HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 10, 2021Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 1 of 15
Present
Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair
David Johnson – Chair
Eric Newton – Arrived 7:20 pm Denise Rundle Sean Wiley
Also Present
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer
Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Principal Planner, Development Review 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 Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the agenda for the Wednesday, November 10, 2021 hearing be adopted.
Carried
3. Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the minutes of the 10th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,
October 13, 2021 be adopted, as amended.
Carried
To avoid a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair stated he will abstain from voting on applications until Committee Member Eric Newton arrives.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 2 of 15
4. Reports
4.1 P/CA 92/21
M. & J. Stangarone
1376 Rougemount Drive
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88,
to permit:
• a maximum dwelling height of 10.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres; and
• uncovered steps and associated walkway not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.7 metres into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing
no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff stating:
• The property is regulated by TRCA with respect to the limits of significant vegetation (dripline) and the top of bank feature associated with the Petticoat Creek valley corridor located in the rear property. A site visit was conducted on October 12, 2021, to delineate and confirm the on-site physical features (dripline of contiguous
vegetation and top of bank).
• The TRCA's Living City Policies (LCP) require that development be setback 10 metres inland from the greater of the physical top of bank of the valley feature or the limits of significant vegetation. TRCA staff confirmed that new development would need to be
setback 10 metres from the staked dripline. However, The LCP also allows for a setback less than 10 meters where the proposal has regard for the existing development on the subject property and within the context of existing development patterns within the valley corridor reach.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 3 of 15
• Based on a review of the proposal, some sections of the existing development (the
hardscaping associated with the pool) are slightly encroaching into the 10 metre
buffer at the southern pinch point on the property. However, native-non-invasive restoration plantings within the limit of the dripline are required as part of the TRCA permit approval process in order to offset these encroachments and provide a net ecological gain. As such, TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle
and support the requested variances.
• An Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application was received by TRCA staff on September 23, 2021. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit application (CFN 65947). TRCA will require an updated site plan be submitted to reflect the
staked dripline, proposed restoration plantings, and an erosion and sediment control (ESC) plan prior to permit issuance.
• TRCA staff have no objections to the approval of Minor Variance Application No.
P/CA 92/21.
Michael Stangarone, applicant, and Albert Yerushalmi, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Albert Yerushalmi spoke in support of the application stating his agreement with the
staff report and that the application appears to be minor. The height variance is based
on the shape of the mansard roof and difference in grade from the front to the rear. There are no privacy concerns, as the trees provide additional screening. The applicant is working with TRCA to obtain a permit after the minor variance process.
In response to questions from a Committee Member, Albert Yerushalmi stated this style
of roof was chosen based on a submission to the owners who found the design to be
favourable. This lot is at the lowest point of Rougemount Drive and does not create any negative massing concerns.
After having read the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, the additional comments from the applicant’s agent are appreciated. While noting that the Report indicates the
abutting dwelling to the south has a total building height of 11 metres. The proposed
design is in keeping with the existing dwellings along Rougemount Drive, and there has not been any negative feedback received from the neighbourhood. The Urban Design Guideline Checklist has been met, and there is no resistance from the TRCA, and Sean Wiley moved the following motion:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 4 of 15
Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland
That application P/CA 92/21 by M. & J. Stangarone, 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 and uncovered
steps and associated walkway, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s
submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 10, 2021).
Carried
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 5 of 15
4.2 P/CA 103/21 Universal City Six Development Inc.
1496 Bayly Street
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7810/21, to permit the building separation of a second storey unit with primary windows to be
reduced to 8.6 metres so long as the primary window is no larger than 0.9 square
metres, and the lowest point of the window is located a minimum of 1.8 metres from the floor, or where the primary window is larger than 0.9 square metres, and the lowest point of the window is located less than 1.8 metres from the floor, a 1.8 metre high privacy screen is located along the edge of the building between the primary window
and the adjacent building to which the primary window faces.
Whereas the By-law permits the building separation of a second storey unit with primary windows to be reduced to 8.6 metres so long as the primary window is no larger than 0.9 square metres, and the lowest point of the window is located a minimum of 1.8 metres from the floor.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain site plan approval to
construct a 27-storey residential tower.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing
no comments on 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 Ministry of Transportation indicating they have reviewed the requested minor variance for 1496 Bayly Street and have no
objection to the proposal.
Michael Vani, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Michael Vani spoke in support of the application stating the request is to facilitate
enlarged windows and privacy screens on second floor units facing the Phase 1
building. After having reviewed the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, Michael Vani is in agreement with staff in that the application supports the four tests of the Planning Act.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 6 of 15
In response to questions from Committee Members, Michael Vani stated the standard condo size windows extend from the top of the ceiling almost the entire length of the
unit close to the floor line. The privacy screens are illustrated on Exhibit 3 in the staff
Report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 10, 2021. The privacy screen will be a permanent fixture that will be constructed of complementary materials to the building. Additional variances are not anticipated as this is one of the last items needed to permit site plan approval.
After reading the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to the agent’s
response to questions and appreciating the thoroughness of the applicant’s submission, the application appears to meet four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion:
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That application P/CA 103/21 by Universal City Six Development Inc., 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 residential tower, 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 November 10, 2021).
Carried
Committee Member Eric Newton was able to connect to the electronic Hearing via audio
at 7:20 pm.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 7 of 15
4.3 P/CA 104/21 A. Uthayakumaran
275 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit:
• a maximum building ground floor area of 580 square metres (detached dwelling), whereas the By-law requires a maximum building ground floor area of 500 square metres;
• a maximum building ground floor area of 900 square metres (accessory structure – barn), whereas the By-law requires a maximum building ground floor area of 500 square metres.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling and accessory building (barn).
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the application be Tabled until such the applicant provides staff with additional information as outlined in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 10, 2021.
Written comments were received in objection to the application from the residents of 160 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road.
Peter Jaruczik, agent, was present to represent the application. James and Gloria Johnstone of 160 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road, were present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Peter Jaruczik spoke in support of the application stating the application is to increase a
farm operation and support the creation of a new residential dwelling. The applicant is working with the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). There will be an on-site meeting on November 18, 2021 with TRCA staff to provide additional agency comments. Peter Jaruczik indicated he is in favour of the City’s recommendation for a Tabling motion.
James and Gloria Johnstone spoke in objection to the application raising concern with:
• the application not appearing minor; the request for a maximum building ground floor area of the accessory structure (barn) is almost double in size from the By-law requirement of 500 square metres to 900 square metres;
• paving and grading activity already taking place on the property;
• the quality of the road and construction vehicles along the street;
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 8 of 15
• the conservation land and Oak Ridges Moraine area and wildlife should be properly
maintained;
• garbage being dumped along Sideline 32;
• the possibility of the site being turned into a community centre;
• the large paved driveway surrounding the entire property with two “gatehouses” at either end have no visible permits;
• the road is full of stones and the culvert is covered in large limestone blocks which have collapsed and cannot run freely;
• the ditches on either side of the road have not been cleaned out;
• drainage and flooding on the property; and
• the existing dwelling on the site possibly having heritage significance.
The Chair asked staff to have someone attend the property to review the neighbour’s concerns and report back to the Committee of Adjustment. The Secretary-Treasurer advised that Engineering Services and Building Services staff will be informed and able to investigate.
In response to questions from Committee Members, Felix Chau, Planner II, advised permits are not required for paving on the site and no additional permits have been applied for aside from the building permit which triggered this minor variance application. The property is zoned Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) Agricultural and ORM Environmental Protection, where a commercial operation would not be permitted on the
site. If the office use is accessory to the main agricultural use, it would be permitted. It was advised by the applicant that the agricultural use would be the primary use on this site.
In response to questions from Committee Members, Peter Jaruczik stated:
• The owners have multiple farm operations across varying cities, where this location is designed to be their primary facility containing offices and storage of equipment.
• The neighbouring comments will be taken under consideration moving forward.
• Conversations are underway with the TRCA to discuss the roadway and sideline entrances and are open to their suggestions.
• The proposed dwelling is to be 580 square metres on the ground floor instead of the required 500 square metres, which is believed to be minor.
• The purpose of the residential dwelling variance is to facilitate an enclosed indoor pool.
• The residential dwelling will have a second-storey which does not cover the entire
footprint, having the garage and pool are excluded.
• In reference to the staff parking spaces on the site near the barn, the required amount is not yet confirmed with the applicant at this time and is strictly conceptual.
• All previously applied for permits have been obtained while working with the City.
• All paving works have been completed in an effort to tidy up the property.
• The redesigned garage has been inspected and the permit was approved.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 9 of 15
• The entrance off of Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road, received a permit and had
the final inspection completed.
• The only outstanding building permits are related to this minor variance application.
• There will not be a “gatehouse”, rather a stone post has been erected for fencing
and security purposes.
• The barn will have storage of farm equipment, a mezzanine, farm operations offices, a work space area, and a greenhouse.
• The applicant will be farming the land having field crops around the property.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer stated the Zoning By-law outlines a maximum building ground floor area, and not the entire size limiting the structure.
The Chair indicated the Committee would like to review elevation drawings of both the proposed dwelling and accessory structure (barn) prior to issuing a decision.
While recognizing the applicant’s request for the two variances in question and noting the other concerns raised by the neighbours, the Committee must be able to advise if the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act. With City staff requiring additional information to determine a position on conformity to the City’s Official Plan, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley
That application P/CA 104/21 by A. Uthayakumaran, be Tabled until such the applicant provides City staff with additional information as outlined in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 10, 2021.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 10 of 15
4.4 P/CA 107/21 H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos
809 Fairview Avenue
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 and By-law 7872/21, to permit uncovered steps 2.6 metres in height above grade to
project 4.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered
steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize existing uncovered steps in the front yard.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
expressing no comments on the application.
George Avramopoulos, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
George Avramopoulos spoke in support of the application stating the application appears to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and is minor in
nature. In 2019 a Building Permit was issued for a detached dwelling that was
constructed. The proposed uncovered steps are required to facilitate pedestrian access into the dwelling. A 2.6 metre buffer between the steps and the front of the property line is provided with the steps being parallel to the front wall of the dwelling.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Felix Chau, Planner II, stated the
zoning was compliant at the time of the Building Permit issuance for the dwelling.
In response to questions from Committee Members, George Avramopoulos stated the stairs were not part of the original drawings submitted for the construction of the new dwelling. The stairs were constructed at a later time during installation of landscaping
due to cost restrictions. A Building Permit was not applied for during the construction of
the stairs where George Avramopoulos stated he was unaware one was required.
After reading the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, not having any community comments and the application appears to meet four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 11 of 15
Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton
That application P/CA 107/21 by H. McDougall & G. Avramopoulos, 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 steps, as generally sited and outlined
on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, & 5 contained in the staff
report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 10, 2021).
Carried
Vote:
Tom Copeland in favour
David Johnson in favour
Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley opposed
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 12 of 15
4.5 P/CA 108/21 Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC
1400 Squires Beach Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6070/02, to permit a maximum building height of 14.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
maximum building height of 12.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate zoning compliance to construct a distribution facility. The subject application is being reviewed in conjunction with a submitted application for site plan approval (S 05/21).
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from Ira Kagan, of Kagan Shastri LLP Lawyers,
solicitors representing Durham Live. The letter asks the Committee of Adjustment to impose a condition requiring cost-sharing and the applicant enter into an agreement with the City ensuring cost-sharing, and requiring that all necessary payments be made prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.
Jasjeet Ajimal, applicant, was present to represent the application. Mark Roloson and
Joseph Abela, agent with Aecom, were present on behalf of the applicant. Katarzyna Sliwa, solicitor with Dentons, was present on behalf of the applicant. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Mark Roloson spoke in support of the application addressing the requested maximum
height for the new proposed delivery station. The setbacks from the road are larger than
required, with Squires Beach Road having a proposed setback of approximately 63 metres and 133 metres from Bayly Street; where the By-law requires a 7.5 metres setback. The oversized setbacks will lessen visual impact from the street and from the
site’s immediate neighbours. The proposed use is permitted within the applicable zone,
generating significant employment opportunities. It is believed that this request satisfies the four tests of the Planning Act.
Mark Roloson stated the letter received from the Durham Live solicitors are mainly traffic related concerns and are not believed to be relevant to the application.
A comprehensive Traffic Impact Study has been prepared by Aecom on behalf of the
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 13 of 15
applicant as part of the Site Plan approval process. The Traffic Study takes into account the Durham Live site and the Durham Live Urban Transportation Study. The results of
Aecom’s Traffic Impact Study indicate the new delivery station would result in less peak
period traffic, compared to the current use on the property.
Katarzyna Sliwa spoke in support of the application expressing how it meets the four tests of the Planning Act, and that concerns stated in the letter from the Durham Live
solicitors are unfounded.
In response to questions from Committee Members, Mark Roloson stated the requested
variance is to facilitate the construction of a new building where the additional height is for architectural design and not for storage. The primary ingress and egress access onto the site is designed to separate large delivery truck traffic from personal vehicles.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Jasjeet Ajimal stated the site is to
facilitate approximately 300 employees.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated the Traffic Study completed by Aecom on behalf of the applicant, was submitted as part of the Site Plan approval process, and was circulated to the Region of Durham. The Region has provided comments requiring revisions to the Study and is not requiring
cost-sharing for Notion Road improvements. Squires Beach Road, Bayly Street, Brock
Road and Church Street are all arterial road right-of-ways owned and maintained by the Region of Durham. This Minor Variance application was circulated to the Region who did not submit any comments on this application.
While applauding new development and new business within the City, the applicant is
encouraged to take into consideration traffic needs in the area. It is recommended to
use every precaution necessary to facilitate smooth traffic and look for ways to optimize traffic flow around site and neighbouring developments. As such, this application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act and Sean Wiley moved the following
motion.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 14 of 15
Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton
That application P/CA 108/21 by Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC, 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 distribution facility, 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 November 10, 2021).
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 15 of 15
5. Other Business
5.1 Adoption of 2022 Meeting Schedule
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the Committee of Adjustment Meeting Schedule for 2022 be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
6. Adjournment
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Sean Wiley
That the 11th hearing of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:22 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, December 8, 2021.
Carried Unanimously
__________________________ Date
__________________________ Chair
__________________________
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
December 8, 2021