HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 10, 2023Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 1 of 9
Present
Omar Ha-Redeye
Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair
Sakshi Sood Joshi
Rick Van Andel
Sean Wiley – Chair
Also Present
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer
Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Isabel Lima, Planner II – Host
Kerry Yelk, Planner I
Ziya Cao, Planner I
Absent
Not applicable.
1. Appointment of Chairperson
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That Sean Wiley be appointed as Chairperson for the remainder of the 2023 term.
Carried Unanimously
2. Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
3. Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That the agenda for the Wednesday, May 10, 2023 hearing be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 2 of 9
4. Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the minutes of the 4th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,
April 12, 2023 be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
5. Reports
5.1 P/CA 23/23
S. & T. Perivolaris
572 Springview Drive
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1837/84
and By-law 1964/85, to permit a covered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.0 metre in
height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 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 permit an existing covered
deck.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Engineering Services
and City Building Services.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing covered deck
encroaching into the rear yard setback.
Tom Perivolaris, 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 a Committee member, the applicant intends to keep the
roof on the deck.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary Treasurer clarified
whether that a covered patio would be included in the building coverage. Confirmation is
needed whether another variance is needed.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant stated he would
agree to defer the application to the next hearing to enquire whether or not a second
variance is required.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 3 of 9
Given that a second variance may be needed, Denise Rundle moved the following
motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That application P/CA 23/23 by S. & T. Perivolaris, be Deferred to the June 14, 2023
hearing.
Carried Unanimously
5.2 P/CA 24/23 & P/CA 25/23
K. Yusef & J. Sukhu
1390 Rougemount Drive (Parts 1 & 2)
P/CA 24/23 – Part 1
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88,
By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit:
• a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum
lot frontage of 18.0 metres;
• minimum (north) side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where
a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side
yard shall be 1.8 metres;
• minimum (south) side yard of 1.7 metres, whereas the By-law states that where
a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side
yard shall be 1.8 metres; (withdrawn by agent at the hearing) and
• a maximum dwelling depth of 24.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that the
maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40.0 metres shall be
20.0 metres.
P/CA 25/23 – Part 2
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88,
By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit:
• a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum
lot frontage of 18.0 metres;
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 4 of 9
• minimum (south) side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that where
a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side
yard shall be 1.8 metres; and
• an uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 3.1 metres in height above
grade, and not projecting more than 0.6 of a metre into the required (south)
side yard, whereas the By-law states that uncovered steps or platforms not
exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 0.5 of
a metre into any required side yard (withdrawn by agent at the hearing).
The applicant requests approval of these applications in order to sever the property
resulting in a total of two lots and to construct two detached dwellings.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Engineering Services,
City Building Services, the Toronto and Region Conservation Area (TRCA) and
one area resident.
In support of the applications, the applicant refered to the Planning Rationale Report.
Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the applications. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent made a presentation in support of the application.
The agent withdrew the minimum (south) side yard variance from P/CA 24/23 and the
uncovered platform (balcony) variance from P/CA 25/23.
In response to questions from Committee members, the agent stated the purchasers
own the property. It is intended when the lots are created each respective owner will
own one of the two lots. Site plan shows two separate driveways are proposed, and as
part of the consent application they are expecting to have to submit an Arborist Report
and Tree Preservation Plan for consideration of the Land Division Committee. As per
Engineering comments there is currently a median in front of the two proposed lots.
The applicants have spoken with City staff to ensure a meandering driveway will be
acceptable. The staggered frontage measurements were taken from the front wall of the
abutting north property.
After listening to the agent’s presentation and responses, making a site visit and
considering the staff report, the proposal seems to be compatible with the new
development that is being seen on Rougemount Drive. The application seems
appropriate for the neighbourhood and doesn’t pose any significant issues.
Denise Rundle moved the following motions:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 5 of 9
That application P/CA 24/23 by K. Yusef & J. Sukhu, 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 lot and detached dwelling, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2,
3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated
May 10, 2023).
2. Final approval of the Land Division Committee be obtained.
Carried Unanimously
That application P/CA 25/23 by K. Yusef & J. Sukhu, 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 lot and detached dwelling, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2,
3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May
10, 2023. Applicable plans to be revised to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, to
reflect proper access, avoiding the existing median island).
2. Final approval of the Land Division Committee be obtained.
Carried Unanimously
5.3 P/CA 26/23
L. Robinson
476 Toynevale Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws
7610/18, 7872/21, and 7900/22 to permit:
• an accessory structure (shipping container) to be erected in the west interior
side yard and front yard
• an accessory building (existing shed) to be located no closer than 1.3 metres
to the rear lot line on a corner lot
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit the
existing accessory structures (shipping container and shed) on the property.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 6 of 9
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Engineering Services,
City Building Services and four area residents.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the location of the existing
structures does not comply with the zoning by-law.
Lisa Robinson, applicant, was present to represent the applications. Three area
residents were present in objection to the applications.
The Chair read out an area resident comment letter in objection to the application.
Philip Hoffe, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: there is
no concern with the variance regarding the shed but there is concern with the shipping
container that has been on the property since October without building permits; if the
container is to be relocated will it be set on the dirt or gravel as he is worried it will sink
into the ground; by-laws are in place for a reason, the shipping container is permitted in
the rear yard, however this is set partially in the front yard; and is an eyesore.
Robert Carriere, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: has
similar concerns as the resident prior; why should the variance be allowed for
something that should be built using the standard building permit process and the
zoning by-laws that are currently in place; having a shipping container be permanent
doesn’t make sense; feels there is a double standard with this application because
when a neighbor had installed an ice rink in their front lawn they were given notice that
they had 48 hours to remove it, and wondering why this homeowner wasn’t given those
same conditions.
Chris Salmon, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: lives in
the south Rosebank area and the residents in this neighbourhood take pride in their
properties, this is a residential area not a shipping yard and is not zoned as such;
Toynevale Road is one of two access roads in and out of the area and therefore must
pass the applicant’s property several times a day and it is and eyesore; will impact
future buyers; and multiple neighbours in the 65 metres radius were very reluctant to
speak tonight considering the applicant is a Pickering City Councillor and finds there is a
double standard.
In response to comments from area residents, the applicant stated there is no double
standard as the shipping container was purchased prior to the election; requires the
shipping container for Halloween decoration storage for charity events; explained there
was a conversation with City staff to ensure the container was permitted and was
advised according to the measurements, it was permitted; her immediate neighbours
had submitted letters in support of the application; the application is regarding the land
use of the property, not the type of materials being used for the structure; these types of
accessory uses are permitted within this area; believes all tests of the Planning Act
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 7 of 9
have been met and conforms to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws; willing to provide
a buffer between her property and the property to the west; the shipping container is
dark grey and matches the aesthetics of her house; additional dwelling units will be
permitted in Pickering; and stated she is a real estate agent and stated there are other
properties with shipping containers on their property and it will not decrease the housing
price in the neighbourhood.
Committee member stated he spoke with Pickering planners and Building Code experts
and if the shipping container is going to be permanent then it is permitted, the
placement of the structure is what the Committee should be focusing on tonight.
In response to questions from Committee members, the applicant stated the following:
she has owned the property for 12 years; storage facilities will cost her $800/month to
house her Halloween props, her house is a bungalow and half of the basement is a dirt
crawl space which she cannot utilize as storage; has not seen any single-dwelling
properties with shipping containers in her immediate neighbourhood but there are in
Pickering; due to the shape of the dwelling there is limited rear yard space to
accommodate the shipping container, where the deck is located is not considered the
rear yard; one shed on the property holds some of the Halloween decorations and extra
wood, the other is used for garden equipment and the shipping container is at capacity
and cannot fit anything else; has planted over 60 trees on the property that will assist in
screening the container and can use decorative fencing, measuring at 8 feet long 2 by
2s, the applicant’s cars will also be parking in front of it which will also help with
screening; in comparison to the dwelling, the container’s height stops just below where
the dwelling’s roof begins; and is willing to push the container back further so that it is
flush with the house.
Committee members commented: due to the large front yard depth and a smaller rear
yard it is understood why the variance is needed; the variance arose due to complaints
from neighbours in the vicinity; shipping containers are not commonly associated with
residential areas but noticing a lot more owners are choosing to convert containers to
homes; understands applicant worked with Planning staff to move the shipping
container to one side of the house to the other, however both locations are street yards
and both visible; the front yard is more visible to travelling public as they all stop in front
of the property; by-laws permit shipping containers in the rear yard and in that case a
variance will not be needed; in regards to screening, trees are seasonal and are not
permanent and requires maintenance, there is no guarantee the owner will keep up with
maintenance; questioning whether a permanent shipping container is an appropriate
accessory structure on a side or front yard; will be setting a precedent for the
neighbourhood as currently no other dwellings have a shipping container located in the
side or front yard; if the shipping container is pushed back closer to the rear yard it
could be less visible from the streetscape due to the landscaping currently on property
and the dwelling acting as screening; the shipping container being located in the front
yard in conjunction with the other accessory dwelling is making it challenging to view
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 8 of 9
this variance as minor; in regards to the impact, there are questions whether this
container is compatible with the established built form and character of the
neighbourhood as it relates to the streetscape.
After taking in to account the four tests of the Planning Act, the staff report, the
applicant’s response and public input, in regards to the variance to permit an accessory
building (existing shed) to be located no closer than 1.3 metres to the rear lot line on a
corner lot, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
a) That the variance to permit an accessory building (existing shed) to be located no
closer than 1.3 metres to the rear lot line on a corner lot by L. Robinson, 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 applies only to the proposed development, as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 4
contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 10,
2023).
b) That the variance to permit an accessory structure (shipping container) to be erected
in the west interior side yard and front yard by L. Robinson, 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.
In the matter of the variance to permit an accessory structure (shipping container) to be
erected in the west interior side yard and front yard, after considering private and public
interest, a permanent shipping container in any portion of the side or front yard of this
single-family dwelling unit is not in keeping with the established streetscape and
residential character of this older street and neighbourhood and therefore does not
maintain the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Opportunity exists to install a
shipping container, if the owner wishes, in the rear yard which will be in conformity of
the by-law, the proposed location of the permanent shipping container has a significant
potential of having a negative visual impact on the streetscape, given that all drivers
must stop directly in front of this dwelling, and therefore is not considered desirable or
appropriate development of the land. Council has not turned its mind in the zoning by-law
to permanent shipping containers as a common accessory structure associated with a
single-family dwelling and as such, is interpreted as an accessory structure which could
have an adverse impact on accessory structures within neighbourhoods, therefore
creating a larger impact, as such the variance is not considered to be minor.
Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, May 10, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 9 of 9
June 14, 2023
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
Carried
Vote:
Omar Ha-Redeye in favour
Denise Rundle in favour
Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour
Rick Van Andel opposed
Sean Wiley opposed
6. Adjournment
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That the 5th hearing of the 2023 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:40 pm and
the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on
Wednesday, June 14, 2023.
Carried Unanimously
__________________________
Date
__________________________
Chair
__________________________
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer