HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 11, 2023Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 1 of 18
Present
Tom Copeland – Chair
Omar Ha-Redeye
Denise Rundle – Co-Vice-Chair
Rick Van Andel
Sean Wiley – Co-Vice-Chair
Also Present
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer
Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer – Host
Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Isabel Lima, Planner II
Kerry Yelk, Planner I
Ziya Cao, Planner I
Absent
Not applicable.
1. Appointment of Chairperson
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That Tom Copeland be appointed as Chairperson for the 2023 term.
Carried Unanimously
2. Appointment of Vice Chairperson
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That Denise Rundle and Sean Wiley be appointed as Co-Vice Chairperson for the 2023
term.
Carried Unanimously
3. Appointment of Secretary-Treasurers
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That Deborah Wylie and Cody Morrison be appointed as Secretary-Treasurers.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 2 of 18
4. Appointment of Assistant Secretary-Treasurers
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That Lesley Dunne and Jasmine Correia be appointed as Assistant Secretary-Treasurers.
Carried Unanimously
5. Adoption of Rules of Procedure
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Sean Wiley
That the Rules of Procedures be adopted as amended.
Carried Unanimously
6. Terms of Reference
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the revised Terms of Reference be forwarded to the Clerks Office.
Carried Unanimously
7. Adoption of 2023 Hearing Schedule
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the Committee of Adjustment Hearing Schedule for 2023 be adopted.
8. Disclosure of Interest
9. Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the agenda for the Wednesday, January 11, 2023 hearing be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 3 of 18
10. Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the minutes of the 10th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,
November 9, 2022 be adopted.
Carried
11. Reports
11.1 P/CA 112/22
R. & P. Behera
1897 Bainbridge Drive
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2118/85,
to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.9 metres for an unheated sunroom, whereas
the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for
an unheated sunroom addition, proposed at the rear 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
subject to a condition.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Area
(TRCA).
In support of the application, the applicant identified the property is zoned “S4” under
City Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2118/85. The
minimum rear yard setback for the “S4” Zone is 7.5 metres, where the proposed
addition will be 5.92 metres.
Syed Ahmed, 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 agent confirmed a TRCA
permit will still be required should the relief be granted.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 4 of 18
Given that the applicant worked with TRCA to meet their requirements, no objections
were received from the public or outside agencies, the application being minor in nature
and agreeing with the City Development Department’s recommendation, Sean Wiley
moved the following motion:
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That application P/CA 112/22 by R. & P. Behera, 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 unheated sunroom, 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 January 11,
2023).
Carried Unanimously
11.2 P/CA 01/23
S. Ratnalingam
1771 Fairport Road
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Sean Wiley
That application P/CA 01/23 by S. Ratnalingam, be put on hold until the applicant is
present.
Carried Unanimously
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws
7874/21 & 7902/22, to permit an accessory building (pool equipment shed) with a
maximum height of 3.9 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 minor variance application in order to obtain a
building permit for the construction of an accessory building (pool equipment shed).
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.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 5 of 18
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and one area resident.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the purpose of the shed is to store
pool and gardening equipment.
Sanchai Ratnalingam, 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, the applicant explained the
following: the shed will not be habitable; the shed will have electricity because it will be
used to hold pool equipment, filter systems, etc.; shed does not have a second storey,
the applicant plans to install a small platform for more storage space; and the setback
from the fence to the sidewall is 1.0 metre and the applicant would not have the
clearance to plant landscaping trees, but is not opposed to providing landscaping trees
to the neighbour who is concerned with the screening of the accessory building.
After listening to the responses from the applicant, the structure not being habitable and
will only be used to house pool equipment, the subject property is on a deep lot, the
request being reasonable in nature, and being satisfied the application will provide
landscaping trees for the neighbour who provided comments, Denise Rundle move the
following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application P/CA 01/23 by S. Ratnalingam, 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 accessory building (pool equipment
shed), 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
January 11, 2023).
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 6 of 18
11.3 P/CA 02/23
M. Shero
530 Sheppard Avenue
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a side
yard setback of 1.5 metres on the west side and 1.4 metres on the east side, whereas
the By-law permits a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres on one side and
2.5 metres on the other side.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a
building permit to legalize the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) within a 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services
and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified seeking to legalize the existing
accessory dwelling unit.
Mike Shero, 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, the applicant stated the following:
the ADU is in the garage, there are currently tenants occupying the first floor; he was
not aware he needed a building permit to rent the building; he purchased the property
with the garage being converted to an ADU; renovations were completed by him; there
is assigned parking for the tenant; and the ADU house holds two families, each having
their own separate entrances.
Given the Province’s direction to increase housing, only looking for relief for the side
yard; Building Services addressing any alterations that aren’t up to code, and parking
being provided to the tenant, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application P/CA 02/23 by M. Shero, 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, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 7 of 18
1. That this variance applies only to the subject property, 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 January 11, 2023).
Carried Unanimously
11.4 P/CA 03/23
S. Jeyendran
1667 Autumn Crescent
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94,
to permit:
• a minimum rear yard depth of 6.8 metres for a sunroom addition, whereas the
By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres; and
• a maximum lot coverage of 42 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum
lot coverage of 40 percent.
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit
for a sunroom addition, proposed at the rear of the 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services
and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified proposed is an addition to the
building for use as family area.
Mark Santana, agent, and Sanchai Jeyendran, applicant were present to represent the
application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the
application.
Given that minor relief is being asked for and not receiving any feedback from area
residents or outside agencies, Sean Wiley moved the following motion:
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 8 of 18
That application P/CA 03/23 by S. Jeyendran, 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 sunroom, 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 January 11,
2023).
Carried Unanimously
11.5 P/CA 04/23
E. Welch
721 Sandcastle Court
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18,
to permit uncovered steps and a platform (front porch) not exceeding 2.1 metres in
height above grade and not projecting more than 6.5 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.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for
the construction of replacement stairs, located at the front 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
subject to a condition.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services
and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the Zoning By-law permits a
maximum of 1.5 metres encroachment into front yard for staircase. But more than
1.5 metres space is required to provide a stairs with 11 steps, to reach to the entrance
landing (porch).
Edward Welch, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Edward Welch, applicant, explained the following: the front stairs were unsafe when he
purchased the home; the stairs will be the depth and width as the stairs that were there
previously; there are 12 steps; the only change is the shape of the stairs will be more
square shaped; a building permit was applied for; and will add soft landscaping.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 9 of 18
In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant indicated there is no
sidewalk on his property.
After reading the report, listening to the Applicant and receiving no objections from the
public, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application P/CA 04/23 by E. Welch, 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 front porch, 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 January 11, 2023).
Carried Unanimously
11.6 P/CA 05/23
K. & A. Werner
2299 Canterbury Crescent
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5548/99,
to permit an accessory building (pool house) which is not part of the main building to be
erected in the north side yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings
which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory building
(pool house) in the north side 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and one area resident in support of the application.
In support of the application, the applicant identified an existing drainage swale is
located at the rear of the property, making it undesirable to construct an accessory
structure in the rear yard.
Kristian Werner, 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, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 10 of 18
The applicant indicated they are willing to work with Engineering Services and Building
Services to meet their requirements.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified
the required side yard setback for an accessory structure is 1.0 metre.
In response to questions from Committee members, the applicant stated the following:
the plans provided are preliminary, high level plans were provided for this application,
more detailed drawings will be provided to Building Services to ensure everything is up
to code; an aluminum chain-link fence separates this property and the one to the north;
the door and the plantings indicated on the north side are no longer in the plan and will
be modified, the door will instead be at the front of the house, facing the street, with
large plantings as screening.
After reading the report, reviewing the drawings, no objections from the neighbour and
hearing the applicant’s responses, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle with amended conditions
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application P/CA 05/23 by K. & A. Werner, 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 this variance apply only to the proposed accessory building (pool house), as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 &
3, to be revised to show no pedestrian access on the north elevation, contained in
the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 11, 2023).
2. An Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be permitted within the proposed accessory
building (pool house).
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied
that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 11 of 18
11.7 P/CA 06/23 & P/CA 12/23
A. Khaled
198 Twyn Rivers Drive (Parts 1 & 2)
P/CA 06/23 – Part 1
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a
minimum lot frontage of 13.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 15.0 metres; and
P/CA 12/23 – Part 2
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a
minimum lot frontage of 13.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 15.0 metres;
The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever
the property resulting in a total of 2 lots.
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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services
and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing property is just short of
the lot frontage requirement of the Zoning By-law.
Rafik Nassif, 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 agent confirmed a
Land Division application has been submitted to the Region.
Given that the applications meets the four tests of the Planning Act and the size of the
properties keep the same size pattern on Twyn Rivers Drive, Sean Wiley moved the
following motion:
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 12 of 18
That application P/CA 06/23 & P/CA 12/23 by A. Khaled, 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 lots, 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 January 11, 2023).
Carried Unanimously
11.8 P/CA 07/23
T. Manoranjan & R. Paramalingam
1602 Goldenridge Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5928/01,
to permit uncovered steps and platform (deck with steps) 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
The applicant requests approval of this application in order to obtain a building permit
for the construction of a rear yard 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and two area residents in support of the application.
In support of the application, the applicant identified 1.0 metre height requirement is
insufficient height to reach the main floor of the dwelling.
Tasha Manoranjan, applicant, 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 applicant indicated they
purchased the single detached home in 2019, and the home was built in 2016. The
home was built with the doors but no landing. They would like to access the rear yard
from those doors.
After reading the report, listening to the applicant and making a site inspection, Denise
Rundle moved the following motion:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 13 of 18
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application P/CA 07/23 by T. Manoranjan & R. Paramalingam, be Approved on
the grounds that the requested variances 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 steps and platform (rear
yard 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 January 11, 2023).
Carried Unanimously
11.9 P/CA 08/23 to P/CA 10/23
A. & S. Rhemtulla
1774 & 1778 Fairport Road (Parts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11)
P/CA 08/23 – Parts 1, 8 & 9
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws
7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit:
• a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 18.0 metres
• a minimum front yard setback of 6.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres;
• a minimum side yard (west) setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres;
• a minimum side yard (east) setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres;
• covered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not
projecting more than 3.2 metres into any 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; and
• a maximum lot coverage of 36.0 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum
lot coverage of 33.0 percent
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 14 of 18
P/CA 09/23 – Parts 2, 7 & 10
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws
7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit:
• a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 18.0 metres
• a minimum front yard setback of 6.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres;
• a minimum side yard (west) setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres;
• a minimum side yard (east) setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres;
• covered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not
projecting more than 3.2 metres into any 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; and
• a maximum lot coverage of 36.0 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum
lot coverage of 33.0 percent
P/CA 10/23 – Parts 3, 6 & 11
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21
and 7902/22, to permit:
• a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 18.0 metres
• a minimum front yard setback of 6.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres;
• a minimum side yard setback (west) of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres;
• a minimum side yard setback (east) of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres;
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 15 of 18
• covered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not
projecting more than 3.2 metres into any 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; and
• a maximum lot coverage of 36.0 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum
lot coverage of 33.0 percent
The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to
facilitate land division 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 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services
and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant submitted a Planning Justification Report.
Paul Demczak, agent, 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, the agent identified the following:
the front porch projection is to provide additional articulation for the front of the
dwellings, the garage is flush with the front yard and the porch projects slightly above
what is required in the by-law, they tried to meet what is intended in the City’s Urban
Design Guidelines; the application for Land Division was approved in September 2022;
the adjacent property to the west of the subject site was approved for minor variances in
2022, those three lots had frontages that were compliant with the zoning by-law but it
did not include the same depth that they are proposing now, because of that reduced lot
depth they still needed variances for reduced front yard setback, reduced lot coverage
and reduced side yard setbacks; they are trying to keep the same streetscape in terms
of front yard and side yard setback and building massing that aligns with the new
streetscape along the south side of Walrus Street; the Planning Justification Report
details how these applications cause less of an impact than the approved variances
west of the subject site; it was intended that the applications for Land Division and
Minor Variance be submitted jointly however there were design changes that occurred
last fall which delayed his client submitting the Minor Variance applications at the same
time, they have been in discussions with the City’s planning department to speak to
both applications and had no objections to the proposed variances; his client has built
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 16 of 18
other homes in Pickering; the built form is consistent but with a variety of palettes both
with materials and colours to provide variation in the built forms; and the west lots have
front setbacks of 5.0 meres, there is a notch in the front of those dwellings where the
setback is 6.0 metres where the recessed garage is located.
After reading the report and visiting the site, finding the applications to be minor in
nature and meeting the four tests of the Planning Act, and satisfied with the answers by
the agent regarding the front projection, Sean Wiley moved the following motion:
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application P/CA 08/23 to P/CA 10/23 by A. & S. Rhemtulla, 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 lots and detached dwellings, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment,
dated January 11, 2023).
Carried
Vote:
Tom Copeland in favour
Omar Ha-Redeye in favour
Denise Rundle opposed
Rick Van Andel in favour
Sean Wiley in favour
11.10 P/CA 11/23
M. Nwobu
1843 Westcreek Drive
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4366/93,
to permit:
• an accessory dwelling unit in a townhouse, whereas the By-law permits an
accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling; and
• a total of two parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory
dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of three parking spaces
provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 17 of 18
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a
building permit to legalize the existing Accessory Dwelling Unit within a townhouse
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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and three area residents in objection to the application.
In support of the application, the applicant identified seeking to legalize the existing
accessory dwelling unit.
Mandy Nwobu, 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, the applicant stated the following:
they have tenants on the first floor that have been living there illegally and running an
Airbnb, they have been served to vacate the unit, she is awaiting a hearing date from
the Landlord and Tenant Board; one unit is empty and the other is occupied by the
evicted tenants; and the garage is intended for parking uses however the applicant
cannot access the garage due to the tenants locking it.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer and
Planner on file clarified the City’s by-law does not specify how parking spaces are
arranged, in regards to tandem parking versus parallel parking, it only clarifies how
many spaces are required. The Planning Act permits tandem parking for ADUs.
Committee member, Denise Rundle, stated her concerns about conformity of the
application with the intent of the zoning bylaw. While the Province’s direction allows for
ADUs in townhomes, the City zoning bylaw does not. If this Committee permits this
relief it sets precedent for the whole neighbourhood, which may cause serious on street
parking problems. It is Council’s responsibility and duty to update the zoning bylaws in
Pickering as it relates to ADUs in townhouses. A full study should be done and
consideration of where in the City of Pickering and what type of townhouses to allow for
ADUs, and do they wish to add provisions to it for issues like restricting the floor area or
requiring additional parking. A Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application may be more
appropriate.
Committee member, Sean Wiley, stated his agreement with his Committee member.
Direction from Council needs to be provided. Tandem parking is impractical and is not a
solution to parking requirements. Paving part of the front yard for parallel parking would
be a better solution.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, January 11, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 18 of 18
In response to Committee members comments, the applicant stated the Planning Act
currently allows for two dwelling townhomes. This house was purchased as a two family
dwelling. Neighbours have been using tandem parking for a while now and have not
had issues.
After reading the report and understanding the policy direction from the Province in
Bill 23 and Bill 108, it is more appropriate for Council to deal with applications of this
nature as a zoning by-law amendment. The application not meeting the four tests of the
Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Sean Wiley
That application P/CA 11/23 by M. Nwobu, be Refused on the grounds that the
requested variances are 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
12.Adjournment
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the 1st hearing of the 2023 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:04 pm and
the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, February
8, 2023.
Carried Unanimously
__________________________
Date
__________________________
Chair
__________________________
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
February 8, 2023