Jeff Jansen, agent for the applicant, address: 70 Main Street North PO Box 38, Campbellville provided an overview of the application.
Questions to the Agent
Member Ellahi inquired about how the drawings shows the second floor is pushed back, whereas the rendering does not show this. Agent Jansen claimed this rendering was completed as a demonstration to the Town planner Natalie Stopar. Originally, the homeowner wanted to bring the upper balcony on the same line as the lower balcony, however Natalie didn't feel it was appropriate. Agent Jansen claimed the rendering is incorrect as what's proposed is the upper balcony being pushed in four to five feet. The rendering is not fully correct, it was done in the beginning stages, and it wasn't worth spending more money on recreating renderings. Rather planner Natalie Stopar and agent Jansen used two dimensional drawings moving forward. Member Ellahi claimed he was still confused. Town Planner Rachel Suffern provided clarity; stating agent Jansen did update the drawings after speaking with Natalie. The projection of the second level balcony has been included in the revised agenda package, that will show the reduced projection. As per the planning report, Natalie did put a condition that the balcony would need to be done in accordance with that drawing.
Public Participation
Carol Punton, address: 134 Robinwood Crescent, claimed with living on a small crescent her and her and husband feel as if the size of the house going on the lot is far too big. She believes the family living in the home will be parking on the street, and there will be congestion as the lot is on the bend of the crescent. She stated she has no issues with the lower balcony, but the upper balcony over looks just about everyone's home. Even though it is being reduced by five feet to make it ten feet there is still no privacy for anyone in their homes. Thus, she does not understand why the town allows such a large home to go into such a small area. It is edge to edge to the property, which is within the boundaries that are set. She questioned what the town is doing to the old part of Milton and the existing people, as she would like not to move out of her home. Planner Suffern provided context to what Ms.Punton is referring to as Old Milton, claiming the mature and character areas are designated areas in the Town's official plan which is how they delineate those neighbourhoods. In 2020, at the direction of Council a mature neighbourhood study was undertaken, which was a significant study taken by the town's policy staff, in response to new developments in these mature neighbourhoods and in the character area, that really did exceed what was existing. The Town wanted to do this study to ensure new development are thoughtful and compatible to existing properties in the neighbourhoods, while having an understanding that new developments would inherently have certain considerations. Through this study, the policy planner went street by street and reviewed different homes and came up with site specific provisions, whether that be setbacks, lot coverages, things of that nature. Those provisions did go to town council for approval, which town council made that decision and did provide direction in terms of zoning By-law which has been updated. Thus, any new development moving forward does need to conform with the existing zoning by-law as is and as revised. It is quite a significant difference of what would have been permitted prior to the mature neighbourhood study, something in theory could have been built larger. Ms.Punton stated once this all approved who is to stop somebody else from building something like that next to herself. She feels as if the Town's engineering or planning department needs to go into these small streets and consider the other people living there.
Andrew Boim, address: 119 Robinwood crescent, the direct Neighbours of the aforementioned application. Mr.Boim stated he understands the house falls within the 20% of the mature neighbourhood study set out, thus he believes following the 20% limit would be the correct thing to do figuring all the houses in the neighbourhood are bungalows. As it is a two Storey home, he believes their privacy is already infringed upon, but he understands they are able to build up as long as it is in the permits. However, he stated building that second-floor balcony will cover a lot more viewing space that the property owners will be able to look out and look at all of the Neighbours backyards and potentially into the next street. Because of the height of the house the Neighbour would be able to look essentially everywhere, as the street is all bungalows and this house is close to 33 feet tall, it is already tripling the height of our houses, so adding a second-floor balcony is absurd in his opinion.
Susan Shulist, address 112 Robinwood Crescent, questioned if the town planner had decided that the upper balcony shouldn't be extended to 15 feet because it was too much, and thus the applicants had to take the balcony back to 10 feet, then why aren't they also considering the bottom balcony to also be brought back to 10 feet and have both in line with another. Instead of extending the roof another 4%, she questions why the applicant doesn't just keep it line with zoning.
Deborah Baynton, address 125 Robinwood Crescent, believes there will be no privacy if the second-floor balcony is built. She doesn't understand why they had to build the second-floor balcony so high, what the purpose of the balcony is, and what do they want to look at as there is no pond, no meadow, etc. There's nothing to look at except for all the Neighbours yards. Ms. Baynton claimed If you stand in her driveway, you can see every window on the applicant's property and you can see where the porches are going to be. She provided an example of how the Neighbours will have no privacy, the example being, last week she was out with her new puppy, and the worker was on the top building up and the worker says to her nice dog, even though she is two properties over. Later on in the afternoon it happened again, where the worker said its hot up here, the puppy must be hot. She told him, maybe he shouldn't be up there building that big house anyways. As far as she is concerned, she already doesn't have any privacy in her house. Half the workers do not have hard heads on, and they block the street. She had a truck go from one end of her yard to the other, blocking her driveway. For the applicant's agent to say the upper balcony is being backed up for privacy is nonsense. Chair Kluge claimed you can call the Town in regard to your complaints about construction. Planner Rachel Suffern stated if there are concerns with construction activity, parking activity, things of that nature you can call the Town's By-law department and one of the officers can go out an investigate. Ms.Baynton stated one of the neighbours did call, as one Sunday morning at 8:15 a.m. the dump trucks showed up. She questioned if they cannot have a single day where they can have quietness. Planner Suffern stated she can't go into detail about that specific By-law as it is outside of her purview, but there are certain times construction is permitted. Ms.Baynton stated the By-law officer stated that they were permitted to be there. But overall, it is disgusting for the neighbours, as this is an old section of town with an older neighbourhood. A lot of the Neighbours are elderly such as the Punton's that are in attendance this evening. Ms.Baynton also stated she was born and raised in Milton and has lived in two older parts of Milton and knows growth needs to happen, but to put a home this high and this big with a street filled with bungalows is absolutely ridiculous as is wrecking the older neighbourhoods.
Kate and John Croke, address: 155 Robinwood Crescent. Mr.Croke stated the sketch received of the applicant's house is about six months too late and for the town to allow this house to go up has taken away the privacy of nine backyards. If someone actually took a tour of Robinwood crescent and a had a look of how this house affects the neighbours, this request would have been denied. If received public notice before they started building, this house wouldn't have happened, as they would have fought it as much as they could. The whole purpose of a backyard after work is to come home and relax with your family. The two neighbours on each side of the house have a pool, so now when they go out to swim the neighbour will be able to see them. To allow a 200 square foot raised porch is basically allowing the applicant to build a viewing area of everyone's backyard. When Mr.Croke comes home from work and wants to whine down and wants to sit in his backyard, he doesn't want to be looking at a 64 square foot window and have a 200 square foot patio where someone can come out and watch what he's doing. Robinwood crescent, is all bungalows and thus the town has failed by allowing this house to be built. Ms.Croke stated they understand people are going to come in to take down houses and rebuild and they have a right to do so as they purchased the property. she doesn't know whether or not the Town has plans of the houses in the area, but these houses are not cookie cutter houses as there are longer lots and shorter lots. There are 10 homes who have beautiful backyards with big trees, luckily the homes that being built, especially if they built this patio on the second floor will have that beautiful view also, but we don't have that beautiful view. They will be looking down at all of our yards, and the neighbours will look up and see that. They moved into this area for a reason and with priorities, and it feels as if the priorities of the existing town's people don't matter, and the time they put in paying taxes here and investing in the town doesn't matter. Mr.Croke asked if anyone has come by and looked at the Neighbour and if in their opinion, they think the house fits in. He stated his youngest daughter said to him that she has to keep her blinds closed in her bedroom. Chair Kluge stated, he understands their frustration, however as stated at the beginning they are only there to discuss the 20% of maximum permitted lot coverage. Chair Kluge claimed the applicant has a right to a building permit and if they meet the confines of the building permit, then they can build and have a second Storey. When the committee gets to the planner the committee will ask those questions, and if it conforms with everything else then their hands are tied. Mr. Croke, then questioned why this wasn't then dealt with before. Chair Kluge stated you are not circulated on a building permit, there only needs to be a sign on the property that they've applied for a building permit, as a building permit is not a public process, and they are not here to discuss the design of the building. Ms.Croke stated, they understand they can't do anything about the permitted 20% of maximum lot coverage permitted, but what they are putting on record is they do not agree with the variance request of the extra 4% of the maximum permitted lot coverage. Mr.Croke stated to please take into consideration the fact himself and most neighbours moved to their street for privacy.
Lisa Robson, address: 149 Robinwood Crescent, stated she would like to reiterate what the member of the public John stated, being they bought their homes in this neighbourhood 12-13 years ago for the reason of privacy, small bungalow homes, and a quaint neighbourhood. Now, all of a sudden, the street has a monstrosity of a home, and the applicant wants to add to the existing plan, making it bigger and more invasive. The privacy they thought they bought their house for is no longer there. She's disappointed they did not get a say sooner than this, as many neighbours would be opposed, as this house should have never be built, for reasons such as, it does not match the neighbourhood even though it conforms, it is still very much so out of place. As a result, all of the neighbours are going to suffer for it.
Questions to Planner Rachel Suffern (speaking on behalf of Planner Natalie Stopar)
Chair Kluge wanted to confirm a building permit was issued, meaning it went through a review and it complies with all Zoning other than this increase in lot coverage from 20% to 24% to accommodate the covered deck. Planner Suffern stated this is correct, the building permit that was approved accounts for everything, but the deck at the rear wasn't covered. Thus, purely by adding the roof that is how lot coverage is considered. Thus, any area that is covered is within the calculation. Chair Kluge the asked if the second-floor balcony is factored in for lot coverage. Planner Suffern stated because the porch is covered the second floor is not factored in for lot coverage.
Member Jayaveer stated the report notes that the property is within the mature neighbourhood, thus she questioned whether or not this minor variance was flagged before the construction had begun or during construction. Planner Suffern stated from her understanding the plans that were approved and issued for permit did not include the covered porch or the balcony. Through construction the owner had decided they would like to include that feature, which then triggers a revised building permit and a revised review with the town which is how the zoning compliance issue was raised. Otherwise, the building complies with the mature neighbourhood study provisions which was approved by town council after a lengthy public consultation. Member Jayaveer followed up with asking because this building requires a minor variance is that why they're at a planning application. Planner Suffern stated, because it requires relief from a zoning By-law it does require approval from the committee. Should the owners revert back to the original proposal they could continue to build. Otherwise, if any proposal complies in full of the zoning By-law, then it would go right ahead to permit, and truthfully it would never come before the planning department. Member Jayaveer then asked if they are urban design components included as a part of the mature neighbourhood study. Planner Suffern claimed at the time of the mature neighbourhood and character study the urban design planner was the lead on this study and went street to street bearing in mind growth happens, and was mindful of that, but also respectful of the existing build form. Inherently the urban design did inform the provision updates and there are reports still online should anyone wish to view those. This was a lengthy consultation process that took about two years, at which time it was then presented to council. The urban design was really the driver of the study and updates to the zoning By-law. Member Jayaveer further inquired if this application came through without a minor variance application, during its drawing stages, and they were trying to evaluate it based on any minor variances, would planning also have looked at the mature neigbhbourhood study, which means looking at the urban design aspects. Would something like a second Storey balcony, be something they wouldn't have been supportive of if were looking at urban design. Or is that something that is not even mentioned. Planner Suffern responded to Member Jayaveer's question stating, when it comes forward to a minor variance from a planning perspective our biggest concern is obviously privacy, and we want to minimize disruption to neighbours and enhance their privacy. To provide some context Planner Suffern also stated, due to recent provincial changes site plan control is no longer done in this area and there is no longer a moratorium in place. Predating provincial changes and direction, this application would have gone through other processes that would have really looked at urban design, but the direction from the Ontario government is that planning doesn't review urban design through site plans anymore, and thus it is no longer a mechanism available to them. Otherwise, it would have been something they would have potentially reviewed and/or went through a moratorium process with council. Member Jayaveer stated if this went through the process correctly, she is curious as to what the urban design comments would be at that point, given that it is coming through a planning application and thus planning can still give guidance to the applicant at that point. Planner Suffern stated if it comes forwards and complies with all provisions of the zoning By-law from that perspective it would inherently meet the official plan. If it comes forward for consideration by urban design and policy planning staff, they review things like treatment and massing, which is why the planner on file worked with the applicant to reduce the massing by introducing the variation and projection of the porch. But, at the end of the day Urban design and how an individual chooses to design for their home foregoing the zoning By-law, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, we can only speak to so many provisions and so many elements of any new development, and we certainly do that through a planning application and those urban design principles are inherently built into the existing zoning provisions. Member Jayaveer confirmed it really then does come down to guidance at that point. Planner Suffern stated that is correct and the planner on file did work with the applicant to do so.
Chair Kluge further noted, at the end of the Planning report, it is noted that urban design reviewed the revised proposal and had no additional concerns.