Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 10, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 8 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Isabel Lima, Planner II – Host Kerry Yelk, Planner I Jasmine Correia, Clerk, Support Services Absent Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 10, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Due to her absence at the previous hearing, Denise Rundle will abstain from voting on the adoption of minutes. Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 6th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, July 13, 2022 be adopted. Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 8 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 89/22 & P/CA 90/22 A. & B. Wheatle 559 Rougemount Drive P/CA 89/22 – 559 Rougemount Drive, Parts 2 & 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres • a minimum south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres P/CA 90/22 – 559 Rougemount Drive, Part 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent (amended by the applicant to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent) • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres • a minimum south side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres (withdrawn by Applicant) The applicant requests approval of these applications in order to sever the property resulting in two lots and to construct two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the applications and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. The Secretary-Treasurer noted that the recommendation read out at the Hearing was revised from the staff recommendation contained in the agenda. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and 10 area residents. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 8 Rodger Miller, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Rodger Miller, agent, explained that the dwelling on Part 4 (P/CA 90/22) will be for his clients and will serve as a multigenerational home. The house on Parts 2 & 3 (P/CA 89/22) will be occupied by the clients’ parents who now occupy the home at 563 Rougemount Drive located to the north of the subject lands which was recently constructed by Mr. Wheatle. Mr. Wheatle is a custom homebuilder who has completed five homes in this neighbourhood. Mr. Miller advised modifications were made to the application for Part 4, and indicated agreement with City staff recommendations. Proposed is the construction of a dwelling on Parts 2 & 3 and another dwelling on Part 4. These lots were the result of a conditionally approved severance. The two lots will each have a lot frontage of 30.5 metres, lot depth of 43 metres and lot area of 663 metres square. The lot areas are 42 percent larger than the minimum lot area requirement of the zoning by-law. The applicants are seeking approval of these variances, in order to construct two slightly larger homes, reflecting their specific needs in a modern house design which is not currently captured by the City’s Zoning By-law, enacted in the 1970s. The requested reduced side yard variance is considered minor in nature and the impact on the streetscape will be imperceptible. Further, the reduced side yards maintain sufficient space for access and maintenance. As required by City Engineering, the owners of 563 Rougemount Drive have provided their consent to accommodate a shared drainage swale. The applicants will be able to comply with the remaining requests for consent as they control the remaining lands. Eight percent of the requested increase in lot coverage from 33 percent to 41 percent is attributable to the covered outdoor amenity areas, mainly covered porches and decks. The dwelling and garage proposed for Parts 2 & 3 will have a lot coverage of 33.98 percent, while the covered deck and patio will have a lot coverage of 6.35 percent. Similarly on Part 4, the dwelling and garage will have a lot coverage of 36.78 percent, and the covered patio and deck will have a lot coverage of 4.22 percent. The requested increases in lot coverage do not have any significant impact to neighbouring properties, particularly the dwellings on Lekani Court. The rear yards will be significantly larger than the minimum required yard set out in the Zoning By-law maintaining a significant building separation to the dwellings on Lekani Court. The minimum required rear yard distance is 7.5 metres. The owners intend on keeping all the existing trees at the rear property line in order to maintain the visual landscape screen. The rear building walls will generally match the rear walls at 563 Rougemount Drive through to 557 Rougemount Drive. The proposed front building wall will generally match the front wall at 563 Rougemount Drive. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 8 The front building wall on Part 4 will be slightly forward of 557 Rougemount Drive but will be in keeping with or in excess of the Zoning By-law requirements for the front yard setback. It is of their opinion that the lot coverage increase and the reduced side yards will not create any issues in regards to privacy, shadowing, overlook, character, streetscape and front yard landscaping, and satisfies the four tests of a minor variance. The neighbours on Lekani Court and on Rougemount Drive have provided letters of support. There was one letter of concern from the owners of 557 Rougemount Drive and Mr. Miller is satisfied that these concerns have been addressed tonight, with exception of the side yard setback on Part 4 as it was removed from the application. There were also concerns made about possible disturbance around their property during the construction of the dwellings. The disturbance they describe would require some intrusion or access to the property which is not being contemplated by his clients. They had also expressed concerns regarding the lot coverage increase of 45 percent, since then it has been reduced to 41 percent and of this 4.22 percent is associated with the covered porch and deck. Other concerns expressed regarding stormwater running onto their property in the future. Mr. Miller advised that with the proposed lots being 42 percent greater than the minimum lot size required under the Zoning By-law there will be sufficient space on Part 4 to capture, infiltrate and direct all stormwater to the front of the property and to the road ditch without impacting the property at 557 Rougemount Drive. After listening to the presentation by the agent, and having any questions he had answered through the thoroughness of the presentation, as well as addressing the concerns of the neighbouring resident, the provision of consent regarding the drainage swale, and reading through the Report provided by the City, Sean Wiley moved the following motions: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 89/22 by A. & B. Wheatle, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent and minimum south and north side yards of 1.2 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 these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 3, 5, 6, 7 & 8 as they relate to Parts 2 & 3 only, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 10, 2022). Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 8 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed with the minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres. Carried Unanimously Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That the requested variances to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres and a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent for amended application P/CA 90/22 by A. & B. Wheatle, 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted and revised plans (refer to Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 as they relate to Part 4 only, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 10, 2022). 2. That of the maximum lot coverage of 41 percent (36.8 percent be comprised of the dwelling and attached garage, and 4.2 percent be comprised of the covered porch and covered deck). 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed within the minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres. Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 91/22 N. & K. Syed 1123 Citrine Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit a total of 2 parking spaces on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of three parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit within a townhouse dwelling with two parking spaces on the lot. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend refusal. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 8 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant and City’s Engineering Services. In support of the application, the applicant identified insufficient space on driveway to park a second car. Syed Hussain, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Syed Hussain, agent, stated the reason for the variance is due to the second dwelling unit. His clients would like to create a bachelor apartment but they do not have enough room on the property to accommodate a third parking space. This unit is not intended for families, they will be using it as a bachelor apartment for students who don’t own vehicles. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Syed Hussain explained that his client just recently purchased the property and doesn’t have plans on moving in the near future. The property line shown on the submitted site plan is shorter than what actually exists. There is a two car driveway currently which was done by the owner. They’d like permission to park on City land next to the dwelling. In response to questions from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained as shown on Exhibit 2, page 32 of the Agenda, the minimum measurement for a single parking space is 5.6 metres x 2.4 metres. It was clarified that the agent was referring to the paved driveway being longer than what appears on Exhibit 2. The paved portion of the driveway covers the private property but also extends further to the City owned right-of-way. They may be able to get two vehicles on the paved driveway but not two vehicles in front of the garage within the private property. The Secretary-Treasurer also explained that the applicant had applied for a building permit for construction of this accessory dwelling unit however upon zoning review it was noted that the drawings did not comply with the zoning by-law. In response to a question from a Committee member, Syed Hussain confirmed the accessory dwelling unit has yet to be built. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed that the City does not permit parking on the right-of-way and it would be enforced by Bylaw Services. If there is a sidewalk on that side of the street the vehicle would be straddling it. Syed Hussain, agent, stated there is no sidewalk on the subject property’s side of the street. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 8 While the agent has been transparent about how they would deal with a tenant who may or may not own a vehicle, should the Committee approve this application it could result in parking tickets for the tenants and these variances tend to go with the land. Therefore this application does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 91/22 by N. & K. Syed, 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 4.3 P/CA 92/22 C. & S. LeBrun 967 Redbird Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1998/85, to permit uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 2.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires 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 an uncovered deck with steps. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant and City’s Engineering Services. Sarah LeBrun, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Sarah LeBrun, applicant, explained they are requesting approval of this variance in order to construct a deck. In the process of installing a pool in their yard they removed the old deck and learned that installing a new deck would not meet the zoning requirements as the elevation in the yard had been changed prior to them moving to the property. The new deck will be significantly smaller than the old two tier deck that was in place. She believes this variance is in keeping with the intent of the By-law. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 10, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 8 In response to a question from a Committee member, Sarah LeBrun, applicant, confirmed it will be an exit deck from the rear of the dwelling. The deck will be level with the rear patio doors and the steps will run along the right side of the house. After reviewing the staff report, the drawings and submission materials and listening to the applicant’s commentary, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 92/22 by C. & S. LeBrun, 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 subject property, 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 August 10, 2022). Carried Unanimously 5.Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 7th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:38 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, September 14, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer September 14, 2022