The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApril 22, 2015�� iam_'`��It� ._`� ;��= � � �.�,� �::i:: _- , �_ � � ,3 -.�,:;r: :: '::-■ --�.��:::: �\'�� Present: Tom Copeland — Vice-Chair David Johnson — Chair Eric Newton � Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present: Melissa Markham, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer (I) Amendment to Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room That Item #1 for P/CA 91/14, Norris Holdings Limited, 1705 Wellington Street, be moved to the last item on the agenda. Carried Unanimously (II) Adoption of Agenda Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That the agenda for the Wednesday, April 22, 2015 meeting be adopted as amended. Carried Unanimously (III) Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the minutes of the 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, April 1, 2015 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Page 1 of 10 (IV) ��: ,, -- ` _-, �m��_ "° � �L�-:: ;�� ""'�i �:,�:�3A. �:�_°.._-, , � � `' '� 1 3, --t�----"—� s'i: 's: —� � _-' � -.,:�::�_: .. - -�� ..:::: � � � Reports P/CA 34/15 J. Wills 3-361 Chickadee Court Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4645/95: • to permit minimum side yard widths of 0.6 of a metre; whereas the by-law requires that a minimum 1.2 metre interior side yard width shall be provided adjacent to the extension of that wall on the lot upon which that dwelling is located if an abutting interior side yard is not provided on the other lot • to permit a second-storey uncovered balcony to project a maximum of 1.8 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the by-law permits uncovered decks or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit a second-storey uncovered balcony in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering & Public Works Department expressing no concerns. Alan Poullis, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the applicatian. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Alan Poullis stated that there are no other existing balconies in the rear yard within the neighbourhood. Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 34/15 by J. Wills, be Approved on the grounds that the minimum side yard widths of 0.6 of a metre and a maximum projection of 1.8 metres into the required rear yard for a second-storey uncovered balcony are minor in nature; desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 10 2 �°� . , :- . _. .--�_-� ��--.. � ��>=....., ��;i� .� :;fi€i�°:�_ <t�= � * �:� ''_-'�-�-�--..,-�,-,':;�€; � �::�� -�- �-��:�� Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed second-storey uncovered balcony, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by April 21, 2017, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Vote Tom Copeland David Johnson Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley P/CA 35/15 W. Weick in favour in favour in favour opposed in favour 10-361 Chickadee Court The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4645/95: • to permit minimum side yard widths of 0.6 of a metre; whereas the by-law requires that a minimum 1.2 metre interior side yard width shall be provided adjacent to the extension of that wall on the lot upon which that dwelling is located if an abutting interior side yard is not provided on the other lot • to permit a second-storey uncovered balcony to project a maximum of 1.8 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the by-law permits uncovered decks or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to permit a second-storey uncovered balcony in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering & Public Works Department expressing no concerns. Alan Poullis, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Page 3 of 10 3 ., �� =.,,,,.� � -_ �_. `��::-::_-- ;i_: �:,:r,:�i�:� _..-:_:�:_:.—, �- � �" -,—= .,��;:� :: :::::::::::::::'::; -��.` ��`�� Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room In response to a question from a Committee Member, Alan Poullis stated that there is currently no deck provided in the rear of the properties, just a railing at the door opening. Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 35/15 by W. Weick, be Approved on the grounds that the minimum side yard widths of 0.6 of a metre and a maximum projection of 1.8 metres into the required rear yard for a second-storey uncovered balcony are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed second-storey uncovered balcony, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans. 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by April 21, 2017, or this decision shail become nutl and void. Carried Vote Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour P/CA 36/15 K. Moody 1678 Heathside Crescent The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a covered unenclosed deck to project a maximum of 2.6 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the by-law permits uncovered steps or platforms, not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard Page 4 of 10 �� , : A //lll\ _ � �_ ..3i'G. L^Il'IJJ^� �'�li��.y�1��+'�,�,'�'��'.�.SE�� , ;;�-- , ,�:,:; ---�-.�:�:: ,� -:�,, ��::, � � Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room • to permit a minimum vehicular entrance of 4.5 metres from the front lot line; whereas the by-law requires a minimum vehicular entrance of 6.0 metres from the front lot line • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent; whereas the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a single storey detached dwelling with a covered unenclosed deck in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were also received from the City's Engineering & Public Works Department expressing no concerns. Neil Moody, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 36/15 by K. Moody, be Approved on the grounds that the covered unenclosed deck projecting a maximum of 2.6 metres into the required rear yard, a minimum vehicular entrance of 4.5 metres from the front lot line, and a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: That these variances apply only to the proposed dwelling, with a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, and covered unenclosed deck, with a maximum lot coverage of 5 percent, for a total maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans dated March 27, 2015. 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction by April 21, 2017, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously Page 5 of 10 ni fit ,,,,., � _�1= _ �= �;,� �=_�..:-�: . - ;��= „� t , — = .�::� �: :�:,�■ �� \�i�� 4. P/CA 91 /14 Norris Holdings Limited 1705 Wellington Street Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room The applicant requests relief from the following provisions of Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06: • to recognize an existing lot frontage of 15.0 metres; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 22.0 metres • to recognize an existing lot area of 535 square metres; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 1,390 square metres • to recognize an existing rear yard depth of 4.9 metres; whereas, the by-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 9.0 metres • to permit a covered porch to project a maximum of 0.6 of a metre into the not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 0.5 of a metre into any required side yard, and • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; whereas, the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a second storey addition to an existing building with a covered side entrance porch. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning Department expressing no objection to the application. The Region is satisfied with the submitted Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and has requested that the applicant file a Record of Site Condition (RSC), in accordance with the Ministry of Environment (Ont. Reg. 511/09, as amended) in support of the proposed minor variance application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Health Department expressing no objection to the application. The proposed change in use (residential and HVAC home based business) may result in an increase in daily sewage flow requiring the replacement of the holding tank for one with a greater volume. A permit application must be completed to replace the holding tank. The Health Department does not foresee any issues in the upgrading of the existing holding tank to suit the change of use and second-storey addition. The Health Department is unable to comment on the shared water well situation as this is the jurisdiction of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. Page 6 of 10 ;;� ., �; � _,,,r �= �� :: —..._. :;�_ - ,.,:. .�i�::,L, __- —::�:;::_-- , : _ •t� ' i � � ' � _r� �:`:�::��i �� Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Comments were received from the City Development Department Building Services Section expressing no objection to the application. The owner will need to address a number of existing site conditions, including the capacity of the existing building (foundations and above grade structure) to receive the proposed construction loads, at the time of the building permit application. The construction requirements, including fire separations, gas proofing between the garage and the remainder of the house, Part 12 Energy Efficiency Design, and spatial separation calculations, among other technical requirements, will also be addressed at the building permit review stage. Written comments were received from Brian Welsh indicating the applicant has worked diligently with City staff to address concerns and issues raised by surrounding neighbours. Brian Welsh stated the proposed development will be in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood, improved streetscape and landscaping and feels an increase in property values in the surrounding neighourhood. Written comments were received from Shelagh and Ken Mulveney of 4951 Brock Road expressing concerns with adding stress on a shared well thaf servicing three buildings including a public hall; sewage disposal; run-off water disbursement, Claremont has a very high water table and may cause additional flooding/drainage; the existing structure not being able to support such a large dwelling; precedent it is setting for other infill or vacant lots in Claremont and a home-based business in the residential dwelling related to increased parking and traffic. Written comments were received from Dawna Dearing of 4864 Victoria Street expressing concerns with the impact of the proposed development on privacy, traffic generated from a business operation and the current use of the land. Written comments were received from Adam McKay and Nathalie Sabourin of 4959 Brock Road, expressing concerns with the traffic impact from a commercial business; parking of company commercial vehicles, potential impact to a shared water well, the property size is not large enough to support a home and the applicant's holding tank capacity. Written comments were received from Todd Norris to address resident's issues and concerns. The administration part of the business will be operating from 1705 Wellington Street with an office space which occupies 5 percent of the living space and 10 percent of the space within the garage; all other materials are being stored off-site. Once the addition is completed the business would comply with the City's Home Based Business zoning provisions. Page 7 of 10 k�: I„�,.�i�� -- �_, . . � E �.,,;_�__--:;�:::__- , <��-r 7 � �3 rt%r:1_;�:t r�� -��`:::: � � Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Only a personal vehicle (pick up truck) with the company logo will be parked on the driveway, which complies with the City's by-laws. A fence will be erected along the rear property line and shrubs will be planted to provide privacy. The height of the proposed addition is in keeping with the existing built form of the surrounding area. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering & Public Works Department expressing no concerns. Todd Norris, owner, was present to represent the application. Brian Welsh of 1762 Joseph Street was present in favour of the application. Leslie Fisher of 2250 Hwy 7 and Dean Evans 5501 Barclay Street were present to obtain additional information and clarification on the application. Shelagh Mulveney of 4951 Brock Road, Cameron Paulikot, on behalf of Adam McKay and Nathalie Sabourin of 4959 Brock Road were present in objection to the application. In response to questions and concerns, Todd Norris indicated there wi11 be a fence in the rear of the property and has agreed to extend the fence that currently exists. He stated that the large waste bin he currently has stored in the garage will be removed when his contract has expired. There will be approximately four full-time employees and one part-time employee. He stated that there are approximately three vehicles on the site and a maximum of five vehicles would be at the property at any one point in time. Cameron Paulikot stated he is representing Adam McKay and Nathalie Sabourin and spoke to comments that were previously received and distributed to the Committee Members to review. A petition was also submitted to the Committee Members which was signed by 67 residents of Claremont that do not agree with nor want these variances to the by-law to be accepted. Cameron Paulikot stated the variances being applied for are not minor in nature; do not meet the four tests of the Planning Act and they are the same variances as the previous application in 2012. He stated that his client did not receive proper notification for the application. He stated that there is an illegal use currently existing on the property. He stated that large trucks are routinely entering and exiting the site and industrial waste is being produced on a weekly basis to fill an industrial bin. He stated there is a shared well and any change, fill or alteration to the existing grade on the property will cancel the agreement for the shared well. Therefore, if the application is approved there will be no accessible water. He stated that approving this variance would set a dangerous precedent for this neighbourhood. Page 8 of 10 . � �� " ,_,.,,,r. _ .� �,� �� —= �= ^�-. �_i..:_-, <t��.=�i �-s�:u �3 - -�rT:aii�:� .. �:�j ` � �.-_ � .. .:::: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room In response to questions the Secretary-Treasurer stated that the staff recommendation report was sent to the residents the Monday prior to the meeting (April 20, 2015) when it had been finalized, as a courtesy prior to the meeting. The Secretary-Treasurer also stated that the City Solicitor had reviewed the easement agreement for the well and the condition related to fill or grading on the property does not affect the subject lands, 1705 Wellington Street. In response to questions from Committee Members the applicant stated that he will comply with City by-laws. He has secured a spot within the City for extra storage related to his business. He also stated that no clients are coming to his property. Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 91/14 by Norris Holdings Limited, be Deferred to allow the applicant to discuss the easement related to the well and other concerns raised by the owner of the adjacent property, 4959 Brock Road. Carried Unanimously Page 9 of 10 � �a�� e�,� , ' b.R3'6.."' _ ' —• n2, ��..� � �_ �I�,uoliuu'�_ .i.. (Vj �d��urnment M�v�d by �ric NewtQn �ecancl�d by D�nise F�un�ile Co�nnm��e� c�f A�ijustrr��n� M�eting Mirrutes Wednesday, April 22� ��'15 7:�0 pm M�ir� Gvmmit#e� t��v� �"hat the 6th m�eting r�f the 2Q1 � Cc�mmittee �►f Adjustm�r�� b� ��tjourn�d �t i:54 pm anti th� next m�eting of the �ommittee af Acfjustm�nt b� h�ld on We�ne�day, f�ay 1 �, �015. �� a�,te �hair �� }� .�- � Assist�nt �ec�etary��re�surer �arried Unanimausly P��e 1� of 1 C}