HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-137-94r,
DN: COFA.GPA
Meeting: General Purpose and Administration Committee
Date: Monday, December 12, 1994
Report #: PD- 137 -94 File #; A94/051 to A94/053 INCLUSIVE
File #
Res. #C�
By-Law #
Subject: MONITORING OF THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1994
FILE: A94/051 to A94/053 INCLUSIVE
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and
Administration Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD- 137 -94 be received;
2. THAT Council concur with the decisions of the Committee of
Adjustment made on November 24, 1994 for applications A ,94/52
and A94/053;
3. THAT application A94/051 be APPEALED, and the appeal be
withdrawn at such time as the applicant provides the Director
of Public Works with an acceptable grading plan and a letter
of undertaking that no further minor variance applications
will be applied for to reduce the rear yard setback for other
lots in the same subdivision.
4. THAT Staff be authorized to appear before the Ontario
Municipal Board to defend the decisions of the Committee of
Adjustment in the event of an appeal for applications A94/52
and A94/053.
1.1 In accordance with Section 45 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990,
all applications received by the Municipality for minor
variance are scheduled to be heard within 30 days of being
received by the Secretary Treasurer. The Committee heard a
three (3) applications at the November 24, 1994 meetings. All
three applications were approved by the Committee. Details of
each application and decision of the Committee is attached for
information.
....2
PE�o API
Pa ECYCL
THIS IS PRRIIED a4 RECYCLED PAPER
REPORT NO.: PD- 137 -94 PAGE 2
1.2 Application A 94/051, submitted by Veltri Homes, proposed to
reduce the rear yard of a linked dwelling unit on Borland
Court to 6.15 m (20.17 ft.) from the required 7.5 m (24.6 ft) .
Three neighbouring residents attended the meeting in objection
to the application. In addition to objecting to the proposed
variance, the neighbours raised concerns that this application
if approved will set a precedence for future variances within
this development.
1.3 The Public Works Department had requested the application be
TABLED until such time a grading plan was submitted,
confirming that the lot will have a 6.0 m useable rear yard
area. As of the writing of this report, no grading plan has
been received.
1.4 Although the lot is pie shaped and has a large side yard, the
reduction in rear yard has the potential of impacting privacy
of neighbouring rear yards.
1.5 Staff do not support the application as being minor in nature.
The proponent has various house models approved by the
Municipality, five (5) of which could be constructed without
need for a variance.
1.6 Staff would recommend that the application be appealed unless
the applicant can demonstrate that a proper grading plan can
be approved as a result of the reduced rear yard setback. In
addition, in consideration of the concerns raised by the
neighbours, the applicant is required to provide a letter of
undertaking indicating that no further minor variance
applications will be applied for reduced rear yard setback for
other lots in the same subdivision. If the applicant can
satisfy the above conditions, the appeal will be withdrawn.
....3
REPORT NO.: PD- 137 -94 PAGE 3
1.7 Staff have reviewed the Committee's decision with respect to
the balance of the decisions and are satisfied that they
conform to the general intent of the Official Plan and the
Zoning By -law are minor in nature and desirable.
1.8 Council's concurrence with the Committee of Adjustment
decisions is required in order to afford Staff's official
status before the Ontario Municipal Board in the event of an
appeal of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment.
Respectfully submitted,
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P.
Director of Planning
and Development
CP *FW *cc
*Attach.
5 December 1994
Reviewed by,
W. H. Stockwell
Chief Administrative
Officer
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A94/051
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
APPLICANT: 511060 ONTARIO LTD. /VELTRI HOMES
AGENT:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
48 BORLAND COURT, BOWMANVILLE, ON
PART LOT: 11 CONCESSION: 2
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANVILLE
PLAN NUMBER: 40M -1680 -9L
ZONING: Rl
HEARING DATE: 24- Nov -94
APPEAL DATE: 24- Dec -94
DECISION: APPROVED
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A
LOT HAVING A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 6.15M (20 FT.), MINIMUM REQUIRED
7.5M
REASON FOR DECISION:
AS THE APPLICATION IS IN KEEPING WITH THE O.P. AND ZONING BY -LAW,
IS CONSIDERED MINOR IN NATURE AND DESIRABLE, THE APPLICATION BE
APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR
504
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CAARINGTON
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
FILE NUMBER: A94/052
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
APPLICANT: HELMUT & OLGA KRAUTSCHEK
AGENT:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
24 SUMMERLEA COURT, COURTICE, ONT
PART LOT: 35 CONCESSION: 2
TOWNSHIP: DARLINGTON
PLAN NUMBER: 10M -773 -73
ZONING: R
HEARING DATE: 24- Nov -94
APPEAL DATE: 24- Dec -94
DECISION: APPROVED
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO LEGALIZE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING SITUATED ON A LOT HAVING AN
INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK OF OM, MINIMUM REQUIRED 1.2M, AND
SETBACK FROM THE PRINCIPLE DWELLING UNIT OF .46M (18 "), MINIMUM
REQUIRED 1.2M
REASON FOR DECISION:
THE APPL. BE APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR, SUBJ. TO THE APPLICANT
HAVING AN ENGINEER CONFIRM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE P.W.D. &
CLOCA THE REVISED GRADING DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE
NEIGHBOURING LOT, & THAT THE APPL. OBTAIN A PERMIT AND APPROVAL
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
FILE NUMBER: A94/053
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
APPLICANT: ROULA KARAM
AGENT: BASSAM KARAM
COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT
PERIODIC REPORT
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
25 ORCHARD PARK DRIVE
PART LOT: 9 CONCESSION: 1
TOWNSHIP: BOWMANVILLE
PLAN NUMBER: 1OM -782 -8
ZONING: Rl
HEARING DATE: 24- Nov -94
DECISION: APPROVED
APPEAL DATE: 24- Dec -94
MINOR VARIANCE:
TO LEGALIZE A DECK CONSTRUCTED ON A PROPERTY HAVING A REAR YARD
SETBACK OF HOUSE OF 7.44M (24.4 FT.), MINIMUM REQUIRED 7.5M (24.6
FT.) AND A REDUCTION IN REAR YARD SETBACK OF DECK STAIRS OF 5.6M
(18.4 FT.), MINIMUM REQUIRED 6M (20 FT.)
REASON FOR DECISION:
THAT AS THE APPLICATION IS IN KEEPING WITH THE O.P. AND ZONING BY-
LAW, IS DESIRABLE AND CONSIDERED MINOR IN NATURE, THE APPLICATION
BE APPROVED AS APPLIED FOR.
®i