Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 8, 2021Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 32 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Maurice Brenner, City Councillor, Ward 1 Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, September 8, 2021 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 8th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, August 11, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 32 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 54/21 S. Basha & S. Bathul 1772 Spruce Hill Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 229/75 to permit a maximum lot coverage of 37.8 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing the applicant should ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the residents of 817 Jacqueline Avenue and 1776 Spruce Hill Road, in objection to the application. Sam Pasquale, agent , was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Sam Pasquale stated the original design had a lot coverage of 43 percent and was asked by staff to scale down resulting in the requested 37.8 percent. A neighbour located at 1802 Spruce Hill Road received a lot coverage variance for 38 percent. Conversations were also had with the neighbours who had no objections to the application. In response questions from Committee Members, Felix Chau indicated 1776 Spruce Hill Road is the dwelling adjacent to the north of the subject property, and the proposed dwelling is 8.9 metres in height. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 32 After considering that the application does not require variances for height or yard setbacks, the application meets the requirements of the Urban Design Guidelines checklists, the proposed dwelling will be consistent with size and scale of existing dwellings along Spruce Hill Road, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 54/21 by S. Basha & S. Bathul, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.2 (Deferred from the July 14, 2021 Hearing) P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive (Parts 1-4) P/CA 58/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. P/CA 59/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 32 • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. P/CA 60/21 – Part 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. P/CA 61/21 – Part 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 4 lots and to construct four detached dwellings. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 32 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department stating that if the Committee were to find merit in approving the application, a condition would apply. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing that the applicant should ensure reduced side yards do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) will be required at the Building Permit stage and Land Division stage. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham, Planning & Economic Development Department, expressing no objections to the applications. Written comments were received from the resident of 360 Rouge Hill Court expressing some concerns with the applications. Written comments were received in objection to the applications from the residents of: 354, 356, 358, 361, 365, 367, 369, 371, 375, 377 and 378 Rouge Hill Court; 1366, 1367, 1368, 1372, 1386, 1400, 1438, 1439, 1441, 1479, 1492 & 1493 Rougemount Drive; as well as the residents of 83 Roberson Drive (Ajax). Paul Demczak, agent with Batory Planning, was present to represent the application. Councillor Brenner, Ward 1, was present in objection to the application. Individuals representing 13 residences were present in objection to the application: Artur Gevorgyan of 361 Rouge Hill Court; Zoran Filinov of 1441 Rougemount Drive; Rags and Indra Davloor of 375 Rouge Hill Court; Jeanine and Michael Soligo of 1479 Rougemount Drive; John Pfaff of 378 Rouge Hill Court; Rob Treml of 1439 Rougemount Drive; Oliver Rohn of 1372 Rougemount Drive; Sevag Yeghoyan of 1386 Rougemount Drive; Diego Roccasalva of 369 Rouge Hill Court; Jeyan Kandasamy of 292 Shadow Place; Manjula Selvarajah of 1372 Rougemount Drive; Rajesh Sharma of 356 Rouge Hill Court; and Bhupinder Bajwa of 358 Rouge Hill Court. It is noted that Jeyan Kandasamy and Rajesh Sharma were connected to the electronic Hearing, however due to technical difficulties they were unable to relay their reasons for objection to the applications. Rajesh Sharma did submit comments to the Committee Members in advance of the Hearing No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 32 Paul Demczak spoke in support of the application stating the application was heard at the July 14, 2021 Committee of Adjustment Hearing, which resulted in a Deferral by Committee Members. The applicant arranged for two virtual community engagement sessions with neighbours and interested parties to address concerns raised and provide additional information and clarification on the proposal. Issues addressed at the sessions were the design, the proposed lot frontages, grading, drainage, trees, traffic, construction, and a revised 2-lot proposal. The applicant decided to bring the original proposal of 4 lots back to the Committee. Details of the applicant’s position are outlined in the submitted planning justification report. Paul Demczak believes this application meet the four tests of the Planning Act and expresses gratitude to the Committee for their consideration. Councillor Brenner spoke to the application addressing the following matters: • that the Rougemount Drive north community is a special policy area; • that Rouge Hill Court has a different character than Rougemount Drive; • the Council adopted Urban Design Checklist; • each community session was attended by over 20 participants; • the majority of the community recognized that there will be development in their community; and • the reaction of the community to the proposed elevations of the revised 2 lot proposal was negative. The individuals representing 13 residences that were present in objection to the application presented the following matters: • the engagement session was believed to not be attended by the applicant in good faith; • concerns over the condition and disruption of the street, traffic, parking and accessibility during construction and the installation of utilities; • the revised 2 lot proposal is not in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood however if it were to include designs of 6,000 to 8,000 square feet, it would be better suited in the community; • there is some community support for development of 2 or 3 lots at a reasonable size of 5,000 square feet or less; • the character of Rougemount Drive consists of dwellings with large setbacks and properties with large depths having many mature trees on the lots; • concerns that a recent construction project clear cut a number of large, mature trees on the property and the reduced setback requirements of another project; • the applicant has not made any attempts to compromise and that there was an emphasis with both proposals to obtaining maximum square footage for each lot; • the application and proposed towering dwellings do not fit with the distinct character and uniqueness of the neighbourhood; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 32 • there is a willingness to look at a smaller scale 2 lot option at a reasonable square footage; • properties adjacent the proposal will be impacted by grading and loss of privacy; • a survey was submitted by a resident to demonstrate that a proposed driveway will encroach onto an adjacent property; • residents purchased their properties because of its unique character and streetscape; • concerns that approving these applications will set precedence, irreversible changes, and will change the special policy status of the neighbourhood; • the 4 dwellings across from the subject site have lot frontages of approximately 100 feet or more and that the proposal for 2 dwellings at less than 50 foot frontages would drastically alter the character of the neighbourhood; • concerns over the identical size and design of the proposed dwellings, grading, privacy, elevations, above-grade basement design, and reduced side yards; • the homes proposed are larger than the largest dwellings along the street; and • the applications do not appear to be minor. Paul Demczak spoke to the comments and concerns raised by the area residents stating it is unfortunate that many believed the community engagement sessions were conducted in bad faith. It is believed to be an appropriate application, without the need for built form variances to the By-law. The proposed lot fabric does fit the streetscape abutting this property. When asked by a Committee Member about the correct square footage of the dwellings, Paul Demczak indicated that during the July 2021 Committee of Adjustment Hearing he misspoke stating each home to be approximately 3,600 square feet, the size of the proposed homes is approximately 5,500 square feet per dwelling, and the designs are in compliance with a majority of the zoning by-law requirements for lot coverage, height, front yard, rear yard and side yards abutting adjacent properties to the north and south. When asked by a Committee Member the need for setback variances, Paul Demczak stated the proposed relief for each lot is 0.3 of a metre and is believed to not impact the streetscape. The only impact would be on the proposed lots as the relief is sought for the proposed interior side yards adjacent to the proposed dwellings. There have been similar lots along Rougemount Drive with submitted severance and variance applications that have had nearly identical variances with no concerns from the neighbours. A Committee Member indicated they have noticed marketing materials and advertising for 6 dwellings along Rougemound Drive by “Hunter Homes”. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 32 When questioned where the other 2 proposed lots would be located, Paul Demczak stated he is aware that the applicant does have other landholdings on Rougemount Drive, however he is unaware of the exact locations since there are no planning applications to support them at this time. When asked by a Committee Member, Paul Demczak replied that a 3 lot design would be compatible with the existing character in the neighbourhood, and that the dormers provide additional articulation and are not representative of a storey. A Committee Member after reviewing the Location Map, Exhibit 1 to P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21, indicated that it appears that across the street and in the immediate vicinity on Rougemount Drive north there does not appear to be 50 foot lots. While the variances do appear to be minor in nature, a 4 home development with such large massing would not be desirable for the appropriate development of the land. The requested variances do not appear to be in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 (Parts 1-4) by Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc., be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 73/21 C. Boyce 734A Krosno Boulevard The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • an interior side yard setback of 0 metres from both side lot lines, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 6.0 metres; • a minimum floor area of 80 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum floor area of 95 square metres per dwelling unit; and • a maximum lot coverage of 25.2 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent for all buildings other than private garages. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a second-storey addition to an existing townhouse (multiple attached) dwelling. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 32 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Refusal or should the Committee find merit in the requested variances related to the proposed building addition, two conditions would apply. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing a number of concerns with the application, as noted in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing the applicant should ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Downspouts are not to discharge onto adjacent properties. Written comments were received from residents of 728A, 736, 736A and 740 Krosno Boulevard, in objection to the application. Christine Boyce, applicant, was present to represent the application. Martina Tojcic of behalf of 734 Krosno Boulevard, Rick Funnell & Nadene Sinclair of 728A & 736 Krosno Boulevard, were present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Christine Boyce spoke in support of the application stating: • the requests are to facilitate her growing family; • a 0 metre setback to the lot line would allow for an extension of the two existing bedrooms; • the design will maintain the integrity and aesthetics of the townhouse block as the front of the dwellings will have no change and the rear of the property will be parallel with the rest of the dwellings in the townhouse block; • this is a unique situation in that there are no by-laws or provisions for individual townhouse units, rather only for the entire block; • surrounding municipalities including Markham, Ajax and W hitby have by-laws that outline no side yards are required abutting a side lot line that coincides with a vertical partition wall between two dwelling units; • this addition would create minimal impediment onto neighbours, only taking place during the construction of the exterior facets and siding as well as for repairs; • within the existing townhouse block of 12 units, there are no rear yard additions however there is approximately one covered porch, and many front and rear decks/porches are setback 0 metres from side lot lines; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 32 • the adjacent block of 12 townhouse units have may more covered patios, a rear first floor addition, and a sunroom, all having setbacks of 0 metres from side lot lines; • there will be no negative impact to adjacent property owners regarding drainage; and • they do not feel comfortable with obtaining an easement through the Region of Durham, since access would only be required infrequently, which can be accommodated on a case-by-case arrangement with adjacent neighbours. Martina Tojcic spoke on behalf of 734 Krosno Boulevard in opposition to the application stating the subject property is the adjacent dwelling to the east. There is concern regarding stormwater, drainage, shadow impact, sunlight, encroachment, health concerns related to second-hand smoke, and the alteration of the townhouse block causing a negative impact on resale value for adjacent homes. Rick Funnell spoke in opposition to the application stating the size of the current dwelling is sufficient to accommodate a growing family, no permission will be granted for entry onto 736 Krosno Boulevard to accommodate the proposed addition. The proposed addition will create visual obstruction, loss of sunlight, changes to the foundation and belief that additional support beams will be require beyond those illustrated in the submitted drawings. Nadene Sinclair spoke in opposition to the application stating her written comments were submitted to the Committee Members in advance of the hearing. Further outlined that current by-law requirements are in place for a reason and allow for all residents to have the same access to sunlight, weather conditions, and air flow. These townhouses do have many properties with sunrooms and porches at the first-storey, however a second-storey addition will create a negative impact, especially to adjacent property owners. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Christine Boyce stated that both she and her architect are aware of the concerns addressed by the City’s Building Services Section and feel confident that the current submitted drawings can address all building and fire regulations. After having read the Report to the Committee of Adjustment prepared by the City Development Department, there is concern with applicant’s disagreement in obtaining a 1 metre wide easement over adjacent properties to facilitate maintenance of the addition. This would be a necessary condition of approval for this application. Moreover, the bump-out appears to not be appropriate and would cause a number of issues with neighours. The application does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act and as such, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 32 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 73/21 by C. Boyce, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and Official Plan. Carried Unanimously At the request of a Committee Member, the Chair indicated that the Committee of Adjustment Hearing of September 8, 2021 would take a 5 minute recess. The Committee recessed at 9:15 pm and reconvened at 9:20 pm. Upon reconvening, the Chair confirmed all Committee Members were in attendance. 4.4 P/CA 74/21 Marshall Homes Corp. 715 Simpson Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92 to permit a covered platform (porch) and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 1.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project no more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling with a covered front porch. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing that the applicant should ensure encroachment does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 32 Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing no objections to the approval of the application and a TRCA permit is not required. The subject property is partially located within the TRCA Regulated Area, and the proposed works will maintain a 34 metre setback from the outer boundary of the Frenchman’s Bay Coastal Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland. There are no natural features (slope, floodplain, etc.) within proximity to the proposed works and they are outside of the shoreline hazard limit. Samantha Bateman, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Samantha Bateman spoke in support of the application stating gratitude to staff for the thoroughness of the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021. The dwelling was designed in such a way as to generally comply with the zoning. The variance is only required to allow the front porch to be covered. A Committee Member indicated they applaud the applicant for making very good use of the property and only requesting what appears to be a very minor variance. After reading the City Development Department’s Report, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 74/21 by Marshall Homes Corporation, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the covered platform (porch) and steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 32 4.5 P/CA 75/21 C. & L. Pollard 714 Fairview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92 to permit a covered platform (porch) and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 0.9 of a metre into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project no more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling with a covered front porch. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing the applicant should ensure encroachment does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Samantha Bateman, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Samantha Bateman spoke in support of the application stating gratitude to staff for the thoroughness of the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021. The dwelling was designed in such a way as to generally comply with the zoning. The variance is only required to allow the front porch to be covered. Based on the recommendation from the City Development Department in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 32 Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 75/21 by C. & L. Pollard, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the covered platform (porch) and steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 76/21 & P/CA 77/21 E. Andreacchi 1952 Glendale Drive (Parts 1 & 2) P/CA 76/1 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to: • permit a minimum lot frontage of 16.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; and • recognize a minimum north side yard of 2.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres on one side, 3.0 metres on the other side. P/CA 77/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 13.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 2 lots, and to construct a detached dwelling on Part 2 and to recognize a deficient side yard for the existing dwelling on Part 1. The proposed construction of a detached garage on Part 1 complies with the Zoning By-law and does not require approval of a variance. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval to recognize a minimum north side yard of 2.7 metres subject to a condition and Refusal of a minimum lot frontage of 16.7 metres for Part 1 and a minimum lot frontage of 13.4 metres for Part 2. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 32 Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing the applicant should ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the residents of 1948 Glendale Drive providing their preliminary support for the applications. Written comments were received from the residents of 1948 & 1956 Glendale Drive in support of the applications. Written comments were received from the residents of 1874, 1924, 1955, 1958 and 1972 Glendale Drive, in objection to the applications. Nigel O’Neill, agent, was present to represent the application. Lori & Chris Gertzos of 1972 Glendale Drive, and Becky Arseneau of 1945 Glendale Drive, were present in objection to the application. Robert Bumsteap of 816 Sanok Drive was present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Nigel O’Neill spoke in support of the application stating the applicants have resided at the property since 2004. The intent of this proposal is to create a second lot for the applicant’s daughter to build and occupy. Regarding concerns around the proposed lot frontage for Part 2 of this application, it is believed that with the proper architectural design, the streetscape has potential to fit in with the existing neighbourhoood. The subject property has a public park located across from the site thereby having no negative impact to the landowners residing on the opposite side of the street. It is also believed that there is inconsistency with lot frontages for existing dwellings along the street, where the R3 zone has a variety of lot frontage requirements. The Urban Design Guidelines Checklist has been adopted by Council and will be amended, making it not a sufficient benchmark tool at this time. The provincial government released a mandate to increase density throughout Ontario. The applicants could amend their application and request to sever the lot without the need for a minor variance application by maintaining front yard and side yard setback requirements, however it is believed that these requests will facilitate a good practice of planning for the existing neighbourhood and streetscape. The purpose of this proposal is to assist the applicant’s daughter by creating a dwelling on the same property she grew up on. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 32 Lori and Chris Gertzos spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with having this lot subdivided after believing this was not possible. They also addressed issues with the reduced width and setbacks from neighbouring property lines. It is believed it will take away from the character and uniqueness of the street. This proposal does not appear to be minor. The Public Notice sign posted on the property had the incorrect proposed lot frontage for Part 2. (It is noted for the minutes that the Public Notice mail-out had the correct proposed lot frontage). Becky Arseneau spoke in opposition to the application stating it represents overdevelopment changing the streetscape of Glendale Drive, noting exiting difficultly with on-street parking, and road maintenance concerns. Robert Bumsteap spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with reduced setback and lot severance, lack of information with regards to height of the dwelling, the closeness in proximity of the driveway to adjacent properties, and overdevelopment of the street deteriorating the uniqueness of this area. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer, stated the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist does apply to this property and this application is only to facilitate the severance application with the Region of Durham. If the applicants require another minor variance application to accommodate the construction of the dwelling, it will be heard before the Committee of Adjustment at a later date. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Nigel O’Neill stated the proposed square-footage of the new dwelling has not yet been finalized but could range from approximately 2,500-3,000 square feet. After noting the size of the existing subject property, the proposed severance appears to create a new lotting pattern which would not be in keeping with the existing character on Glendale Drive, and after reading the staff report, the applicant does have options available to do an expansion or second-unit proposal, the division of the land would be detrimental to Glendale Drive at this location, and as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 32 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That to recognize a minimum north side yard of 2.7 metres for P/CA 76/21 (Part 1) by E. Andreacchi, be Approved on the grounds that this variance is 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Part 1 on Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021). and That to permit a minimum lot frontage of 16.7 metres on Part 1 for P/CA 76/21 by E. Andreacchi, and a minimum lot frontage of 13.4 metres on Part 2 for P/CA 77/21 by E. Andreacchi, be Refused on the grounds that these variances are not minor in nature and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 78/21 W. Van Kempen & S. Birch 4900 Brock Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, to recognize an uncovered platform (deck) not exceeding 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 0.9 of a metre into the south side yard setback, whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project no more than 0.5 of a metre into any side yard setback. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing platform (deck). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing it should be noted that the deck was not constructed at the time of the dwelling. The deck has been constructed without the benefit of a building permit. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 18 of 32 Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing no objections to the approval of the variances as they pertain to the rear deck, TRCA has issued a clearance for this deck on April 12, 2021 indicating a permit was not required as the works were adequately setback from the wetland and area of influence. Written comments were received in support of the application from the residents of: 1635 & 1649 Acorn Lane; 5026 Barber Street; 1705 Bovingdon Place; 4860, 4904, & 5053 Brock Road; 4994 Canso Drive; 1677, 1737 & 1747 Central Street; 5043 Franklin Street; 1750 Hoxton Street; 4879 Victoria Street; 5014 & 5038 William Street; and 5066 Wixson Street. Written comments were received in objection to the application from the residents of 4894 Brock Road, as well as Tanya Walker of Walker Law who was retained on behalf of the residents of 4894 Brock Road. Wendy Van Kempen, applicant, and Kip Van Kempen were present to represent the application. Tim Gallagher of Valiant Engineering was present on behalf of Adam Drew of 4894 Brock Road who was also present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Wendy Van Kempen spoke in support of the application stating: • the purpose of the request is to correct a calculation error that took place during the construction phase; • their deck and footings of the deck was damaged as a result of drainage issues caused by construction and grading work on the adjacent lands to the south; • unaware that repairs to the deck required a Building Permit; • once advised a permit was required, a Building Permit was then applied for and received; • the City inspected the deck several times during various stages of construction; • dimensions to the contractor were provided in error and inadvertently used dimensions from the damaged deck as opposed to the dimensions for the replacement deck resulting in a difference of less than 1.0 metre; • there are no privacy issues caused from this application as the deck is of identical height and similar size to the previous deck it is replacing; • the stairs have also been relocated to the north side to accommodate any potential privacy concerns; • the proposed deck is more than 30 metres from the neighbouring dwelling to the south and no closer than the previous deck; • the presence of mature trees between the deck and the neighbouring dwelling to the south provides additional privacy; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 19 of 32 • the deck is located lower in grade than the ground floor of the neighbouring dwelling to the south; and • there have been an overwhelming amount of written support received from area neighbours which has been circulated to City staff and the Committee. Adam Drew spoke in opposition to the application stating it is believed that the deck was not rebuilt due to damage caused by drainage concerns. The deck appears to be a dramatic upgrade, that is larger and closer to the property line. There are a number of privacy concerns raised as outlined in the letter from Adam Drew’s attorney which have been provided to City staff and Committee Members. He further outlined that the property line was marked 3 times, which was believed to be removed a number of times. It is believed that the deck has increased privacy concerns and projects 2-3 feet beyond the dwelling which it did not appear to do so prior. Additionally, it can be seen from the bathroom window and children’s bedrooms. Tim Gallagher of Valiant Engineering spoke in opposition to the application stating that the minor variance application appears to be untimely due to unresolved matters related to fill and grading works on the adjacent property. In the document provided by Adam Drew, it demonstrates the approved site plan with a 0.6 metre undisturbed strip and swale. It is believed that a great deal of information has been omitted from this application. The applicants have not only built a deck, they have also completed extensive landscaping and the addition of a retaining wall which abuts the lot line. It is believed that the application needs to be revised to include such additions. Kip Van Kempen spoke in support of the application stating the variance is to recognize an error during construction. It is to replace a deck at an identical height and similar configuration than previously existed. The structure is no closer to the dwelling immediately to the south and does not abut outdoor living space. The deck is approximately 30 metres away from the south neighbour’s dwelling. There are no privacy concerns associated with the neighbours to the south, especially given the amount of mature trees. The application is in keeping with the appearance and character of Claremont and the surrounding properties. Staff support this application as well as a number of local area residents. In response to a question from the Chair, Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer, stated all applications were circulated to the necessary internal departments including Engineering Services and Building Services. The Engineering Services Department did review this proposal stating they had no comments on the application. Landscaping features are not part of the application review process. Staff evaluate the zoning non- compliance in relation to the four tests of the Planning Act. When asked by a Committee Member who the contractor was that constructed the deck without the knowledge of obtaining a Building Permit, Wendy Van Kempen stated Cedardale. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 20 of 32 After considering the input from the applicant and neighbours with regards to this application, it does appear to conform with intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The deck will maintain a 0.9 metre setback from the south side property line which will not compromise the function of the side yard. The application is desirable for the appropriate development of land. It is anticipated to not result in significant visual or privacy impacts to adjacent properties and is minor in nature. Moreover, there are no comments from Building Services, Engineering Services and the TRCA have no objections. There is also an overwhelming amount of support received from a number of residents, as such Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 78/21 by W. Van Kempen & S. Birch, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 79/21 J. Maingot 665 Front Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit: • to permit eaves to project 0.8 of a metre into the required south side yard setback, whereas the By-law requires eaves to not project more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard setback; • to permit eaves to project 0.7 of a metre into the required north side yard setback, whereas the By-law requires eaves to not project more than 0.5 of a metre into any required yard setback; • to permit an uncovered deck greater than 1.0 metre in height above grade to project 4.3 metres into the required front yard setback, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to not project more than 1.5metres into the required front yard setback; • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.0 metre on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres; and Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 21 of 32 • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34.3 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate an addition to a detached dwelling. This application was heard by the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment on September 8, 2021 due notice of such Hearing having been sent as required by the Committee of Adjustment. In making of this decision, the Committee has considered all written and oral submissions made to the Committee, and has adopted the following decision. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing the applicant should ensure additional percentage of lot coverage and reduced setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Multiple Low Impact Development (LID) measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be provided at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the residents of: 602 & 607 Annland Street; 661, 667 & 673 Front Road; and 660 Pleasant Street in support of the application. Gary Westwood, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Gary Westwood spoke in support of the application stating his agreement with City staff’s positive recommendation. This application is to facilitate a renovation and addition to the existing property by maintaining its original footprint, including the setback for the front deck. There are also a number of residents in support of this application, including the immediate neighbours on either side of the subject property as well as the rear. After hearing from the applicant’s agent and believing that the design has provided good use of the property and having the application appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 22 of 32 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 79/21 by J. Maingot, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances 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 condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment). Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 80/21 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. 1853 Rosebank Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1929/84, to permit: • a minimum north interior side yard width of 0.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing the applicant should ensure reduced side yards and increased lot coverage do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Considerations for multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be made at the Building Permit stage and Land Division stage. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 23 of 32 Samantha Bateman, applicant, was present to represent the application. Desiree Machado of 501 Charnwood Court was present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Samantha Bateman spoke in support of the application stating this lot was retained as part of a small development currently under construction. The exact model will be built on two other lots within the subdivision, intended to maintain consistency with the massing of the surrounding lots. Desiree Machado spoke in objection to the application stating this development project consists of dwellings that are much larger than others in the neighbourhood. The dwellings that have already been built are 9 feet taller and overlook her dwelling and result in a privacy issue within her backyard. She indicated some of the new dwellings for this project have fireplaces that abut neighbouring fence lines. Additionally, her daughter’s bedroom and living room is extremely exposed and the new dwellings have a direct view into their home. Desiree Machado believes that this project needs to be in keeping with the character of the existing neighbourhood and the developers should be able to design the project within the parameters of the By-laws. Lastly it was noted that this project has caused the road to deteriorate, and persistent construction noise lasting 6-7 days of the week. In response to questions from Committee Members, Samantha Bateman stated the proposed dwelling is part of a development project on Rosebank Road. It is the fourth lot down from the north side of the development. The purpose this lot was held back from those that were previously before the Committee of Adjustment is that the previous owners wanted to reside in the home for a longer period of time. This is one of a multi-generation design that allows for an accessory dwelling within the main floor. This specific design requires minor variance applications to accommodate extra width and lot coverage of the home. The applicant is intending to pre-site the models since they have not yet gone to sale, and would like to make a serious effort in offering a design to accommodate multigenerational living. The applicants were unsure of what they originally wanted to sell when they had released the balance of the property, which is another reason for the delay in this application. The lot sightings on page 128 of the Committee of Adjustment Agenda, dated September 8, 2021 (Exhibit 2 to P/CA 80/21), is the correct orientation of the dwelling. The elevation and floor plan perspectives provided (Exhibits 3 & 4 to P/CA 80/21) are standard images. The future dwelling would have both Exhibits 3 & 4 constructed in the reverse, as per page 128 of the Agenda (Exhibit 2 to P/CA 80/21). If required, the applicant would be able to provide reverse elevation and floor plans drawings at the Building Permit stage or any other stage during this process. When asked about the heights of the dwelling Samantha Bateman stated the height of both the first and second storey are approximately 9 feet tall with a standard basement height. She noted that extensive conversations with various neighbours have occurred throughout the construction process. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 24 of 32 The applicants have installed additional tarping for privacy along the rear yard fences, and are happy to inspect again to provide any additional temporary screening through the construction process. The applicants have worked with the City Development Department during the Land Division approval process and agreed to provide a number of additional plantings within their site and up to 2 trees in the rear yards of each neighbouring homeowner to accommodate screening both short and long term. When asked about the permitted height of the subject property, Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer, stated the By-law for the area was approved in 1984 which sets a maximum height of 12 metres for a single detached dwelling. The applicant is not requesting a variance for the height of this proposal. When asked by a Committee Member if staff’s position would change due to the reverse orientations of Exhibits 3 & 4 for P/CA 80/21; Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer, noted it would remain the same based on the Submitted Site Plan (Exhibit 2 to P/CA 80/21) as it relates to the requested variances. The Chair requested staff look into the construction taking place on the site to ensure compliance regarding the condition of the streets and any construction noise operating outside of the permitted timeframe. After reading the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to the applicant’s responses with questions from Committee Members, and hearing the neighbour’s concerns regarding this development, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, where Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 80/21 by Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd., be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances 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 condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 which will be built, and Exhibits 3 & 4 as indicative to be built in the reverse orientation, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment). Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 25 of 32 Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley opposed 4.10 P/CA 81/21 A. Gillespie 2045 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06: • to permit a detached dwelling, a proposed accessory building (detached garage) and an existing accessory building (detached garage) to be located less than 30 metres from the stable top of bank (Significant Valleylands), whereas the By-law requires all buildings or structures to be located a minimum of 30 metres from the stable top of bank (Significant Valleylands); • to permit a detached dwelling, a proposed accessory building (detached garage) and an existing accessory building (detached garage) to be located less than 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands), whereas the By-law requires all buildings or structures to be located a minimum of 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands); • to permit a proposed accessory building (detached garage) to be located within the front yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard; • to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage) to be located within the front yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard; • to permit a proposed accessory building (detached garage) measuring 57.2 square metres in area, whereas the by-law requires no accessory buildings and/or structures to exceed 10 square metres in area; and • to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage) measuring 13.4 square metres in area, whereas the by-law requires no accessory buildings and/or structures to exceed 10 square metres in area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an addition to an existing detached dwelling and construction of an accessory building (detached garage), and to recognize an existing accessory building (detached garage). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 26 of 32 Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing no objections to the approval of the application. A TRCA permit was issued for the proposed development on March 5, 2021. The drawings received as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received for the TRCA permit. The subject property is located within a TRCA Regulated Area of the Duffins Creek watershed and is regulated with respect to the Area of Influence associated with the Provincially Significant Wetland and the top of bank/erosion hazard associated with the Duffins Creek ravine corridor, both located in the east portion of the site. Based on the TRCA’s review of the applicant’s submitted Slope Stability Assessment, the proposed development maintains adequate separation from the determined long term stable top of slope. Based on the TRCA’s review of the applicant’s submitted Natural Heritage Evaluation, the proposed development will have no adverse impacts on the ecological functions of the adjacent forest/key natural heritage features. Brenda MacKneson, agent, and Ian Gillespie, applicant, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Ian Gillespie spoke in support of the application stating his father purchased the property in the late 1950s and had the house built in 1959. The existing small garage was built by the same architect in 1967. Over the past 60 years the property has been enhanced with the planting of approximately 750 or more trees. Having the dwelling being the primary residence, it is in immediate need of reconstruction. The TRCA has also conducted an in-depth analysis and issued the necessary permit. A Committee Member applauded the applicant for having all of their homework completed in advance of the Committee of Adjustment Hearing. By having completed the TRCA investigation, receiving approval and the necessary permit, it assists Committee Members in making a decision. Agreement with the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment and appreciation for the applicant’s comments were expressed. Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 27 of 32 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 81/21 by A. Gillespie, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances 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 condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwelling, proposed accessory building (detached garage) and existing accessory building (detached garage), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.11 P/CA 82/21 F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur 544 Rodd Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5092/97 to permit a maximum building height of 12.2 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum height of 9.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to expand a legal non-conforming height condition. The applicant seeks to obtain a building permit to construct an addition to a detached dwelling on the existing third storey. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing the subject site is partially within the TRCA Regulated Area of the Rouge River watershed. The site is regulated with respect to its proximity to the Lake Ontario Shoreline and its associated erosion hazard. As such, a TRCA permit may be required prior to development taking place and prior to any municipal building approvals. As the proposed addition was outside of the TRCA Regulated Area, a clearance indicating our permit would not be required was issued on May 20, 2021. As such, TRCA have no objections to the approval of the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 28 of 32 Darko Dunat, applicant/agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After noting the height variance request is to facilitate an addition to an existing dwelling, and support for the City Development Department’s recommendation is expressed, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 82/21 by F. Tenaille & D. Francoeur, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.12 P/CA 87/21 J. & J. Vincken 1100 Begley Street, Unit 10 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 29 of 32 Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing a permit is required from the TRCA prior to any new development taking place within this property. A TRCA Permit application has not been received to date for the proposed deck. TRCA staff reviewed the application and have no objections to the approval of this application. Written comments were received from the resident of 1100 Begley Street, Unit 9, expressing concern with the application. Jack and Jeannette Vincken, applicant, was present to represent the application. Mary Wilson was present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Jack Vincken spoke in support of the application stating he has been a resident at the subject property for 20 years and the original deck had to be demolished due to the rotting. The requested variance is intended to construct a new deck 4 feet deeper to accommodate 4 seats, instead of 2. There have been objections received from resident of Unit 9 due to privacy. The deck is 4 metres away from Unit 9 and it is believe there are no privacy concerns. Mary Wilson spoke in objection to the application stating the unique configuration of her lot and the deck extension of Unit 10 would affect privacy. A request for a privacy fence was noted if the deck extension was to be constructed. Mary Wilson confirmed the Committee received her written comments in advance of the Hearing. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Jack Vincken stated agreement to install a privacy fence 6 feet in length. After hearing the comments from the neighbour and the response and agreement from the applicant to install a privacy fence, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 87/21 by J. & J. Vincken, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021). Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 30 of 32 2. That if granted approval by the necessary condominium authorities, a privacy fence of 1.83 metres (6 feet) be built between the properties. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer, stated that in order for the Hearing to proceed the Committee could pass a motion to extend, beyond the set time of 11:00 pm. Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the Committee of Adjustment Hearing of September 8, 2021 be extended beyond 11:00 pm. Carried Unanimously 4.13 P/CA 88/21 C. & J. Skewis 1100 Begley Street, Unit 11 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 31 of 32 Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing a permit is required from the TRCA prior to any new development taking place within this property. A TRCA Permit application has not been received to date for the proposed deck. TRCA staff reviewed the application and have no objections to the approval of the application. Jim Skewis, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Based on the Report to the Committee of Adjustment from the City Development Department, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act and Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 88/21 by C. & J. Skewis, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is 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 condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated September 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 32 of 32 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 9th hearing of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 11:03 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, October 13, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer October 13, 2021