Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-05-28 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, May 28, 2026 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: Sarah Gattie Secretary-Treasurer Akibul Hoque Acting Secretary-Treasurer Nicklaus Gibson Acting Secretary-Treasurer Ainsley Johnston 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 – May 28, 2026 Page 2 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 4. Consent Applications: 4.1 File Number: B-2026-0001 Owner/Agent: CSH (Bowmanville) Inc. / Greg Gilbert c/o Fitzrovia Real Estate Inc. Staff: Ainsley Johnston Address: 105 Queen Street, Bowmanville Lifting from the Table: Chair Todd Taylor asked the Committee to make a motion to lift the application from the table. Motion to lift B-2026-0001 from the table as recommended by N. Gamble, seconded by D. Eastman. Application 1. The purpose of the application is seeking consent to facilitate the creation of one new residential lot. As proposed, the retained lot (Part 1 on the Draft Reference Plan) will have a lot area of 8,635.8 square metres and 78.12 metres of lot frontage along Queen Street and lot frontage of 86.3 metres along Queen Avenue. The severed lot (Parts 2, 3, and 4 on the Draft Reference Plan), as proposed, will have a lot area of 8,485 square metres and lot frontage of approximately 23.27 metres along Queen Avenue. 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. Staff recommend that application B-2026-0001 for consent be lifted from the table. Staff also recommend that application B-2026-0001 be tabled for a period of up to six (6) months and no later than November 2026, subject to the following requirements: a. Submission of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to confirm the development limits, as defined in the Clarington Official Plan, for both the proposed severed and proposed retained lands. b. Submission of an updated Geotechnical Report to confirm the Long-Term Stable Top of Slope and physical top of bank Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant, Greg Gilbert, spoke and provided an overview of the application. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 3 Committee of Adjustment Meeting G. Gilbert: I have read the reports for both consent applications, and I agree with Staff’s recommendation to table these applications. We are suggesting they be tabled until the August Committee of Adjustment meeting. Consent application B - 2026-0001 is to split the lots in half to create a new ownership entity to construct the second phase [of Chartwell Bowmanville Creek]. The additional consent, B - 2026-0003, is to permit reciprocal easements for the Phase 1 lands to use the Phase 2 lands for waste pickup and loading, to share at-grade parking, use the existing vehicle entrance, connect the Phase 2 lands to an existing sanitary sewer, recognize the existing waterline for 119 Queen Street. There will be a future consent application to recognize the Phase 1 access to the Phase 2 building to use the amenities and outdoor space on the west side of the property. S. Pohjola to Staff: Why does the recommendation not speak to submission of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and approval by the Municipality of Clarington and CLOCA to confirm the development limits? And likewise for recommendation “b”. So, submission and approval by the Municipality of Clarington and C entral Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) of an updated Geotechnical Report. A. Johnston: With the submission of the EIS and Geotechnical Report, that is part of the review, which will confirm the development limits. The approvals are not for the reports themselves; they are for the applications. The reports are supporting the applications to facilitate approval. S. Pohjola: But don’t the EIS and Geotechnical Report require both approval by the Municipality and CLOCA? I understand what you are talking about in the bigger picture, but technically the reports need approval. A. Johnston: They will be reviewed by both CLOCA and the Municipality as part of the consent applications. There is the approval of the reports in that we concur with what is in them and that will get them a recommendation of approval in an application, but the reports themselves do not go for an approval. S. Pohjola: Concurrence means there is approval. I recommend amendments. W. Partner: I second those as well. D. Eastman: Can Shelley clarify what the proposed amendment would be? S. Pohjola: I recommend that “a” and “b” of item four on the first page of the report reads “submission and approval by the Municipality of Clarington and CLOCA of an Environmental Impact Study”, and “submission and approval by the Municipality of Clarington and CLOCA of an updated Geotechnical Report”. Motion to table B-2026-0001 as recommended by D. Eastman , seconded by G. Wallace. Time tabled 6:46pm. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 4 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Full text of Decision: That application B-2026-0001 for consent be tabled for a period of up to six (6) months and no later than November 2026, subject to the following requirements: a) Submission and approval by the Municipality of Clarington and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to confirm the development limits, as defined in the Clarington Official Plan, for both the proposed severed and proposed retained lands. b) Submission and approval by the Municipality of Clarington and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) of an updated Geotechnical Report to confirm the Long Term Stable Top of Slope and physical top of bank. 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 -2026-0001 on May 28, 2026. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 4.2 File Number: B -2026-0003 Owner/Agent: CSH (Bowmanville) Inc. / Greg Gilbert c/o Fitzrovia Real Estate Inc. Staff: Ainsley Johnston Address: 105 Queen Street, Bowmanville Lifting from the Table: Chair Todd Taylor asked the Committee to make a motion to lift the application from the table. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 5 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Motion to lift B-2026-0003 from the table as recommended by N. Gamble, seconded by W. Partner. Application: 1. The purpose of the application is seeking consent to facilitate an easement to pass on foot, or by vehicles, in, over, along, upon and to install, maintain, operate, repair, renew and replace any utility services required for its purpose, on any portion of the Phase 2 lands over the Phase 1 lands. 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. Staff recommend that application B-2026-0003 for consent be lifted from the table. Staff also recommend that application B-2026-0003 be tabled for a period of up to six (6) months and no later than November 2026, subject to the following requirements: a. Submission of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to confirm the development limits, as defined in the Clarington Official Plan, for both the proposed severed and proposed retained lands. b. Submission of an updated Geotechnical Report to confirm the Long Term Stable Top of Slope and physical top of bank. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant, Greg Gilbert, stated that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation . S. Pohjola: Similar to the previous report, I recommend amendments as similarly brought forward in the previous report [B-2026-0001] to the recommendation. Motion to table B-2026-0003 as recommended by S. Pohjola, seconded by B. Whittle. Time tabled 6:52pm. Full text of Decision: That application B-2026-0003 for consent be tabled for a period of up to six (6) months and no later than November 2026, subject to the following requirements: a) Submission and approval by the Municipality of Clarington and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) to confirm the development limits, as defined in the Clarington Official Plan, for both the proposed severed and proposed retained lands. b) Submission and approval by the Municipality of Clarington and Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) of an updated Geotechnical Report to confirm the Long Term Stable Top of Slope and physical top of bank. Minutes – May 28, 2026 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 B -2026-0003 on May 28, 2026. 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 7.1 File: A-2025-0052 Owner/Agent: Staff: Ainsley Johnston Address: 105 Queen Street, Bowmanville Lifting from the Table: Chair Todd Taylor asked the Committee to make a motion to lift the application from the table. Motion to lift A2025-0052 from the table as recommended by W. Partner, seconded by D. Eastman. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 7 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of Phase 2 of Chartwell Bowmanville Creek, a 223-unit apartment geared towards seniors, by increasing the density (maximum) from 185 units/suites per net hectare to 378 units/suites per net hectare to a maximum of 223 dwelling units, by reducing the east lot line yard setback minimum from 29 metres to 3 metres, by reducing the south lot line yard setback minimum from 31 metres to 7.5 metres, by reducing the interior side yard setback minimum within the (R4-36) Zone from 7.5 metres to 0 metres, by reducing the interior side yard setback minimum within the (R4-35) Zone from 10 metres to 3 metres, by increasing the maximum building height from 9 storeys to 10 storeys, by reducing the total number of parking spaces required from 300 spaces to 135 spaces, and by permitting outdoor amenity area within 0 metres of the east lot line whereas the by-law does not permit outdoor amenity area within 30 metres of the east lot line, by reducing the landscaped open space minimum from 35% to 25%, and by increasing the projection of balconies, canopies, unenclosed porches, steps, patios, ramps, or decks attached or directly abutting the principle or main building; either above or below grade; from 1.5 metres to 4.5 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. Staff recommends that application A2025-0052, for a Minor Variance be lifted from the table. Staff also recommends that application A2025-0052 to Section 15.4.36.b.i, Section 15.4.36.b.ii.a, Section 15.4.36.b.ii.b, Section 15.2.c.ii , Section 15.4.35.b.ii.b, Section 15.4.36.b.iv, Section 3.16.e, Section 15.4.36.b.vii , Section 15.2.f , and Section 3.1.g.iv be approved, subject to the conditions in the staff report. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. G. Gilbert: states that they have read and agreed to the conditions of the Staff’s recommendation . Chair to Committee: Do you have any questions for the applicant? G. Wallace: Will there be an impact on the application if we table this until the consent application is heard? G. Gilbert: There would be a tremendous impact on deferring it. There is a very specific sequence of events that we are working through on this application. I have a full presentation on the Minor Variance application, if that is appropriate to present. Chair: I will give the Committee a chance to ask question s and I will revert back to give you a chance to deliver your presentation. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 8 Committee of Adjustment Meeting S. Gattie: Can the applicant present first? Chair: responded that he was in agreement that the applicant could provide a presentation first. The applicant, Greg Gilbert, provided a presentation supported by a PowerPoint deck. G. Gilbert: Phase 1 and future Phase 2 were zoned and approved together in 2014. Phase 1 was subsequently built in 2017. The Phase 2 approvals were in place for a nine storey seniors apartment building on the vacant grass lands to the south . Chartwell is Canada’s largest and most experienced seniors housing owner and operator headquartered in Mississauga. Fitzrovia is Canada's largest vertically integrated apartment developer with a focus on rental apartment construction and development headquartered in Toronto. I am Vice President of Planning at Fitzrovia and have 15 years history working on similar projects like this. I am also joined by Leo Palozzi who is the Director of Planning and Development at Chartwell, the future building owner and operator. The Phase 2 lands are located south of Queen Street, west of Queen Aven ue, adjacent to the Goodyear Lands and Rotary Park, a quick five minute walk from where we are standing today. They will occupy the large grass open area on the south side and be connected indoors to Phase 1 through a one-story internal connection. The second phase of Bowmanville Creek has been in the works since 2012 and was approved by Clarington Council in 2014. At that time, the Goodyear Factory was very much in operation, which informed several of the unconventional zoning standards suggested to mitigate externalities and site the building and outdoor spaces at least 50 meters from the operating industrial use shown on the right side. Since that time, the factory has shut down, it's been slated for demolition, and the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan has amended permissions to encourage a large-scale mixed-use development. In summary, our proposal fits squarely within Clarington’s Official Plan and overall vision for these high density residential lands. This was deemed a priority file by senior staff and we continue to work through a complex order of applications and permits in 2026 with a construction start planned in January 2027. I made a very similar presentation in February seeking approval of these variances, which Staff and C ommittee deferred, pending additional technical materials. On April 9th, those technical materials were submitted and have informed staff's recommendation for approval in front of you today. There are ten variances requested. They are the result of very certain circumstances and can be organized into four groups. One, those related to the decommissioning of the factory. Two, those updated to match the zoning in the updated Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan. Three, those required as a result of th e lot split that was just in front of you previously. The final three variances are related to site- specific constraints and the proposed land use of a senior's apartment. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 9 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Since the December 2025 submission for minor variance, we have worked closely with Engineering staff to provide added parking justification, which I'm going to spend some time explaining in further detail. Some municipalities, like Oshawa, have site-specific zoning definition for seniors apartments, whereas Clarington only defines retirement homes and apartments. Within the seniors apartment definition comes much lower parking requirements between 0.35 stalls per unit and 0.5 stalls per uni t. In general, seniors apartments carry much lower persons per unit than a typical apartment building. For example, a two-bedroom apartment would average around 2.5 people per unit, where a senior's apartment is closer to 1.3. That means around 40% less occupants living in the Phase 2 proposal than a typical apartment. In Phase 1, there are also 29 uncounted surplus stalls, which we are able to share with Phase 2 as per the existing zoning. We are meeting the required accessible stalls. The site will feature 37 visitor stalls across both phases, including 21 on Phase 2. As part of our April 9th site plan application, a 114-page transportation impact study was revised and submitted in support of this reduction. Part of that included physical traffic counting in March 2026 of a similar Chartwell project in Orangeville, which includes both a retirement home and seniors apartmen ts. Additionally, the Institute of Transportation Engineers scientifically backs the suggested parking ratio of 0.52 spaces per unit for seniors' apartments, and the Oshawa Zoning By-law has a specific 0.5 spaces per unit for seniors apartments, consistent with and less than our proposed count. Even further, there's a dedicated resident shuttle, a meal opt-in plan for the Phase 1 building, discounted grocery delivery, and a five minute walk to four separate bus routes nearby. We are adjusting the 2014 approval to meet today's updated planning contexts, which are generally technical in nature. Approving staff's recommendation will assist in progressing a complex priority project that will facilitate aging in place and complete the Chartwell Seniors Housing Campus through policy aligned intensification. It will permit us to seek approval of upcoming consent applications in August, submit for building permits later this summer, and start construction within six months. We appreciate staff's diligent work to date, specifically P lanning and Engineering, and look forward to bringing this great communi ty to life. Chair T. Taylor: Thanks for your presentation. We'll go back to the committee members' questions. We were in progress with Gord and one of your second questions was answered, but you had one other question ? G. Wallace to Staff: Shouldn’t this application be tabled given that we do not have all the agency comments, specifically CLOCA, given that some of the variances pertain directly to the creek or are related to the creek area. I believe there are nine agency comments that have comments outstanding. A. Johnston: With the applications, there has been the submittal of the minor variances, the severance, the easements, as well as the site plan approval applications. Because of the complexity of the inner workings between the different applications, we have circulated all departments and agencies that will eventually see it for the site plan approval process as part of the minor variance application in order to give them the heads up that this was going to be coming in for site plan and get the comments for that. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 10 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Some of the departments and agencies that are listed here are more appropriate at the site plan stage. For example, Enbridge and all E lexicon are not agencies that are going to impact the four tests of the minor variance. They are handled at the site plan stage. I know it does say CLOCA's comments are outstanding. However, we have had frequent ongoing meetings and conversations with CLOCA regarding this. They're in support of the recommendation of approval with the conditions. They did help craft some of the condi tions and everything has been run by them as well. While their comments are outstanding on paper, they have been integrated throughout this whole process. G. Wallace: Thank you for the thorough response. So, you don’t see a problem with the lack of agency comments in this case, based on the type of application on this? A. Johnston: Correct. For the Minor Variance application, for the agencies that are outstanding, there are not concerns. Some of them previously did comment when the applications first came to Committee in February 2026. But yes, for this application, there are not concerns for the ones that are outstanding. G. Wallace: There is a concern? A. Johnston: Is not a concern . G. Wallace to applicant: You did your own top of bank and EIS without CLOCA being there? We don’t have CLOCA’s comments as they are outstanding. I am not going to introduce myself and what I do, but I will tell you I have been on probably 150 top of bank walks with Conservation Authorities and I don’t understand the point of doing them without CLOCA being there. Are you having problems with getting CLOCA? We don’t have comments from CLOCA and you are doing top of bank staking without CLOCA. I don’t understand how you can do top of bank staking without CLOCA. G. Gilbert: When this project was approved in 2014, there was a slope stability study that was submitted. There was a top of bank that was outlined. It's shown on the screen here in the yellow dash. We believe that that was actually overly conservative. We did our own top of bank study, very technical, geotechnical study. That was one of the questions that were asked and one of the reasons this was deferred from February. That's under review with CLOCA. We have a staking scheduled for June 12th just to qualify the edge of the trees, which are the purple lines. They don't impact the development at all. But the reason that we did not walk with CLOCA is because we began this design in October. You have to walk with CLOCA when there are leaves on the trees that the earliest we were able to walk with them was June [2026]. We had our Ecologists complete a field work walk in October, which qualified very technically all of the limits that are consolidated on this map. We're simply going on June 12th to just validate the findings of our ecologists from October. G. Wallace: It seems to be that is salient point of that is that there was a walk done with CLOCA done in 2014, and this is merely updating it. G. Gilbert: Yes, and those lands have been manicured grass. There's been no additional creeping of the drip line of the canopy of the trees. There's a municipal driveway on the west side of our site. So there has been very little overgrowth or creeping of those limits from 2014 that were the result of significant CLOCA intervention and consultant work. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 11 Committee of Adjustment Meeting G. Wallace: Thank you. That really actually helps nicely because it seemed awfully strange until you clarified that. Thank you. Yeah, I can see how that's understood. N. Gamble: I do have a concern that this application is much bigger than a Minor Variance. You mentioned in your presentation that zoning was approved by Council in 2014, and obviously things have changed. Goodyear has moved out, there are other developments coming in. But if that was the case, as soon as Goodyear was sold and those changes were made, why not go through the Zoning By-law Amendment process instead of waiting until December, a few months before you want to build, and going as a Minor Variance? G. Gilbert: This project was approved for a nine story seniors apartment in 2014. The quantum of the setbacks that were approved were the result of the factory. If this project were pre-zoned as per a fresh site today and looked at under the permissions of the updated secondary plan, which just came into effect, there would be three variances and they would just be related to landscaped open space, parking, and the terraces that are in the outdoor, set back to the outdoor terraces, which are above grade. It's a little complex, but if that was the case, there would only be three variances. When you look at the fact that the secondary plan was just updated, it allows 10 stories, it removes a density cap, implements some new setbacks. It's really just a slight adjustment to what would have been permitted should this project have been proceedi ng under a blank slate. So, in my opinion, a minor variance was the correct approach. It saves time. It saves time, effort, and energy. We submitted full technical materials through the site plan application process. So, everything's coming out in the wash through that. There were over 20 reports that we had to submit as part of that. The zoning is just a slight adjustment and not required to go through a full Zoning By-law Amendment. N. Gamble: That is a great answer, thank you. And I do, just for the record, appreciate the delay that you would incur. I appreciate that you guys want to get building right away. D. Eastman: I have a concern about the parking. 300 spaces are what would normally be required, and you're proposing 135 spaces, of which 112 are for residents. That seems like a very small number. G. Gilbert: From the parking side, we've had a lot of work done to justify those rates. I can list that work. One of them was doing physical traffic counts for a very similar project in Orangeville. We looked at a very similar project in Barry. We've sat out there and counted how many people were using them for visitors? How many were resident stalls? The information that came back from those was around 0.4 spaces per unit across visitors and residents. When you look at the Institute of Transportation Engin eers, their scientifically backed ratio for seniors apartments specifically is 0.52 spaces per unit. We are proposing 0.6. When you consider the extra spots on phase one that we are allowed to share under the zoning Bylaw, it's closer to.0 spaces per unit. There's a ton of visitor parking. We've met every single accessible stall requirement, and we believe it just on the operator's experience, similar projects, the City of Oshawa's Zoning By-law for seniors apartments, that it's entirely appropriate and justified. D. Eastman: Has anybody studied how many vehicles per tenant or resident there are in the existing phase? Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 12 Committee of Adjustment Meeting G. Gilbert: Yes, we have. The parking requirement by the Zoning By-law is 36 stalls. There's quite a bit of turnover in these types of buildings. Any given time in the last year, there's been between 39 and about 42 residents using vehicles, and there's no requiremen t for visitors. D. Eastman: How many spots are available? G. Gilbert: 65 spaces are available, 36 are required, and approximately 40 are used. There is a surplus there. D. Eastman: Thank you. W. Partner: I am concerned about the number “vii”. Would the by-law not have to be changed because it doesn’t permit outdoor amenity areas within 30 metres of the east lot line and they want to go to 0, so would the by-law not have to be updated for that? A. Johnston: Would you be able to clarify if you are asking if the variance for the outdoor amenity space would require a Zoning By-law Amendment? W. Partner: No, our by-law doesn’t permit outdoor amenity areas within 30 metres of the east lot line, currently. I want to know if our by-law would have to be updated to allow this. A. Johnston: That is what the variance is for. The requirement is in the (R4-36) Zone. It is not a general provision being varied, it is a site-specific provision. The variance is to reduce that to be 0 metres. I don’t know if that answers your question. W. Partner: That answers that question. I have another question for the applicant because I know the Chartwell in Oshawa that is operating there, and the parking is atrocious. People have to park out on the street and they can’t find parking spaces. I know this because I know people that have done it or tried to do it and they are not able to. I don’t want to see the same mess in Bowmanville. Is there any way that your parking can be altered? You might say now that the parking is okay, but what happens 10 or 5 years from now even? The way Clarington is building, I see that there will be an issue. G. Gilbert: Yes, just in terms of additional parking that could be available. This site, due to the environmental lands, is highly constrained geographically, meaning there's just really no room to add any surface parking and there's no room to go down another level. There's high water table issues on portions of the site. There's also soil issues geotechnically holding up portions of the foundation and having to go down a second level of underground would just make the project not feasible. We would like to add surface parking, but it just simply is not available due to the environmental lands constraints. S. Gattie: Just to jump in on the last question, S taff are satisfied with the robust study that was submitted in support of the reduction to the minimum required parking. There is also potential for Chartwell to work with the owner of the previous Goodyear Site in the future to see if there's an option to provide additional parking on that site, if needed. That's obviously not known at that time, but there are different areas down there that could be explored with other landowners. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 13 Committee of Adjustment Meeting S. Pohjola to the applicant: In light of the fact that the geotechnical study and the environmental impact study haven't been finalized and the precise limits of the developable area of the lands have not been set. What do you say to the possible perspective that these applications are premature in light of the fact that there's no certainty with respect to the limits of the lands and if there is found to be an impingement on the environmental protection lands, then all of these applications fall like a deck of cards. The minor variance applications cannot be proceeded with and you have to start the whole process over again. What do you say to the prematurity argument? G. Gilbert: I would say this project is generally, the limits are approved today. We're just tweaking them slightly to restudy them. The minor variances that are before you today are related to setbacks. So any setbacks from nearby yards, the setbacks are related to the environmental limits. The setbacks are related to the property next door, to the south, the street to the north. So approving these applications today have the environmental limits have no impact on the setbacks that are proposed. They are kind of separate matters. The environmental limits do impact the severance lines, which is why that's being deferred to August and will be confirmed in June. S. Pohjola: Does staff have any comment with respect to that response? A. Johnston: I want to emphasize that all the new development that is being proposed is entirely within the lands zoned (R4-36), which permits the use. They are not proposing development in the (EP) Zone. That zone permits the use that they are doing. They are just reductions to the setbacks, increases in height, etc. S. Pohjola: I think I recall reading a reference to an underground parking garage with respect to an Environmental Protection Area. How does that factor in? A. Johnston: The underground parking garage has separate setbacks to the building and they're not requiring any changes to the setbacks or variances for the underground parking structure. Where they're proposing it is permitted in the zoning right now. D. Eastman to Staff: I want to understand that if we are to go ahead and approve this, it is still dependent on the consent application being approved. What process or what can the applicant do in the mean time even if we approve it? A. Johnston: I am going to turn this back to Greg to explain the sequencing of this. G. Gilbert: The minor variance is important so that we can continue designing the building. We are halfway through the Site Plan Approval process, which is a very lengthy and complex technical process. We need certainty on these setbacks so that we can continue designing the building where the limits are from the property lines, how many parking stalls we have. This is a very important milestone. The severance is kind of a separate milestone. The first lot split is required to create a new parcel that we can register a land or a construction loan, because right now the property for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are under one mortgage. We need to split the lot to create a new parcel to do a construction loan to build Phase 2. It is a requirement to get financing that we have two separate entities. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 14 Committee of Adjustment Meeting D. Eastman: Thank you for the answer. Motion to approve A2025-0052 as recommended by N. Gamble, seconded by G. Wallace. Time approved 7:28pm. Full text of Decision: That application A2025-0052, for a Minor Variance to: i. Section 15.4.36.b.i by increasing the density (maximum) from 185 units/suites per net hectare to 378 units/suites per net hectare to a maximum of 223 dwelling units, ii. to Section 15.4.36.b.ii.a by reducing the east lot line yard setback minimum from 29 metres to 3 metres, iii. Section 15.4.36.b.ii.b by reducing the south lot line yard setback minimum from 31 metres to 7.5 metres, iv. Section 15.4.35.b.ii.b by reducing the interior side yard setback minimum within the (R4- 35) Zone to the EP Zone from 10 metres to 3 metres v. Section 15.2.c.ii by reducing the interior side yard setback within the (R4-36) Zone to the lot lines abutting the R4-35 Zone from 7.5 metres to 0 metres, vi. Section 15.4.36.b.iv by increasing the maximum building height from 9 storeys to 10 storeys, vii. Section 15.4.36.b.vii by permitting outdoor amenity area within 0 metres of the east lot line whereas the by-law does not permit outdoor amenity area within 30 metres of the east lot line, viii. Section 15.2.f by reducing the landscaped open space minimum from 35% to 25%, ix. Section 3.1.g.iv by increasing the projection of balconies, canopies, unenclosed porches, steps, patios, ramps, or decks attached or directly abutting the principle or main building; either above or below grade; from 1.5 metres to 4.5 metres, x. Section 3.16.e by reducing the minimum number of parking spaces required on the subject lands to 135, of which a minimum of 112 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained for residential use, and a minimum of 23 parking spaces shall be provided for visitor parking. be approved, subject to the following conditions: a. That consent application B2026-0001 be approved. b. Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of written confirmation that a Geotechnical Study and an Environmental Impact Study that finalize the precise limits of the developable area of the subject lands have been reviewed to the Agency’s satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Deputy CAO of Planning and Infrastructure. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 15 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 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. 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 -2025-0052 on May 28, 2026. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.2 File: A-2026-0004 Owner/Agent: Raul Nobrega / Lonny Gibson on behalf of Hull Drafting & Development Staff: Akibul Hoque Address: 8629 Dawson Road, Clarke Chair Todd Taylor asked the Committee to make a motion to lift the application from the table. Motion to lift A-2026-0004 from the table as recommended by G. Wallace, seconded by D. Eastman. Time lifted: 7:31pm. Application: 1. The minor variance application before the Committee this evening is file A2026- 0004 for 8629 Dawson Road, Clarke. The Committee voted to table this minor variance application at the March 26, 2026, Committee of Adjustment hearing due to the owner/applicant’s absence. The applicant has paid the required re-tabling fee for this application. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 16 Committee of Adjustment Meeting 2. The purpose of the variance is to facilitate the construction of a detached accessory building by increasing the total maximum floor area from 120 square metres to 140 square metres and by increasing the maximum permitted height from 5 metres to 5.13 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. Comments received on the application from external agencies or internal departments are appended to the Staff report. 5. Staff recommend that application A2026-0004 for a Minor Variance to Section 4.1.3 of Zoning By-law 2005-109 be approved. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The owner, Raul Nobrega, spoke and provided an overview of the application. The owner 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-2026-0004 as recommended by B. Whittle, seconded by D. Eastman. Time approved 7:33pm. Full text of Decision: That application A2026-0004 for a Minor Variance to Section 4.1.3 to facilitate the construction of a detached accessory building by increasing the total maximum floor area from 120 square metres to 140 square metres and by increasing the maximum permitted height from 5 metres to 5.13 metres be approved, 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-2026-0004 on May 28, 2026. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 17 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.3 File: A-2026-0011 Owner/Agent: Tyler Betts Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 2208 Regional Road 3, Enniskillen Application: 1. The next application before the Committee this evening is File A2026-0011 for 2208 Regional Road 3. 2. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a detached garage by increasing the maximum total accessory floor area from 90 square metres to 211 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 from members of the public. 5. Staff recommends that application A2026-0011 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.1 c) of Zoning By-law 84-63 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The applicant, Tyler Betts, 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-2026-0011 as recommended by Gord Wallace, seconded by Wendy Partner. Time approved 7:37pm. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 17 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Full text of Decision: That application A -2026-0011 for a Minor Variance to Section 3.1.c. of Zoning Bylaw 84-63 to facilitate the construction of a detached garage by increasing the maximum total accessory floor area from 90 square metres to 211 square metres be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan and 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 A -2026-0011 on May 28, 2026. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 7.4 File: A-2026-0012 Owner/Agent: Christopher Boekee / Lisa Klets Staff: Nicklaus Gibson Address: 2030 Morgans Road, Clarington Application: 1. The purpose of the application is to facilitate the construction of a greenhouse by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage for non -residential uses from 5% to 13.6%. Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 18 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 A2026-0012 for a Minor Variance to Section 6.3 d) of Zoning By -law 84-63 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Discussion: No members of the public spoke regarding this application. The agent, Lisa Klets, 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-2026-0012 as recommended by Dave Eastman , seconded by Shelley Pohjola. Time approved 7:42 pm. Full text of Decision: That application A-2026-0012 for a minor variance to Section 6.3 d. by facilitating the construction of a greenhouse by increasing the maximum permitted lot coverage for non - residential uses from 5% to 13.6% be approved as it maintains the general intent and purpose of the Clarington Official Plan and 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 A-2026-0012 on May 28, 2026. Committee Member Yes No Wendy Partner Dave Eastman Noel Gamble Shelley Pohjola Todd Taylor Minutes – May 28, 2026 Page 19 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Gord Wallace Brad Whittle “Carried” 8. Adoption of Minutes of Previous Meeting, April 23, 2026 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adopt minutes from April 23, 2026, Committee of Adjustment Meeting was moved by D. Eastman , seconded by W. Partner. “That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment, held on April 23, 2026, be approved.” Time approved 7:47pm. “Carried” 9. Other Business Election Year Update S. Gattie: June will be the last Planning and Development Committee meeting and Council meeting until January 2027. A meeting will be held in the fall but there won’t be any recommendations brought forward to Council. July Committee of Adjustment Meeting Update S. Gattie: Council chambers will be under construction so the Committee of Adjustment meeting for July will be held in Room 1A . We recommend that applicants attend this meeting virtually to avoid overcrowding the room. However, Committee members may attend either in person or virtually. 10. Adjournment Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s consent application: June 25, 2026 Last Date of Appeal for tonight’s minor variance applications: June 17, 2026 Next Meeting: June 25, 2026 Chair Todd Taylor asked for a motion from the Committee. Motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by B. Whittle, seconded by W. Partner. “That the May 28, 2026, Committee of Adjustment be adjourned. Time adjourned 7:48pm” “Carried”