Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 12, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 20 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Isabel Lima, Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I Ziya Cao, Planner I Absent Denise Rundle 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. To avoid a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, will abstain from voting on the applications. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, October 12, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 8th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, September 14, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 20 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 114/22 Pickering Islamic Center 2071 Brock Road Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 114/22 by Pickering Islamic Center be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6578/05, to permit: • 3 accessory buildings (portables) on a lot without a main building, whereas the By- law states that “accessory building” shall mean a subordinate building, or structure on the same lot with the main building, or a part of the main building, devoted exclusively to an accessory use; • 3 accessory buildings (portables) which are not part of the main building to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law states that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard; • accessory buildings (portables) to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the east lot line and 0.5 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area shall be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; and • 3 accessory buildings (portables) with a total lot coverage of 6 percent, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the temporary storage of 3 portables on the subject property. 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section, Pickering Ward 3 Regional Councillor and Pickering Ward 1 Regional Councillor. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 20 Mohammed Rahim, President, Pickering Islamic Center, Kazim Qureshi, Trustee, Pickering Islamic Center, Nazakat Hussain, Trustee, Pickering Islamic Center and Bob Martindale, Planning Consultant, were present to represent the application. Two area residents were present in objection to the application. Bob Martindale, Planning Consultant, stated he joined the application one month ago to assist the applicant in lifting the application from the table and to answer questions that were raised from the last hearing. Zahira Khan, area resident, raised the following questions: how does the Pickering Islamic Center plan on maintaining the storage units; will regular fire inspections be conducted considering flammable items are proposed to be stored in the units; if the conditions are not being adhered to where do residents phone to make an enquiry and what are the steps the City takes in those cases; and how does the City and the Islamic Center plan on addressing parking concerns on the adjacent streets resulting from overflow of parking and the loss on site parking spaces. Abbas Ishaque, area resident, stated the following concerns: parking is an issue for the residents on adjacent streets, especially on Fridays and any major event; safety for children using the existing playground; overnight parking of trucks; City enforcement of the parking infractions on the adjacent streets; the ability of emergency vehicles to access the neighbourhood; nature of items to be stored in the three portables and what is the timeline of the storage of the portables. The Secretary-Treasurer clarified the variance before the Committee is for the storage on the site of the accessory structures (portables); the structures would not have a use. Using the accessory structures for storage of anything would not be a permitted use. Through the zoning application that is currently before the City, there has been a request for a parking study, and the proposal does propose a parking structure on the site. Kazim Qureshi, Trustee, Pickering Islamic Center, indicated the portables will only be stored on the site until the zoning bylaw amendment has been completed and will not be used for storage purposes. When the Islamic Center was constructed there were no other developments along that stretch of Brock Road, past Finch Avenue. Parking is only an issue on Fridays. In order to alleviate parking issues the mosque holds three separate services instead of just one. Our service has also been divided due to other mosques opening in Whitby and Ajax. The population of Muslims in Durham is increasing and they are working with municipalities in order to build more places of worship. They invite the City to ticket on Fridays. Parking is not permitted on the existing playground on the property. An approved fire and emergency plan is in place which prohibited the installation of a fence in front of the mosque. The mosque rents alternate locations for parking including a church to the north, and the Dellbrook plaza. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 20 Other facilities are rented where services held in order to split the amount of people between the other facilities. In response to questions from a Committee member, Kazim Qureshi, confirmed the portables will not be used for storage or occupancy unless the zoning bylaw amendment has been approved. They are aware of Condition 4., and are prepared to meet the conditions. Tom Copeland, Assistant-Chair, stated when the application was heard a month ago the representation was made that there is a school on the site of the Islamic Center. It was noted that should the application be approved and there is any type of usage of the portables for school purposes, this application will become null and void. Sean Wiley, Committee member, encourages the applicant to consider everything they are hearing on this application with respect to their application to make use of the portables in the future and/or to build a permanent school onsite. There are many comments from your neighbours in regards to traffic and parking and once the portables are put to use there will be further traffic from school buses and parents picking up/dropping off children. After reading the staff report, listening to the applicant and the agent’s comments, as well as those of the neighbours, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 114/22 by Pickering Islamic Center, 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 3 accessory buildings (portables), 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 October 12, 2022). 2. That the 3 accessory buildings (portables) have no use and no occupancy or the approval of these variances becomes null and void. 3. That the applicant obtain a Building Permit for the placement of the 3 accessory structures (portables) on the subject property. 4. That the applicant obtain Council’s approval of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/16 within 1 year of approval of Minor Variance Application P/CA 114/22, or this decision becomes null and void, and the 3 accessory structures (portables) are no longer permitted to be stored on the subject property and must be removed. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 20 4.2 P/CA 110/22 E. & M. Sameem 846 Taplin Drive (Part 1) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 & 7902/22 to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 3.25, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum (east) side yard of 2.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 2.4 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 5.5 percent for all accessory structures, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 5 percent for all accessory structures; and • a maximum driveway width of 15.43 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres The applicant requests approval of this application in order to recognize a detached dwelling on a retained property. 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, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and Pickering Ward 2 City Councillor. In support of the application, the applicant identified this minor variance application is required to satisfy the conditions of Land Severance Application LD 103/21. Leon Efraim, agent and Mojib Sameem, applicant, were present to represent the application. Three area residents were present to question the application. Martin Lavoie, area resident, is located across the street from the applicant and questioned the following: what is the ultimate purpose of the application, and what is the rationale to widen the driveway to 15.0 metres. In response to the question, Leon Efraim, agent, clarified the goal is to sever a lot and retain a lot with the existing dwelling, subject to the approval of the requested minor variances. It is likely the severed lot will have a single family dwelling built on that lot in the future. Such dwelling will be subject to all permitting and bylaw requirements of the City and should not disrupt and create any differences to the remaining residents. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 20 The requested variance regarding driveway width is at the behest of the City as the City has some requirements to ensure the driveway is satisfactory for a single-family dwelling. It was recommended that 15.43 metres would be an appropriate size for the driveway. It is not intended to create a driveway for multiple vehicles or multi-family residential unit. It will remain a single-family dwelling with appropriately sized parking space. Lana Sokolova, area resident, raised the following: in the proposal, the language being used for parking in front of the proposed building is concerning because she does not call the space in front of her home parking, when you couple it with a 15.5 metre wide driveway makes them worried about the purpose of the building; when the applicant purchased the lot at 846 Taplin Drive many mature trees were cut down, are there plans to remove more trees. Leon Efraim, agent, reiterated the purpose will be a single-family dwelling. The size of the driveway is at the request of the City. His clients and owners would have preferred to keep the driveway as it was but they are asked to amend the size of the driveway by the City. There is no intention of building a multi-family property. Any trees that were removed were done at the behest of the City. An environmental report was requested with respect to the trees on the lot and a plan was put in place. Anything that was removed also included the planting of and the addition of trees to replace any trees that may have been removed. However, nothing was removed at his client’s whim. The Secretary-Treasurer clarified that in support of the severance application that went before the Land Division Committee, which has been approved conditionally, a tree preservation plan would have been required and circulated to the City for comments. The tree preservation plan would include an inventory of the existing trees on the site and a plan identifying the trees proposed to be removed to accommodate a new structure on the property. The City would identify whether or not that information is correct and whether or not the trees they are proposing to remove is appropriate. Mojib Sameem, applicant, stated a tree consultant was hired for the tree preservation plan and would like the front trees removed. However, a lot of trees at the rear will remain. James spoke on behalf of Edmund Goncalves, an area resident, stating the following: Ed and his family have lived here for over 30 years and they did notice the trees going down, those 150 year old trees are irreplaceable; why are some homes allowed to be built closer to the road, what makes this lot exceptional; and they are concerned with the size and width of the driveway. Leon Efraim, agent, clarified they are not asking to move the house closer to the road. Because of the severance and changes to the bylaw, the existing house is no longer in compliance with zoning. The variance being sought is required for existing dwelling. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 20 Any new structure on the severed lot will be built within the bylaws and codes of the City. It is impossible now to change the exiting dwelling’s footprint. No one is seeking to tear down the existing structure. The retained lot will stay as is, the variances being sought are to allow the existing house to remain. Anyone seeking to tear it down will have to seek the approval of the City. In response to questions from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed the maneuvering space shown on the drawing within the boulevard is not a permitted parking space. Should a vehicle be parked there it will be subject to ticketing from Bylaw Enforcement. The remainder of the boulevard area would be treated as the City treats any other boulevard area. In response to questions from Committee members, Leon Efraim, confirmed the maneuvering space is not a parking space and only one parking space at the front of the dwelling is being requested. His clients are agreeable to landscaping/maintaining the space in front of the maneuvering space. The existing parking is located at the front of the lot to the right of the front porch. The applicant does not live at the property and the property is vacant. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified the black block with the wording “Existing Dwelling” on Exhibit 2 is a label and not a structure on the lot. The existing structure is larger than the black label and is the outline that has the hatching inside the outline. The existing parking is at the rear of the property with a driveway going up the easterly side of the dwelling. With the severance, the new lot line goes through the driveway. In response to a question from a Committee member, Leon Efraim, stated there is only one living unit on the property and is a single-family dwelling. After having the opportunity to visit the site it is noted that this is a unique parking situation. The solution has been well presented and validated by a traffic mobility study concerning the maneuvering of a vehicle. The applicant is aware the maneuvering space is not a parking spot and is subject to ticketing should parking occur there, neighbours could call Bylaw should they see any parking there. Satisfied that the space in front of the driveway will be maintained and landscaped, and that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 110/22/22 by E. & M. Sameem, 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: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 20 1. That the variances apply only to the proposed retained lot (Part 1), and existing 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 October 12, 2022). 2. That the variances apply only to the existing dwelling and should the existing dwelling be demolished, a new dwelling is subject to the zoning bylaw applicable at that time, and that the variance permitting a minimum front yard setback of 3.25 metres would not apply to a new dwelling. Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 115/22 R. McGee 2366 Canterbury Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4365/93, to permit: • an uncovered steps or platform (deck with steps) not exceeding 2.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the Bylaw 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 of a metre in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the reconstruction of an uncovered rear deck. 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, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified the deck as being unsafe and needing replacement to provide access to the rear yard due to grade change. Spencer Joy, 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, Spencer Joy, agent, explained the new replacement deck will be a little bigger than the original footprint and the orientation will change slightly to create a little more space up top but still provide access to the ground. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 20 After hearing from the agent and reviewing staff’s recommendation, Eric Newton moved the following: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 115/22 by R. Mc, 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 uncovered rear deck and steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 116/22 A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino 1950 Liverpool Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum north side yard of 0.8 of a metre where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, 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 maximum driveway width of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 28 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a second storey addition and extension of the existing dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval of the requested variances to permit a minimum north side yard of 0.8 of a metre where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling and a maximum lot coverage of 28 percent subject to conditions and refusal of the requested variance to permit a maximum driveway width of 22 metres. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 20 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. Marieflor Ganigan, agent, and Alex Rodrigues, 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, Marieflor Ganigan, agent, explained the owner’s intention for the proposed driveway width is for safety reasons. Backing out on Liverpool Road is a challenge for them every day, especially during rush hour in the mornings and afternoons. Liverpool Road is a regional road and has a maximum speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. However, based on their observations most cars are driving above the speed limit. They understand staff’s concerns to maintain the character of the street and to have sufficient drainage, in this case perhaps permeable pavers in the driveway and provide generous landscaping in the front where the half circle is located. In support of the application, Alex Rodrigues, applicant, explained safety is his number one concern. Every morning he has to go north on Liverpool Road to drop his daughter and he has to reverse into two lanes going north and south and it is a very dangerous maneuver. He tries to avoid that by reverse parking in the night but during the days he still has to pick her up and make that maneuver. Liverpool Road is a busy road and people rarely drive 50 kilometres per hour. There is also a street on the side called Anton Square, so he has that to be mindful of when pulling out of his driveway as well as pedestrians and north and south traffic. These obstacles compound in the winter with snowbanks. In the report his driveway proposal is described as 32.0 metres and that is not what is being requested. His entire lot is 24 metres, he is not proposing his entire frontage be a driveway. The current width is 5.0 metres and that is in keeping with the garage, it is not proposed to extend the garage. It will remain approximately 5.0 metres and the request is to be able to enter and exit the property safely. This is a double lot, it is 84 square metres in width and he believes there is sufficient space to do that with landscaping and permeable pavers. The proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood as his neighbours have wide driveways with U-shaped driveways. He is willing to work with his neighbours and Council to find a good solution. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed discussions with the applicant took place explaining it was difficult for staff to support this proposal and could they look at some other driveway arrangement and design within the property to allow a vehicle to turn around and exit the property. Staff had also indicated concern with the amount of asphalt in the front yard and the impact to storm drainage. In response to questions from Committee members, Marieflor Ganigan, agent, stated they would consider permeable pavers to assist with the drainage of stormwater. Since the half circle is in the middle and can provide nice landscaping there. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 20 In response to questions from a Committee member, Alex Rodrigues, applicant, clarified the entire width was calculated as his driveway because of the U shape. However the middle of the U will not be paved, he is requesting around 5.0 metres going in and 5.0 metres on the other side to exit. There is a high school north on Liverpool Road and traffic is very high, in general traffic has become worse over the past months. All his neighbours have driveways wider than 5.0 to 6.0 metres. After having an opportunity to visit the site, there is an amount of concern for safety even just trying to pull over on that road. While traffic is steady on Liverpool Road it is understandable to have difficulty when backing out into that traffic. Both dwellings to the north and south have very wide, rectangular driveways. The driveway to the south is approximately 16.0 metres, plus additional landscaping that made it bigger in some areas. the position of City Development Department is understood, however it is believed that the streetscape will be enhanced by the proposed approach. On that basis, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 116/22 by A. Rodrigues & L. Castelino, 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 the variances to the north side yard and lot coverage apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 12, 2022). 2. That the proposed driveway be constructed as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 12, 2022), and the driveway be constructed with permeable pavers to the satisfaction of City Engineering Services, and that the applicant provide generous landscaping in the front yard. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland opposed Eric Newton in favour Sean Wiley in favour Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 20 4.5 P/CA 117/22 C. Boyce 734A Krosno Boulevard The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit interior side yard setbacks of 0.6 of a metre to the west and east side lot lines for a third-storey addition, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 6.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a third-storey addition to an existing townhouse. 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 conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and five area residents. In support of the application, Christine Boyce, the applicant identified the following: • The current By-law 2520 and RM2 zoning does not recognize side yard setbacks for individual townhomes, rather than the block townhomes as a whole. Hence, I am requesting allowance for a 0.6 metre side yard setback on both sides. • My revised drawings, along with a 0.6 metre setback rectifies concerns addressed by City staff and adjoining neighbours at the previous Committee of Adjustment Hearing; allows for construction and maintenance/repairs to be done solely within my property lines; drainage would remain as is (exterior downspouts would remain in the same position along house); and no visual impact from rear adjoining neighbours, etc. Christine Boyce, applicant, was present to represent the application. Three area residents were present in objection to the application. In support of the application, Christine Boyce, applicant, about a year ago had submitted a minor variance application where she requested a 0.0 side yard setback to construct a rear addition. At that meeting City staff raised concerns regarding ease of access to any maintenance and repairs to the addition, as well as drainage issues. Her neighbours attended that meeting and raised the same concerns the City had along with the concerns that a rear addition would hinder or obstruct their view when in their rear yards. Since that meeting the proposal has been revised to address all the concerns raised at the previous meeting. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 20 The report from the City indicates there are no concerns to the side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre as it allows for the maintenance and construction and repairs solely within the property. The drainage will remain as is, and the drawings have been rectified to ensure there are no visual impact from the rear for her neighbours. Martina Tojcic, area resident, stated the following in objection to the application: her parents have owned 734 Krosno Boulevard since 1999 and they are attached to the west side of 734A Krosno Boulevard; the addition is inappropriate for the style of the dwelling as it is a townhouse that is attached from the west and east ends to other townhouses; the third storey addition would make the entire block of townhouses look awkward and will decrease the real estate value of the houses; not confident the construction will be contained within her property when there will be less than 2.0 feet of space or without damage to other properties; would not want to comprise the integrity of the shared chimney or the foundation of her townhouse; and there will be further damage caused to immediate neighbours from weather conditions due to the uniforme rooftops. Nadine Sinclair, area resident, stated the following in objection to the application: the addition will be an eyesore and will greatly impact the streetscape; load of the foundation considering it is so old, the foundation was built for a two-story townhome not ever intending to add a third story; concern on the lateral load on an existing building and the impact on the immediately connected neighbours and the whole block; and concerned with how they will safely erect a vertical build with labour and machinery without trespassing on other properties. Richard Funnell, area resident, stated the following in objection to the application original owner of 736 Krosno Boulevard and is a direct neighbour of the subject property; concerned with the integrity of the roofs during severe weather; the addition will look ridiculous; privacy will be compromised; and these homes were not built for a third storey addition. In response to questions from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained that should this be approved, the applicant will need to satisfy both Building Services and Engineering Services according to the Ontario Building Code. If the applicant requires to share the load of the third story with adjoining neighbours they will be required to receive consent from the respective owners. In response to questions from Committee members, Christine Boyce, applicant, explained 0.6 metres is being requested to coincide with newer City of Pickering bylaws where a 1.2 metre setback between the two exterior walls is required, 0.6 metres on each property. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 20 In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer, confirmed for townhouses that do not share a common wall a 1.2 metre side yard is required from the exterior walls. In response to questions from Committee members, Christine Boyce, applicant, explained this design was her alternate idea as her first minor variance application that proposed the addition be erected from the rear of her townhome was refused, which would have been caused less of an impact on the streetscape. These townhomes are located in Bay Ridges which is a drastically changing neighbourhood. Most newer townhomes in the area have three storeys. Nowadays many townhouses do not have the same roofline. In efforts to keep the addition uniform the same siding will be used, and the roof pitch will be the same. The height of the extension is 8 feet, which is below the requirements. Richard Funnell, area resident, stated even with the first proposal being erected from the rear of the townhome there still would have been an impact to the streetscape. After reading the City Development Department’s report, listening to the many neighbours who have provided comments and the applicant’s responses and consideration to create less of an impact on the streetscape, the requested addition remains undesirable to the development of the land. Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 117/22 by C. Boyce, 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 Vote: Tom Copeland in favour Eric Newton opposed Sean Wiley in favour Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 20 4.6 P/CA 118/22 B. Brissenden & L. Leggett 1661 Henry Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 22 percent for an addition to the existing dwelling, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, including the construction of an attached private garage with living space on the second floor. 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, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant(s) identified there will not be enough living space available above the garage if they lose any more area. Abbey Steele, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Abbey Steele explained the applicant would like to add a secondary unit above a garage addition. If they make the addition any smaller there is no way they can fit the living space they need up there. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer, confirmed an accessory dwelling unit is a permitted use within the zoning bylaw. After reading the staff report, listening to the applicant and given there are no objections to this application Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 118/22 by B. Brissenden & L. Leggett, 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: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 20 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed addition to the existing 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 October 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 119/22 N. Thapa 1204 Gloucester Square The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 0889/78 to permit: • a minimum rear yard setback of 6.6 metres for a residential semi-detached dwelling, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres for a residential semi-detached dwelling. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the submission of an application for building permit to permit the construction of a sunroom addition to an existing semi-detached dwelling. 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, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified it does not comply with rear yard setback. Mark Carlo Santana, agent, and Narendra Thapa, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reviewing the staff recommendation and considering all comments from the applicant and agencies, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 20 That application P/CA 119/22 by N. Thapa, 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 a condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the semi-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 October 12, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 120/22 S. Chowdhury & S. Marin 1969 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7389/14, to permit: • an uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 3.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.7 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By- law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 metres into the required rear yard; and • a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered platform (balcony). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend deferral for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to confirm if the proposal satisfies TRCA policies or previous agreements. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section and Pickering Ward 2 City Councillor. In support of the application, the applicant identified they are seeking to extend an existing balcony. Shakawat Chowdhury, applicant, 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, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 18 of 20 Shakawat Chowdhury, applicant, stated he is willing to have his application heard at the November 9, 2022 hearing and hopes it is resolved then so that construction may be completed this year. Considering staff’s recommendation, agency comments and the applicant agreeing to have his application deferred to the following hearing, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 120/22 by S. Chowdhury & S. Marin, be Deferred for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to confirm if the proposal satisfies TRCA policies or previous agreements. Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 122/22 Z. Malam & S. Sayany 2177 Saffron Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7384/14, to permit: • an uncovered balcony with a minimum setback to the rear lot line of 4.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a covered or unenclosed porch, veranda or balcony, with or without a foundation, may have the minimum setback to the rear lot line of 5.0 metres; and • a covered deck of any height in the rear yard provided minimum setbacks are provided, whereas the By-law permits uncovered decks of any height in the rear yard provided minimum setbacks are provided. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered balcony and covered deck in the rear yard. 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 conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 19 of 20 In support of the application, the applicant identified there is a technical error in the Zoning By-law. We are trying to build an uncovered balcony and covered deck, whereas the zoning bylaws only apply to a covered balcony and an uncovered deck. In addition, the proposed structure does not meet the setback requirements from the rear property line. Salman Sayany and Zeenat Malam, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Based on the staff report, there being no objections and reading all the material following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 122/22 by Z. Malam & S. Sayany, 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 uncovered rear balcony and covered rear deck, 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 October 12, 2022). 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. Carried Unanimously Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 9th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:08 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, November 9, 2022. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, October 12, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 20 of 20 November 9, 2022 Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer