Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 13, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 32 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, 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. 2.Reordering of Items and Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That Item 4.4 for P/CA 45/22 be reordered to Item 4.1 and that Item 4.17 for P/CA 61/22 be reordered to Item 4.2 and that the agenda for the Wednesday, April 13, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 32 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 2nd hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, February 9, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 45/22 B. Atique 2030 Duberry Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1976/85, to recognize a minimum interior side yard width of 0.4 metres one side (north), 0.6 metre other side (south), whereas the By-law permits a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres one side, 0.6 metres other side. The requested variance is intended to recognize existing below grade stairs proposed to be covered. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Badar Atique, applicant, and Abhishek Rajgor, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Given the request by City staff to table the application to allow further review of the variances being applied for and a possible re-notification, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 45/22 by B. Atique, be Tabled to allow for the applicant to confirm the requested variances and if required, for a new proper Notice be given. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 32 4.2 P/CA 61/22 S. Wyce & B. Grant 624 Park Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum rear yard of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres; • a minimum front yard of 0.3 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a main building is erected upon a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the flank of such lot, such main building shall be deemed to have two front yards, one on the street upon which such lot fronts, and one on the street upon which such lot flanks, and shall conform to the respective front yard requirement of 7.5 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 23 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths up to and including 40 metres shall be 17 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • a covered platform and associated covered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 7.4 metres into the required front 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 yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard (2511 Section 5.8(b)); • a covered platform and associated covered and uncovered steps (side porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the required front 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 yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard (2511 Section 5.8(b)); and • a vehicle in the rear yard to be set back a minimum of 0.0 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that vehicles parked in a rear yard must be set back a minimum 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 32 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. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and 13 area residents. Sarah Grant, applicant, Annette Koczian, agent, were present to represent the application. Carlie Weppler was present in favour of the application. Carlie Weppler, spoke in support of the minor variance application, and indicated the following: support of the proposed 43 percent lot coverage as this is a common occurrence throughout the neighbourhood; support of the variance to maximum building depth, identified that this is an unique shaped lot with respect to interpretation of required setbacks and the road configuration of Park Crescent, and hopeful that the Committee approve the requested variances this evening. Given the request by City staff to table the application to allow the applicant to address Engineering Services comments; to potentially adjust any variances, and to work with staff to revise the site plan, if necessary, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 61/22 by S. Wyce & B. Grant, be Tabled to address Engineering Services comments; to potentially adjust any variances, and to work with staff to revise the site plan, if necessary. Carried Unanimously 4.3 (Tabled at the February 9, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 40/22 W. & P. Grant 521 Bella Vista Drive Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 40/22 by W. & P. Grant be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 32 • a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum side yard depth of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.5 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 City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and three area residents. Bill Grant, applicant, and Yaso Somalingam, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Yaso Somalingam outlined the proposal and stated the application is minor in nature and meets the four tests of the Planning Act. In response to questions from Committee Members, Yaso Somalingam, stated the 1.2 metre variance is only for the corner of the rear of the dwelling; the applicant came to an agreement with the neighbour and there will be a foundation for a retaining wall and a new fence to provide privacy. He also explained TRCA requires a 2.0 metre wide setback in order to access the rear of the property if works are ever required. Bill Grant stated he has spoken with TRCA and they require a 2.0 metre setback on the west to accommodate access to the rear of the property for any required maintenance, and was assured by TRCA that the City would not have a problem with the 2.0 metre setback. Now at this late date the City has indicated concerns with the reduced east side yard setback. In response to questions from Committee Members regarding the significant engineering issues, removing the request for a 1.2 metre side yard, how is the intent of the Zoning By-law met, and are 5 parking spaces required, the applicant and the agent stated the neighbour on the eastside advised that a reduced side yard of 1.2 metre is only required at one corner of the house, a verbal agreement has been reached with the neighbour to the east to construct a foundation for the retaining wall and fence on the property line, and additional parking is required as parents will be living with the property owners. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated that TRCA has provided written comments based on the site plans circulated by City Development indicating they have no concerns with the requested variances. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 32 After review of the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, hearing questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant and agent, reading the concerns raised from Engineering Services with respect to the reduced side yard depth of 1.2 metres; and recognizing the applicant worked with the City to arrive at a solution and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff to address TRCA’s requirements, not convinced that a reduction in the east side yard is warranted, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That a minimum side yard depth of 1.2 metres for application P/CA 40/22 by W. & P. Grant, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land; and That the minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres for application P/CA 40/22 by W. & P. Grant, 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 these variances apply only to the proposed new detached dwelling with garage, as generally sited (and revised with a 1.5 metre east side yard) and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 43/22 M. Asgary 681 Front Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21 & 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard depth of 7.1 metres for the second floor front wall, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres; • covered steps and a platform not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade, not projecting more than 0.5 metres into the required front 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 yard; • a minimum rear yard depth of 6.2 metres for a rear uncovered porch with steps, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 32 • uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.0 metres into the side yard, whereas the By-law requires Uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 0.6 metres into any required side yard; • a maximum front entrance elevation of 1.6 metres above the average grade, whereas the By-law requires a maximum elevation of the front entrance of 1.2 metres above the average grade; • a parking space within a private garage with a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 5.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires each parking space within a private garage shall have a minimum width of 3.0 metres and a minimum depth of 6.0 metres; and • a minimum front yard setback of 7.1 metres based on the shortest front yard setback of adjacent dwellings, whereas the By-law requires the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to recognize a newly constructed detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. M. Asgary, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, M. Asgary explained the number of variances being applied for is a result of the number of revisions to the design of the dwelling. He explained the previous minor variance application for the height, the appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), the Building permit process and the submission of three sets of revisions. He stated the reason for the rear yard variance of 6.2 metres is because of the lot is irregular in size. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained two of the requested variances are in relation to the Infill and Replacement Housing By-laws that have been passed by City Council and have been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT). The Secretary-Treasurer also explained the process of how minor variance application zoning checks are being done. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 32 After reviewing the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant, Tom Copeland moved the following motion, Sean Wiley also added given there is no public input and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley seconded the motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 43/22 by M. Asgary, 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 existing two storey detached dwelling with an attached garage including the existing uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch), existing uncovered platform (rear porch) and associated steps, and uncovered steps in the north side yard, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted as-built survey (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Motion Defeated Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson opposed Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour After reviewing the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, hearing questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant, it is felt that the applicant can conform to the rear yard depth by reducing the deck, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That a minimum rear yard depth of 6.2 metres for a rear uncovered porch with steps for application P/CA 43/22 by M. Asgary, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land; and Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 32 That all other variances for application P/CA 43/22 by M. Asgary, 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 existing two storey detached dwelling with an attached garage including the existing uncovered platform and associated steps (front porch), and uncovered steps in the north side yard, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted as-built survey (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton opposed Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.5 P/CA 44/22 V. Pejcinovski 1329 Broadview Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 7873/21 & 7901/22: • to permit a minimum front yard depth of 7.1 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum front yard depth of 7.5 metres; • to permit a covered platform (porch) and uncovered steps not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required front 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 yard; • to permit an uncovered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.8 metres into the side yard (west), whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.0 metre into any required side yard; and. • to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 3.3 metres for an uncovered rear deck with associated steps, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 32 The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of a Building Permit Application to permit the construction of a second storey addition, front covered porch with steps, and to recognize the existing rear platform (deck) with associated steps. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and two area residents. Tomasz Goral, agent, was present to represent the application. Sharon Whiteside was present in objection to the application. Tomasz Goral explained the variances are for the bay window, front porch to provide better curb appeal and to recognize the existing deck that was built without a permit. Given that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 44/22 by V. Pejcinovski, 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 second storey addition, front covered porch and uncovered steps, and to recognize the existing uncovered rear yard deck with associated 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 46/22 M. Khan & E Barnicutt 2300 Southcott Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5548/99, to permit an uncovered platform not exceeding 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 4.2 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 32 The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct an uncovered platform (deck) in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and seven area residents. Mike Khan, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Based on the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, no concerns from Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Engineering Services, Building Services, neighbours, and that the application appears 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 46/22 by M. Khan & E Barnicutt, 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 uncovered platform, 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 47/22 & P/CA 48/22 M. Anjam 700 Hillview Crescent P/CA 47/22 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum lot area of 465 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 550 square metres; • a minimum front yard of 3.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 32 • a minimum front yard setback of 3.5 metres, whereas the minimum front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block are greater than 3.5 metres, whereas the By-law states the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the shortest existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block; • a minimum rear yard of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; and • a covered and uncovered platform and associated uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 6.2 metres into the required front 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 yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard. P/CA 48/22 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum lot area of 505 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 550 square metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.6 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres; • a minimum north flankage side yard of 3.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a main building is erected upon a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, the minimum width of the side yard facing the street upon which the lot flanks shall be 4.5 metres; and • a covered and uncovered platform and associated uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 metres into the required front 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 yard, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to construct two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances to side yard setback and projection/height of the front porch on Part 2 (P/CA 48/22) meet the four tests of the Planning Act; however, the requested variances to lot area, front yard setback, rear yard setback and projection/height of the front porch Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 32 on Part 1 (P/CA 47/22), and the variances to lot area and north flankage side yard on Part 2 (P/CA 48/22) do not conform to the intent of the Zoning By-law, are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are not minor in nature. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, and twelve area residents. Nadeem Irfan, agent, was present to represent the application. Paul White and Michelle Osborne were present in objection to the applications. Nadeem Irfan outlined the applications, and indicated the following: proposed lots are similar in frontage and area to existing lots in the area, as of right one house would not need variances and could be 7,000 square feet floor area which is not desirable, Part 2 complies with most of the By-law provisions and is supported by staff, and 2 houses/lots require variances due to the interpretation of the by-law provisions. Paul White appeared in opposition to the proposal, and indicated the following: proposal has been tabled by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee; City staff requested that variances be addressed prior to severance applications being considered; no objections to large homes as long as they conform to zoning, and request Committee refuse the applications. Michelle Osborne appeared in opposition to the proposals, indicated she speaks on behalf of the residents of Stonebridge Lane, and outlined the following: area is very unique, disappointing there are many (10) variances, requested variances are not minor, direct neighbours will be impacted, ample room for one dwelling, and in favour of growth that makes sense. In response to questions from a Committee member, it was established that Michelle Osborne lives within 60 metres of the subject property, and that the supporting 8 letters are from people that are not immediately or directly impacted by the proposal. The agent in response to a question from a Committee member, indicated that the proposal is desirable as it has potential to be severed, the intent of the Official Plan is met, ample amenity space is provided, variances are required due to the interpretation of the Zoning By-law, and new urban design guidelines are satisfied. Denise Rundle outlined the following: it is not expected that a 7,000 square foot home will be built given the character of the neighbourhood, the Region of Durham Land Division has astutely deferred the consent applications for the minor variances to be addressed first, that infill housing is to fit in with the character and lotting of neighbourhood, the proposed lots are out of character with the lots to the south and west, house replacement is more appropriate than infill development that would require future land assembly, and then Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 32 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That applications P/CA 47/22 and P/CA 48/22 by M. Anjam, be Refused in their entirety on the grounds that the requested variances are not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in not keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 49/22 S. Xavier 3290 Greenburn Place The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2044/85, to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 4.6 metres within a residential zone, whereas the By-law permits a maximum height of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings within any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct an accessory structure (detached garage). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and sixteen area residents. Imad Samad, agent, was present to represent the application. Robert Seiler, Estella & Robert Prosser, Janan Bilbily, Teresa Holden, Salman Bhutta, Daivd Bray and Hal Whorms were present in objection to the application. Robert Seiler appeared in opposition, in addition to a written submission, the following was outlined: a restrictive covenant exists between the developer and the City, garage is too close to the property to the north, a review of the By-law indicates a 7.5 to 10 metre setback is required, City Development has made an honest error in interpreting the By-law. Estella Prosser appeared in opposition, and outlined the following: construction of a warehouse for storage of cars and traffic generated will be devastating to the community, industrial warehouse sized building is not in character with upscale houses, and there will be a negative impact on property values. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 32 Teresa Holden appeared in opposition on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Homeowner Association representing 29 of the 30 homeowners/shareholders of the community, and in addition to a written submission the following was outlined: strong opposition to both the variances and to the garage structure, unique community akin to a cottage area without the water traffic, drawings do not covey that subject property and garage is a waterfront property in full view of the lake, contravenes clause 5 of restrictive covenant that requires structures to be built 15.24 metres from side property line, and a structure to store15 sports cars contravenes clause 2 prohibits motorized vehicles on the lake and common lands. Salman Bhutta appeared in agreement with previous residents, and identified concerns regarding environmental degradation. Hal Whorms appeared in agreement with previous residents, and identified concerns over the impact on private services and erosion from drainage from a flat roof. David Bray appeared in opposition, and in addition to written submission outlined the following: unacceptable to allow a commercial sized structure to be built on a residential property; 3 businesses registered at this property; zoning should protect character of area, and property values. Imad Samad outlined the proposal, indicating a workshop is not proposed, the purpose of the structure is to store the owner’s collection of fancy vehicles. Zoning allows structure, requesting variance to building height to allow an appropriately designed proportional structure using good materials. Janan Bilbily appeared in opposition, outlining the following: the current fleet of 7 to 10 cars has created a significant increase in street traffic and car noise that exceeds noise levels permitted by City, a structure to store more vehicles will worsen an already bad condition, ground water will be exhausted when fleet needs to be maintained and washed, does not meet the purpose of the Official Plan as the proposed garage will be appear as a primary use due to its size and the house as a secondary use, the garage is proposed too close to shared property line, the requested variance is not minor as it is over 31 percent greater the maximum permitted, and the structure is not just to store cars but for maintenance and showroom. In response to a question from a Committee member about enforcement of the restrictive covenant, Ms. Holden described the restrictive covenant as being established in 1986, is registered on title, contains 6 clauses, and is included in the Saxon Glen homeowner handbook. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 32 In response to a question from a Committee member the Secretary-Treasurer responded that restrictive covenants between developers and land owners are not enforced by the City notwithstanding they may be registered on title, such covenants may be enforced by the Board of the homeowners association. In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant indicated that there is parking for 3 vehicles within the house, and garage is proposed to accommodate 5 additional vehicles. Given that the Committee has heard from the neighbours, that the matter before the Committee to consider is a variance to the maximum building height, that the increased building height when combined with the size of the structure is not minor and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and as added by a friendly amendment to recognize that there is a restrictive covenant registered on title requiring a 15.2 metre setback of structures, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 49/22 by S. Xavier, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is 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 Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 50/22 T. Chaudhry 123 Secord Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4271/93, to permit: • an uncovered platform (rear main-floor deck) not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required rear 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; and • a maximum lot coverage of 40 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 detached dwelling and associated rear deck due to fire damage. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 32 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Patrick Mcauliffe, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Patrick Mcauliffe explained the history of the subject property; stated the deck will be the same size as what was previously there and the maximum lot coverage variance is a result of building over the garage. Based on the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, questions from a Committee Member and the responses from the agent and that the application 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 50/22 by T. Chaudhry, 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 proposed detached dwelling and associated rear deck, 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.10 P/CA 51/22 P. Pathmanatan & K. Pushpaharan 1832 Appleview Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22 to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to recognize an existing reduced side (north) yard setback. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 18 of 32 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. David Marasigan, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Danilo Marasigan explained the reason for the minor variance application is due to a construction error with the foundation. Given that there are no objections from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; no objections received from neighbhours, and that the application is minor in nature, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 51/22 by P. Pathmanatan & K. Pushpaharan, 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 these variances apply only to the existing 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.11 P/CA 52/22 A. Ford 861 Krosno Boulevard The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520 to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing carport with a reduced south side yard setback. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 19 of 32 Clinton Edwards, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Clinton Edwards provided a history of the subject property and explained the application and stated this application meets the four tests of the Planning Act and Official Plan and desirable in nature and is minor in nature. Based on the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 52/22 by A. Ford, 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 these variances apply only to the existing detached dwelling and attached carport, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (see Exhibit 2, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.12 P/CA 53/22 T. Mylvaganam 125 Woodview Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a maximum building height of 9.8 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. 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 variance for a maximum building height meets the four tests of the Planning Act and the requested variance for a minimum north side yard and south side yard does not meet Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 20 of 32 the four tests of the Planning Act. The Secretary-Treasurer also outlined that City staff are of the opinion that if the applicant was to amend the minimum north side yard and south side yard with to 1.5 metres the variances would meet the four tests. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and six area residents. Thayalan Mylvaganam, applicant, and Tom Vanle, agent, were present to represent the application. Robert Gummow was present in objection to the application. Tom Vanle explained the application and stated the variances being applied for would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. In response to questions from Committee Members, Tom Vanle stated this is a custom built home for the applicant to live and not for resale; is aware of comments received from City’s Engineering Services; not willing to reduce the height or to extend the floorspace into the rear yard and the third floor will not be a habitable space as it is a truss roof. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Thayalan Mylvaganam stated he willing to amend the application to permit a minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.5 metres. Robert Gummow stated the 1.5 metre side yard would be more appropriate and expressed a concern with the drainage and questioned if the drainage of the roof will be to the front towards Woodview Drive instead of the backyard. After hearing questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant and agent, and the applicant amending the application for the minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.5 metres, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That amended application P/CA 53/22, by T. Mylvaganam, be Approved on the grounds that the maximum building height of 9.8 metres and minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.5 metres 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 conditions: 1. That the submitted plans be revised to show the proposed 2-storey detached dwelling setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from the north and south side lot lines. 2. That these variances apply only to the proposed 2-storey detached dwelling, as generally sited (and revised with a 1.5 metre north and south side yard setback) and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 21 of 32 4.13 P/CA 54/22 J. Rajaratnam & K. Sarvendran 1946 Liverpool Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit a minimum side yard depth of 0.8 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to construct a three-car garage attached to an existing 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. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Jeevan Rajaratnam, applicant, and Kevin Washington, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Kevin Washington explained the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Kevin Washington stated this is an addition to a new build on the north side; he is are aware of the Engineering Services comments; and stated there is no garage so they are currently parking in the driveway. After a review of the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, hearing questions from Committee Members and the responses from the applicant and agent, comments from Engineering Services, and that the application 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 54/22 by J. Rajaratnam & K. Sarvendran, 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, 5 & 6, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 13, 2022). Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 22 of 32 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner performs grading works up to the lot line, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson opposed Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.14 P/CA 55/22 R. McKenzie & D. John 1824 Holbrook Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4912/97, to: • permit a minimum rear yard depth of 7.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 46 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent; • permit uncovered steps or platforms (rear deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.6 metres into the required rear 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 yard • permit uncovered steps or platforms (rear deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.1 metres into the required 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 0.6 metres into any required side yard; The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a one- storey addition (sunroom) with rear deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance(s) meet(s) the four tests of the Planning Act. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 23 of 32 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Rowan McKenzie, applicant, and Kevin Washington, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Kevin Washington explained the application and stated they were able to eliminate two variances for the rear yard depth and the encroachment projection of uncovered steps or platforms into the required rear yard variances. Given that the variances are relatively small adjustments, the property to the west is larger and this addition will have minimal impact on the abutting neighbours; subject to the revision made by the applicant to eliminate the two variances to the rear yard depth and projection into the rear yard, it is recommended that the two remaining variances to maximum lot coverage and projection into the required side yard 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 55/22 by R. McKenzie & D. John, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances to maximum lot coverage and projection into the required side yard 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 the variances to the apply only to the proposed one-storey addition and rear deck with associated 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.15 P/CA 56/22 & P/CA 57/22 1000118968 Ontario Ltd. & Whitepine Group Inc. 1835 & 1837 Woodview Avenue P/CA 56/22 – 1835 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 24 of 32 P/CA 57/22 – 1837 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests approval from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum south side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Larry Macdonell, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated the City is not aware of the result of the Land Division Committee decision, and explained the Land Division Committee Decision will not impact the consideration of these minor variance applications. To clarify that these variances are for the interior side yards only, so regarding 1835 Woodview Avenue the variance is for the north side yard setback and 1837 Woodview Avenue the variance is for the south side yard setback and, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 56/22 & P/CA 57/22 by 1000118968 Ontario Ltd. & Whitepine Group 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 these variances apply only to the detached dwellings, 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 25 of 32 4.16 P/CA 58/22 & P/CA 59/22 1000118936 Ontario Ltd. & 1000119025 Ontario Ltd. 1586 & 1588 Oakburn Street P/CA 58/22 – 1586 Oakburn Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. P/CA 59/22 – 1588 Oakburn Street The applicant requests approval from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Larry Macdonell, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer provided clarification that the variances are for the north side yard on each of the subject properties only. Given the questions asked from Committee Members and the responses from the agent, clarification provided by the Secretary-Treasurer, that further clarification that these variances only apply to the north side yards only; and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 26 of 32 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 58/22 & P/CA 59/22 by 1000118936 Ontario Ltd. & 1000119025 Ontario 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the detached dwellings, 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 April 13, 2022). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner performs grading works up to the lot line and/or create a common swale on the lot line, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Unanimously 4.17 P/CA 60/22 F. Molinaro 1771 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum north side yard and south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law states where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 23 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 27 percent, whereas the By-law states that for lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area, the maximum lot coverage shall be 25 percent. The applicant is proposing to sever the property resulting in a total of 2 lots. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to construct a bungalow on the proposed north lot. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 27 of 32 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. The applicant or agent was not present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Given that there are no questions for the agent, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 60/22 by F. Molinaro, 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 conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed bungalow on the proposed north lot (Part 1), 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, dated April 13, 2022). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner performs grading works up to the lot line and/or create a common swale on the lot line, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Unanimously 4.18 P/CA 62/22 P. Nelson 1707 Echo Point Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law No. 3036, as amended by Zoning By-law 1998/85 to permit uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.6 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres in any required front or rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a covered and uncovered deck with steps. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 28 of 32 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and seven area residents. Phillip Nelson, applicant, and Tyrone Grey, agent, were present to represent the application. Deborah Valleau and Ursula Donelan were present in objection to the application. Chris Gurpersaud and Racqual Nelson were present was present in favour of to the application. Tyrone Grey explained that since their last minor variance application they have made revisions by reducing the upper and lower deck; the use of the lower deck is to allow safe egress of the building and to allow usable space of the backyard. Pictures were provided for the Committee to review. The pictures show the rear fence is approximately 8 feet above grade and will not have any privacy concerns. In response to a question from Committee Members, Tyrone Grey confirmed the upper deck has been reduced so it is no longer encroaching into the rear yard and have lowered the lower deck to no more than eight inches above grade. Phillip Nelson provided a history of the subject property; stated there are no privacy concerns due to the unusual slope of the rear yard. In response to a question from Committee Members, Phillip Nelson indicated that pictures have been provided to show the view points from the first floor and that the lower deck is below the height of the fence. Deborah Valleau expressed concerns with loss of privacy, sloping and grading issues; she also stated no objections with the deck as long as the lower deck is below the fence line. In response to a question from a concerned resident, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified the variance being applied for. Ursula Donelan expressed concerns with the loss of privacy, grading issues and the size of the two new homes that have been built. Chris Gurpersaud spoke in support of the application and stated there are will be no loss of privacy, and has no issues or concerns with the proposed deck. Racquel Nelson spoke in support of the application and provided a history of the subject property. Given that the applicant has taken into consideration the concerns raised by the surrounding neighbours and has revised their plans, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 29 of 32 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 62/22 by P. Nelson, 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 covered and uncovered deck with 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 April 13, 2022). Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour 4.19 P/CA 63/22 to P/CA 65/22 R. Crook 1771 Spruce Hill Road P/CA 63/22 – Part 1 (West Lot) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 5.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 30 of 32 P/CA 64/22 – Part 2 (Middle Lot) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 5.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.45 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; P/CA 65/22 – Part 3 (East Lot) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 5.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.45 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to facilitate consent applications conditionally approved by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee to sever the property resulting in a total of three lots and to facilitate the submission of building permits applications to permit three detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Input from other sources were received from the City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 31 of 32 Paul Demczak outlined the proposal, indicating the following: the streetscape is an appropriate transition to existing development, and the four tests of the Planning Act are met. In response to question a from a Committee Member, the agent responded that the easement will be removed from the property. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer provided clarification on the location of the easement. Given that the applicant has moved the dwellings forward to allow for larger backyards that the front yard setbacks are reasonable 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 applications P/CA 63/22 to P/CA 65/22 by R. Crook, 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 conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed lots and detached dwellings, 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 April 13, 2022). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner performs grading works up to the lot line and/or create a common swale on the lot line, to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 13, 2022 6:30 pm Electronic Hearing Page 32 of 32 5.Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 3rd hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 10:19 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________May 11, 2022 Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer