Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-28 Clari ngtt)n Minutes and Decisions of the Committee of Adjustment Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington As per: The Planning Act, and in accordance with the Provincial Rules of Procedure Thursday, March 28, 2024 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: Elissa Kelloway Meeting Host Cindy Hammer Meeting Host Morgan Jones Secretary-Treasurer Akibul Hoque Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Jacob Circo Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Todd Taylor Chair Dave Eastman Member Noel Gamble Member Gord Wallace Member Shelley Pohjola Member Brad Whittle Member Absent with Regrets John Bate Member 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Land Acknowledgement Statement The Chair recited the Land Acknowledgement Statement. 3. Declaration of Interest for Consent Applications 11None" Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 2 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4. Consent Applications: 4.1 File Number: B-2024-0003 Owner/Agent: Northglen Land Corp., Heidi Hannu/ Megan Beck & Diana Chambers, Titlers Professional Corporation Staff: Jacob Circo Address: 55 Darlington Blvd., Bowmanville Lot: Part Lot 34 Conc.: CON 2 Application: The purpose of the application is consent to sever an existing lot to convey land as part of a lot line adjustment. The nature of the lot line adjustment is to adjust the boundary of the applicant's lands by severing Part 6 (from 43 Darlington Boulevard) and consolidating Part 6 with Parts 7 & 8 which is the benefiting property located at 55 Darlington Boulevard. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included signage being installed on the subject site and a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. A member of the public called to inquire about the application but did not speak in opposition or support of this application. The member of the public was added to the interested parties list as their request. Staff recommends that the application be approved subject to the conditions noted in the staff report. Discussion: D. Chambers — mentions she is from Titlers Professional Corporation and they have read the report and the client is in agreement with the conditions. No questions from the Committee members on the application. No members of the public wanted to speak to the application. Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to approve B-2024-0003 as recommended by Brad Whittle, seconded by Dave Eastman. Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 3 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Full text of Decision: Consent to sever an existing lot to convey land as part of a lot line adjustment. The nature of the lot line adjustment is to adjust the boundary of the Applicant's Lands by severing Part 6 (from 43 Darlington Boulevard) and consolidating Part 6 with Parts 7 & 8 which is the benefiting property located at 55 Darlington Boulevard. Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham Planning and Economic Development Department, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Regional Planning and Economic Development letter dated March 21 st, 2024 (see Appendix A and B). 2. The Owners herein confirm and agree to sever Part of Lot 34, Con 2, Part 6, Draft 40R-Plan from PIN 26586-0491 and merge/add this described Part to Part of Lot 34, Con 2, Parts 7 and 8, Draft 40R-Plan, PIN 26586-0363, which creates a Lot Line adjustment. The Owners of PIN 26686-0363 are required to have their solicitor register an Application to Consolidate Parcels for the newly created PIN for Part 6, Draft 40R-Plan with Parts 7 and 8, Draft 40R-Plan with PIN 26699- 0228. Prior to the clearance certificate being issued, the Municipality shall require a solicitor's undertaking to register the Application to Consolidate Parcels once a new PIN number has been issued for the severed parcel. It is noted that there is an easement over Part 8 in favour the Owner of Part 4, 40R-15001, for ingress and egress for vehicles and pedestrians which was subject to a previous Land Division application. 3. The owner, applicant or agent must provide a draft Reference Plan with the application which will be reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Department and approved by the Municipality prior to registration; Registration of this Reference Plan is done by the owner, applicant or agent's surveyor at the expense of the owner/applicant. 4. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 5. Once all other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall engage their solicitor to provide the Municipality with: a. The original executed transfer/deed a duplicate original and one (1) photocopy; b. One copy of the registered reference plan; c. An accompanying letter with a request that the severing transfer/deed be stamped. Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 4 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Section 2: Planning Requirements 6. The applicant shall ensure that lot line adjustment that is established through this consent application, whether retained or severed, comply with the applicable provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63. Staff will review the registered reference plan once submitted to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63. Advisory Notes 1. It is the owner, applicant/and or agent's responsibility to fulfill the conditions of consent approval within two (2) years from the date of the notice of decision pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act. We will issue no further notice or warning of the expiration of the two-year period. 2. If the conditions to consent approval are not fulfilled within two (2) years from the date of the notice of decision and the applicant is still interested in pursuing the proposal, a new consent application will be required. The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows, signed by all members present and concurring that this is the Committee Decision on B-2024-0003 on March 28, 2024: Committee Yes No Member John Bate Absent Dave Eastman x Noel Gamble x 1 � Shelley Pohjola x " Todd Taylor x � Gord Wallace x I Brad Whittle x "Carried" 5. 5 Minute Recess 6. Declaration of Interest for Minor Variance Applications Noel Gamble declared a conflict of interest with regards to File A-2024-0009. Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 5 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 7. Minor Variance Applications 7.1 File: A-2024-0007 Owner/Agent: Dean Churchill /Johnny Levasseur Staff: Akibul Hoque Address: 2177 Highway 2 Lot: LOT 20 Conc: CON 2 Application: The purpose of the application is to permit an addition to an accessory building for an Additional Dwelling Unit by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 10% to 13% and by reducing the minimum required interior side yard setback from 1.8 meters to 1.5 meters within the Residential Hamlet (RH) Zone. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included signage being installed on the subject site and a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments and comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public. Staff recommend that the application be approved. Discussion: J. Levasseur— mentions that he has read the comments regarding his application and at this point he does not have any questions or comments and agrees with the comments in the report. No questions from the Committee members on the application. No members of the public wanted to speak on behalf of the application. Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to approve A-2024-0007 as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Noel Gamble. Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0007, for a Minor Variance to Section 3.2.f.ii.c.i) and 3.2.f.ii.b) of By-law 2021-082 as amended in Zoning By-law 84-63 to permit an addition to an accessory building for an Additional Dwelling Unit by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 10% to 13% and by reducing the minimum required interior side yard setback from 1.8 meters to 1.5 meters within the Residential Hamlet (RH) Zone, 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, and the Clarington Official Plan; Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 6 Committee of Adjustment Meeting The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows, signed by all members present and concurring that this is the Committee Decision on A-2024-0007 on March 28, 2024. Committee Yes No Member John Bate Absent Dave Eastman x Noel Gamble x Shelley Pohjola x 'A- Todd Taylor xo Gord Wallace x A Brad Whittle x "Carried" 7.2 File: A-2024-0008 Owner/Agent: Kirk Kemp / Musharraf Khan Staff: Akibul Hoque Address: 201 Darlington — Clarke Townline Road Lot: 35 Conc: CON 2 Application: The purpose of the application is to permit additions to an agricultural building by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 36% to 60% within the Agricultural Exception (A-4) Zone. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included signage being installed on the subject site and a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. A member of the public called to inquire about the application but did not speak in opposition or support of this application. The member of the public was added to the interested parties list. Staff recommend that the application be approved. Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 7 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: M Khan — mentions that a previous minor variance application back in 2007, allowed the increase of the lock coverage four zone from 5% to 36% and he is requesting to increase the lot coverage from 36% to 60%. The requested variance is intended to test the existing uses permitted in the regional and municipal official plans and the Clarington zoning bylaw. The maximum lot coverage is intended to ensure that there is enough stormwater imputation on the site. The entire property has many acres of farmland, water, institution. Additionally, stormwater management techniques will be implemented through site plan and then the process other people's expansion is suitable for the building, since it will help maintain and manage the site expansion as it aligns with the Ontario's food and organic waste, which aims to reduce and prevent food waste. The existing building on the site has a lot of coverage of around 5%. The proposed expansion only adds around 1% to the entire 58 hectic per property and believes this application should be considered for approval. No questions from the Committee members on the application. No members of the public wanted to speak on behalf of the application. Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to approve A-2024-0008 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0008, for a Minor Variance to Section 6.3.d. of Zoning By-law 84- 63 to permit additions to an agricultural building by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 36% to 60% within the Agricultural Exception (A-4) Zone, 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, and the Clarington Official Plan. The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows, signed by all members present and concurring that this is the Committee Decision on A-2024-0008 on March 28, 2024. Committee Yes No Member John Bate Absent Dave Eastman x Noel Gamble x -- Shelley Pohjola x ''�` Todd Taylor x Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 8 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Gord Wallace x Brad Whittle x "Carried" 7.3 Eile: A-2024-0009 Owner/Agent: Theresa Gamble Staff: Akibul Hoque Address: Part Lot 28 Concession Road 2 Lot: Part Lot 28 Conc: CON 2 Application: The purpose of the application is to permit model homes in a draft approved plan of subdivision by increasing the maximum number of model homes permitted from 1 to 5 within the Residential Exception ((H)R1-86) Zone. Public notification was conducted in accordance with the Planning Act which included signage being installed on the subject site and a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments and no comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public. Staff recommend that the application be approved. Discussion: T. Gamble - acknowledges and accepts the recommendations in the report. G. Wallace — would like clarification as to what the holding symbols are and what does this mean? M. Jones — clarifies that holding symbols are put in place to ensure certain conditions are satisfied prior to building permits being issued. It is related to subdivision agreements, servicing, roads, stormwater management facilities, which are being taken care of through the engineering and subdivision registration process, which is currently working through with the municipality. G. Wallace — understands and appreciates the comments. S. Pohjola — asks the applicant what is your understanding of why a minor variance would be required in these circumstances and have you had a chance to look at the zoning by- law provision? Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 9 Committee of Adjustment Meeting T. Gamble — mentions that in the zoning by-law section 3.26 states that a model home is allowed in the subdivision. We feel that those interested in purchasing a home should have the opportunity to be provided with a choice as to what homes are being offered. B. Whittle — asks the applicant if the intent of these model homes are to be sold off as residential homes? T. Gamble — confirms that the model homes will be sold off as residential homes once they are no longer needed as model homes. S. Pohjola — states she has several questions for staff members. The first question is with respect to why do we need a minor variance with respect to the number of model homes and where does this come from? A. Hoque - as per section 3.26 it states a building permit for a model home in an approved subdivision may be issued and my interpretation of a model home is one model home. Therefore, only one model home is allowed on the property. S. Pohjola — section 3.26 speaks to building permit, which leads to my next question which pertains to whether there is a model home agreement in place and assuming there is, but I need an answer as to whether one is enforced. M. Jones — confirms that Municipality of Clarington does not have a model home agreement in place due to these model homes will ultimately be form part of the subdivision approval. A 40M-Plan will create the lots and ultimately building permits will be issued. We are not anticipating a separate model home agreement. S. Pohjola — asks if there is a provision in the zoning by-law that's restricts number of model homes? A. Hoque — states that as per section 3.26 only one model home is permitted. S. Pohjola — mentions that 3.26.c) of the zoning by-law, speaks to the requirement for eight parking spaces shall be provided for a model home or the temporary sales office. The report speaks to the temporary sales office providing these eight spaces, so there is a compliance provision that they're not required also for the model homes? M. Jones — The wording in the report speaks to having a model home or a sales office, which are two separate items. The model home and the sales office are not in the same location where typically they would be located together. Staff has interpreted that parking was required for both the model homes and sales office due to them being separated and not on the property. The minor variance is to allow the parking with the sales office. The report does note that the driveways do have parking, if needed. Also, something that was mentioned by the applicant through is that in 2024, model homes viewings and access to the sales office is by appointment only so there is no longer a crowd gathering at one time. This gave staff comfort that the parking that is being provided by the sales office or parking at the model homes would be sufficient. Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 10 Committee of Adjustment Meeting S. Pohjola — asks when someone comes to look at the model homes and the property where will they be going in terms of dealing with staff from the developer to discuss the matter of the house and secure lots? Is it at the temporary sales office or will it take place in one of the model homes? T. Gamble — mentions that the sales office is just a short way up from the model homes and people will come to the sales office first, meet with the sales associates at the model home at the sales office. They will be given a pin to access the model homes, drive down and drive to the to the model homes and park in front of the model home and then access through there and then leave. S. Pohjola — asks if the transaction part will occur in the temporary sales office, correct? T. Gamble — confirms, that is correct. S. Pohjola — asks a question regarding the model homes and where on the site they will be located? Morgan, you mentioned that the model homes will not be adjacent to the temporary sales office. Where exactly are they located? T. Gamble — shows the M-Plan to the Committee Members to provide the exact location where the temporary sales office is located and where the model homes will be located. S. Pohjola — states that she understands where staff is coming from in terms of interpreting the reference to a model home is being singular to one model home but nowhere in the zoning by-law does it speak to there being a limit on numbers. The purpose of section 3.26.c) of the zoning by-law is to provide parking or securing financial transactions that you need property which relates to temporary sales office, which has been set up in terms of parking. My understanding from the report is that the purpose of the zoning and minor variance is to increase the number from one to five, please correct me if I am wrong, and to also provide offsite parking which I assume would be offsite parking at the model homes? M. Jones — confirm the variance is in part needed to increase the number of model homes that are permitted and in part to permit required parking for the model home to be off site. S. Pohjola — mentions that from Theresa's comments model home parking is accommodated to people who are interested to go in one at a time on the property, is this correct? T. Gamble — states that this is correct. S. Pohjola — states that she does not see why a minor variance is required for the reasons that she has stipulated. There is no number or restriction or requirement in terms of numbers with respect to model homes. The parking is required and provided by the sales office, and she does not think anything needs to be proven. D. Eastman — asks staff interpretation of requiring the variance for five model homes versus one is based on the terminology a model home. Does this not mean that each model home would require eight parking spaces each with a total of 40 parking spaces being required? Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 11 Committee of Adjustment Meeting M. Jones — confirms that the interpretation is correct. Ultimately it could be that way it seems, though it is a bit excessive to have this many parking spaces with model homes and based on the discussions we had with the applicant and the fact that it is by appointment only, along with many other factors staff are comfortable at this time that there will not be traffic issues or overflow parking issues in the operation of the sales office or model homes. D. Eastman — mentions that this variance should also be looking for parking spaces as well. Perhaps the approval is based on inaccurate information. He mentions that perhaps the report needs to be reworded, make it comply and have staff comment on this. M. Jones — mentions that we are at the whim of the committee and what they believe is appropriate. If they are uncomfortable with the way that the motion is being put forward, amend it, add to it and you have other options as well. D. Eastman — states okay. S. Pohjola — mentions she has a question for the applicant. Is there any way a model home would be able to accommodate eight parking spaces? T. Gamble — confirms, the answer is no. They would not be able to accommodate this. D. Eastman — would like to confirm that the model homes in this case are not being used for the temporary sales office, the sales would be through the temporary sales office? T. Gamble — confirms, this is correct. D. Eastman — due to recent issues we had in the past with model homes that eventually became a sales office as they did not want to comply with the two months. Is there any way that we could be assured that the model homes will not become a sales office after this two-month mark, and they will cease operation? Is this part of some agreement that you know of, and should there be an issue with residents that move into the area, such as last time, maybe being reassured that there will not be a traffic parked outside a bunch of homes and will there be any recourse if this were to happen? M. Jones — states that he is not familiar with this scenario, however, the variance is for five model homes and would not interpret that we could end up with multiple different sales offices. The variance tonight is for model homes which is different from a temporary sales office. D. Eastman — mentions that there was an issue where the model homes where it became a sales office for selling that type of home in a different Municipality. Therefore, they complied, and they were not forced to remove the operation or the building in the two- month time frame due to them using the home for sales and it wasn't a sales office, per say. They did remove the temporary building and they were selling homes in different municipalities. I would like to ensure this situation does not take place again. The zoning by-law most likely needs to be updated again, but in the meantime is there anything we can do to be assured that this is not the situation here. If so, then I would be happy with this proposal. Minutes— March 28, 2024 Page 12 Committee of Adjustment Meeting T. Gamble — confirms that the sales office is already in the middle of construction right now and it is not our intention to use a model home(s) as a sales office and intended to sell those model homes as soon as they are available. No members of the public wanted to speak on behalf of the application. Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to approve A-2024-0009 as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Brad Whittle. Full text of Decision: That application A2024-0009, for a Minor Variance to Section 3.26.a) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to permit model homes in a draft approved plan of subdivision by increasing the maximum number of model homes permitted from 1 to 5 and permitting parking associated with the model homes to be off site within the Residential Exception ((H)R1-86) Zone, 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, and the Clarington Official Plan. The matter was then put to a vote and was carried out as follows, signed by all members present and concurring that this is the Committee Decision on A-2024-0009 on March 28, 2024. Committee Yes No Member John Bate Absent Dave Eastman x Noel Gamble Did not Vote Did not Vote Shelley Pohjola Ci. - x Todd Taylor x � Gord Wallace x a Brad Whittle x "Carried" Minutes — March 28, 2024 Page 13 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 8. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, February 28, 2024 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adopt minutes from February 28, 2024, Committee of Adjustment Meeting was moved by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. "That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on February 28, 2024, be approved." "Carried" 9. Other Business "None" 10. Adjournment Last Date of Appeal for tonight's consent application: April 25, 2024 Last Date of Appeal for tonight's minor variance applications: April 17, 2024 Next Meeting: April 25, 2024 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Noel Gamble, seconded by Dave Eastman. "That the March 28, 2024, Committee of Adjustment be adjourned." "Carried"