Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-03-27 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 27, 2025 Time: 6:30pm 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 Sarah Parish Secretary-Treasurer Hebah Masood Acting Secretary-Treasurer Nicklaus Gibson Acting Secretary-Treasurer Shrija Vora Acting Secretary-Treasurer Todd Taylor Chair Dave Eastman Member Noel Gamble Member Gord Wallace Member Absent with Regrets: Brad Whittle, Shelley Pohjola and Wendy Partner 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 G Wallace claimed interest for consent applications B-2025-0005 – B-2025-0009. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 2 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4. Consent Applications: 4.1 File Number: B-2025-0002 Owner/Agent: PI Development Consultants Inc. Staff: Shrija Vora Address: 288, 292, 294 King St. E, Bowmanville Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate Seeking consent to facilitate the creation of a new lot. As proposed, the severed parcel will have 41.45 metres of lot frontage, an average depth of 100.96 metres, and a lot of area of 3062.88 square metres and the retained parcel will have 45.44 metres of lot frontage, an average depth of 73.31 metres, and a lot area of 4575.71 square metres. The existing dwelling will remain on the severed parcel. 2. The creation of a new lot is within an area that contains natural features and a floodplain. A draft 40R-Plan was submitted on March 25th, outlining the boundaries of both the retained and severed lots without regard for the natural features. As part of the consent application, the applicant has also provided an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) report. Since the Municipality does not have the in-house expertise to review the report, a peer review will be required at the owner's expense. The 40R will be required to be updated based on the EIS peer review findings and the noted developable limits of the property. On January 13th, Council approved the 2025 budget update, which includes plans to hire a full-time, permanent Principal Planner specializing in ecological and natural heritage matters. Until this position is filled, all submitted Environmental Impact Assessment reports will continue to require a third party peer review. 3. 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. 4. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public; 5. Staff recommend that the application be tabled for up to one year, that is till March 2026, to allow for additional time for the applicant to submit the draft 40 R-Plan and also allow for additional time for Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) to complete their peer review of the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS). Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant was not present at the meeting to provide an overview of the proposed consent. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 3 Committee of Adjustment Meeting D. Eastman: would like confirmation from staff whether a tabling fee would be required. S. Vora: Confirms that no tabling fees would be applicable for the subject application. Motion to table B-2025-0002 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Gord Wallace. Time approved 6:43 pm. Full text of Decision: The application be tabled for up to one year, that is till March 2026, to allow for additional time for the applicant to submit the draft 40 R-Plan and also allow for additional time for Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) to complete their peer review of the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS). 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-2025-0002 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 4.1 File Number: B-2025-0004 Owner/Agent: Weston Consulting Staff: Shrija Vora Address: 1589 Hwy 2, Courtice Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 4 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate a registered public vehicular easement. As part of the proposed registered public vehicular easement, the property at 1603 Highway 2 will provide an easement (Part 2 on the draft reference plan) in favor of 1607 Highway 2. This will ensure compliance with the laneway requirements outlined in the Courtice Mainstreet Secondary Plan and provide additional access to Highway 2, which has been identified as a requirement during the Site Plan application review. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. 4. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public; 5. Staff recommend that the application be (approved, subject to the conditions outlined within the staff report) Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant/agent, Andrew Vrana, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. Following the presentation, the Committee did not raise any questions or concerns. Motion to approve B-2024-0004 as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Dave Eastman. Time approved 6:49 pm. Full text of Decision: Seeking consent to facilitate a registered public vehicular easement. Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Municipality of Clarington’s Development Engineering Division, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Development Engineering letter dated March 10, 2025. 2. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham Community Growth and Economic Development, financial and otherwise as detailed in the letter dated March 24, 2025. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 5 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 3. The owner, applicant or agent must submit a draft Reference Plan which will be reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Department to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning provisions and to be approved by the Municipal Staff prior to registration. Registration of the draft Reference Plan shall be completed by the owner, applicant, or agent’s surveyor at the expense of the owner/applicant or agent. 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. Section 2: Planning Requirements 6. That the applicant shall ensure that the proposed easement/right-of-way complies with all appliable provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63 and Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings 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-2024-0004 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 6 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 4.1 File Number: B-2024-0005 – B-2025-0009 Owner/Agent: Craig Noftle Staff: Shrija Vora Address: 287 Liberty St N, Bowmanville Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate creation of five new residential lots. As proposed, the retained and severed lots will have an average frontage of 7.9 metres, an average depth of 26.39 metres and an average lot area of approximately 211 Square metres. The existing dwelling will be demolished. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. 4. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public; 5. Staff recommend that the application be (approved, subject to the conditions within the staff report) Discussion: S. Vora: Planning Division has received comments in opposition to the application from one member of the public on March 27th, The concerns raised was regarding the number of units proposed, potential increase in traffic along Liberty Street, noise and pollution to be generated as part of the proposed construction, potential services disruption like electricity, internet etc. during the construction and would like the developer to build a fence of additional height then one on site. The applicant did not have a chance to review the concerns raised, however is willing to work on the comments received. No members of the public spoke regarding this application. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 7 Committee of Adjustment Meeting The agent, Craig Noftle, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. D. Eastman: Asked the applicant about the plans for the retained parcel. C. Noftle: Confirmed that a structure would be built on the retained parcel, which would be one of the three semi-detached dwellings proposed for the subject property. Motion to approve B-2025-0005 – B-2025-0009 as recommended by Noel Gamble, seconded by Dave Eastman. Time approved 6:55 pm. Full text of Decision: Seeking consent to facilitate creation of five new residential lots. As proposed, the retained and severed (Part 1 to Part 5 on draft reference plan) lots will have an average of 7.9 metres, an average depth of 26.39 metres and an average lot area of approximately 211 Square metres. The existing dwelling will be demolished. Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Municipality of Clarington’s Development Engineering Division, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Development Engineering letter dated March 03, 2025. 2. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Works Department, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Regional Works letter dated March 20, 2025. This is to be confirmed by obtaining a clearance letter from the Region’s Works Department and submitted to the Municipality. 3. That the applicant is required to obtain an entrance permit from the Region of Durham for an additional entrance off Liberty Street South to accommodate the creation of a new lot. 4. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Regional Municipality of Durham Community Growth and Economic Development, financial and otherwise as detailed in the letter dated March 24, 2025. 5. The owner, applicant or agent must submit a draft Reference Plan which will be reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Department to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning provisions and to be approved by the Municipal Staff prior to registration. Registration of the draft Reference Plan shall be completed by the owner, applicant, or agent’s surveyor at the expense of the owner/applicant or agent and shall be completed prior to the registration of the consent agreement. 6. The owner, applicant or agent must enter into a consent agreement with the Municipality of Clarington. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 8 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 7. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 8. 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. Section 2: Planning Requirements 9. Agent/owner is required to submit a minor variance application to seek approval from the Committee of Adjustment for a reduction in the minimum required lot area as per Section 12.2.b) ii). In order to clear this condition, the minor variance application is to be approved and become final and binding after a 20-day mandatory appeal period. 10. The applicant must demolish the existing single detached dwelling on the existing parcel; a demolition permit is required prior to forwarding a clearance letter to the Region for the land severance application. 11. The applicant shall pay the Municipality an amount in lieu of conveying land for park or other public recreational purposes under Section 53 (12.1) and (13) of the Planning Act, R.S.O,c.P.13. This payment is equivalent to 5% of the value of the severed parcel. To determine the value of the land, the applicant shall retain a certified Land Appraiser to prepare a land appraisal. 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-2025-0005 – B-2025-0009 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 9 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Conflict Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 4.1 File Number: B-2024-0010 Owner/Agent: Dave Meredith Staff: Shrija Vora Address: 2345 - 2349 Hwy 2, Bowmanville Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate a registered public vehicular easement. A Site Plan Application (SPA-2021-0002) for the site has been submitted for a proposed mixed-use multi-residential development and Under the proposed Conditions of Site Plan approval, the applicant is required to receive Committee of Adjustment’s approval for a registered public vehicular easement to facilitate vehicular movements between 2337 Highway 2 and 2341 Highway 2 prior to the lifting of Holding provision on the subject property. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. 4. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public; 5. Staff recommend that the application be (approved, subject to the conditions outlined within the staff report) Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The agent, Dave Meredith, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation Following the presentation, the Committee did not raise any questions or concerns. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 10 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Motion to approve B-2025-0010 as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Noel Gamble. Time approved 7:00 pm. Full text of Decision: B-2025-0010; Seeking consent to facilitate a registered public vehicular easement. Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. That the applicant satisfies all the requirements of the Municipality of Clarington’s Development Engineering Division, financial and otherwise as detailed in the Development Engineering letter dated March 10, 2025. 2. The owner, applicant or agent must submit a draft Reference Plan which will be reviewed by the Planning and Infrastructure Department to ensure compliance with all applicable zoning provisions and to be approved by the Municipal Staff prior to registration. Registration of the draft Reference Plan shall be completed by the owner, applicant, or agent’s surveyor at the expense of the owner/applicant or agent. 3. All taxes shall be paid in full to the Municipality of Clarington prior to the issuance of a clearance letter. 4. 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. Section 2: Planning Requirements 5. That the applicant shall ensure that the proposed easement/right-of-way complies with all appliable provisions of Zoning By-law 84-63 and Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and Standard Drawings. 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. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 11 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 B-2025-0010 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 5. Minute Recess @ 7:00 pm to 7:05 pm 6. Declaration of Interest for Minor Variance Applications 7. Minor Variance Applications 7.1 File: A-2024-0046 Owner/Agent: Ken Beitz Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 6 Vetzal Court, Courtice Discussion: Chair: Before we go ahead with the introduction to this application, being that this application was previously tabled, I'll turn it over to the Committee for a motion to lift it from the table. Motion to lift application A-2024-0046 from the table as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Noel Gamble. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 12 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Application was then put to vote: Committee Member Yes No Wendy Absent Dave Noel Gamble Shelley Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent Chair: Time is now 7:07pm and that application has been lifted from the table. I’ll now turn it over to Nick for the introduction to this application. Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to legalize the existing accessory structure to encroach into the interior side yard setback from 0.6 metres to 0.36 metres. 2. Public notification was not conducted in accordance with the Planning Act as the applicant did not post their sign on the subject site, but a mail out to all property owners within 60 metres of the subject site was completed. 3. No new comments were received from members of the public for this application. 4. Staff recommends that application A2024-0046 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.1 c) of Zoning By-law 84-63 must be denied as the applicant was unwilling to work with Staff, meet legislative timelines under the Planning Act, and refused to comply with the Committees motion made at the January 23, 2025, Committee meeting. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. Chair: Is our applicant here in the chambers? Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 13 Committee of Adjustment Meeting S. Parish: Through you, Mr. Chair, it is unlikely that the applicant will be joining us this evening. Chair: Understands that the applicant does not plan to join us this evening and confirms no further questions by the Committee. Motion to deny A-2024-0046 as recommended by Noel Gamble, seconded by Dave Eastman. Time denied: 7:11pm Full text of Decision: Staff recommends that application A2024-0046 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.1 c) of Zoning By-law 84-63 must be denied as the applicant was unwilling to work with Staff, meet legislative timelines under the Planning Act, and refused to comply with the Committees motion made at the January 23, 2025, 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-2024-0046 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 7.2 File: A-2024-0053 Owner/Agent: Raymond and Melanie Moulsadale Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 2816 Regional Road 20, Bowmanville Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 14 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: Chair: States he requires a motion from the Committee to lift this application from the table. Motion to lift application A-2024-0053 from the table as recommended by Noel Gamble, seconded by Dave Eastman. Application was then put to vote: Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent Chair: Time is now 7:12pm and that application has been lifted from the table. I’ll now turn it over to Nick for the introduction to this application. Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the addition to an existing accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted total accessory floor area from 120 square metres to 215 square metres. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments, and one comment was received from a member of the public who are in support of the application for minor variance. 4. Staff recommends that application A2024-0053 for a Minor Variance to Section 4.1.3 of Zoning By-law 2005-109 to facilitate the addition to an existing accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted total accessory floor area from 120 square metres to 215 square metres be approved. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 15 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicants, Melanie and Raymond Moulsdale, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The applicant states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. However, wanted to clarify that the tree line in the report that separates the driveway mentions no trees to be removed. These are actually over grown shrubs that need to come out. Could the report be updated to reflect this? S. Parish: Confirms that Staff will capture this in the minutes to state that there is an error in the staff report. M. Moulsdale: Agrees and has no further questions. Motion to approve A-2024-0053 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Noel Gamble. Time approved: 7:16pm Full text of Decision: Staff recommends that application A2024-0053 for a Minor Variance to Section 4.1.3 of Zoning By-law 2005-109 to facilitate the addition to an existing accessory building by increasing the maximum permitted total accessory floor area from 120 square metres to 215 square metres be approved. 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-2024-0053 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 16 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 7.1 File: A-2024-0057 Owner/Agent: Manpreet Kohli Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 40 Prospect Street, Bowmanville Discussion: Chair: States he requires a motion from the Committee to lift this application from the table. Motion to lift application A-2024-0057 from the table as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Noel Gamble. Application was then put to vote: Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent Chair: The time is now 7:17pm and that application has been lifted from the table. I’ll now turn it over to Nick for the introduction to this application. Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of an additional dwelling unit by reducing the minimum interior side yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.12 metres, by reducing the minimum rear yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.63 metres, by reducing the front yard soft landscaping from 50% to 32%, and by reducing the overall landscaped open space from 40% to 18%. 2. 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. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 17 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies, and no new comments were received from members of the public. 4. Staff recommends that application A2024-0057 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.2 f. ii) b) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of an additional dwelling unit by reducing the minimum interior side yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.12 metre and by reducing the minimum rear yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.63 metres be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, and the Zoning By-law 84-63, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and minor in nature; 5. And that Application A2024-0057 for a Minor Variance to Section 12.2.1 d. ii) and Section 12.2.1 d. i) by reducing the front yard soft landscaping from 50% to 32%, and by reducing the overall landscaped open space from 40% to 18% be denied as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of Clarington’s Official Plan and Zoning By- law 84-63, is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is not minor in nature. Discussion: (IP) D. Godfrey: States that they have concerns regarding the amount of rain and the excessive runoff water that comes into their backyard. It is then mentioned that if reducing the setbacks on this property it’s going to make it even worse. We would like to bring that up and raise it as an environmental concern. He also mentions that there is a big fence and there are lean tubes that go against the fence, and I would assume that they would have to keep that area totally clear. I’m not sure if there are fire regulations that would be reducing that if there was a fire. The runoff from the driveway comes down and slopes down, and all the water will be running back towards the garage and then behind it. Resulting being in our backyard which will make it worse. D. Eastman: I don’t believe this question would be for the gentleman, but for Staff. Are you aware of this as an issue or do you have any comments on it? N. Gibson: From reviewing the Development Engineering Division comments, they are in support of the two variances for the setbacks for the actual detached structure where the Additional Dwelling Unit is going, but they are not in support of the overall landscaped open space and also in the front yard soft scaping so they are in agreement with planning on that. As per their comments, it says here that the location and direction of roof leaders shall be shown on the site plan and that the flow from the roof leader shall be directed away from adjacent properties. A grading and servicing plan will not be required for this proposal; however it’s the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the converted structure will not affect the adjacent property in relation to drainage and grading. Chair: Is there a follow-up? Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting (IP) D. Godfrey: Thank you, I didn’t realize that so that’s good. But if that could be looked at by Engineering, that would be great. N. Gibson: Confirms he will look into this. The applicant, Manpreet Kohli, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. In addition to that, whatever the concerns the neighbours have, that would be taken care of as part of the development engineering recommendations. There are no issues that would arise from the drainage and all that, and it will be taken care of at the time of the building permit application. I’m kindly asking that the Committee appeals this and approves this minor variance application. Chair: I’ve read what our applicant has put forward and I do understand that he’s wanting to address the concerns from the members of the public. I’ll now turn it over to the Committee to follow up with any questions. N. Gamble: Would like clarification from staff. If grading and drainage seems to be the issue, particularly in these old areas of Bowmanville I’m asking why it wouldn’t be a condition in the report? N. Gibson: We could add that as a condition into the report if it’s required. As per Development Engineering comments, I’ll just be reiterating what I told the gentleman earlier for those issues regarding grading and drainage. N. Gamble: States that he has noticed on a lot of other applications, especially in these older neighbourhoods, there’s always seems to be a grading plan that is attached as a condition. S. Parish: I would say the planning staff don't have the expertise to answer that question. We can't speak to why engineering would or wouldn't include that as a condition. If you’d like, that could be something that we can follow up with our internal engineers. Then we could get back to the Committee as a whole to describe maybe why this one didn't require that. *Ajay Alagarsamy (Development Engineering): A Grading and Servicing Plan is not required for this application because the applicant is only converting the existing structure into an additional dwelling unit. Therefore, we don't require the applicant to submit a new Grading/Servicing Plan. If the applicant was demolishing the existing structure and constructing a brand new one, we may request a new Grading and Servicing plan.* *The above comments from Ajay Alagarsamy were received after the Committee meeting. * Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 19 Committee of Adjustment Meeting G. Wallace: Would like clarification from the applicant if he was the one that did the Site Plan. M. Kohli: Confirms, yes he did. G. Wallace: Would like clarification from the applicant as to what a crescent road is? And that the applicant describes 40 Prospect Street as a crescent road. What is that? Is it different than the other roads we have in Bowmanville? M. Kohli: Confirms he is unsure, and it might be a typo or an error but it’s 40 Prospect Road. G. Wallace: States that he understands the applicant has typos in the site plan and would like clarification if there are any other typos on the site plan? M. Kohli: Confirms that he does not think so. G. Wallace: States that the concerns he has is if we deny this application, as suggested by the Engineering Division for the soft landscaping and landscaped open space, could you still go forward with the build? M. Kohli: Confirms that yes, he can. To have an additional dwelling unit, he will need to comply with the setbacks which he will do if the other variances are denied. He will make sure that the requirements of the zoning by-law will be complied with by increasing the landscaped area. G. Wallace: Can you please clarify what the applicant said, Sarah? S. Parish: To clarify for the applicant, if part of your minor variance application is denied, you will not be permitted to get a building permit to have the additional dwelling unit. So, since you're not meeting the zoning requirements under our zoning by-law and a Planning Act application was open. You must comply with the zoning, you must comply with the Official Plan, and unfortunately the soft landscaping and landscaped open space isn't a variance that we can support. Therefore, the proposal cannot go forward because you’re not in compliance with the zoning by-law and the Building Division will not issue a permit. Thank you. G. Wallace: Would like confirmation from the applicant as to why you need minor variances for the setbacks? Is this because the proposed accessory dwelling unit is in the garage? Are you converting the garage into an additional dwelling unit? Will the garage itself stay the same or will there be construction added to it? Could you explain in detail what you are planning to do with the garage? Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 20 Committee of Adjustment Meeting M. Kohli: It’s an existing garage and existing building, so the setbacks are going to remain the same. Everything that is going to be done will be all internal renovations which include a bedroom, living or dining areas. However, there won't be any increase in the building area or the footprint of the existing building structure. G. Wallace: Would like confirmation from the applicant as to where he got the setbacks from? M. Kohli: Confirms that he went and measured on site. G. Wallace: Confirms he understands. He would like clarification from the applicant is he determined the setbacks himself by measuring to the property line? M. Kohli: Confirms that he did and that it is an existing set back and it does not meet the requirements in the zoning by-law. They did meet the setbacks required to have a accessory structure to be used as garage, but they obviously do not meet the setback requirements to have an additional dwelling unit. G. Wallace: Would like to ask staff a question to clarify what the applicant said. N. Gibson: The applicant was just reiterating the fact that he's converting the detached garage accessory structure into an additional dwelling unit. G. Wallace: I asked the applicant how we are determining the setbacks. N. Gibson: I believe that he responded and said that he measured the setbacks himself which I was not aware of that. G. Wallace: would like clarification if there is there going to be any structural changes to the roof? Also, are you going to be working on the interior renovations of the building or are you going to change the roof and are there downspouts of the current building? M. Kohli: States that the roof won’t be changed as it will comply with the development engineering requirements. The downspouts may need to be rearranged so that they can take care of the drainage issue, but we don't see that to cause any drainage issue. If there is any drainage issue, it would be taken care of by rearranging the downspout. Structurally, we are not proposing anything. All work is to be done inside the existing building for the additional dwelling unit. G. Wallace: Would like clarification from staff on what the applicant said as it seems like they’re not going to do anything to the roof to which it would have an adverse effect on drainage to the neighbours. The downspouts would take the water away from the neighbours. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 21 Committee of Adjustment Meeting N. Gibson: As per their elevation drawings, there are no changes to the building or the height. For your comments on the downspouts, I’m not sure. I can’t comment on that, and it would be something that the Development Engineering department would have to comment on specifically for downspouts. G. Wallace: Confirms he understand and if there are no changes to the roof, then I’m expecting the engineering department to say that there’s no changes to where the water will be going. I’d like to ask another question to the neighbour. If that’s okay, Mr. Chair. Could we have the neighbour come up to address the current drainage. Chair: Yes, that’s not a problem. G. Wallace: Would like clarification from the neighbour if the building currently affect your property as it stands right now? The way that the water drains off the shed. (IP) D. Godfrey: Confirms, yes. We’ve had to build a swale to try and stop the two eavestroughs that come out and face our property because we don’t want to bring the by-law officers into this situation cause there’s no point in that. G. Wallace: So, if they do proceed with this application, then maybe they could correct their downspouts so that the water wouldn’t go on your property. D. Eastman: Would like clarification from staff if this whole thing about setbacks because I'm really confused. If he's not changing the structure whatsoever, why are we recommending approving the variances for the garage? Does the garage not comply with the zoning by-law as it stands right now? N. Gibson: Confirms that due to that the application is for converting the detached garage into an additional dwelling unit, the setbacks for ADU’s are relevant to this application. The setbacks for accessory structures don’t apply because the applicant is converting it into an additional dwelling unit, so that’s why those setbacks are there. D. Eastman: Confirms he understands. N. Gamble: Would like clarification from staff. If one portion is denied, but the other portion is approved then the project cannot go forward. Why would this whole application just simply not be denied? Why would you approve of something that really becomes irrelevant? N. Gibson: Confirms if the permissions exist to allow them to have multiple additional dwelling units on the property as it’s zoned as Urban Residential Type One and is located in downtown Bowmanville. We encourage additional dwelling units within urban areas. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 22 Committee of Adjustment Meeting The denial variances for the reductions in the front yard soft scaping and the overall landscaped open space doesn’t impact on their rights to have the additional dwelling unit. So that is why that we are recommending approval for the two setbacks for the accessory building where the ADU is being proposed. The way that the lot is currently is and I’m not sure if this is the current owner or the previous owner, but they did an extension to the driveway and the extension to the driveway went all the way to the back of the property. That driveway extension is not necessary as the house comes with an attached double car garage, and they can easily fit two or three vehicles in the front yard. They don't need additional parking at the back of the property to accommodate the two additional dwelling units. Just for your information, there is also an approved additional dwelling unit for a basement apartment at this property so that’s why I’m mentioning two ADU’s. Per ADU, one additional parking space is required. There are four parking spaces that are already in the front double car garage, two in the front. They don't need the extended rear yard driveway in the back. That's why we are denying those variances for this application. S. Parish: Would like to clarify, the reason why all of the variances weren't denied is because we do have to look at each individual variance under the four tests. So, the variances that were approved, we were satisfied that they did meet the four tests and unfortunately the last two variances we weren't satisfied that the other two variances did not meet the four tests and obviously then with the concerns that we did get from development engineering as well. That is why those were denied and not approved. Chair: Thank you for your comments, Sarah. If there are no further questions, I’ll now turn it over to the Committee for a motion please. Motion to approve A-2024-0057 for variances to Section 3.2 f. ii) b) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of an additional dwelling unit by reducing the minimum interior side yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.12 metre and by reducing the minimum rear yard setback from 1.8 metres to 1.63 metres be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, and the Zoning By-law 84-63, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and minor in nature; Gord Wallace made the motion to approve Application A2024-0057, seconded by Dave Eastman. Time Approved: 7:46pm Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 23 Committee of Adjustment Meeting That Application A2024-0057 for a Minor Variance to Section 12.2.1 d. ii) and Section 12.2.1 d. i) by reducing the front yard soft landscaping from 50% to 32%, and by reducing the overall landscaped open space from 40% to 18% be denied as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of Clarington’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law 84-63, is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is not minor in nature. Gord Wallace made the motion to deny Application A2024-0057, seconded by Noel Gamble. Time Denied: 7:47pm 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-2024-0057 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” 7.1 File: A-2025-0001 Owner/Agent: Dave Rolfe Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 84 High Street, Bowmanville Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the building height from 8.5 metres to 9 metres and to permit the construction of an additional dwelling unit by increasing the total lot coverage from 30% to 35%. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 24 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments, and no comments were received from members of the public. 4. Staff recommends that application A2025-0001 for a Minor Variance to Sections 12.2.1 c) and 12.2.1 e) of Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the building height from 8.5 metres to 9 metres and to permit the construction of an additional dwelling unit by increasing the total lot coverage from 30% to 35% be approved. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant, David Rolfe, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. D. Eastman: Would like clarification from staff. Are you confident that the outstanding comments from Community planning and Durham Regional Works Department would have no effect on the recommendation in the staff report? N. Gibson: Confirms that’s correct, staff do not have concerns. The property is listed as Secondary under the heritage status, but comments are still outstanding for that. I can’t speak on behalf of heritage; I’m not a heritage planner so we will have to wait until those comments come in. D. Eastman: States that he is a little concerned that staff's recommending that this be approved, but there could be something in the outstanding comments that would change that recommendation. N. Gibson: Mentions that this application first came before us in January. We've been in communication with the applicant since the original application was submitted which had 5 or 6 variances, so there's been a lot of going back and forth discussions between Staff and the applicant. The applicant has made efforts to reduce variances for this application, and that's why we're recommending approval. This application is for height and it's for lot coverage. At the beginning when this application came before us, we made it clear to the applicant that staff were on the fence regarding their proposal. It was a bit extreme, so that's the reason why this application is being brought forward today. At the time in January, the applicant decided to withhold the application until now and since then, we resolved the other issues with the other variances. Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 25 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Chair: Thank you, Nick. Are there any further questions from the Committee? N. Gamble: Would like clarification if there is an existing house on the property now? N. Gibson: Confirms, yes, there is. There's an existing house on the property that's going to be demolished. There's also an existing garage that's also going to be demolished, so they're going to be building a brand new, single detached dwelling on the property. And they're also going to be building a new detached garage. And they're placing the ADUI within the detached garage. N. Gamble: Would like clarification if 84 High Street is listed on the municipal registry under the Heritage Act? S. Vora: Confirms that the property is currently designated as Secondary but is not on the municipal registry. N. Gamble: States that he understands Motion to approve A-2025-0001 as recommended by Dave Eastman, seconded by Noel Gamble. Time approved: 7:56pm Full text of Decision: A minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the building height from 8.5 metres to 9 metres and to permit the construction of an additional dwelling unit by increasing the total lot coverage from 30 to 35%. 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-2025-0001 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 26 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 7.1 File: A-2025-0006 Owner/Agent: Edwin Tesser Staff: Hebah Masood Address: 2670 Courtice Road, Courtice Application: 1. The purpose of the minor variance application is to facilitate the building of an accessory structure by increasing the maximum total accessory floor area from 60 square metres to 115 square metres; and increasing the maximum accessory height from 4 metres to 4.6 metres. 2. 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. 3. No comments were received in opposition to the application from external agencies or internal departments. Kindly note, comments were received from Durham Regional Works after the staff report was written and circulated. They have no objections or conditions. 4. One inquiry was received from a member of the public. The nature of the inquiry was whether the proposed would impact the property to the rear. The site plan has since been updated to show rear yard setbacks. 5. Staff recommends that application A2025-0006 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.1.c be approved; Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant, Edwin Tesser, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner/agent states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation. However, there is a clerical error. We only need 115 metres squared for the proposed accessory structure however we would like 150 metres squared for accessory structures overall in case the owner wants to build anything in the future. Chair: Hebah, can you speak to the implications of changing to account for this error? S. Parish: Clarifying that the applicant would like to increase to allow for a different accessory structure? Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 27 Committee of Adjustment Meeting E. Tesser: Confirms yes, that is correct. There was a misunderstanding regarding lot coverage versus size requirements for individual accessory structures which staff clarified with the applicant. No changes to the application are required. N. Gamble: Would like clarification from staff as it mentions a grading plan must be submitted? H. Massod: Confirms, yes, as per the Development Engineering comments, when the building permit is submitted, a grading plan will also be required and this is standard procedure for building permits of this nature. Chair: Sarah, can you confirm since there is difficulty hearing? S. Parish: Confirms yes, that is correct. At the building permit stage a grading plan will be required E. Tesser: Confirms he understands. Motion to approve A-2025-0006 as recommended by Noel, seconded by Gord. Time approved 8:10pm. Full text of Decision: A minor variance application to facilitate the building of an accessory structure by increasing the maximum total accessory floor area from 60 square metres to 115 square metres and increasing the maximum accessory height from 4 metres to 4.6 metres. 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-2025-0006 on March 27, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Absent Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Absent Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle Absent “Carried” Minutes – March 27, 2025 Page 28 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 8. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, February 27, 2025 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adopt minutes from February 27, 2025, Committee of Adjustment Meeting was moved by Noel, seconded by Dave. “That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on February 27, 2025, be approved.” “Carried” 9. Other Business “None” 10. Adjournment Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s consent application: April 29, 2025 Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s minor variance applications: April 16, 2025. Next Meeting: Thursday, April 24, 2025 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Noel, seconded by Gord. “That the March 27, 2025, Committee of Adjustment be adjourned. Time is 8:12pm” “Carried”