Report

To: Development Services Committee Item: Date of Report: DS-11-225 May 25,201 1

From: Commissioner, Development Services Department

File:

A-20 1 1 -24

Date of Meeting:

May 30,201 1

Subject: Direction on City Staff lnvolvement Respecting an Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board Committee of Adjustment Decision on Application A-20 1 1-24 866 Masson Street Margo McNab PUBLIC REPORT

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to establish a Council position on an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) of a Committee of Adjustment (C. of A.) decision concerning a proposed 2 storey high detached garage at 866 Masson Street.

Council policy requires that the Development Services Department prepare a report to the Development Services Committee when an appeal has been lodged against a C. of A. decision.

Attachment No. 1 shows the location of the subject site and the zoning in the area.

Attachment No. 2 is a copy of the site plan submitted by the applicant to the C. of A.

Attachment No. 3 is a copy of the building elevations of the proposed accessory building submitted by the applicant to the C. of A.

Attachment No. 4 is a copy of the Development Services Department's report to the C. of A. dated April 21, 201 1.

Attachment No. 5 is a copy of the minutes of the C. of A. meeting held on April 27, 201 1

Attachment No. 6 is a copy of the April 27, 2011 C. of A. decision on the subject application.

Attachment No. 7 is a copy of the letter of appeal to the OMB from Margo McNab.

Report to the Development Item: DS-I 1-225 Services Committee (Continued) - 2 - Meeting Date: May 30, 201 1

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

That, pursuant to Report DS-11-225 dated May 25, 201 1, the Development Services Committee recommend to City Council:

1. That the Ontario Municipal Board be advised that City Council takes no position with respect to the decision of the Oshawa Committee of Adjustment denying Application A- 201 1-24 to permit an accessory building (detached garage) at 866 Masson Street with increased lot coverage, ground floor area and height submitted by Margo McNab and the City does not intend to lead evidence on the appeal.

2. That in the event that the application is supported by the Ontario Municipal Board, City Council requests that the following conditions be imposed:

(a) That the proposed garage be constructed in the general location shown on the site plan submitted with the application to the satisfaction of the Development Services Department; and

(b) That the Development Services Department approve the building elevations, including exterior cladding materials, of the proposed garage prior to the issuance of a building permit.

3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

> Margo McNab submitted an application to the C. of A. for a large accessory building (detached garage) with more lot coverage, ground floor area and height than permitted by Zoning By-law No. 60-94.

9 The C. of A. denied the application. The applicant has appealed the decision to the OMB.

9 This Department has no objection to the approval of the application subject to conditions.

9 This Department recommends that City Council take no position on the appeal.

4.0 INPUT FROM OTHER SOURCES

4.1 Other Departments and Agencies

9 Legal Services has reviewed this report.

4.2 Public Comments

9 This Department did not receive any negative comments from the public on the subject application.

Report to the Development Item: DS-11-225 Services Committee (Continued) - 3 - Meeting Date: May 30, 201 1

4.3 Auditor General

P The Auditor General has no comment.

5.0 ANALYSIS

9 866 Masson Street is designated as Residential in the Oshawa Official Plan and zoned R1-C (Residential) in Zoning By-law No. 60-94. The R1-C Zone permits single detached dwellings.

9 The subject site has a lot frontage of 15.24 metres (50 ft.) and a lot area of 570.5 square metres (6,141 sq. ft.).

9 The subject site is occupied by a single detached dwelling with a footprint of 62 square metres (672 sq. ft.) and a height of k7.6 metres (25 ft.). A small shed is located in the rear yard which would be removed if the application was approved.

9 Single detached dwellings are located to the north and south of the subject site and across Masson Street. Apartment buildings are located to the west of the subject site fronting onto Simcoe Street North.

P Large accessory buildings can be a concern for neighbours. This Department recommended that the application be tabled in order to obtain public input on the application. This Department did not receive any public opposition to the subject application.

9 On April 27, 201 1 the C. of A. considered and denied the application by Margo McNab to permit the construction of a detached garage in the rear yard at 866 Masson Street. The proposed garage is 6.7 metres (22 ft.) by 9.1 metres (30 ft.) with a ground floor area of 61 square metres (657 sq. ft.) and a building height of 7.3m (24 ft.).

9 The variances denied by the C. of A. are as follows:

Zoning By-law Regulation Proposed Required Maximum Lot Coverage of an Accessory - 10.7% 8.0% Building Maximum Lot Coverage of an Accessory 98% of main 50% of main Building as a percentage of the Main Building building building Maximum Ground Floor Area of an Accessory 61 square metres 60 square metres Building (657 sq. ft.) (646 sq, ft.) Maximum Height of an Accessory Building 7.3m (24 ft.) 4.5m (14.8 ft.)

9 The proposed garage will be screened by existing coniferous plantings from the adjacent properties.

P The abutting property to the south (862 Masson Street) is occupied by a single detached dwelling and a 2 storey high detached garage in the rear yard.

Report to the Development Item: DS-11-225 Services Committee (Continued) - 4 - Meeting Date: May 30, 2011

9 The proposed detached garage would be located near the southwest corner of the rear yard of the subject site adjacent to 862 Masson Street.

> This Department has no objection to the appeal of the application subject to conditions based on the site specific merits of the application.

9 In such cases, this Department typically recommends that City Council take no position on the appeal so that the City does not expend time, effort and money for Legal and Planning staff to prepare for and attend an OMB hearing at the expense of the general taxpayer.

> The OMB has the authority, pursuant to the provisions of the Ontario Municipal Board Act, to require certain individuals, such as the City's planning staff, to give evidence to the OMB at the hearing, notwithstanding Council's direction. In addition, other persons such as the applicant or any member of the public who has an interest in the matter, may summons a member of City staff to give evidence at a hearing in support of their position.

6.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

> There are costs related to staff time to prepare for and appear at any OMB hearing.

7.0 RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNITY STRATEGIC PLAN

9 Making a decision on staff's involvement in the appeal of a C. of. A decision advances Goal C (A Caring and Responsive Community) of the City's Community Strategic Plan by ensuring accountability.

Paul Ralph, B.E.S., RPP, Director V

Planning Services

~ h o m a sB. Hodgins, ., M.A., RPP, Commissioner Development Services Department

DSIc Attachments

--

Direction on City Staff Involvement Respecting an Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board 866 Masson Street

- -

. \ $ . -4 F'C;, ..- ,f*. f.1 i j ~ l ? ( *PR 1 5 2011 \&* i, +" . '" I , .

53'JT&:b~ \{p-~,:? ; ~' 'cv:? get?^,^^^ $,?

% '2

Dlrect~onon Clty Staff Involvement Respecting an Appeal to the Ontarlo Munlc~pal Board 866 Masson Street

Prepa~cTo Be Amazed

Item No. DS-11-225 Attachment No. 4 Report

The comments from this Department are as indicated below:

171 We have no objection to the approval of this application.

Date of Report:

April 21, 2011 Date of Meeting:

April 27, 2011

To: Committee of Adjustment

From: Development Services

171 We have no objection to the approval of this application subject to the comments1conditions which are attached I171 listed below.

Item:

File:

A-2011-24

IXI We request that this application be tabled for the reasons which are €3attached1 171 listed below.

Subject : Application for relief from the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 60-94 to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with increased ground floor area, lot coverage and height Address: 866 Masson Street Owner: Margo E. McNab

171 We recommend that this application be denied for the reasons which are 171 attached1171 listed below.

Original signed by:

David Sappleton, Planner Development and Urban Design

c: R. Orial, Engineering Services

Margo E. McNab 866 Masson Street Oshawa, Ontario L1G 5A9

Cathy Clarke 474 Simcoe Street North Oshawa, Ontario L IG 4T6

Report to the Committee of Adjustment File No.: A-201 1-24 Meeting Date: April 27,2011

The purpose of the application is to permit a new accessory building with increased ground floor area, height, accessory building lot coverage and accessory building lot coverage as a percentage of the main building. The proposed accessory building will be similar in size and scale as the main building (single detached dwelling).

This Department has concerns that the subject application may not meet all of the tests for a Committee of Adjustment application under the Planning Act. Before a recommendation on the appropriateness of the proposal is formulated, staff considers it appropriate to accommodate an opportunity for public comments and input. Therefore, this Department recommends that the subject application be tabled to allow for an opportunity for staff to consider any comments/issues raised by area residents. In this regard, it is recommended that area residents be allowed to provide their comments prior to the application being tabled by the Committee of Adjustment. Any comments and/or concerns will then be considered by staff during the further review of this application.

g' Item No. DS-11-225

Oshawa Attachment No. 5 Prepare To Be Amazed

Committee of Adjustment File No.

A-201 1-24 866 Masson Street

MINUTES UNDER THE PLANNING ACT

Committee of Adjustment Application for 866 Masson Street

An application has been submitted by Margo E. McNab for variances from the City's Zoning By-law NO. 60-94.

The application relates to 866 Masson Street, being Lot 20, Plan 403, Oshawa, Ontario.

The purpose and effect of the application is to permit an accessory building (detached garage) having the dimensions in Col. I below, instead of the dimensions in Col. II below, as required by Zoning By-law No. 60-94 for an accessory building accessory to a single detached dwelling in a R1- C (Residential) Zone.

Column I Column II Maximum Lot Coverage of an Accessory Building 10.7% 8% Maximum Height of an Accessory Building 7.3m 4.5m Maximum Lot Coverage of an Accessory Building as a 98% 50% Percentage of the Main Building Maximum Ground Floor Area of an Accessory Building 61 m2 60 m2

A meeting of the Oshawa Committee of Adjustment was held on April 27, 201 1, at 6:00 p.m. in the 'C' Wing Committee Meeting Room, City Hall, Oshawa, Ontario.

Present: L. Smith, B. Dutton, G. Foster, M. Paton, S. Pigden D. Sappleton, M. Jones

Also Present: C. Clarke, Oshawa, Ontario

A report received from the Development Services Department recommended that the application be tabled.

C. Clarke stated that she was the representative of the owner and she would like the Committee to consider the application that day and that there had been enough time for the public to comment on the application.

D. Sappleton stated that due to the Easter long weekend, the staff report had to be prepared and mailed out by Thursday, April 2lSt, 201 1 which did not provide much time for the public to provide comments to staff considering that the required sign and notices were only made public a few days earlier. D. Sappleton stated that members of the public have the opportunity to comment on the application before or at the meeting, and due to the size of the proposed accessory building it was prudent to allow for that opportunity.

L. Smith asked if there were any members of the public that wished to present information for or against the application.

D. Sappleton stated that staff had no objection to the approval of the application subject to conditions and advisory comments.

Moved by L. Smith, Seconded by M. Patton, "THAT the Committee break for five minutes to allow the applicant's agent (C. Clarke) to set up for a presentation and for the Committee and C. Clarke to review the conditions and advisory comments." The Chair declared a five minute break.

CARRIED

-The Corporation of the City of Oshawa Plannina Services . . 50 ~ent;e Street South, Oshawa, Ontario L lH 327 TEL: 905-436-5636, FAX:--905-436-5699 Ill-L-ll-. --L-...-

File No.: A-2011-24

The Committee reconvened after five minutes.

C. Clarke explained the purpose of the application. C. Clarke stated that the applicant would practice painting and woodworking in the accessory building and that the applicant did consider building an addition to the existing dwelling. C. Clarke showed photographs of the surrounding area and of other accessory buildings in the City of Oshawa. C. Clarke stated that she believed that the proposed variances were minor.

B. Dutton stated that C. Clarke had experience as a planner and Oshawa councilor and stated that she had familiarity with the neighbourhood. B. Dutton stated that he believed owners of small houses should not be penalized for wanting large garages. B. Dutton stated that there are accessory buildings throughout the City that are more imposing than the proposed accessory building.

In response to a question from L. Smith, D. Sappleton stated that Zoning By-law No. 60-94 was amended in 2005 to limit the size of accessory buildings and that most accessory buildings in the City that exceed those new regulations were built before they came into effect.

L. Smith stated he believed that the proposed accessory building would be the same size as the house and that it did not meet the four tests of the Planning Act.

B. Dutton stated that the applicant requires the accessory building for storage space.

C. Clarke stated that the applicant cannot use the basement of the single detached dwelling for storage or work space. C. Clarke stated that the proposed accessory building will not impact on the neighbourhood.

B. Dutton stated that he believed the application met the four tests of the Planning Act. B. Dutton stated that he believed that the proposed garage will not impact on the enjoyment of abutting properties, similar to the proposed accessory building addition at 628 Crerar Avenue.

D. Sappleton stated that each application must be dealt with on its own merits.

In response to a question from G. Foster, C. Clarke stated that the single detached dwelling had a full basement and that the flooding of the rear yard would be addressed through the site alteration permit process for the new accessory building.

G. Foster stated that there are other ways to address the drainage issues than building a new building.

In response to questions from G. Foster, C. Clarke stated that the proposed accessory building would be slab-on-grade and would not be serviced with water.

G. Foster stated that he believed the proposed height was excessive and that if the shrubs or trees were to die the accessory building would become more visible.

B. Dutton stated that the accessory building shown in a photograph presented by C. Clarke at a corner lot in another part of the City was not offensive.

G. Foster stated that the Committee did not know when the other accessory buildings were constructed.

B. Dutton stated that the residents of the neighbouring apartment building would not care about the proposed building because they are transient.

S. Pigden stated that the proposed garage is double the size that would otherwise be permitted, the proposed height is excessive, and that the applicant does not require so much space for woodworking.

B. Dutton stated that double car garages are popular today.

In response to a question from G. Foster, C. Clarke stated that the applicant would create wood furniture, toys and personal gifts in the proposed accessory building. . . .

1 3 9

Page 3 File No.: A-2011-24

G. Foster stated that his issue is with the height of the proposed accessory building, not a standard double car garage.

In response to a question from G. Foster, D. Sappleton stated that the use of an accessory building for personal woodworking purposes is permitted, but a home occupation cannot be operated out of an accessory building.

L. Smith stated that he had an issue with the height of the proposed accessory building.

In response to a question from M. Paton, D. Sappleton stated that the Committee's options are to approve, deny or table the application. D. Sappleton stated that the applicant should be the one to revise the application if a lesser height is desired.

C. Clarke stated that the applicant had no intention to reduce the height of the proposed building and that the applicant wanted all of the proposed variances.

Moved by B. Dutton, seconded by M. Patton, "THAT the application by Margo E. McNab for 866 Masson Street, Oshawa, Ontario, be approved subject to conditions."

C. Clarke stated that she believed the conditions were reasonable.

B. Dutton stated that the proposed accessory building was not uncommon in Oshawa.

MOTION DEFEATED

Moved by G. Foster, seconded by L. Smith, "THAT the application by Margo E. McNab for 866 Masson Street, Oshawa, Ontario, be denied." The Chair declared that the application BE DENIED.

CARRIED

The DENIAL of the application is based upon the following reasons:

1. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances are not minor in nature.

2. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property.

3. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Original signed by:

David Sappleton, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer

I tem No. DS-11-225 Attachment No. 6

Committee of Adjustment File No.

A-201 1-24 866 Masson Street

DECISION UNDER THE PLANNING ACT

Committee of Adjustment Application for 866 Masson Street

An application has been submitted by Margo E. McNab for variances from the City's Zoning By-law NO. 60-94.

The application relates to 866 Masson Street, being Lot 20, Plan 403, Oshawa, Ontario.

The purpose and effect of the application is to permit an accessory building (detached garage) having the dimensions in Col. I below, instead of the dimensions in Col. II below, as required by Zoning By-law No. 60-94 for an accessory building accessory to a single detached dwelling in a R1-C (Residential) Zone.

Column I Column II Maximum Height of an Accessory Building 7.3m 4.5m Maximum Lot Coverage of an Accessory Building 10.7% 8% Maximum Lot Coverage of an Accessory Building as a 98% 50% Percentage of the Main Building Maximum Ground Floor Area of an Accessory Building 61m2 60 m2

This application was heard by the Committee of Adjustment on April 27, 2011, and with Notice of Hearing having been given as directed by the Committee of Adjustment, THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE IS THAT THE APPLICATION BE DENIED.

The DENIAL of the application granted herein is based upon the following reasons:

1. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances are not minor in nature.

2. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property.

3. The Committee is of the opinion that the variances do not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

NOTE: Any appeal from the above decision original signed by: Lindsay Smith must be made on or before May 17, 201 1.

original signed by: Gord Foster NOTE: The Planning Act provides for appeals

to be filed by "persons". As groups or associations, such as residents or ratepayers groups which do not have incorporated status, may not be considered "persons" for the purposes original signed by: Scott Pigden

of the Act, groups wishing to appeal this decision should do so in the name or names of individual group members, and not in the name of the group.

1 7 1

The Corporation of the City of Oshawa Planning Services 50 Centre Street South, Oshawa, Ontario L IH 327 TEL: 905-436-5636,FAX: 905-436-5699 I*,-l--:.-. ......... --L --

Notes on the Ontario Municipal Board Appeal Form (Al)

prepared by Margo Mc Nab, 866 Masson Street Oshawa, Ontario

Oshawa Committee of Adjustment Decision on their File A 2001 1 - 24

page 4 of 5, item 2

I feel that the decision was unreasonable. The staff had originally asked my agent for a tabling, with no time specified. I filed this application and supplied a certified cheque on April 05,201 1 for a hearing April 27,201 1. I posted the required sign 2 days prior to the requested time. The neighbours had the appropriate and specified time plus 2 days to make enquiries. According to my representative, Cathy Clarke, one man went to the planning department looked at the file and left with no objections expressed.

No one attended the Committee of Adjustment meeting to query or object to my proposal. Due process was followed. Please note that there were only three items on the agenda for that meeting. Mine was the 24th issue of this Committee's year and I believe that there had been five meetings in total for this committee, averaging 4.8 issues per meeting. There were only three issues on that night's agenda. I feel that staff had ample time to deal with the issue and that my request received different criteria than the other issues for that meeting.

Time is of the essence in this matter. I have a notorious water problem with my lot being 6 or 7 feet below the apartment buildings on the main street behind my house. My lot floods with up to 18 inches of water in the centre low spot, from spring meltwater run off ii-om these apartment buildings. Heavy rain falls during the year present a similar problem, with surface water ponding to within 8 feet of my back house wall at times. None of these buildings have internal catch basins for their rear parking areas. The swale that was part of their original approval process has not been maintained and does not carry water north to the municipal catch basin intended to drain the swale. The municipality has not enforced the swale maintenance. The ground is continually saturated and the water table to within a foot or two of the surface most of the time.

I bought this property in August of 1984 and very soon realized that I had a serious water problem. I have complained to the City many times to no avail. In 1985 the apartment building at 871 Simcoe Street North - behind my house (see MPAC PIN map for location), extended their parking apron out 8 more feet, thereby changing the angle of their drop off to the swale, making it much more steep and much less able to absorb the runoff from their own land. They should have been made to conform to current Provincial drainage standards at that time but my complaint to the City went unanswered. Between their roof and paved parking area there is a low capacity to absorb water and because my property is much lower, the water has no where else to go. The wzttter table is very close to the smface and it exerts high hydrzulic pressure on the foundation of my house. My basement leaks constantly and has running water going across the floor for most of the year. I can not store anything of value in this basement and cannot have a recreation or workshop room in it. My situation is worse than adjoining houses as my foundation is made of fairly porous block. The mortar is deteriorating. I have serious cracking and settling in the south east comer and deterioration at the north west comer. A conventional re-waterproofing would not stand up more that 10 or 15 years and would need to be done again. It had been done just before I purchased the property.

I asked for a garage permit with a loft to compensate for the horrible condition of my basement.

The city engineering department finally gave me a second storm water connection in 2010 to allow me to french tile my back yard and try and drop the water table to below the foundation depth, although no one is making any promise that this will work. I am willing to undertake this cost and labour in hope of a good result. When the engineering department heard that I was hoping to build a garage this year they said that I should apply for a site re-grading and run a couple of surface drain lines into the proposed french tile along with the garage weeper and eves water to keep the ground water moving. They have been to the property 3 times to view and consult. The plan was to use the subsoil removed from the garage pad area to build up the rear yard and channel the surface water to the french tile. The plan is approved and ready for pick up at the engineering department.

As stated earlier, time is of the essence in this matter. I needed to get the top soil removed, the subsoil from the garage pad area moved over to fill the depressions and contour the rear yard to the french tile, replace the top soil, seed the grass, give the yard time to drain and firm up, before I started to lay out the framing on the open area. The grass seed could have used the residual moisture for a strong start as the land was drying out. Grass seed doesn't start well in the summer. Sod would add considerably more cost and labour to the project. As I intend to do most of this work myself I needed the balance of the year to get things done. The building department has advised that they would require an engineering report on the garage pad foundation (more cost) in the spring of 2012, if the project was not finished before winter.

I have a storage unit that costs $185 per month to store materials that I should be able to store in my basement and or garage. The additional costs are mounting as time is being wasted on this project.

This project meets the four tests under the planning act.

1) It is minor in nature. My lot is considerably under utilized. My main structure is a one and a half story building with a 25' roof height. The by law allows up to 30' height for the main structure or an accessory structure up to the height of the main structure (or 14 ' whichever is less), thereby requiring a committee of adjustment variance.

T A .. L -.-..- ----- L .-.--&-.:I+ :- i n ~ 7I I I ~p~upcl I I ~ U ~ ; I ~ L C w a s VUIIL 111 17- 1LY llas ~ ~ C V C I s galagc s t ~ u ~ . t u l c the I I U U ~ C

The lot dimensions are 50' X 122.83'

The house dimensions are 28' frontage by 24' depth X 1 ?4storeys.

The house front set back is 25.04'

The remaining rear yard is 73.78'

The % lot covered by the existing house is 672 sq fi 16141.5 sq ft lot = 10.94% coverage

The current by-law permits 40% coverage of the lot under the R1 -C zoning.

(I propose to build a 22' X 30' 1 !h storey garage with design features similar to the main structure, including roof pitch. It is my belief that it would be in conformity to the design of the neighbourhood - approximately 113 rd of the homes on the street are 1% story buildings. With the remainder 113rd one floor and 113rd two floors, typical construction for the late 1940's. I have no intention to build something out of character to the neighbourhood. Indeed, my neighbour to the south, with a one floor main structure, has within the last 10 years built a 1% story garage with no

< . .

objections from the neighbourhood although his roof line is considerably higher than the main structure!)

% of lot to be covered by the combination of existing house and new garage would be 672 sq. ft + 660 sq.ft. = 1332 sq. ft for a 21.68% coverage. Considerably less than the 40% allowed by the by- law. And therefor minor in nature.

The by-law also states that the auxiliary structure should be no more that 50% of the footprint of the house. Common sense would see that this provision is intended for the more current building styles that cover the maximum allowed in new subdivisions where every foot counts. This older area has a much lower impact on the design maximums and should not be the limiting factor in judging an older style neighbourhood. Again this variance should be deemed to be minor in nature taking the neighbourhood into account. I believe that it would be contrary to common sense and fairness to hold old and new neighbourhoods to this same standard. Under the existing standards, I could remove this older home and build to the maximum, 2,456sq.ft X 2 floors yielding a 4,913 sq ft structure with a double garage at the front - totally out of keeping with the neighbourhood and no one could complain as it would meet the by- law. In Toronto they call these places Monster Homes, when they re-develop and overwhelm a neighbourhood - not minor in nature but in conformity with the by-law. I am trying to build in conformity to my own main structure and to the neighbourhood.

2) Is it desirable or appropriate for the neighbourhood. I am convinced that this structure would be good design, matching the house style and unobtrusive to the neighbourhood also considering that it would be set back 29' from the back of the house or 78' from the front property line.

3) The general intent of the official plan is not challenged.

4) The general intent and purpose of the Zoning by-law is maintained.

Summary

I aii i zoiizexed aboiit this denial h r a iiiiiliber of reasons.

File A-201 1-22 (copy attached) was of a similar nature and had staff recommending approval. Please note on page 2 that they say that it would not be noticeable from the street. My project was indicated to be set back 78 feet from the street and would not be noticeable either and there would also be retained a large area of the real yard available as open land. My lot is dwarfed by the apartment buildings behind. If anything they impact the enjoyment of abutting properties, especially when tenants arrive at night leaving their car headlights on for extended periods of time bezting down on the abutting properties. I plzntec! 2 cedar hedge and let it grow quite tall to try and get some privacy from them!

File A-201 1-24 (staff comments on my application - copy attached) page 2. I address their coments above. Page 3 item Conditions 1)I had already volunteered to remove my small metal shed as it would be in the way of the door to the garage. 2) the drawing indicated a 3.6 m set back but would probably be 4.2 my 3) I planted the hedge to try and get some privacy and have no intention of removing it. Advisory 1) It seems redundant to tell me to get a building permit, 2) & 3) I asked for neither a "Human Habitationy' which I assume means a bedroom, nor a business premises, I asked for storage, a place to do my art work and hobbies, a family room, as compensation for my unuseable basement. 4) The Site Alteration permit was

ready for pick up at the time of this hearing and it is redundant to tell me about it as it is part of the Building Permit process. Both my south neighbour 25 years ago then again within the last 10 years have altered their grade with impunity (the fill from their garage pad piled against my fence to a 2 foot depth); and the north neighbours have raised their rear property elevations to dump their drainage on my property as well as the apartment buildings behind creating their historic drainage issues. I find this process to be extraordinary that I am to be given these stem directives and the same department does nothing to help me with my issues with these same people.

Please note: The Committee Decision under the Planning Act Version one mailed to me was pre-written that the Committee approve, which was then lined out and Denied written in. And item 5 the sanie APPROVAL was lined out and further "granted" lined out and "not" inserted in several places. It appears that the staff had expected the decision to be approval. A few days later I received the second version re- typeset to correct the handwritten official document - BUT missing the signatures.

Further Concem: I am a Realtor and have been since 1983. I have had a number of negative experiences with the Chair of this Committee of Adjustment - Lindsay Smith - also a Realtor. He tried 25 years ago to evade presenting an offer that I had on one of his listings. Consequently I avoid him whenever possible. He had an acquaintance call me 4 years ago to tell me that he would take my property off my hands at a discounted price because it was run down and I was in danger of losing it (news to me). I had been looking after my elderly mother for the 10 previous years and could not work to full capacity - money was short. My time was spent looking after my mother's home that she continued to reside in until her passing at age 95, in January of 2009. My finances were strained throughout that time. I was shocked to find that Mr. Smith would set his friend or client on me that way. As a Realtor, I am quite capable of determining if and when I will sell my property, and can assure anyone reading this document, that I would never be prey to such a manoeuver, that I would make use of the MLS system for proper market exposure if and when I was to sell and not be taken advantage of. I sat for 8 years, until this current year, on the Durham Region Ass~~iaiionofRealtors - Professionai SCd~idards Cvrnmiiiee - anuiher quasi-judiciai body. 'vt"nen &ere is a close association - negative or positive it is appropriate to step aside from a hearing and related decision making. I had a further negative experience with Mr Smith at one of our Realtor dinner meetings three years ago, when he was sitting at the same table. He started mocking another Realtor who was being reviewed by Professional Standards. I asked him to stop and he was derogatory to me and the Committee about the issue. I am not pleased to find that he did not step aside on my application. Further a member of the audience heard him coaching Scott Pigden, one of the committee members before the meeting started. This man is willing to come forward or give a statement on the matter if asked.

I feel that my hearing was tainted and that my proposal should not have been denied.

I reiterate: There were no objections from the neighbourhood and my application should have received the same time consideration as the other issues in front of the Committee of Adjustment that same day.

Thank you,

Margo LCNab NV f i @