Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-11-30Claringtoii Minutes of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington November 30', 2023 Municipal Administrative Centre, Council Chambers 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville Preliminary Note This Committee of Adjustment meeting took place in a `hybrid' 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. Present: Cindy Hammer Morgan Jones Akibul Hoque Jacob Circo Nicklaus Gibson Todd Taylor Dave Eastman John Bate Noel Gamble Gord Wallace Absent with Regrets Shelly Pohjola 1. Call to Order Meeting Host Secretary -Treasurer Assistant Secretary -Treasurer Planning Staff Planning Staff Chair Member Member Member Member Member The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement The Chair recited the Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest There were no pecuniary interests stated for this meeting. Minutes from November 30t", 2023, Meeting Page 2 4. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, October 26', 2023 Moved by D Eastman Seconded by J Bate "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on October 26t", 2023, be approved." "Carried" 5. Applications: 5.1 A2023-0032 Owner: Tracey Black, WM of Canada Corp. Applicant: Evan Burtt, Taskforce Engineering Inc. 1 McKnight Road, Part Lot 25 & 26, Concession BF, Former Township of Darlington Application: A minor variance to permit the storage of waste and recyclable materials within a partially enclosed structure. E Burtt, the applicant, attended virtually through Microsoft Teams, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. D Eastman asked a question to Staff- Did we receive comments from the Building Division for this proposal? A Hoque responded- No the comments have not been received. D Eastman responded- What would the Building Division comment on regarding this proposal? J Circo responded- The comments from the Building Division will focus on the proposal and the presence of any building permits associated with the application. As of the current understanding, there is no active building permit application, and thus far, no comments have been received from the Building Division regarding this proposal. Any concerns and comments would have been captured and addressed through the site plan approval process. T Taylor asked if there were any questions regarding the application from 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 A2023-0032 as recommended by N Gamble, seconded by J Bate. Minutes from November 30th, 2023, Meeting Page 3 Full text of Decision: "That application A2023-0032 for a minor variance to Section 23.3.9.b) of Zoning Bylaw 84-63 to permit the storage of waste and recyclable materials within a partially enclosed structure, 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 Zoning By-law 84-63 and the Clarington's Official Plan". The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows: Committee Member Yes No Committee Member Yes No Todd Taylor x Gord Wallace x Shelley Pohjola Dave Eastman x Noel Gamble x John Bate x "Carried" 5.2 A2023-0037 Owner: Tribute (King Street) Limited Applicant: Bonica Leung Blocks 150-159 of 1593 Bloor Street & 1614 Trulls Road, Tribute King Street Subdivision, Part of Lot 31 & 32, Concession 1, Former Township of Darlington Application: A minor variance to permit the construction of street townhouse units within the Tribute (King Street) Subdivision by reducing the minimum required front yard soft landscaping from 50% to 40% on street townhouse Blocks 150-159. B Leung, the applicant, in person in Council Chambers, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. T Taylor- Thank you for confirming your agreement to the conditions of the staff report. D Eastman asked a question to Staff- Did we receive comments from the Building Division for this proposal? J Circo responded- No building permit applications have been received for the proposed street townhouse blocks. No comments have been received from the Building Division regarding this proposal. The owner and the applicant are looking to address these issues prior to submitting a building permit application. D Eastman asked a question to the Applicant- The proposed reduction in the minimum required front yard soft landscaping will have no adverse impacts on the drainage, maintenance, or provision of private amenity space on the subject property. How can this Minutes from November 30th. 2023. Meetina Paae 4 be part of the recommendation when the condition requirements from CLOCA and the Development Engineering Division have not been yet met. B Leung responded- As part of our preliminary approval for subdivision plans, we underwent a comprehensive process that included the submission of stormwater management and Low Impact Development (LID) reports. Our engineers thoroughly assessed the requirements, and we can confirm that we will provide a memo affirming the absence of adverse impacts. The soft landscaping component in question is minimal, mainly comprising a porch, two steps, and a walkway. Despite the proposed 40% soft landscaping coverage, it is sufficient to meet all other requirements, as we are addressing only the two steps for these specific houses. This configuration poses no drainage concerns and has negligible impact overall. D Eastman asked a question to Staff- Please clarify section 6.4 of the report, how will the front yard soft landscaping have no adverse impacts on the drainage, maintenance, or provision of private amenity space when the conditions requirements in section 5.1 and section 5.4 of the staff report have not been met yet. J Circo responded- As mentioned in the departmental and agency comments section of the report, the documents required by CLOCA and Development Engineering Division will be addressed through other processes such as such as but not limited to the ongoing subdivision application process, the building permit process, and permit required from CLOCA. The intent of decreasing front yard soft landscaping is not to increase the driveway and parking spaces, it is simply to allow for the functionality of the lot to encompass having a walkway and steps in the front yard. Soft landscaping is different from landscape open space, and precludes all hardscaping under 200 mm in height, which are important functional elements of a front yard such as a walkway and steps. Therefore, the proposed reduction in the front yard soft landscaping is due to the lot sizes and is needed to allow for the walkway and steps already proposed for the townhouse blocks by the developer. D Eastman responded- To clarify, the conditions will be addressed through the building permit process to ensure the conditions are met? J Circo- The conditions will be addressed through the building permit process. Moreover, the conditions applied for approval are intended to address the work being undertaken before obtaining the building permit. This aims to ensure that any potential adverse effects are mitigated during the current phase, prior to progressing to the building permit stage. N Gamble asked a question to Staff- Section 6.4 of the staff report states that the suggested decrease in the minimum required soft landscaping from 50 to 40% will not result in adverse impacts on drainage or maintenance. However, section 5.1 and section 5.4 of the staff report recommend a cover letter or memo to evaluate the impact of the proposed reduction in soft landscaping concerning water drainage, among other factors. So why the conditions? M Jones responded- There's a distinction between the planning comment and the other agency comment. Planning addresses the front yards for individual townhouse units, Minutes from November 30th, 2023, Meeting Page 5 while engineering and the CLOCA comment focus on overall stormwater management. We're dealing with a very large site here and it's common for engineering to ask for an update to stormwater management with increasing surface changes. Although they're being cautious, obtaining this information is prudent. Any potential adverse impact, if found, can be addressed collaboratively with the subdivider. The applicant emphasized that the current proposal is limited to specific townhouse blocks, and if the memo identifies issues, adjustments can be made accordingly to the overall development, ensuring there is no adverse impact. 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 A2023-0037 as recommended by G Wallace, seconded by D Eastman. Full text of Decision: "That application A2023-0037 for a minor variance to Section 14.6.73.c.v.b) of Zoning Bylaw 84-63 by reducing the minimum required front yard soft landscaping from 50% to 40% on street townhouse Blocks 150-159; be approved, subject to the following conditions: i. Prior to detailed engineering plans being approved a detailed landscape plan showing private landscaping in the front yard be provided satisfactory Planning and Infrastructure Services; ii. Prior to detailed engineering plans being approved a cover letter or memo from a qualified person be provided that evaluates the impacts of the proposed reduction in soft landscaping areas in relation with the Stormwater Management scheme, Low Impact Development locations, and the Water Balance, confirming that the proposed change does not have an impact on the overall Stormwater Management and drainage scheme to satisfaction of Planning and Infrastructure Services and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority; and iii. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Minor Variance fee pursuant to the 2023 Fee Schedule in the amount of $900.00 be paid in full. as it is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 84-63 and the Clarington Official Plan". Minutes from November 30th, 2023, Meeting Page 6 The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows: Committee Member Yes No Committee Member Yes No Todd Taylor x Gord Wallace x Shelley Pohjola Dave Eastman x Noel Gamble x John Bate x "Carried" 5.3 A2023-0038 Owner: Andrew Zachanowich Applicant: Andrew Zachanowich 42 Old Mill Street, Part of Lot 9, Concession 6, Former Township of Clarke Application: A minor variance to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure by increasing the permitted maximum total floor area from 90 square metres to 135 square metres. A Zachanowich, the applicant, in person in Council Chambers, gave a verbal presentation to the Committee regarding the application. D Eastman asked a question to Staff- Building Division have not provided any comments, and it seems construction has commenced. As the building permit is typically issued by the Building Division, could you clarify if the absence of comments implies no building permit may be required for the ongoing construction? J Circo responded- A current building permit application exists for the proposed accessory structure, but approval is contingent on obtaining a variance to increase the maximum total floor area for all accessory structures. The accessory structure must adhere to interior and rear yard setbacks, which was already demonstrated in the submitted conceptual site plan by the applicant. A pre-existing slab on grade, has existed for approximately two and a half years and was not part of the current building permit application. When the accessory structure is constructed, it must comply with setbacks outlined in the Zoning By-law. D Eastman responded- If the Building Division are expected to provide comments for the committee's understanding, the lack of comments from the Building Division on all of the application tonight is objectionable. Is there a way to address and rectify this issue? Minutes from November 30t". 2023. Meetina Paae 7 J Circo responded- The Building Division, along with external agencies like the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, receives applications simultaneously and has over two weeks to provide comments. If an internal department, such as the Building Division, does not submit comments within this commenting period, the assumption is that there are no objections or concerns, as additional comments would typically be provided in such cases. G Wallace asked a question to Applicant- It seems there is a 20 by 30 slab on the back, did you pour that in anticipating on building the accessory structure? A Zachanowich responded- No, the slab was poured a couple of years ago, and has been mainly used for parking trailers and a few small items. The slab is positioned slightly closer to the fence than the accessory structure. However, the accessory structure will still adhere to the approximate setback from the property line as required by the bylaw. G Wallace responded- Where is the fence in relationship to the property line? A Zachanowich responded- The fence is on the property line. G Wallace responded- How can you verify that? A Zachanowich responded- While constructing the fence, I visited the town, and they provided me with a printout of an aerial photo map indicating the property line. T Taylor asked if there were any questions regarding the application from the committee members or members of the public. R Ward, a member of the public, spoke in opposition to the proposal. R Ward commented- A building permit was never issued for the existing slab on grade. The fence has been constructed beyond the property line, as visible on satellite mapping from the Municipality. Despite a call to by-law enforcement at that time when the fence was erected, it was deemed a civil matter by By-law Enforcement. Subsequently, conflicts arose with neighbors, including threats and property damage. I believe the size of the proposed accessory building and the existing accessory buildings exceeds that of the residential unit, and there are concerns about the proposed accessory building encroaching over the property line. Despite these issues, the planning department does not mandate a survey, and there is ambiguity about the lot line. I fear further threats from neighbors and reports disturbances, such as motorcycle use and contamination from a neighboring property. T Taylor responded- To clarify the committee only has the ability to respond to the items that are before us. We have listened carefully to what you have said with regard to concerns about building permits and fencing issues. Going to turn it over to the committee to ask some questions. But I hope you've had an opportunity to state everything that you had to say, based on the allocation. R Ward responded- The applicant's submission is not a site plan but a sketch, lacking accuracy. The concrete pad poured about two and a half years ago is on the property line without any setback. I don't understand how it's minor in nature when the accessory Minutes from November 30th. 2023. Meetina Paae 8 building has a greater square footage, than the residential unit. The weeping bed's location is not identified, and there's concern that the slab may be on the weeping bed. This is not acceptable. If he builds the fence over the property line, he can build his accessory structure over the property line as well. T Taylor responded- Thank you for your concerns, and step aside for a moment. T Taylor asked a question to Applicant- Mr. Zachanowich did you have any comments regarding the fence over the property line? And any possible encroachment from your perspective before we move forward with the committee questions? A Zachanowich responded- I obtained an aerial photo of the property from the town when building the fence and showed it to the property owner. The owner agreed to the fence placement, and I assumed everything was fine since there were no objections over the past five years. G Wallace asked a question to Staff- Fences may not consistently align with property lines, a scenario witnessed multiple times by this committee. If the intention is to position the building four feet from the fence, there's uncertainty about whether the fence is on the property line. What is the protocol when someone plans to construct a substantial 1500 square foot building with a four -foot setback? Typically, it is required to demonstrate that the building does not encroach on the setback or the owner's property. Since the Building Division did not comment on this proposal, could you clarify the Municipality's procedure on this, as providing aerial photos for fence construction appears questionable? J Circo Responded- The building permit application is currently on hold as the minor variance must address the floor area increase. Regarding fence and property line disputes, the municipality does not intervene; such matters are considered civil and are typically directed to the courts when reported to By-law enforcement. For building permit applications and minor variance applications, a survey is not mandatory. The owner has acknowledged the required 1.2 meters setback for the proposed accessory structure, and compliance will be assessed during the building permit application process and subsequent inspections. G Wallace responded- There remains a significant chance that a building permit could be granted to someone who has positioned their structure 1.2 meters from the property line, relying on a fence that is disputed for its location on the property. T Taylor comments- a possible solution for the committee could be to stipulate a condition requirement in order to proceed with the application that's before us. G Wallace Responded- I'm not aware that we've ever put that stipulation on a minor variance application previously. However, I'm aware that the Municipality has required property owners to have a survey during the prior to construction. T Taylor responded- That is well within our rights. Are there any further comments from the committee? N Gamble asked a question to Staff- How can you approve a setback of 1.2 meters from the property line, when the property line is not identified? Minutes from November 30th. 2023. Meetina Paae 9 M Jones responded- The application currently under consideration by the Committee of Adjustment does not involve a reduction in yard setbacks. Our focus is solely on expanding the size of an accessory building, with no intention of reducing any required setbacks in tonight's meeting. N Gamble responded- Will the building permit not require it? M Jones responded- While there were no comments from Building Division, considering the public's concern about the fence location and the previously poured slab intended for storage, now repurposed for the building, there are two important considerations. Firstly, the Building Division may request the owner to have an engineer certify the foundation's structural integrity since they could not inspect it during pouring. This could lead to additional study requirements if the slab is to be used for the proposed accessory building. Secondly, surveys are not mandatory for building permit applications and minor variance applications, although they are occasionally submitted. If the committee deems it crucial, imposing a survey requirement tonight could be a suitable condition, making an exception for this particular case. G Wallace Responded- Correct, that the request does not seek a setback reduction, but rather an enlargement of the building, which, in my opinion, emphasizes the importance of adhering to the yard setback. Constructing a substantial 1500 square foot (135 square meters) structure within the setback raises concerns, particularly considering the four -foot setback's significance in fire protection. Compliance with this setback is crucial due to fire safety regulations, necessitating specific measures. While acknowledging concerns about property lines, I agree that it's not the committee's role to ensure compliance with setbacks. However, it remains a valid concern for the committee to consider, and I defer to the committee to address this matter further. N Gamble asked a question to Staff- I find it challenging for us to make decisions on applications such as this one when Building Division has not provided any comments? J Circo responded- Regarding the Building Division, although no comments have been received, the assumption is usually that they have no concerns or objections. Typically, when a building permit application is submitted, the building division focuses on building code aspects, and compliance with their provided comments. This is mandatory for the structural aspects of the construction. As for the planning side, we evaluate the building's location, size, and zoning adherence, addressing any deficiencies through the minor variance application process. D Eastman asked a question to Staff- Section 6.12 of the staff report discusses the proposed accessory structure on the subject property, emphasizing the importance of an appropriate setback from the property line. However, given the uncertainty about the property line's location, it becomes challenging to make a decision on this proposal, considering that the Building Division has not issued a building permit yet. Therefore, wouldn't it be prudent to consider a survey, or at least explore the possibility? J Circo Responded- Should the committee view this as a unique circumstance for this application, as Morgan suggested that Building Division finds it appropriate, given the current situation, to conditionally approve the application with a survey requirement. If the Minutes from November 30th, 2023, Meeting Page 10 committee feels that a survey is essential to establish property lines and ensure compliance with the 1.2 meters setback, interior, and rear yard requirements, it can be proposed as a condition by the committee. T Taylor asked if there were any questions regarding the application from members of the public. M Jones commented- There seems to be a misunderstanding that we disregard the importance of property lines or setbacks. However, in the current application, setbacks are not a concern. The owner has installed a slab, and a neighbor disputes the fence line. I would like to bring your attention to the fact that numerous applications pass through the committee without any public contention over lot lines, and we typically don't question them. This is not an attempt to sway your decision, but it's worth considering that a survey might reveal the fence is accurately placed on the property line. While property lines and setbacks are crucial, they are not directly relevant to this specific application. The neighbor's dispute makes this case unique. The Building Division does not universally require surveys, and their suggestion is that if the Committee deems it important, a unique condition with a variance might be appropriate, although this is not a typical approach. T Taylor responded- Thank you for the clarification. Motion to table A2023-0038 as recommended by D Eastman, seconded by J Bate. Full text of Decision: "That application A2023-0038, for Minor Variances to Section 3.1.c of Zoning By-law 84- 63 to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure by increasing the permitted maximum total floor area for all accessory structures from 90 square metres to 135 square metres, be tabled until comments are received comments from the Clarington Building Division and the following conditions are satisfied: i) A survey is completed by a certified land surveyor for the subject property to confirm the lot lines; and ii) An engineering report certifying the existing slab on grade is sufficient support the proposed accessory structure". The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows: Committee Member Yes No Committee Member Yes No Todd Taylor x Gord Wallace x Shelley Pohjola Dave Eastman x Noel Gamble x John Bate x Minutes from November 30th, 2023, Meeting Page 11 "Carried" 6. Other Business None 7. Adjournment Next Meeting: January 25th, 2024 Last Date of Appeal: December 20th, 2023 Moved by N Gamble, seconded by D Eastman. "That the meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m." "Carried"