Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-24 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, July 24, 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: Nicole Zambri Principal Planner Ainsley Johnston Acting Secretary-Treasurer Nicklaus Gibson Acting Secretary-Treasurer Todd Taylor Chair Wendy Partner Member Dave Eastman Member Noel Gamble Member Gord Wallace Member Shelley Pohjola Member Brad Whittle Member Absent with Regrets 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 “None” Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 2 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4. Consent Applications: 4.1 File Number: B-2025-0016 Owner/Agent: Ray Davies on behalf of Ontario Power Generation Staff: Jacob Circo Address: 1 Holt Road S, Darlington Application: 1. The first application before the Committee is File B2025-0016 for 1 Holt Road, Bowmanville on lands owned by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). 2. The purpose of the application is to facilitate a long term lease agreement, in excess of 21 years, on Parts 1 to 11 of the draft reference plan submitted by the applicant to support the development of a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. 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. No adverse comments were received regarding this application from internal and external agencies. 6. Staff recommend that the subject application be approved subject to conditions, save and except for condition #2 as condition #2 is not relevant to the application. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant, Ray Davies, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The applicant stated that they read and agree with the conditions in the Staff report and concur with Staff’s recommendation to remove condition #2. Following the presentation, the Committee did not raise any questions or concerns. Motion to approve B-2025-0016 as recommended, with the exception of Condition #2 by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved 6:39pm. Full text of Decision: The proponent of this application is seeking permission for the purpose of establishing a long-term lease, in excess of 21 years, for Parts 1 to 11 on the draft reference plan to support the development of Small Modular Reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 3 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Conditions of Approval: Section 1: General 1. The owner, applicant or agent must provide a copy the Registered Reference Plan, with the application, identifying the area subject to the proposed lease that is approved by the Municipality, to the Clarington Planning & Infrastructure Services Department. Registration of this Reference Plan is done by the owner, applicant or agent’s surveyor at the expense of the owner, applicant or agent. 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-2025-0016 on July 24, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 5. Declaration of Interest for Minor Variance Applications 6. Minor Variance Applications Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 4 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 6.1 File: A2025-0025 Agent: Andy Kim Staff: Ainsley Johnston Address: 35 Rogerson Street, Newcastle Application: 1. Good evening, the next application before the Committee this evening is File A2025- 0025 for 35 Rogerson Street in Newcastle. 2. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a single detached dwelling by increasing the maximum dwelling lot coverage for a two storey dwelling from 40% to 43%. 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 external agencies or internal departments. 5. One comment was received in opposition to the application from a member of the public. The nature of the concern is that the proposed variance will significantly reduce the natural light and privacy for their property, and said comment was forwarded to the Committee members for consideration today as they were received after the finalization of the report. Staff have considered the comments received and are of the opinion that the recommendations, as outlined in the Staff Report, remain. 6. Staff recommends that application A2025-0025, for a Minor Variance to Section 13.4.89.d.i. of Zoning By-law 84-63, be approved. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding the application. The agent, Andy Kim, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The agent stated they are proposing the variance to increase the lot coverage for the single detached dwelling and that the lot coverage is actually 42.5% and they are happy to answer any questions. Chair to Staff: To clarify for the Committee, typically, if it is written as 43% there is usually a little excess provided in the margins. I am assuming that is the case. Can you confirm? Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 5 Committee of Adjustment Meeting A. Johnston: Correct. A. Kim: Yes. G. Wallace asked Staff to clarify if the comment in opposition from the member of the public was called or emailed in and if it is because they are designing a bigger house that they think it will impact their sunlight. A. Johnston: Yes, the variance is for the increase in lot coverage for the dwelling. The member of the public did provide an email regarding concerns around privacy and natural light, however there are no variances for the setbacks and comply to setbacks and height, and Staff are of the opinion there are no concerns for privacy and lighting. W. Partner: I would like to follow up on Gord’s question. What will the shadow effect be then? What will it actually increase? A. Johnston: Sorry, do you mind clarifying what you are asking? W. Partner: How much more shadowing effect will be on the property? How much more will it be impacted? A. Johnston: They are asking for a 3% increase to the maximum lot coverage for the dwelling. There is no shadow impact study so I cannot give a definitive answer to the shadow. However, there isn’t the increase in height and the setbacks are being complied to. They are not going wider, they are just going a little deeper. They technically can set the dwelling more back towards that neighbour where the complaint is coming from, so I don’t anticipate there would be anymore shadowing to their property. W. Partner: Thank you. D. Eastman: Just to clarify, I don’t think there is any building on that property right now anyway, right? A. Johnston: Correct. It is a new subdivision and the lot is vacant at this moment. D. Eastman: Right, so the shadowing effect is no matter what you build, it is going to shadow something potentially as there is nothing there now to compare it to.N. Zambri: The point is that whether it is 40% or 43%, we don’t anticipate it would have a greater impact than what they could build on there today. Just wanted to clarify that. Motion to approve A2025-0025 as recommended by Shelley Pohjola, seconded by Noel Gamble. Time approved 6:51 P.M. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 6 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Full text of Decision: Application A2025-0025, for a Minor Variance to Section 13.4.89.d.i. by increasing the maximum dwelling lot coverage for a two storey dwelling from 40% to 43%, be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 84-63, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, and is minor in nature. 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 A2025-0025 on July 24, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.2 File: A-2025-0026 Owner/Agent: Leo Qu Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 4789 Solina Road, Darlington Application: 1. The next application before the Committee is File A2025-0026 for 4789 Solina Road. 2. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a farm building by increasing the maximum lot coverage from 5% to 6.57%. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 7 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 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. Additionally, comments were received regarding this application from internal and external agencies and were attached to the Staff Report. 5. Staff recommends that application A2025-0026 be denied. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant / agent, Leo Qu / Edward Wong, spoke and provided an overview of the application. S. Pohjola: Yes, I'd like to ask the applicant if you have had an opportunity to review the report from planning. L. Qu: No, we haven’t received it. S. Pohjola: Okay. In the report, it mentions that you have a business in Scarborough. I'm wondering if you could speak to that and tell us about the business. L. Qu: We have manufactured 22PG tablets and we also do construction. S. Pohjola: I believe the report also mentions that you have farm vehicles that will be stored there. L. Qu: Yes, in the future. S. Pohjola: So not now? L. Qu: Yes, that’s correct. S. Pohjola: This relates to construction vehicles primarily in terms of storage right now, is that correct? L. Qu: They won't be used for construction; it’s primarily for farm vehicles. S. Pohjola: The report mentions your business in Scarborough and that there’s business vehicles that you use that will be stored in the building. Is that correct? Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 8 Committee of Adjustment Meeting L. Qu: It's not for that purpose. The building is not for construction vehicles, it's for farm vehicles. It's not related to the construction business. I want to develop the land there, but I need a machine. This is why I need to build a farm building. I need to put the machines there and repair the machines and equipment there to use. This is my purpose. It might be there for five years, but the agriculture use is not related to construction. S. Pohjola: Okay, I'll ask staff to speak to clarification of that later, Mr. Chair. G. Wallace: States he would like clarification. Are there any other instances in Clarington that allow for this type of lot coverage? When you created the staff report, you've gone through the history of minor variances to see if there's been anything; a 13-acre size property that has asked for a small change in the lot coverage, which is in this case is going from 5% to 6.57%. Does anything like that exist in Clarington? N. Gibson: There are properties that exist, but not to this magnitude. The proposal for the construction of the farm building will take away from future cultivation and viable farmland that's already existing on the property. In addition to that, it's also the size of the proposed asphalt parking lot that they're proposing. Of the area that's being farmed, approximately 25% is being taken out of farm production and it's zoned as prime agricultural lands. Those are a few of the reasons why we are recommending denial for this minor variance application. To answer your question, the answer is yes, there are examples of this, but the proposed use of the farm building is not being used as a farm building. The primary use of the farm building is to store his vehicles only and to do maintenance and repair on the vehicles. He's not keeping it as farm building and does not plan on farming the property in the future. G. Wallace: Thank you. I'm glad I asked the second question first, because the first question was about the type of farmland on the property. You know they're in their reduction because in some cases the land isn't suitable for farming or like maybe it's just suitable for farming and agriculture. Is this prime agricultural land? N. Gibson: Yes, that’s correct. G. Wallace: For clarification staff is not supporting this application in support of retaining that prime farmland? I'm asking the question because I thought that there was some kind of miscommunication. If they were storing farm vehicles to farm the land, it seems reasonable but I think there's still some confusion on my part of why they need the larger building to operate the farm. Does it have something to do with the business in Scarborough which the applicant seemed to indicate that the this property has nothing to do with their business in Scarborough? Why do you need a larger building to store farm vehicles for a 15 acre farm? Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 9 Committee of Adjustment Meeting L. Qu: The vehicles are for business in Lake Simcoe. My client has a lot of land, so we need the farm building to hold the equipment. That equipment is not related to construction. G. Wallace: For clarification you're suggesting that the applicant uses other land that's not prime farmland to build buildings if they need. I was concerned that they required these buildings to operate the 13-acre farm, but it seems to me that the applicant has got other farms, and this was going to help run those other farms. But maybe they should look to build those buildings somewhere else, not on the prime farmland. Is that correct? N. Gibson: Yes, that’s correct. W. Partner: The applicant has 350 acres in Lake Simcoe. Lake Simcoe is quite far from here, so I would suggest that maybe those buildings be built there. We can't afford to lose any more prime farmland. D. Eastman: Would like clarification from the applicant. Why aren't you going to build on the Lake Simcoe property which is closer to your farm? Why build it here and have to move that equipment for long distances each time you want to use it the equipment? E. Wong: I need equipment to be kept there on the property, and this is the reason why I want a farm building there. I need to build up the space and put the equipment in there and let them work where we are. Also, the delivery is not too far. It’s about 1 hour and 20 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes from my location. But in the future, I plan to buy another property nearby or somewhere else. D. Eastman: Okay, but I'm not really clear as to why you want to build a huge building on prime land here. When your farm that you're going to use the equipment and you want to store here is way up north. Alos, what farmer wants to pave the entire barnyard like that. It doesn't make any sense to me that you need to pave this to keep heavy farm equipment. No farmer does that. L. Qu: The proposed farm building is very close to my client as he mentioned. Overall, the farm building is next to his house which is convenient. Also, if you need to do maintenance or repair, that is something that’s easier for him to do the work rather than go an hour and half to go to the other side to maintain the equipment. So, this is the reason that we need a parking area so the vehicles can go to the farm building more easily. D. Eastman: He actually lives in Clarington and wants to work on the equipment here, but he still has to go back an hour and a half once it's repaired rather than repairing it on site where he's using it. Okay I understand, thank you. Chair Todd: Okay thank you. I believe that we have gone through all the questions from the committee members. The applicant said that he didn't receive the report. Can Planning Staff please confirm the record when it was sent out and when it was available for review? Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 10 Committee of Adjustment Meeting N. Zambri: The reports were sent to all the applicants on Monday, July 21st. The applicant should have received a copy of the report. But if you have not received it, please let us know. L. Qu: Okay, thank you. I will check when I get home. Motion to deny A-2025-0026 as recommended by Noel Gamble, seconded by Dave Eastman. Time denied: 7:11pm Full text of Decision: Application A2025-0026 for a Minor Variance to Section 6.3 d. to facilitate the construction of a farm building by increasing the maximum lot coverage from 5% to 6.57% be denied as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Clarington 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. 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-2025-0026 on July 24, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.3 File: A2025-0027 Agent: Katrina Metzner c/o North Lakes Developments Staff: Ainsley Johnston Address: 53 Liberty Street North, Bowmanville Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 11 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Application: 1. Good evening, the next application before the Committee this evening is File A2025- 0027 for 53 Liberty Street North in Bowmanville. 2. The purpose of the application is to retain an existing semi-detached dwelling on a provisionally approved retained lot (associated consent application B2024-0037) by reducing the front yard setback from 4.5 metres to 0 metres, by reducing the interior side yard setback from 3 metres to 2.17 metres, and by reducing the minimum landscaped open space from 30% to 23%. 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 external agencies or internal departments. 5. No comments were received in opposition to the application from members of the public. 6. Staff recommends that application A2025-0027 (Parts 4 and 5 on the Draft Reference Plan), for a Minor Variance be approved subject to the condition in the staff report, with a minor modification to add the following text "before registration of the consent agreement” after the word “removed” so that it reads as follows: “a. Removal of the existing deck identified on the site plan as “existing deck to be removed” before registration of the consent agreement”. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The agent, Katrina Metzner, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The agent states that they have read and agreed to the condition of the Staff’s recommendation. Chair Todd: I will confirm the condition that was stated with the revision, that is acceptable to you? K. Metzner: Yes. D. Eastman: Looking at 5.8 and the road widening and the setback. This works right now assuming that the Region doesn’t widen the road. In the future, what is going to happen when they do? Do you walk out your front door onto the traffic lane? I don’t quite understand the setback. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 12 Committee of Adjustment Meeting A. Johnston: In the future, it [the dwelling] will still be in front of the road widening. I spoke to the Region about this. There is an existing porch that encroaches and that is taken care of with the encroachment agreement. Essentially, in the future if there is a road widening, redevelopment will happen and the house eventually becomes redeveloped. D. Eastman: That’s my point. If that does happen, this house will have to be knocked down? A. Johnston: No, because it is not on the road. The road widening accommodates the existing dwelling, they just need the variances to legalize it. N. Zambri: It’s the right-of-way width, so the total width of the right-of-way. It doesn’t mean the curb or street. It is not the paved area. You’ll have sidewalks, landscaping, things like that so it might not necessarily be an issue. That’s why the Region agreed to the encroachment agreement. N. Gamble: This may not pertain to this application, but the next door house is the exact same front porch. Do they also have to do an encroachment and get that approved by the Region? Obviously if one is not in conformity then the other has to be non-conforming. A. Johnston: The semi-detached dwelling on the other side was not part of the land division application. Therefore, the road widening was not taken as part of that. The road widening is in front of the provisionally approved retained and severed lots, but not on the other semi as it is not part of that application. Chair Todd: clarified with Staff the wording of the modification to the condition. Motion to approve A2025-0027 as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved 7:21 P.M. Full text of Decision: Application A2025-0027 (Parts 4 and 5 on the Draft Reference Plan), for a Minor Variance to Section 12.2.d.i by reducing the front yard setback from 4.5 metres to 0 metres, Section 12.2.d.iii.d by reducing the interior side yard setback from 3 metres to 2.17 metres, and Section 12.2.g by reducing the minimum landscaped open space from 30% to 23%, be approved subject to the following condition: a. Removal of the existing deck identified on the site plan as “existing deck to be removed” before registration of the consent agreement. as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 84-63, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, and is minor in nature. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 13 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-2025-0027 on July 24, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.4 File: A2025-0030 and A2025-0033 Owner: Gurdhian Singh Sidhu Staff: Ainsley Johnston Address: 61 Hunt Street, Bowmanville Application: 1. Good evening, the next application before the Committee this evening is File A2025- 0030 & A2025-0033 for 61 Hunt Street in Bowmanville. 2. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with two proposed Additional Dwelling Units in each principal dwelling unit on the provisionally approved retained and severed lots (associated consent application LD2023-073) by increasing the maximum front yard setback to the dwelling from 2 metres from the established building line to 5.36 metres from the established building line, to increase the maximum height from 8.5 metres to 10.5 metres, and to permit a second entrance at the front building façade for a proposed Additional Dwelling Unit in the principal dwelling, whereas any additional, separate entrance must be accessed through the rear or side yard. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 14 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 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 external agencies or internal departments. 5. One comment was received in opposition to the application from a member of the public regarding parking and the number of vehicles that will be needed for the three units on each lot, and said comments were forwarded to the Committee members for consideration today as they were received after the finalization of the report. Staff have considered the comments received and are of the opinion that the recommendations as outlined in the Staff Report remain. 6. Staff recommends that application A2025-0030 & A2025-0033 for a Minor Variance to Section 12.2.1.b.i.c. and Section 12.2.1.e.ii. of Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved, and that application A2025-0030 & A2025-0033 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.2.f to permit a second entrance at the front building façade be denied. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The owner, Gurdhian Singh Sidhu, provided an introduction and overview to the application. Chair Todd: You have read the report and are you in agreement with the conditions? G. Sidhu: Yes. N. Gamble: With the second front door of each house being recommended to be denied, putting that entrance at the side or back, will that require any further applications for Minor Variance? A. Johnston: If they put the additional entrance in the side or the rear, they still meet the setback provisions. There is potential that if they were to elevate it and it needs additional steps that could cover the lot then we would have to look at lot coverage. If they are able to put the doors more towards at grade then they meet the setback provisions and they wouldn’t need an additional variance. D. Eastman: It sounds like this can’t go forward until the door issue is resolved. I am wondering why this didn’t get tabled until this gets resolved. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 15 Committee of Adjustment Meeting A. Johnston: They can still put in a common front door and redesign their floor plans internally and work within the framework that the variances that are approved would provide. With the height, the lot coverage, and everything the way it is situated with the setbacks, it would be internal if they do want to do it through the common front door. If they need to completely redesign and they would need future variances, then they would have to come back. V. Bulakh: In regards to the front entrances, we are able to do the common vestibule. It is not a desirable option not just from a design perspective but more from a safety and usability perspective. A common vestibule where there might be tenant conflict and disagreement with who maintains and how they take care of it. Having separate private entrances is more desirable from that perspective for the units. D. Eastman: It sounds like you don’t really have a solution that you are willing to live with, so this may be coming back to the Committee. V. Bulakh: No. The owner, G. Sidhu, provided the Committee pictures of two front doors, for a total of four front doors, at 129 & 131 Ontario Street. G. Sidhu: If I have bad tenants, there are safety concerns. In 2023, I spoke to Councillor Rang and he approached the Planning Department. Councillor Rang spoke to Carlos and stated in the next application they would go ahead. Even today, I spoke to Councillor Rang and he told me he gave the verbal assurance, and I did not provide a follow up. If I had known about this information I wouldn’t have bought the property and gone through this process because who will rent that? They will give me less rent. Now the Committee is saying the neighbours don’t want this. Chair Todd: I understand your comments. The Committee has the application before us. The Committee has what’s been put forward by Planning and I am going to turn it over to them for any final questions before we put it to a motion. S. Pohjola: For clarity for the Committee, can Staff speak to how Ontario Street came to be and the Neighbourhood Character Overlay issue. A. Johnston: The building permits for 129 & 131 Ontario Street were approved in 2017. The permissions and the ADU provisions were through an amended by- law in 2021, and in that 2021 by-law amendment is where you got the regulation that any second entrance has to be through the common [front] door, rear, or side yard. That is legal non-conforming because it predates that. We also did an ADU amendment in 2024, and Section 3.2.f remains the same for that second entrance. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 16 Committee of Adjustment Meeting S. Pohjola: That’s great, thank you very much. Chair Todd: I don’t think there is any other comments needed here. It is to the Committee here to ask their questions. No further questions were asked by members of the Committee. Motion to approve A2025-0030 and A2025-0033 for variances to Section 12.2.1.b.i.c and Section 12.2.1.e.ii and motion to deny A2025-0030 and A2025-0033 for variances to Section 3.2.f as recommended by Noel Gamble seconded by Dave Eastman. Time approved 7:40 P.M. Full text of Decision: Minor Variance Application A2025-0030 for variances to Section 12.2.1.b.i.c. by increasing the maximum front yard setback to the dwelling from 2 metres from the established building line to 5.36 metres from the established building line and Section 12.2.1.e.ii. by increasing the maximum height from 8.5 metres to 10.5 metres within Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with two proposed Additional Dwelling Units in each principal dwelling unit on the provisionally approved retained and severed lots (associated consent application LD2023-073), be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 84-63, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, and minor in nature. And that Minor Variance Application A2025-0030 for variance to Section 3.2.f to permit a second entrance at the front building façade for a proposed Additional Dwelling Unit in the principal dwelling, whereas any additional, separate entrance must be accessed through the rear or side yard in amended By-law 2024-033 within Zoning By-law 84-63, be denied as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, maintain the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 84-63, is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, or is minor in nature. That Minor Variance Application A-2025-0033 for variances to Section 12.2.1.b.i.c. by increasing the maximum front yard setback to the dwelling from 2 metres from the established building line to 5.36 metres from the established building line and Section 12.2.1.e.ii. by increasing the maximum height from 8.5 metres to 10.5 metres within Zoning By-law 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a semi-detached dwelling with two proposed Additional Dwelling Units in each principal dwelling unit on the provisionally approved retained and severed lots (associated consent application LD2023-073), be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, maintains the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 84-63, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, and minor in nature. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 17 Committee of Adjustment Meeting And that Minor Variance Application A-2025-0033 for variance to Section 3.2.f to permit a second entrance at the front building façade for a proposed Additional Dwelling Unit in the principal dwelling, whereas any additional, separate entrance must be accessed through the rear or side yard in amended By-law 2024-033 within Zoning By-law 84-63, be denied as it does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan, maintain the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law 84-63, is not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, or is minor in nature. 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-2025-0030 and A-2025- 0033 on July 24, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.5 File: A-2025-0031 Owner/Agent: Sean Loucks on behalf of The Deck Guys Staff: Jacob Circo Address: 120 Port Darlington Road, Bowmanville Application: 1. The next application before the Committee is File A2025-0031 for 120 Port Darlington Road in Bowmanville. 2. The purpose of the application is to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 45% to 55% to facilitate the construction of a rear yard deck. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 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. No adverse comments were received regarding this application from internal and external agencies. 6. Staff recommend that the subject application be approved. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The agent, Sean Loucks, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The agent stated that they have read and agreed with Staff’s recommendation. Following the presentation, the Committee did not raise any questions or concerns. Motion to approve A-2025-0031 as recommended by Brad Whittle, seconded by Wendy Partner. Time approved 7:46pm. Full text of Decision: Application A2025-0031, for a Minor Variance to Section 14.6.3.e) Zoning Bylaw 84-63, to facilitate the construction of a rear deck by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage from 45% to 55%, 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. 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-2025-0031 on July 24, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 19 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.6 File: A-2025-0032 Owner/Agent: Renee John Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 8640 Grasshopper Park Road, Darlington Application: 1. The final application before the Committee this evening is File A2025-0032 for 8640 Grasshopper Park Road. 2. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a detached garage by increasing the building height from 5 metres to 5.58 metres, and by increasing the total accessory floor area from 90 square metres to 157 square metres. 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 external agencies, internal departments or from members of the public. 5. Staff recommend that application A2025-0032 be approved subject to the conditions in the Staff Report. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant, Renee John, 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 A-2025-0032 as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved: 7:52pm. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 20 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Full text of Decision: Application A-2025-0032 for a Minor Variance to Section 4.1.3 to facilitate the construction of a detached garage by increasing the building height from 5 metres to 5.58 metres, and by increasing the total accessory floor area from 90 square metres to 157 square metres be approved subject to the following conditions: a. That the existing shipping container (attachment 4) be removed prior to receiving a building occupancy permit for the detached garage; and b. That the applicant receives a building permit from CLOCA and implements the mitigation measures in Attachment 3 prior to receiving a building occupancy permit for the detached garage. as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law 2005-109, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and is minor in nature. 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-2025-0032 on July 24, 2025. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 8. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, June 26, 2025 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adopt minutes from June 26, 2025, Committee of Adjustment Meeting was moved by Dave Eastman, seconded by Brad Whittle. Minutes – July 24, 2025 Page 21 Committee of Adjustment Meeting “That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on June 26, 2025, be approved.” “Carried” 9. Other Business “None” 10. Adjournment Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s consent application: August 19, 2025 Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s minor variance applications: August 13, 2025 Next Meeting: September 25, 2025 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Dave Eastman, seconded by Shelley Pohjola. “That the July 24, 2025, Committee of Adjustment be adjourned. Time adjourned: 7:54pm.” “Carried”