Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-04-27C18rftIOII Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington April 27t", 2023 Municipal Administrative Centre, Council Chambers 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville Preliminary Note from Chair T Taylor "My name is Todd Taylor, and I am the Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, and I would like to welcome you to this hybrid meeting of Committee of Adjustment. I would like to also let everyone in attendance today know that this meeting will be recorded. I'd like to remind everyone participating that we're doing this meeting electronically in a hybrid fashion. I would ask the speakers to speak slowly and clearly so everyone online hears your words. If something goes wrong, and we have to interrupt you so we can take a short recess to make adjustments in the meeting minutes accordingly. This meeting is taking place in Council Chambers and using Microsoft Teams program. We may have to put your mics on mute and have cameras turned off save bandwidth. If we encounter any technical problems during the meeting, we'll let you know if this is needed. The meeting may proceed at a slower pace than normal to which others time for all participants to keep up and speak. Members of the public or interested parties who are in the attendance but did not receive a notice of Committee meeting and wish to be added to the interested parties list then you must send an email to the Planning Department's email address, planning@clarington.net. You can also call Planning to provide your contact information and the Planning Department's number is 905-623-3379 extension 2404. You must please provide your name, address, telephone number and email address to be added to the interested parties list and receive a copy of the official decision". Present: Jacob Circo Acting Secretary -Treasurer Cindy Hammer Staff Member/Meeting Host Morgan Jones Secretary -Treasurer Todd Taylor Chairperson Shelley Pohjola Member Dave Eastman Member Noel Gamble Member Gord Wallace Member Regrets: John Bate Member Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 2 1. Call to Order The Acting Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Swearing in of new Secretary -Treasurer, Morgan Jones Moved by D Eastman, seconded by N Gamble. "That Morgan Jones be sworn in as the Secretary -Treasurer be approved." "Carried" 3. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest There were no pecuniary interests stated for this meeting. 4. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, March 30', 2023 Moved by S Pohjola Seconded by G Wallace "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on March 30th, 2023, be approved." "Carried" 5. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, April 5th, 2023 Moved by D Eastman Seconded by G Wallace "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on April 5th, 2023, be approved." "Carried" 6. Applications: 6.1 A2023-0001 Owner: Thambirajah Ratnasingam Applicant: Yaso Somalingam & Christina Bamsey 901 Townline Road N, Lot 35 Concession 4, Former Township of Darlington Y Somalingam, the applicant, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor - 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 and agreed to the conditions. Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 3 T Taylor asked if there were any questions regarding the application from the committee members or members of the public. N Gamble asked a question to Planning Staff — On Section 5.4 of the Staff Report, does Hydro One have any concerns with this proposal? J Circo responded — there are no concerns or objections from Hydro One with this application. There is a hydro corridor that runs along the property, but there is no concerns or objections from Hydro One. Hydro One has sent revised comments, but those revised comments were not submitted in time to be reflected in the Staff Report. D Eastman asked a question to Planning Staff — On Section 5.6 of the Staff Report, it says it requires a permit from CLOCA? Is that different from the recommendation to approve? J Circo responded — It is associated with the building permit application process, before they can submit a building permit with Clarington, they need to obtain a permit from CLOCA, since a majority of the property is regulated by CLOCA. 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 A2023-0006 as recommended by G Wallace, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision "That application A2023-0006 for a minor variance to Section 9.2.g) in Zoning By-law 84- 63, to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the maximum permitted height from 10.5 metres to 13 metres be approved subject to the following condition being required prior to the submission of a building permit application with the Municipality of Clarington, and these conditions are based on the recommendations from the memo done by Dougan & Associates Ecological Consulting & Design: L No construction is initiated until such time that the Ministry of Environment, Conservation & Parks has been engaged and confirmed by the Municipality of Clarington that they are satisfied that matters to do with the province's Endangered Species Act have been adequately addressed (assuming Bobolink and/or Eastern Meadowlark are found to be nesting in the active farm field); 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 April 27th, Meeting Page 4 6.2 A2023-0007 & Owner: Maxsym Lysyk & Simon A2023-0011 Lysyk Applicant: George Lysyk 11 Fourth Avenue, Courtice, Part Lot 30, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington G Lysyk, the applicant, in Council Chambers, gave a verbal presentation and visual presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor asked if there were any questions regarding the application from the committee members. D Eastman asked a question G Lysyk — Is this being built for sale? G Lysyk responded — No it is being built for my nephew who is here. G Lysyk stated — We're at the periphery of the subdivision. There's one lot that separates us from the end of the subdivision, the one lot to the south of us. D Eastman responded — I take issue with this site being construed as at the periphery of the subdivision. No further questions were asked by Committee Members. T Taylor invited the public now to come speak to this application. C Foster spoke in opposition to the application and restated the written comments they submitted — I moved to Courtice 10 years ago from Mississauga. I did submit my opinions in writing to the Committee. Westmore Street, which comes after Fourth Avenue is a very busy street and is a by-pass to the high school in the area. It is always challenging to navigate traffic in the area and difficult to safely cross at the intersection of Westmore Street and Fourth Avenue. It is going to add more cars which will increase traffic in an already busy area. The resultant lots will be too close to the road (front setback), creating new safety issues for my children walking to school. The reduced total frontage, minimum required lot area, and setbacks from all parts of the lot perimeter will not be in keeping with the aesthetic of our neighbourhood. Existing residents have paid a premium for homes and lots in an area that is not to be densified. The builder has already removed so many mature trees, changing the nature of that corner. This would remove the very last one. Furthermore, larger lot sizes and well thought out development is what makes Courtice such an attractive place over its neighbours. It is reminiscent of Lorne Park and it's why we chose to move here from Mississauga. We cannot undo any time we give up on preserving lot sizes. Doug Strong spoke in opposition to the application and restated their written comments that were submitted- "I would like to express my opposition to this application for a minor variance. For your reference this area consists of 3 street with homes that were built in the 1960s and were all ranch style bungalows on 1/2 acre lots. It is an absolutely gorgeous area that is revered by many as it is one pf the only areas left in Courtice that sits untouched by modern day jammed in box style homes. When this subject property Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 5 was sold a couple of years ago the Buyer/Builder new exactly what the bylaws were in reference to the lot sizes required to sever the lot. He then proceeded to build a new home on the severed piece of the property plus keep the existing original home. They built the ugliest 2 storey box style home you can possibly imagine. Now he wants to sever the lot again to build a 3rd 2 storey ugly box on the same original lot. He knew that he could not sever the lot into 3 when he bought the property. Now he is coming to council with tears streaming down his face saying he knew the rules when he bought it but now, he want to make even more money and destroy our little piece of heaven even more, and when he is done he will just move on to the next money making proposition and do it again leaving our area to live with his aftermath forever. If this Variance is approved there are other builders that have bought other homes in the same area just waiting to see what the results of this Minor Variance Application, you know what will happen next! "Well you allowed the other builder to make a smaller lot that the bylaws currently allow why not us!). The example is 14 Jane Ave that just sold 2 months ago, the Seller applied for a severance and got the severance but was told he was allowed the severance but only if you tear down the existing bungalow because the new lot would be too narrow to leave the existing home and build a 2nd home on. How do you say no to this person if you allowed it just around the corner. If you approve the subject properties minor variance you can guarantee others will be lined up to do the same thing and how do say no to them. The lot size regulations were put in place for a reason, to prevent this exact thing from happening. At some point this Administration has to just say NO and protect the rights of your community". David Strong further added - There is 2 schools, tons of them, the cars are lined up bumper to bumper on Nash and Westmore. All the kids are running out of the school, on to the street. If you approve this lot, then they want 4 more lots, and more families. If this is approved, then builders are going to come, and want to purchase to sever more corner lots. Safety violation by allowing this development to go through if kids get hit by a car. G Wallace stated - One thing that's common in all the objection letters, is that you have setbacks and you have a certain zoning with setbacks. I just want to point out just because I'm hoping it's going to save some time for everybody. That's what this committee is for, is relief of those setbacks. D Strong responded — It is not like every area over the last five years had huge meeting to establish this exception zone in the Zoning By-law. G Wallace responded — The Committee listens to comments, and is here to provide relief to the zoning provisions. The Committee meets every month, and this is what we do. T Taylor stated — I just want to remind everyone in attendance that the Committee is here to listen to the four tests of a minor variance and determine where they apply. H McCaig spoke in opposition to the application and stated — Today, present are many people from our community, who are very passionate about our neighborhood. I personally am a teacher. There are schools that are right around the corner. We deal daily with safety concerns, and the structure of the space does not support our public school. We have an entire condominium of houses being built just right there. The principal is constantly out there policing cars, when this gentleman has said that it is Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 6 going to be a catastrophe, it is. There will be a safety concern. It's going to happen. I work at the local school in the area and I live just down the street. I am constantly trying to bring children across the street because it is very busy traffic in this area. Adding an extra four homes right down the street from where these children walk every day would continue adding to the safety issue in this area. D Eastman asked a question to H McCaig — I am getting the sense everybody's worried about safety. You work with the school in the area and what's the school doing about safety? The traffic here is not going to increase substantially because somebody builds more homes. H McCaig responded — I cannot tell you what the school is doing because I am not an administrator of the school, but we do not have enough space in our school parking lots for all the cars that come to the school to pick up children. We have staff out in the school yard and are constantly out there trying to control cars. There are often moments that my principal is dealing with confrontation between parents, people are just not adhering to what they're supposed to do for traffic safety. D Eastman stated — I think that's the school's problem, the safety problem goes beyond this application. H McCaig responded — I do not disagree with you, and all I am saying is we are adding congestion to the area from this proposal. D Siegal spoke in opposition to the application and restated her written comments that were submitted to the Committee as follows: "In June of 2016 the Clarington council passed an Interim Control Bylaw for a portion of the Glenview neighbourhood in Courtice and directed Planning Services to study the character of the area. As a result an amendment to the Zoning By-law was proposed and accepted with respect to housing type, zone regulations in terms of lot frontages, lot size and setbacks. The intent was to preserve the character of the neighbourhood should redevelopment occur. In September of 2016, 26 members of the community came together to redefine what was acceptable within the confines or what is now termed the Glenview Neighbourhood. A follow up meeting was hosted on September 28 to review the results. Significant taxpayers money was spent on this initiative. We need to maintain the integrity of what this community was fighting to achieve. We completely understand that it is within any individuals right to request a variance. In fact the developer has already requested variances that were approved just prior to Covid with respect to this exact lot. The members of the Glenview Community where willing to work with him in good faith. Said Applicant had his lawyer stood in front of many members of the Glenview community and requested variances for two houses for which he was building for his children on said property. Later the applicant stood in front of myself and a few other members of the community and said I quote " I am not changing the site lines of fourth avenue, the bungalow will remain where it is. I only want these requested variances to build two houses for my children". Fast forward to 2023. He is now asking again for minor variances that are anything but minor in nature and go against everything we as the Glenview community are fighting to preserve. Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 7 At this time we do not feel that the minor variances as set out in the applicants application satisfy the Four Tests of Minor Variance as it pertains to the Glenview Neighbourhood. 1. Is the Variance Minor? No. The applicant is asking to move the 11 Fourth Avenue bungalow which is currently facing Fourth Avenue to face Westmore and to build an additional house in between 11 and 7 Fourth Avenue. The requested variance will leave little room for setback from the street, rear and side yards, drastically changing the sightlines on Fourth Avenue. Not to mention the destruction of a beautiful tree, loss of parking and increased congestion of an already busy street. 2. Does the variance requested maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw? No. The (official plan amendment 107) also designates the Glenview neighbourhood as urban residential. It also stated that these lands are not a priority intensification area. That new development and redevelopment in established neighbourhoods shall respect and reinforce the physical character having regard to the pattern of lots, streets and blocks, the zone and configuration of lots, building types of nearby properties, the height and scale of buildings and the set back of buildings from the street, rear and side yards. The proposed variances are incompatible with the established built form and character of the neighbourhood as it pertains to setbacks. Eroding the aesthetics of the street scape on both Fourth Street and Westmore. 3. Would the granting of the variance result in a development that would be desirable for the appropriate development or use of the applicant's land or building? No. And I would also argue that the minor variance being requested is as a result of a self-created hardship. The current hardship as it pertains to this newest minor variance request was self-created when the owner sought for previous minor variances for the buildings that have been and will be built on said property already, site 65 and 59 Westmore. Collectively previously known as 11 Fourth Avenue. 4. Does the variance requested maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan? No. Not in accordance with the Council adopted Clarington Official (Official Plan Amendment 107). In summary, the proposed variances have no sensitivity regarding those things that the Glenview Community fought to maintain. In addition, it sets a precedent for ignoring the amended zoning bylaws the Glenview Community came together to protect". Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 8 G Wallace asked a question to Planning Staff — The letters from the community indicate that the application does not meet the test of the Official Plan. Please clarify if the application conforms to the Official Plan? J Circo deferred the question to M Jones. M Jones responded — The Official Plan is a broad document. There are many different sections to the Official Plan. The Official Plan can be interpreted in many ways. The staff report that you saw tonight highlighted some specific policies that, in the opinion of staff support this proposal. Limited intensification in urban areas, even in existing communities uses existing resources. Those are roads, sidewalks, schools, water and sanitary servicing, streetlights and gas. As the applicant spoke tonight, aside from our Official Plan, there are higher level documents, those are the Growth Plan, Provincial Policy Statement and on top of that we have the Planning Act, which has been amended many times in recent years. Over the last few years with the current provincial government in place, it has been amended more I have seen in probably in my entire career. The message is clear for all municipalities in Durham region or the Greater Golden Horseshoe for Ontario, that there is housing shortage. D Siegal responded to M Jones — I completely understand what you are speaking to the Glenview community and what we came together in 2016 for was not that, and we amended the Zoning By-law to protect this area. This area is bounded by four streets. It is bound by Fourth to Westmore to Linwood to Glenview. In 2016, we stood in front of Council, we all came out as a neighborhood. Councilor Neal at the time said that there is something special here and we need to protect it. Forgive me if I am not understanding why we continue to come back to this same place. I know that you are speaking about, the overarching planning documents, but the overarching planning has to take into consideration what taxpayers paid over $60,000 to take us through workshops to define a new area. My question is, where is that within this? M Jones responded — It was mentioned earlier that there was a moratorium on the zoning on this area before. The Planning Act can stipulate a moratorium on the zoning for up two years. We are six years since at zoning by-law amendment was put into place. That is why we have broadness in our Official Plan, and we have to look at the current climate right now when it comes to what the Province is asking of the municipalities, and I understand the position of the community that we have a defined community here, however, as part of the analysis undertaken here is we came outside of the Glenview neighbourhood, using a 300 metre radius, and we looked at the different lot sizes, lot frontages, lot fabric and built form, and some of them in close proximity, are actually not in keeping with the Glendale community. A Legacy spoke in opposition to the application and stated: I would like to go back to what the owner said. They have smaller lot frontage. Those lot frontages are not part of interim control by-law that was developed in 2016. This was a result of land division applications, and a failed OMB hearing. That is how we define our neighbourhood, how Council defined out neighbourhood. The owner's property is larger than most of the properties in the neighbourhood. He was entitled to build three. In total, parts 1 and 2, he is asking for 12 minor variances. What makes minor variances minor in nature? He wants to increase lot coverage, why? Is that really minor in nature? One of the questions made Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 9 to the owner, one is being rented (bungalow), and the other is for is nephew. What are the other 2 lots being used for? He could have built 3 lots under the current by-law, and I would have been okay with that. Safety is an issue. I wouldn't consider this limited intensification. Also, got the impression, does the zoning by-law no longer apply to our neighbourhood? Why are we here then? What is the zoning, does it really matter because of all the variances they want? What does the Committee consider minor in nature? M Jones responded to A Legacy — The zoning is in effect for the neighbourhood, however the moratorium is no longer in effect to pause new development from taking place. D Eastman asked a question to Planning Staff — I am wondering how this application is minor in nature anymore? M Jones responded - Depends on which way you look at it. When it's something not minor, or when is something minor? Staff have done a review of the plans that have been put forward. We have received the public comments, we have reviewed the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. We are aware of other higher -level documents and the current planning climate. We also did the analysis of the neighborhood, I realize the neighborhood is not pleased that that analysis went beyond their existing neighborhood Glenview Neighbourhood, but we are not confined just to that neighborhood. We are allowed to look at a broader area when it comes to our planning analysis. Based on all those factors, in its totality, it is Staff's position that the application is minor in nature. A Legacy responded — I do not consider this minor in nature and the proper way for the owner to have dealt with this is to do a zoning change. He should have done the Zoning By-law change, and that is the proper way to go about this not through a minor variance. There should be a zoning change application. D White spoke in opposition to the application and restated what they submitted in writing - Proposal A2023-0007 and A2023-0011— 11 Fourth Avenue, as it stands is not minor in nature. The Official Plan puts frontage on Fourth Ave. The proposed lot 1 would be 53.81 ft frontage x approximately 81 ft depth. The proposed lot 2 would be 49.21 ft frontage approximately 81 ft depth. Even with the "existing" setbacks the proposed lots will be smaller than any lots in the Glenview Neighbourhood. The existing bungalow will be turned to front on to Westmore St being less than 10 feet from the inside of the sidewalk. This does not line up with existing houses nor is it aesthetically pleasing. This proposal does not comply to the zoning for our Glenview Neighbourhood as set out from the workshops of 2016 and approved by Council. This lot zoned "R1-32" Glenview Neighbourhood is low density with average lot sizes of 80-100 ft frontage and 175-200 ft depth. Proposed new lot sizes would introduce high density to our Glenveiw Neighbourhood. It does not appear to comply with the Official Plan. Consider please that 11 Fourth Ave as it stood a few years back had already been divided from one (1) lot into three (3). The new amendments to the zoning of Glenview Neighbourhood circa 2017 do comply to the Official Plan. Safety -Fourth Avenue is the gateway to our Glenview Neighbourhood and is joined by three (3) other subdivisions via the parkette off Fourth Ave. The block of roadway along Fourth Ave from Westmore St to Nash Rd is a very busy block. Foot traffic is plentiful with parents and children, strollers, wagons and scooters. Corner lots have larger setbacks as a safety feature and reducing site lines and placing housing closer to the sidewalk creates a safety hazard both for foot traffic and Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 10 vehicles turning both ways and coming in and out of driveways. Site -lines are diminished when cars are parked bumper to bumper close to the corner. Parking is at a premium especially at school start and close times and for any social events both public or private. Getting in and out of a private driveway can be problematic at times. The roads within the Glenview community are significantly more narrow than in the newer subdivisions build today posing safety issues for traffic when street parking occurs. Parking was reduced on Westmore Street by two (2) spaces when 11 Fourth Avenue was initially divided to create Lots 59 and 65. Another driveway on Fourth Avenue (part 2) between Westmore Street and Nash Road will further reduce available parking by another 1-2 spaces depending on driveway width. Proposed development on a divided 11 Fourth Avenue A2023-0007 part 1 and A2023-0011 part 2 is not appropriate development for Glenview Neighbourhood according to the new zoning amendments approved by Council 2017. The proposed amendments are large in nature. They do not comply with existing lot setbacks. The proposed amendments will not allow for size or character of either lot or house to fit into the lot fabric of this parcel of land up for division. The proposed amendments of our low density neighbourhood will set a precedent for development of higher density not outlined in existing zoning. The Official Plan and Zoning is already defined for Glenview Neighbourhood according to the most recent amendments as a result of Municipality sponsored workshops of 2016 and amended zoning by Council 2017. The Glenview Neighbourhood is surrounded by high density development both existing and purposed. We have done the work with leadership from the Planning Dept at workshops and Council approved and amended zoning to accomplish and maintain the cohesion, integrity and character of our Neighbourhood. We are the stakeholders of our neighbourhood. One person's gain should not affect the integrity, cohesion, and values of the majority. If the existing minimum required lot areas and minimum required lot frontages with existing required setbacks cannot be used as is to facilitate appropriate housing in a low density manner then the division of 11 Fourth Avenue should not be allowed. N Gamble asked a question to Planning Staff — Why wasn't a rezoning or land severance application recommended for this development? 12 minor variances were put on this one property? M Jones responded - Typically, a zoning amendment, whether major or minor, involves a change of use to the land which introduces a different type of use, that is not permitted by the by-laws, such as if townhouses or small apartment building have been proposed? That is typically where we see a zoning change, however when someone is still proposing a use permitted within the zone, which are single detached dwellings, those typically fall under a minor variance and the amount of minor variances does not necessarily determine that it is no longer minor. N Gamble responded — This still is a property with a single detached dwelling, yes the minor variances are not changing the use, however, there is going to be a lot more people living on the proposed lots, which gives the feeling of a small apartment building. In going back to the 2016 Zoning By-law amendment, I am just not sure, why not a land severance? M Jones responded — If the applicant is successful with the Committee of Adjustment applications, then the owner intends on severing the land. However, this Committee does Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 11 not deal with land severances. However, in order to pursue a severance and for a severance to be approved the severance does need to comply with the Zoning By-law. E Zingone spoke in support of the application and stated — I have been a real estate agent in Durham Region for 36 years, I had been involved in infill projects before infill development became a thing. I think my first infill project was in 1987 and I have been doing them since. I have had quite a bit of experience over the years, and I have dealt with many of these objections and complaints, and I understand why most people would have them. I am pretty much seeing the same objections and complaints in almost every application we have made over the last 30 years. However, this is about housing. This is about families having a place to live, all of these people at one point in time moved into this neighborhood. That is why they said, a stable and non static neighborhood. Everybody comes at one point, somebody leaves at another point in time, and everybody's needs change during those years. This is a basic human need and requirement. This has been acknowledged by the province of Ontario, the Government of Canada, and we are in a housing crisis provincially and nationally. This is one house of many requirements for new families coming to Clarington and more will come. There will always be objection to change to progress. In one way or another, subject to adjustments in all of our neighborhoods. Since 2016, we have had more than 1 million immigrants come to Ontario, and 90% of them settled in the GTA. Everyone speaking here tonight, I am sure given their addresses has a roof over their heads. I see it as a difficult thing to deny another the same safety and security concerning, we are speaking of safety and security. Infill has not been a policy of the provincial government for many years now, and it is not an easy task to satisfy being that there are so few lots able to accommodate such as this one does with some minor adjustments, 15 meters frontage that is nearly 50 feet, many lines across the street. If you want to just forget about the actual lines of the zoning, the sight lines are 40 feet, they are 12 meters coming in, a lot of them are basically 20 to 23 feet at the very threshold. There are even narrower lots, on average. This remains a generous size lot, which would easily look in place. With the rest of the neighborhood, we still have to remember this is a 50-foot lot. The lot maintains the stable integrity of the neighborhood and complies with the intent of intensification and infill in the soft, distant ways, while also satisfying the general intent of the Clarington's Official Plan. What it also does is it houses people, it puts someone in there, one house at a time, one person at a time, one family at a time. This is a great responsibility to make room for all and not everyone will be happy with that. Imagine how unhappy you would be if it was you and your children. The ones without a home and without any capability, knowing that you'll ever have home. This is a very unusual case where the applicant has the same interest as everyone else in this room. Although that has not been mentioned, I sold this to Mr. Lysyk a few years back, and he told me he was buying this property to put his kids there, one of which has already been built and now this other lot came in for his nephew. They are already residents as everybody else is, I know he has no intention to see a deterioration of the neighborhood because they too have the same interest as the residents. They live there too. One thing I have heard and you mentioned that as a small apartment building, these are single family homes. It is not a small apartment building. They are very different things. As of right, in every property of Ontario, you could put in a 3-unit apartment as long as you meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law, you meet property standards, and you have parking. This is not an apartment building. This is actually cheap housing. You have a piece of land which is scarce. If you can put two Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 12 units, that's two families, you have the residents and the owners here at the same time. What I am hearing and why I mentioned this is because I have heard a lot of complaints about the rentals. It sounds more like gentrification to me, not in my neighborhood. I do not want to see someone that does not own the house. Overall, I do not oppose this application and see this as good planning. M Lysyk, the owner, stated — Speaking as a professional engineer, I want to be clear, this application does not encroach into any municipal rights -of -way. If the municipal staff thought that that was a requirement, that would have been conditioned to take a road widening off our application. If you review the report this evening, nothing was there. One thing that was also mentioned about contribution to the community through this process, if we are successful, and as we move forward through building permits, we will owe our fair shared to municipality's development charges. S Pohjola asked Planning Staff a question — In regards to Section 5.10 of the Staff Report, and specifically already did the proposed variances maintain the existing residential use of the land and are in keeping with the intent of the urban residential land use designation by maintaining a suitable urban residential sized lot and dwelling type. Could staff please speak to this assessment? M Jones responded — Staff did an analysis of a 300 metre radius of the subject site, and this is where the analysis is coming from. We spoke about the ranges of lot sizes and lot frontages in this area, not necessarily just the community that it's been spoken to tonight, but a larger community or area, which varies in size. S Pohjola ask a question to Planning Staff — The lots indicated in red on the map attached, that is what you are referring to in the 300 metre radius? M Jones responded — Correct. S Pohjola asked a question to Planning Staff — The variances will allow the proposed lots to continue the existing residential use within the community that is consistent with the existing adjacent neighbourhoods? How did planning assess this and how did Planning apply this to the existing neighbourhood? Are they the same as the lots shown in red in the attached map or are they different? M Jones responded — It is the same, it is the 300 metre radius, and it is the lots you saw in red. S Pohjola responded — Those are your adjacent neighbourhoods? M Jones responded — Yes S Pohjola responded to M Jones — There is no application at this time to the Land Division office at Durham Region? M Jones responded — The owner has an application with the Municipality for removal of part lot control. That is a type of severance application that the Municipality can process. It is appropriate to do the public process through a minor variance. There are some key Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 13 variances here, such as lot frontage and lot area, which must be approved before the severance can take place. D Eastman asked a question to G Lysyk — Some of these minor variances can be taken off and are you willing to change your plan? G Lysyk responded to D Eastman — A lot of the minor variances are driven because of the built form. It is the intention to move the house on the north lawn to one of the new lots being created. I want the Committee to be very clear and the Chair needs to explain what the essence of Bill 23 indicates to Committees of Adjustment in Ontario. C Foster spoke again, and stated — I am confused, is this the efficiency of use or maximizing the use of our resources in our community because it sounds like we are just putting as much as possible on? We are saving Ontario by building a couple of homes? How will this save Ontario's housing crisis, and Clarington already has a plan for delivering new homes in the Municipality. No other Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. No other members of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application. Motion to deny A2023-0007 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by N Gamble. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0002 for a minor variance to Section 3.1 c. of Zoning By-law 84- 6 That application A2023-0007 for minor variances to: i. Section 12.4.32 (a) by reducing the minimum required lot area from 560 square metres to 405 square metres; ii. Section 12.4.32 (b) ii) by reducing the minimum required lot frontage (external lot) from 20.0 metres to 16.4 metres; iii. Section 12.4.32 (c) i) by reducing the required front yard setback from 8.0 metres to 4.8 metres; iv. Section 12.4.32 (c) iii) by reducing the exterior side yard setback from 8.0 metres to 6.0 metres (applied to the 50% remainder of the exterior side wall); V. Section 12.4.32 (c) (iv) by reducing the rear yard setback from 8.0 metres to 1.2 metres; and vi. Section 12.4.32 (d) i) by increasing the lot coverage from 30% to 36% for the dwelling; be denied as they are not minor in nature". Motion to approve A2023-00011 as recommended by G Wallace, seconded by S Pohjola. Full text of decision: Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 14 "That application A2023-0011 for minor variances to: i. Section 12.4.32 (a) by reducing the minimum required lot area from 560 square metres to 370 square metres; ii. Section 12.4.32 (b) ii) by reducing the minimum required lot frontage (external lot) from 16.0 metres to 15.0 metres; iii. Section 12.4.32 (c) i) by reducing the required front yard setback from 8.0 metres to 6.0 metres; iv. Section 12.4.32 (c) iii) by reducing the required interior side yard setback from 1.5 metres to 1.2 metres; V. Section 12.4.32 (c) iv) by reducing the rear yard setback from 8.0 metres to 7.5 metres; and vi. Section 12.4.32 (d) i) by increasing the lot coverage from 30% to 38% for the dwelling; be approved as they are 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 A2023-0007 as recommended by G Wallace, seconded by S Pohjola. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0007 for minor variances to: i. Section 12.4.32 (a) by reducing the minimum required lot area from 560 square metres to 405 square metres; ii. Section 12.4.32 (b) ii) by reducing the minimum required lot frontage (external lot) from 20.0 metres to 16.4 metres; iii. Section 12.4.32 (c) i) by reducing the required front yard setback from 8.0 metres to 4.8 metres; iv. Section 12.4.32 (c) iii) by reducing the exterior side yard setback from 8.0 metres to 6.0 metres (applied to the 50% remainder of the exterior side wall); V. Section 12.4.32 (c) by reducing the rear yard setback from 8.0 metres to 1.2 metres; and vi. Section 12.4.32 (d) i) by increasing the lot coverage from 30% to 36% for the dwelling; be approved as they are 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 April 27th, Meeting Page 15 6.3 A2023-0016 & A2023-0017 Owner: Dan Hogenbirk Applicant: Michael Fry/ Ashlee Prescott 11 B Duke Street Lot 11, Concession 1, Former Town of Bowmanville A Prescott, the applicant, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. S Pohjola asked a question to the Planning Staff — The applicant is saying they request the application be tabled to the next meeting when Staff's recommendation is to table for 60 days. Please clarify? J Circo responded — Yes, the recommendation from Staff is to table for 60 days. S Pohjola asked a question to the applicant — Is the applicant agreeable to the 60 days? A Prescott responded — Yes. No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. M Hunter spoke in opposition to the application and stated — I live directly behind this property. I am getting the impression that they want to push this application off a month? T Taylor responded — The recommendation from Planning Staff is to table for 60 days to address site drainage issues, grading and site design. M Hunter responded — I would like to voice my extreme opposition application. In the last few years, we have seen great changes to our neighborhood, which is just a very small block. Beside me an 18 Durham Street, we had seven new lot just put in directly across the street from 11 B Duke Street and semi that is actually a six-plex, where there was just a single family bungalow before. Now this investor has come in and bought these homes directly behind me, they have already put ADUs in accessory structure, which is, you know, to help the shortage and there's just not room nor is the infrastructure is there for another building. Every single one of these, these new developments that have come in has troubles hooking up to the sewer system, which I am sure you are aware. It is changing the water table in that area. I have lived in this home for 23 years, and I believe that they want to build a two -storey home here. This will encroach on everybody's privacy, and it overlooks everybody's backyard on this whole block. This is totally changing why people have bought in an older area with the bigger lots, they don't want to have houses that are on top of each other. The proposal for a two -storey single detached dwelling will encroach on my privacy. D Eastman asked a question to M Hunter — Have you seen the Staff Report? M Hunter responded — I have not. Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 16 A Prescott responded — In regards to the sump pumps in the basement, and the pipes showing up in the front lawn and the pipes in the back in the ground, that is temporary as ongoing construction continues on the property. Furthermore, the sanitary line from the road was extended to the rear portion of the lot, to service the ADU in an accessory structure. No other Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. No other member of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application. Motion to table A2023-0016 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0016 for a minor variance to Sections 3.1.g.iv), 12.2.a.ii), 12.2.b.ii), 12.2.1.b.i.b), and 12.2.1.b.ii.a) in Zoning By-law 84-63, to facilitate a severance application (Land Division File # LD2023-024) on the retained lot by reducing the front yard setback from the established building line, from 6.14m to 1.65m, by decreasing the minimum permitted interior side yard setback without a garage from 3m to 0.1 m, and by increasing maximum permitted front yard porch projection from 1.5m to Om for an existing semi-detached dwelling. The other minor variances are to Sections 3.2.f.ii.c.ii) and Section 3.2.f.ii.b) of By-law 2021-082 as amended in Zoning By-law 84- 63 to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage for an existing Additional Dwelling Unit in an accessory structure from 10% to 12.5%, and to reduce the minimum permitted side yard setback from 1.8m to 1.35m, be tabled for up to 60 days to address drainage concerns, the encroachment of the porch stairs on the municipal right-of-way, and site design issues". "Carried" Motion to table A2023-0017 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by G Wallace. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0017 for a minor variance to Sections 12.2.a.ii), 12.2.b.i), 12.2.d.iv), 12.2.1.b.i.c), 12.2.1.b.ii.a), 12.2.1.b.ii.c), 12.2.1.d.i) and 12.2.1.d.ii) in Zoning By-law 84-63, facilitate a severance application (Land Division File # LD2023-024) on the severed lot by reducing the minimum required interior lot frontage for a single detached dwelling from 15m to 8.86m, by reducing the minimum required interior lot area from 460 square metres to 445.7 square metres, by reducing the minimum required rear yard setback from 7.5m to 5.2m, by decreasing the minimum permitted interior side yard setback without a garage from 3m to 0.6m, by reducing minimum permitted interior side yard setback on other side from 1.8m to 1.2m, by increasing the front yard setback from the established building line to the dwelling from 2m to 23.5m, by reducing the minimum required landscape open space from 40% to 35.9%, and by reducing the minimum required front yard softscape from 50% to 31.7%, be tabled for up to 60 days to address drainage concerns, the encroachment of the porch stairs on the municipal right-of-way, and site design issues". "Carried" Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 17 6.4 A2023-0015 Owner: Ryan Holland on behalf of Holland Homes Inc. Applicant: Katrina Metzner 280 King Street East Lot 9, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington K Metzner, the applicant, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. No Committee Members had any questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2023-0015 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded by G Wallace. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0015 for a minor variance to Section 15.2 a. by increasing the maximum density from 85 units per net hectare to 91 units per net hectare be approved as this 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" 6.5 A2023-0018 Applicant: Michael Provinzano 645 Townline Road North Lot 35, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington The applicant was not present to make a verbal presentation on the application. No Committee Members had any questions or comments. The Chair opened the floor to the public for comments. T Otvos spoke in opposition to the application and stated — I am concerned with the environmental impacts that this proposal presented in the application will have on the surrounding area, and the property is regulated by CLOCA. I am also concerned with the increase in ADUs on this property, when sanitary and water servicing is not provided on this part of Clarington. I am also concerned about traffic safety worsening because of Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 18 this application. I also have privacy concerns with this application. I also have concerns with this application becoming a triplex. J Circo asked the Chair if Planning Staff can provide clarification to T Otvos on By-law 2021-082. T Taylor agreed. J Circo responded — By-law 2021-082 does not permit 2 ADUs on rural and agricultural properties on the Greenbelt. Only one ADU is permitted in the Greenbelt, either in the principal residence or within an accessory structure that was in existence prior to 2017. D Eastman asked Planning Staff a question — The application is being tabled with no timeline? M Jones responded — Yes, at this time Staff does not have a complete application, which is why we are recommending no timeline. No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. No other member of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application. Motion to table A2023-0018 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by G Wallace. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0018 for minor variances to section 3.1 c. of Zoning By-law 84- 63 to facilitate the construction of an accessory building by increasing the maximum total accessory floor area from 90 square metres to 149 square metres and to increase the height from 4.5 metres to 5.9 metres be tabled to allow the applicant to submit a full and complete application". "Carried" 6.6 A2023-0019 Owner/Applicant: Thomas Stephens 1188 Church Street Lot 18, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington T Stephens, in person in Council Chambers, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor asked the applicant if they read the report and were in agreeance with the conditions? T Stephens responded — Yes, I read the report and agree with the conditions. My only comment is that the aerial photo with the red circle is wrong of where the existing garden Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 19 shed is located. The red circle shows my hot tub, and not the location of the garden shed. The existing garden shed is located under the trees located on the northside of the property beside the house. J Circo responded — We will take note that in the Staff Report. D Eastman asked a question to T Stephens — Are any of the trees on the property going to be removed to construct this accessory structure? T Stephens responded — No trees will be removed. No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2023-0019 as recommended by S Pohjola, seconded by N Gamble. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0019 for a minor variance to Section 3.1 c) of Zoning By-law 84- 63 to facilitate the construction of a detached accessory structure an accessory structure by increasing the permitted maximum total floor area of all accessory structures from 60m2 to 111.5m2 and by increasing the maximum permitted height from 4m to 5.3m be approved subject to the following conditions being satisfied; i. That a grading plan be submitted at the time of applying for a building permit application in order to indicate the discharge locations for roof water leaders and to confirm that existing drainage patterns will remain unaltered by the proposed accessory structure; and ii. ii. That the existing garden shed be removed at the time that building occupancy is granted; 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" 6.7 A2023-0020 Owner/Applicant: Jaswinder Dhaliwal 14 Washburn Place Lot 33, Concession 3, Former Township of Darlington Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 20 J Dhaliwal, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor opened the floor to the Committee Members for questions. D Eastman asked a question to J Dhaliwal — Confirming there is an existing deck now and it is just being enlarged? J Dhaliwal responded — Yes No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. T Taylor opened the floor to the public to comment on the application. E Tsaturyan spoke in opposition to the application and stated — I have privacy concerns with extending the deck, and this proposal further encroach on privacy onto my property which abuts this property. I am going to have to elevate my fence if this application gets approved which is unfair. D Eastman stated — There is a Condo Committee there, and are you a part of the Condo Committee? E Tsaturyan responded — No, I am not a part of the Condo Committee there. D Eastman responded — Are you aware if the owners of this property have actually increased the height of their fence to increase privacy? E Tsaturyan responded — We have just accepted at the time that the deck was there, with the height of the existing fence. We did understand that privacy would be an issue with the existing deck when it was originally constructed in conjunction with the height of the existing fence. The current deck and height of the existing fence is an existing condition that encroaches on privacy. D Eastman responded — So there is an existing privacy issues with the current deck, and so how does privacy become worst by extending the deck? E Tsaturyan responded — The existing deck is approximately 6 metres away from the rear lot line. By increasing the size of the deck, will increase encroachment of privacy onto my property because the deck is coming closer to my property line. J Dhaliwal responded to E Tsaturyan — We are increasing the deck size to accommodate our BBQ, and that is it. G Wallace asked a question to J Dhaliwal — Where is the deck now, and where is the extended deck going to go? Are you just going to increase the backside of the existing deck? Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 21 J Dhaliwal responded to G Wallace — Yes, the existing deck will be extended in the rear portion of my property. G Wallace stated — I notice there is a gap between the backyards in this block, which appears to be a walking path between the properties? E Tsaturyan responded — Yes, the walking path is there for safety reasons. J Dhaliwal responded to E Tsaturyan responded — The extension of the existing deck is not going to be much, so I don't understand the issue here. E Tsaturyan responded to J Dhaliwal — There appears to be multiple decks in the area with multiple gradients in the area. Essentially, there's multiple gradients in the area, it is a brand new neighborhood. There is several decks that have been extended, but again, they are on the wrong level. They are not extended from what is essentially a second floor for me, and the first floor for this specific reason. J Dhaliwal responded to E Tsaturyan responded — My neighbour is on the same level as me in regards to their house, and has the same grade level as my home. No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. No other member of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2023-0020 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0020 for minor variances to Section 12.4.94 (g) ii) and 3.1.(g) iv) of Zoning By-law 84-63, to facilitate the construction of a deck by reducing the rear yard setback to the deck from 6 metres to 3 metres and to increase the rear yard deck projection from 1.5 metres to 3 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" 6.8 A2023-0021 Owner: Zak Merchant Applicant: Clinton Dochuk 58 Mill Street South Lot 28, Concession 1, Former Town of Newcastle Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 22 C Dochuk, via the Teams application with audio, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor opened the floor to Committee Members for questions. D Eastman asked a question to Planning Staff — What trees are staff recommending to remain, as there is a third tree along Mill Street South? J Circo responded to D Eastman — Staff are recommending that the two mature trees on the private property be preserved. The tree on the municipal right-of- way cannot be altered with. J Circo visually showed the Committee Members the two mature trees that Staff were recommending to maintain on private property. D Cochuk noted agreeance with the conditions presented in the Staff Report. No Committee Members had any additional questions or comments. No member of the public spoke in support or in opposition to the application. Motion to approve A2023-0021 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by G Wallace. Full text of decision: "That application A2023-0021 for minor variances to Section 13.2.c.ii), Section 13.2.c.iv), and Section 3.1.g.iv) of Zoning By-law 84-63, to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling that contains two additional units by reducing the minimum required exterior side yard setback from 6m to 4.4m, by reducing the minimum required rear yard setback from 7.5m to 1.5m, and by increasing the exterior side yard projection for two porches from 1.5m to 2.65m, leaving an exterior side yard setback of 3.35m be approved subject to the follow conditions: i. That a minimum of 0.9 metres of green space is required between the west property line abutting 18 Emily Street and the driveway to ensure that a swale can be constructed to municipal standards for drainage purposes; and ii. That the existing 2 mature trees such as the one near the corner of Emily Street and Mill Street South, and the tree along the fence in the rear yard, remain post - construction, however if the trees are removed at the time of building occupancy being granted, then 2 new deciduous trees shall be replanted; 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" 7. Other Business No other new business was presented, other than the swearing in of M Jones as Secretary -Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment. Minutes from April 27th, Meeting Page 23 8. Adjournment Next Meeting: May 25th, 2023, Last Date of Appeal: May 17th, 2023 Moved by D Eastman, seconded by N Gamble. "That the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m." "Carried-9:45 p.m."