Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 9, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 15 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton – arrived at 7:07 pm Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 1.1 Reordering of Items Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That Item 4.5 for P/CA 40/22 for W. & P. Grant located at 521 Bella Vista Drive, be reordered to Item 4.1. Carried 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, February 9, 2022 hearing be adopted, as amended. Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 15 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That the minutes of the 1st hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, January 12, 2022 be adopted. Carried To avoid a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, stated he will abstain from voting on applications until Committee Member Eric Newton arrives. 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 40/22 W. & P. Grant 521 Bella Vista Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit: • a minimum front yard depth of 4.9 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum side yard depth of 1.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a new detached dwelling with garage. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that the applicant has requested the application be Tabled. When the application is ready to be lifted from the Table, there will be proper public notice and a staff report for the future Hearing. 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 stating they do not support the reduced side yard depth of 1.04 metre. It would be difficult to fit a drainage swale and the proposed retaining wall with a 1.04 metre side yard setback. Engineering Services has proposed the idea of aligning the rear of the garage with the east side of the proposed house. With regards to the reduced front yard depth, the applicant should ensure this does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 15 Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have reviewed the requested variances and have no objections. The applicant will be required to obtain a TRCA permit for the proposed new dwelling. Written comments were received in objection to the application expressing concerns with the loss of nature and green space, inconsistent with the surrounding area; and would cause a negative impact to surround neighbours and community. Written comments were received from a resident of 523 Bella Vista Drive in objection to the application, stating concerns with a retaining wall, grading, proposed building height, the massing of the property, and the character of the neighbourhood. In support of the application, the applicant submitted a Planning Rationale that was shared with Committee Members. Michael Fry, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Michael Fry stated his agreement with the request to Table the application. Given the request by the applicant through the applicant’s agent to Table the application, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 40/22 by W. & P. Grant, be Tabled as requested by the applicant and agent. Carried 4.2 (Tabled at the November 10, 2021 Hearing) P/CA 104/21 A. Uthayakumaran 275 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 104/21 by A. Uthayakumaran, be lifted from the table. Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 15 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. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Committee Member, Eric Newton joined the electronic Hearing at 7:07 pm; having all members present and able to vote on the remaining applications. 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 stating the applicant should ensure the increased building ground floor area does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from residents of 160 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road in objection to the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified the intent of the proposal is to facilitate the construction of a new detached dwelling on the lot. Peter Jaruczik, agent, was present to represent the application. Gloria & James 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 has since been modified from its original proposal. The request has scaled down the size of the accessory barn and worked with TRCA to accommodate their recommendations and submission of proper MDS calculations to surrounding farm areas. The original requested variance to facilitate the larger accessory barn, has been removed. The new request is to accommodate the construction of the main dwelling with an enclosed indoor swimming pool. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 15 James Johnstone spoke in objection to the application stating concerns with lack of communication from the owners; the agricultural land presumably being used as a commercial site; deterioration of the roads from construction vehicles; loss of natural features; lack of environmental assessment; previous removal of trees; and significant visual impact. In response to questions from Committee Members, Peter Jaruczik stated, the owner has several land holdings, this is his primary residence. The farm operation is managed from this property and accommodates storage of farm vehicles. The accessory barn structure will include a mezzanine, workshop, agricultural business office, and staff room for farm hands. The barn complies with the Zoning By-law and does not require a minor variance. The remaining acreage will be farmed. The main dwelling will be for a single family and not include any rental units. Strictly no lodging will be anywhere on the property. The owner created an addition to the existing 3-4 car detached garage on the westerly limits of property, which received all necessary building permits. The existing dwelling will be demolished to facilitate construction of the new main dwelling. Peter Jaruczik stated he has visited the site several times with the TRCA and will maintain the ecologically sensitive area where a previously purposed entrance was at Sideline 32. A road will be kept on the inside and away from the ecologically sensitive area. A Natural Heritage Feature Study and Stormwater Management Study is underway and will be submitted to the TRCA. A Site Plan Control application was not requested by City staff and has not been applied for to date. Peter Jaruczik continued, the requested extra 80 square metres is to enclose an existing outdoor swimming pool. The total gross floor area for the dwelling including the basement is approximately 3,048 square metres (10,000 square feet). A partially finished basement, will include a home theatre, gym and recreational room. Significant trees and screening along Sideline 32 already exists, and as part of the Natural Heritage evaluation, the applicant will accommodate a buffer zone and plantings to the satisfaction of TRCA. A significant setback of 30 to 40 metres is provided between Sideline 32 and the proposed dwelling. In response to questions from Committee Members, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated, portions of the land are within the TRCA regulated area, and a TRCA permit will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The applicant has been working with TRCA to address any comments, concerns, setback issues, and supporting studies. Agricultural related uses are permitted on the site. This would include the maintenance of any farm equipment, and farm related buildings. The City’s Site Plan Control By-law 7632/18 designation requires Site Plan Control for development within the Oak Ridges Moraine. There are some exceptions of classes of development; however detached dwellings are not exempt. Therefore, Site Plan Control will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. After hearing the concerns from the neighbours and questions from Committee Members, the responses from the agent, the applicant’s collaboration with the TRCA as part of the building permit process, the compliance with Zoning for the use of land as a Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 15 single family dwelling without any rental or lodging uses, and the size of the structures relative to the lot, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 104/21 by A. Uthayakumaran, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 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 February 9, 2022); and 2. That the applicant obtains a demolition permit to ensure that the existing detached dwelling on the subject property is removed and that all inspections have been completed or, execute and register on title a Demolition Agreement to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, which will secure the future removal of the existing detached dwelling on the subject property, to the satisfaction of the Building Services Department; and 3. That the applicant receive Site Plan Control approval. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 15 4.3 P/CA 34/22 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. 1865 Pickering Parkway The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7788/20, to permit: • porches and associated stairs not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above established grade to encroach a maximum of 1.0 metre outside the established building envelope, whereas the By-law requires porches and associated stairs not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above established grade may encroach a maximum of 0.5 of a metre outside the building envelope The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit residential porches to encroach a maximum of 1.0 metre outside the established building envelope. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. 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 Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified they are seeking relief from the setback requirements of the current zoning provisions, for which there has been a Zoning By-law Amendment approved within the last two years. The reason for this application despite a Zoning By-law Amendment having been passed for the same project is due to an administrative error in which a portion of encroachment on the proposed development was not completely captured the text of the approved by-law. Michelle Wei & Ryan Guetter, agents, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Michelle Wei stated the reason for the application is due to an administrative error in the approved Zoning By-law Amendment 7788/20 which was approved in October 2020. This depicted a projection of 0.5 of a metre, whereas it was intended to be 1.0 metres of an encroachment outside of the building envelope. The staff report to the Committee of Adjustment has been reviewed and appears satisfactory to the applicant where they share agreement for the staff recommendation of approval. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 15 Based on the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, comments made by the applicant’s agent, the application appears to be very straight forward and appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 34/22 by Metropia (Notion Road) 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed porches and associated stairs, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, 3, & 4, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 9, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 35/22 Deco Homes (Seaton) Inc. 2617 Hibiscus Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit: • a parking space reduced in width and length, whereas the By-law requires parking spaces to be a minimum of 2.6 metres in width and 5.3 metres in length; and • a parking space to be within a daylighting triangle, whereas the By-law states no parking space shall be permitted within any daylighting triangle. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit an outdoor parking space that is partially located in a daylighting triangle. 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 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, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 15 Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that the daylight triangle does not permit the required parking space of 2.6 metres by 5.3 metres to be within the lot boundaries. Chris Marchese, applicant, 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, Chris Marchese stated he has consulted with the necessary City departments to receive support without any objections. The daylight triangle was not captured in the By-law’s minor encroachment, and agrees with the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Chris Marchese stated the focus of development is on the southeast corner of Marathon Avenue and Hibiscus Drive; with the daylight triangle being fairly large. There is a sidewalk and side yard at the unit being proposed, where this application facilitates technical variances. Functionally it does meet the requirements of a parking space and is a minor encroachment into the daylight triangle of the municipal boulevard. After having reviewed the report to the Committee of Adjustment and agree with the staff comments; seeing that the variances are prompted by the irregular shape of the lot and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 35/22 by Deco Homes (Seaton) Inc., 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed outdoor parking space, 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 February 9, 2022). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 15 4.5 P/CA 36/22 S. & S. Vaz 1315 Broadview Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7872/21 & 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard of 6.3 metres for an uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch) and a second-storey balcony, and to recognize an existing sunroom, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; and • a front entrance with a maximum elevation of 1.3 metres above average grade, whereas the By-law states that the maximum elevation of the front entrance shall be 1.2 metres above the average grade. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of the front porch and associated steps, and to recognize the changes made to the existing sunroom. 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 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 Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that the house was purchased in 2021. The house was already approved for a setback of 6.0 metres, as per application P/CA 36/95 was granted to allow a 6.0 metre front yard depth. The house foundation was severely damaged and potentially unsafe for occupancy, a basement was built to ensure a structurally sound house. Stuart & Savio Vaz, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Savio Vaz spoke in support of the application stating agreement with City staff’s report to the Committee of Adjustment. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 15 In response to a question from a Committee Member, Stuart Vaz stated the sunroom was built in 1995 by the previous homeowners. The sunroom projected 7.5 metres and allowed for a 6.0 metres setback. After the purchase of the property, the sunroom was restored, having been in extreme disrepair. After hearing from the applicant and seeing no comments in objection to the application, it appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 36/22 by S. & S. Vaz, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch), second-storey balcony and existing sunroom, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4, contained the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 9, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 41/22 S. Savanyu & B. Pearen 1331 Gull Crossing The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7528/16, to permit an uncovered deck to encroach 3.0 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered decks to encroach into any rear yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of an uncovered platform (deck). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section stating the applicants will require a building permit that is to be review in accordance to the Ontario Building Code. It is important to note, what is seen in a conceptual drawing may not be code compliant. The details of the construction will be reviewed by City staff at the time of permit submission. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 15 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from a resident of 1363 Gull Crossing in objection to the application stating concerns with height and privacy. Written comments were received from the residents of 1333 Gull Crossing and 1335 Gull Crossing, in support of the application. In support of the application, the applicant submitted a Planning Rationale that was shared with Committee Members and made available to the public if a copy was requested. Sara Savanyu & Bradley Pearen, applicants, and Alex Savanyu, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Alex Savanyu spoke in support of the application stating, the application for the rear yard platform deck exceeds the By-law by 1.0 metres. Discussions have taken place with planning staff, the report has been reviewed and the applicants have no issues with two proposed conditions of approval. Two letters of support have been submitted, along with verbal support from others. After having reviewed the neighbouring concerns regarding privacy and visual impact, the deck has been designed to include a tiered privacy wall on either side and a railing. The deck is not maximizing the allowable width even though it is requesting a 1.0 metre difference in projected length. Most of the dwellings within this subdivision have or are contemplating rear yard decks, that adds amenity space to the property. To avoid a reapplication, should the Committee not favour the current proposal, the applicants would be willing to defer the application and further work with planning staff. In response to a question from the Chair, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer, stated she is not aware of any variance applications for decks that have come before the Committee. This is a fairly new subdivision and the Committee may start to see more come forward in the future for consideration. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Alex Savanyu stated, based on the survey the property grading is relatively flat, however it may have a slight slope for drainage purposes. There is a solid wood fence constructed between homes that is 2.13 metres (7 feet) tall, which does not allow for a surplus of privacy. As a result, additional privacy measures have been taken into account, in the form of tiered walls with varying materials on all sides. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 15 Denise Rundle, Committee Member, commented that this is an infill type of development surrounded by single family homes. This area is an architecturally interesting townhouse development with very consistent setbacks, that should be maintained. Denise Rundle stated her agreement with the applicant that the decks were anticipated off the second floor of these units due to the narrowness of the rear yards. The previous zoning amendments, anticipated this by allowing for 2.0 metres. By permitting this type of request, it would allow others to do the same and take away from the architectural consistency of the development. The overlook and privacy do appear to be of concern. In this way, the entire townhouse development would need to be reviewed as a whole, and no other applications have been brought forward at this time. Having reviewed the application, listening to the applicant’s agent, appreciating the privacy measures considered by the applicants, being in agreement with comments made, and concurring with the report to the Committee of Adjustment, the application does not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 41/22 by S. Savanyu & B. Pearen, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 42/22 V. Varghese 1576 Greenmount Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1975/85, to permit: • a covered platform and associated steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.6 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires 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; and • a maximum lot coverage of 39 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the reconstruction of a covered deck with steps. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 15 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 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 Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified the rear yard distance from the building wall edge to the property line is 7.97 metres. Vincent Varghese, applicant, 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, Vincent Varghese stated the intent of this application is to have a covered porch in the rear yard since the dwelling does not have a covered space in the front. The covered porch would assist with enjoying the amenity space under varying weather conditions. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Vincent Varghese stated there is no intent to enclose the covered rear yard porch. After hearing from the applicant and reviewing the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, the application appears to meet the four test of the Planning Act, and Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 42/22 by V. Varghese, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition(s): 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed covered deck and steps, 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 February 9, 2022). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, February 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 15 April 13, 2022 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 2nd hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:17 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, March 9, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer