Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-26Ciarbgton Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington January 26t", 2023 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 Annette VanDyk Cindy Hammer Tyler Robichaud Nicole Zambri Tracey Webster Benjamin Courville Todd Taylor Shelley Pohjola Dave Eastman Acting Secretary -Treasurer Acting Chairperson/Meeting Host Staff Member Planning Staff Planning Staff Planning Staff Engineering Staff Chairperson Member Member John Bate Member Noel Gamble Member Gord Wallace Member 1. Call to Order The Acting Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Election of the Committee Chair A VanDyk (Acting Chair) presided over the election of the Committee Chair. D Eastman nominates T Taylor as Chair of the Committee of Adjustment. "That Committee Member Todd Taylor be elected Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, be approved." "Carried" Minutes from January 26th, Meeting Page 2 3. Election of the Committee Vice -Chair A VanDyk (Acting Chair) presided over the election of the Committee Vice -Chair. N Gamble nominates S Pohjola as Vice -Chair of the Committee of Adjustment. "That Committee Member Shelley Pohjola be elected Vice -Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, be approved." "Carried" 4. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest There were no pecuniary interests stated for this meeting. 5. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, November 24', 2022 Moved by D Eastman Seconded by J Bate "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on November 24th, 2022, be approved." "Carried" 6. Applications: 6.1 A2023-0001 Owner: Alan & Christine Johansen Applicant: Frank Johansen 11 Church Street, Lot 10, Concession 1, Former Township of Bowmanville F Johansen & A Johansen, the homeowner and applicant, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. S Pohjola asked a question to A & F Johansen - Have you seen Planning Staff's report and the recommendations they made in their report regarding your application? Applicant/Owner acknowledged they read the Staff Report. T Taylor asked if there were any questions regarding the application from the committee members or members of the public. 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 A2023-0001 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by S Pohjola. Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 3 Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0001 for a minor variance to Section 4 f. ii. b), of By-law 2021-82 as amended in Zoning By-law 84-63, and Section 12.2.d.ii) of Zoning By-law 84-63, to facilitate the construction of a new Additional Dwelling Unit in a new accessory structure by decreasing the minimum permitted interior and rear side yard setbacks from 1.8 metres to 1.2 metres, and by decreasing the minimum permitted exterior side yard setback from 6 metres to 5.96 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"; and "That application A2023-0001 for a minor variance to Section 3.28.a.ii) of Zoning By-law 84-63, by decreasing the visibility triangle from 3 metres to 2.5 metres be denied as it is not minor in nature, is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, the Durham Region Official Plan and Clarington Official Plan". "Carried" 6.2 A2023-0002 Owner: Evan King Applicant: Clinton Dochuk 2011 Brownsville Road Lot 18, Concession 2, Former Township of Clarke C Dochuk, the applicant, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor asked the applicant if they had read through the planning report and if he in agreeance with tabling the application? C Dochuk responded yes. S Pohjola asked Planning Staff a question - Regarding the status of the building permit that was issued in error. Was it revoked? Please confirm that no construction has taken place, and someone addressed the query. T Robichaud responded to S Pohjola - The building permit was issued back in April of 2022. 1 believe the building has been constructed, despite the fact that the building permit was issued an error. At this point, we need to continue our discussion with the applicant to make sure that we can vary some of the aspects of the building to conform with our Zoning By-law. The building is built, and we are working with the applicant to sort of do our best to correct the situation and the building permit that was issued. No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 4 No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to table A2023-0002 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded by S Pohjola. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0002 for a minor variance to Section 3.1 c. of Zoning By-law 84- 63 to facilitate the construction of a second storey loft within an existing accessory structure by increasing the maximum total accessory floor area for the subject property from 90 square metres to 175 square metres be tabled to allow for further discussion with the applicant". "Carried" 6.3 A2023-0003 Owner: Keven Reay Applicant: Brendon Moroney/Colin Reaume 120 Port Darlington Road Lot 19, Concession BF, Former Township of Bowmanville K Reay, the owner, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor asked the applicant if they had read through the planning report and if he in agreeance with the conditions listed? K Reay responded yes. No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2023-0003 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded by G Wallace. "That application A2023-0003 for a minor variance to Section 14.6.3 a) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the development of one additional apartment unit within an existing townhouse condominium development be approved subject to the following condition: That prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new additional residential unit and/or the recreational space the following is required: i) The condominium corporation amends the existing condominium agreement. ii) The condominium corporation enters into a Restrictive Covenant Agreement with CLOCA and registered on title; iii) The condominium corporation include this agreement in their updated condo agreement and declaration; and iv) The condominium corporation obtain a permit from CLOCA". Minutes from January 26th, Meeting Page 5 "Carried" 6.4 A2022-0046 Owner/Applicant: Laura Ross, Frank & Susan Shane 5189 Main Street Lot 28, Concession 5, Former Township of Clarke T Taylor made a statement acknowledging that the committee and the Chair have heard some of the background on this property when the application was before the Committee and its existing member on September 28, 2022, where the application was tabled for 90 days to allow planning and the owners to address the septic system concerns and returned to this committee on how they were going to be addressed. In preparation for the current meeting, I would like all those participating on the call to know that the Committee and I have reviewed, in advance, an additional 41 emails and correspondence regarding this application from various members of the public, the applicants and the tenants including a petition that was presented to us. It is important that I reiterate to everyone listening at this time that the job of the Committee tonight in hearing this application is to listen carefully to your presentations and focus their decisions on the four tests of minor variances as required by the Planning Act. L Ross, one of the owners, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor opened up the floor to questions from Committee Members. D Eastman asked the owners — How long have you owned the property? L Ross responded — We have owned the property for 12 years. D Eastman asked — Is there a recent survey of the property? L Ross responded — I have a survey from when the property was purchased. D Eastman responded — They survey is not recent then. D Eastman asked a question to Planning Staff — There is number of conditions in the Staff Report. What is the timeline for the conditions? Are these conditions in there to ensure health and safety? What is the timeline for completion for these conditions? Should timeline not be met? What would be the result for these tenants? T Webster responded — The conditions are required to be fulfilled for the variance; whatever approvals are decided upon by the committee to be valid. There are a number of other items that need to be dealt with and timelines that would be associated with those as far as the building permit requirements and fire code requirements. There are Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 6 currently some, I believe, municipal by-law enforcement timelines that are associated, I don't have the exact date for when those would have to be completed. However, they would have to follow up if they were not to be done in a timely fashion. D Eastman asked a question to T Webster — Building permits are going to be required? Would this include structural and electrical inspections? Have the changes been made to the two units in question? T Webster responded - I would expect so, I am not an expert in building code requirements, however, that is my understanding. D Eastman responded - Okay, thank you. I'm just a little concerned with one of the emails that was sent was from a single father with a couple of young children, and you know, he was very happy about what he was paying in rent, but I don't think he'd be so happy if there was some issue with the have a fire or whatever. So. I'm a little concerned about that. S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff - Let's start with the background with respect to the statements regarding the third and fourth unit and the lack of knowledge in terms of when they were created. My question is, I take it that there was no building permit issued for either the third or fourth units. Is that correct? T Webster responded - We do not have records that date back that far. We would have some affidavits that were submitted to speak to the third units. However, we have not found any evidence of permits for the fourth unit. S Pohjola stated — how about records for the third unit? T Webster responded — There are no record for the third and fourth unit S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff - With respect to the comment regarding fire and the reference of fire code and the Ontario Fire Marshal's Office, what is that about please? T Webster responded - I believe they need some work to be done and permits would be required to deal with those items, in order for them to obtain permits, they have to be in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw. So that is the reason why the variance application is the first step. S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff — My question specifically is regarding the comment made from the Fire & Emergency Services Department with regards to the Ontario Fire Marshall, that there are fire concerns? Do you know what this is? T Webster responded — I don't know the specifics. S Pohjola responded - With respect to the building code matters, since there's no building permit for respecting either the third or the fourth units. Is it the practice of the Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 7 building department to obtain professional engineers' certificate in the circumstances? I take it that there's going to have to be uncovering done to determine what the status of the interior the structures are? Are you able to answer that? T Webster responded — I am not able to answer that question because I am not a qualified engineer. We may need to refer to our Building Officials in Clarington's Building Division. If they need that information, I expect it would be a permit and part of the permit requirements. S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff - With respect to the determination in terms of the appropriateness of the use of the structure? I have a question regarding Orono in general, and then I'll ask regarding the other villages/hamlets within the Municipality? Are there any other structures on main street or in the general vicinity that have four units? Such as this? T Webster responded - I have not got that detail available, we would have to do research just to see if there are four units in the vicinity. S Pohjola responded - So you're not aware of any approvals for four unit's structures, generally within the Orono? T Webster responded — No, I am not aware of any others like this in Orono. S Pohjola responded - Is it fair to say that this is an anomaly as being recommended? Seeing this seems like it is the only one? T Webster responded - I would have to do the research to be able to turn determine if it's an anomaly. S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff — How have you determined that is not appropriate for Orono? In terms of use? T Webster responded - The Staff report points to the approvals to an amendment to the zoning bylaw that now does permit three units as of right through the ADU By-law 2021- 082. S Pohjola responded — Yes, that still leaves one unit remaining illegal? Can you please give me your planning opinion regarding why this is not inappropriate for Orono to proceed as a four -unit structure? T Webster responded - The property is within a built boundary. If they are able to upgrade their septic system to accommodate the four units. Their request is to expand the legal non -conforming use. They have the space to accommodate the parking on site So they the site is being looked at, as a site on its own and not sites within the surrounding area and whether the site can accommodate the units. That is how we arrived at the determination. Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 8 S Pohjola responded - You raise the issue regarding parking at a question under paragraph 6.10, regarding that issue. It does not say that there is sufficient parking, it speaks to the visibility triangle and the maintenance of it. However, there is no definitive statement that parking can be adequately provided within that space. Is that what you are telling us now? T Webster responded — There is sufficient width of the driveways and sufficient length that they would have the ability to mark out on a plan to that they could meet those requirements, we would like to see that they have a plan drawn out to show clearly that those regulations for visibility and parking are complied with and that everyone is aware of the exact locations as to where the parking is to be, and that is contained within the property boundaries. S Pohjola responded - You're sending them respecting the visibility site triangle, there's adequate parking area? T Webster responded — Yes, that is my determination T Taylor opened up the floor to members of the public to speak in support or in opposition to the application. K & J Stephens were present in the meeting and were speaking in opposition to the application. K & J Stephens stated — They have submitted a petition to the Committee, that had 150 signatures. We have proof of unit 4 was built. We have also lived here over 17 years, and we have pictures with actual dates on them from 2009? K & J Stephens showed the Committee Member a home sale ad from 2009 of 5189 Main Street. K & J Stephens stated - What has happened was at the top of the stair steps, the doorway used to be a window and the doorway was covered over. There was another window there that was turned into a doorway, under the stairs, and it used to be a window. K & J Stephens stated - As far as the parking, you were talking about parking, they are perking permanently out front, and it is blocking that visibility triangle as our fence we built is only three feet high, but they're much bigger and taller. We don't believe they have the parking. They are parking most of the time, over the property line and against our fence. When these apartments were listed, they are listed as only one parking space only. We've got 4 cars on our side alone. One of the tenants has got a truck and trailer parked, plus there are 2 cars. There are actually 6 to 7 parking spaces on our side alone, and they have 3 cars on the other side of the house. Now, we did submit a lot of Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 9 emails with concerns to the Committee and Staff. We conclude that there are no other fourplexes in Orono. T Taylor opened up the floor to Committee Members to ask questions to members of the Public. G Wallace asked K & J Stephens — How many parking spots do you think they have? K & J Stephens responded - While they're parking against the house, then there's a little opening in between the cars, and then their parking on the property lines. We are concerned that they don't have enough width, they need to have double wide and be able to get by each other, as our fence has been broken quite a few times. We did say that in the in the emails sent to the Committee, that we can replace this one section of our fence four times. G Wallace responded — Please clarify how many cars do you think that they can park in the parking area? L Ross responded - As T Webster said at her inspection, there's enough room there for seven, which is what we require for the number of apartments and people that are currently there. G Wallace was clarifying that they were asking K & J Stephens. K & J Stephens responded - In the past, they had they had too much parking, and they had like six and seven vehicles. They had whole families living in one -bedroom apartments. G Wallace stated - Just wanted to make it clear for everybody that that there does seem to be enough parking for a four -unit building. When I drove by there today, it looked to me like there's plenty of parking. The parking issue seems to be solved for me that there's plenty of parking for the units. D Eastman asked K & J Stephens a question - What exactly are you advocating for? What would satisfy you? We have read all of your submissions. K & J Stephens responded — We are hoping that it will be set back to a duplex. N Gamble asked a question to Planning Staff — Based on the information and photographic evidence submitted by the Stephens, there is some photographic research of the dates for the third and fourth units. I am curious if staff have considered those submissions in their research? Ultimately, determining that they were unable to locate dates for third and fourth units? T Webster responded - We have received some affidavits that do go back to the 1970s. To state that there was a third unit going back to I believe, 1977. The photographs that Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 10 were provided showed only exterior changes. There were some photographs from rural estate listing, but there's no concrete photos that would show or describe how many units were there. I'm not sure if the Stevens had actually been in in the building to see the floor plan on the layout. So, the photos that were provided were exterior changes. So, it didn't explain to me whether those exterior modifications were for any number of units that may have been or may not have been in that building. D Eastman asked a question to Planning Staff — For the exterior changes shown in the pictures, may you please confirm if a building permit was ever submitted? T Webster responded — None that I am aware of. S Pohjola asked a question to staff - Regarding the heritage status, it's noted as a secondary property on the cultural heritage resources list. Is there any possibility that this property will be designated or is that not a consideration in this matter? T Webster responded - That's not a consideration at this time. T Taylor stated that we have heard K & J Stephens concerns with regards to the parking. At this point, our Committee Members asked other questions that they would like to address to you. I would like to give the applicant a brief opportunity to respond to your comments, and then I would like to open it up to anyone else that's online that may want to speak to the application. Did you have any comments with regards to the statements or the presentation from the Stephens? L Ross responded - Not in particular, we're not asking to make any changes to the building that's there currently. It's been in the condition that it is now since we've owned it. All we're asking is to just continue using the property the way that we have been using it. That's it. No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. No other member of the public spoke in support of or in opposition to the application. "That application, for minor variance to Section 3.6 c, of Zoning By-law 84-63 to recognize four apartments in a house with 2 units that have been clearly identified as legal non -conforming 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. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the approval is subject to the applicant satisfying the following conditions: That the applicant/owner submit a site plan drawing identifying the required parking spaces on the proposed lot in compliance with the regulations contained in Section 3.16 and 3.28 of Zoning By-law 84-63. Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 11 That the applicant receive approval from the Durham Region Health Department for a replacement septic system to support the additional apartment units in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. iii. That the applicant receive building permits necessary to address the modifications that may be necessary for the apartment units to meet the Ontario Building Code. iv. That all accessory structures be relocated to conform with the required 0.6 metre setback to the interior side yard property line in accordance with Section 3.1 of Zoning By-law 84-63. V. That all downspouts affixed to the accessory structures be directed away from neighbouring properties; and vi. That the height of the decking placed on the ground along the south property line be adjusted so that it does not exceed 200 mm above the finished grade at its highest point to conform with the definition of "Landscape Open Space" found in Section 2 of Zoning By-law 84-63". "Carried" 7. Other Business Following up from the Committee of Adjustment Meeting decision made on September 28, 2022, Committee Chair T Taylor asked the Committee Members if meetings should remain virtual, hybrid or be fully in person. After a discussion amongst the Committee Members, the following decision was agreed to. Motion to approve as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision "Move Committee of Adjustment meetings to a Hybrid setting going forward". "Carried" The Committee also had discussion on moving meeting times back to 7 p.m. from 6:30 p.m. Motion to approve as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by N Gamble. Full text of decision "Committee of Adjustment meetings revert back to starting at 7 p.m.". "Carried" 8. Adjournment Next Meeting: February 23, 2023, Minutes from January 26t", Meeting Page 12 Last Date of Appeal: February 15t', 2023 Moved by N Gamble, seconded by S Pohjola. "That the meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m."