure what it means that you are going to wait until the resolution of this application. I would imagine that they have concerns about conditions in currently they will be doing something about it now. F Shane responded - The house was built in 1850, and during that time, the fire code was not the same as it is now. When we spoke with the Fire Department, they said that we should put a fire drywall in the basement, which we agreed to do that. Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 14 D Eastman replied - So they have made recommendations and some that you have agreed to but have not completed yet? F Shane responded — How we understand it to be, is we must wait until the conclusion of the minor variance application process before we can do anything. D Eastman stated - I would like to point out that in 1850, that house was probably a single detached dwelling as well and would have not had been for apartments. F Shane responded - In 1850, it was legal, non -conforming multifamily. S Pohjola stated - I think there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed for the various department, Fire and Emergency Services being one. I think it would be best if we wait to hear what the facts are from each of the departments before we go further. No other Committee Members had any questions or comments. Open to the Public for speaking: J Stevens spoke in opposition to the application and stated — Our property is adjacent to 5189 Main Street, and we are not in support of this application and encourage the Committee not to support it as reasons outlined in our package, which was delivered to Committee Members. Thank you for considering our concerns. Furthermore, the homeowners said that they had the house reshingled, however, the former owner at that house reshingled and put on his taxes, but there was a bylaw issue. F Shane responded to J Stevens - The property is a large lot. The property has lots of parking, which is 90 feet wide, and 75 feet deep. We had the shingles replaced that were damaged in a storm and I do not know what they are referring too about the shingles when the prior owner owned it as well. We have owned it for 12 years already. D Eastman asked a question to the homeowners - In terms of parking, when you say the lot is that large, you can park any number of vehicles, assuming you understand that there are zoning bylaws about where parking could take place? F Shane responded to Committee Member D Eastman - Yes, we have four parking spots on the north side of the building, and four parking spots on the south side of the building. Mr. Jackson spoke in opposition to the application and stated - My first concern is safety such as fire issues and the safety for the building. The other concern is I can smell like a sewer smell as I live behind that house. One of the tenants that lived there, who told me that there was sewage backing up into his bathtub. He lived on the ground floor, and this was about five years ago. My other concern was permits for the stairs that were built on the back of the house to the second floor. T Taylor responded to Mr. Jackson — I understand from the homeowners that reno work was done that did not require any permits. Mr. Jackson responded to Committee Chair T Taylor — When I had to do my stairs, I needed a building permit. Are you saying that the homeowners for 5189 Main Street do Minutes from September 28, 2022, Page 15 not need a building permit for the exterior staircase going to the second floor from the ground level? F Shane responded — The stairs at the back, going to the second floor, were done about 12 years ago, and they were done by a professional carpenter, which had needed a permit. I am sure he would have gotten one. In terms of the septic tank, I do not think the smells are coming from our septic tank. We have that pipe checked twice every two years, and we never have problems with it. It may be one of the other neighbors that Mr. Jackson smelled, but it surely was not ours. No other Committee Members had any questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to table A2022-0046 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded J Bate. Full text of decision: "That application A2022-0046 for minor variance to Section 3.6 c) of Zoning By-law 84- 63 be to recognize four apartments in a house with 2 units that have been clearly identified approved as legal non -conforming be tabled for a period of up to ninety (90) days while concerns for the septic system are addressed". "Carried" 5. Other Business The Committee of Adjustment discussed whether the remainder of meetings in 2022; would be in -person, hybrid or virtual. After a discussion it was decided to keep meetings fully virtual until the end of 2022. Motion to approve as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by J Bate. Full text of decision: "Committee of Adjustment Meetings remain fully virtual until the end of 2022". "Carried" 6. Adjournment Next Meeting: October 27th, 2022, Last Date of Appeal: October 18th, 2022 Moved by N Gamble, seconded by S Pohjola. "That the meeting adjourn at 8:34 p.m." "Carried"