HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 9, 2023Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 1 of 11
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
Kerry Yelk, Planner I – Host
Ziya Cao, Planner I
Absent
Not applicable.
1. Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
2. Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 9, 2023 hearing be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
3. Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That the minutes of the 7th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,
July 12, 2023 be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 2 of 11
4. Reports
4.1 (Deferred at the July 12, 2023 Hearing)
P/CA 32/23
J. & T. O’Leary
730 Kingfisher Drive
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit:
• a minimum setback of 2.9 metres on the flankage yard where a main building is
erected on a corner lot, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of
4.5 metres on the flankage yard where a main building is erected on a corner lot;
• a minimum front yard setback of 4.9 metres, whereas the by-law requires a
minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres;
• a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the by-law permits a maximum
lot coverage of 33 percent;
• an existing shed to be located 0.2 of a metre from the rear lot line, whereas the
by-law requires accessory structures to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metres
from all lot lines; and
• an existing shed to be located 0.2 of a metre from the rear lot line on a corner lot,
whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 3.0 metres from the rear lot
line for detached garage or other accessory buildings on a corner lot.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a
future building permit to permit the construction of a two-storey addition at the front of
the existing detached dwelling.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and Bell Canada.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the proposed addition cannot be
achieved with the existing structure, without encroaching on the required setbacks.
James O’Leary, 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 explained the space
above the garage is to accommodate an in-law suite and extra space for their family.
There will be a separate entrance on the second floor to access the addition.
The garage has a garage door facing the driveway and another door facing the
backyard.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 3 of 11
A Committee member commented the addition will be using an existing footprint already
occupying the lot.
Finding the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved
the following motion:
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application P/CA 32/23 by J. & T. O’Leary, 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 development, 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 August 9,
2023).
Carried Unanimously
4.2 P/CA 34/23
B. & Y. Javaid
326 Dyson Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a
minimum (north and south withdrawn by applicant at the hearing) side yard setback
of 1.2 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, whereas the
By-law permits where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum
required side yard shall be 1.5 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a
building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA).
In support of the application, the applicant identified to achieve an effective house
frontage a minor variance is requested.
Badar Javaid, applicant and Jamshaid Durrani, agent, were present to represent the
application. Four area residents were present in objection to the application.
The agent stated they have read the report and agrees with staff’s recommendation.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 4 of 11
Debbie Sommerville, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application:
the owner of the subject property expressed to her they will maintain the five feet
(1.5 metres) side yard setback; feels the proposed dwelling will overpower the two
homes beside it to the north and south; and worried about losing her privacy in the
backyard which will cause great stress to her.
Catherine Ristau, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application:
concerns about how close the home is proposed to be from her property line; potential
damage to existing trees during construction; access to backyard by construction
vehicles without utilizing her property; the proposed window wells bringing the window
wells even closer to the property line; whether there will be provisions for drainage
should the variance be approved; fire safety and emergency access; increased noise;
and the resale value of her own home due to the proximity of the proposed home.
Robert Ristau, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application:
concerns with the setbacks and the size of the house being proposed; the house will not
follow the established neighbourhood character; and there are building regulations for a
reason that should be adhered to.
Wendy Tollett, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application:
concerns that Dyson Road will eventually resemble Rougemount Drive with massive
homes and very small setbacks that is not aesthetically pleasing or compatible with the
existing dwellings in the neighbourhood.
In response to concerns from area residents, the agent commented the following: the
setback on the north side will be 1.2 metres which is the minimum distance for fire
separation under the Building Code; and construction materials and equipment will be
contained on the subject property and will not encroach the neighbours’ property.
In response to questions from Committee members, the agent stated the following: they
are working with TRCA on the Tree Preservation Plan; they plan on preserving the trees
during construction however there are a few that are in bad condition; most zoning
by-laws are being maintained, they are requesting the reduction of the north side yard to
accommodate a bigger home with a larger living room and bedroom on the lot;
Dyson Road has a mix of different types of houses, in terms of style and size, and is a
dead end street with a staircase that goes down to the Rouge; the west boundary of the
home also includes the Rouge and all adjacent properties on the western side of
Dyson Road would also have the same western boundary along the Rouge; the total
gross floor area of the home is around 6,500 square feet.
Vice-Chair commented neighbours are concerned with the character of this area.
Character is defined by the look of the home, the width of the side yards, the height of
the home, etc. When we have new builds, the Committee needs to be cautious.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 5 of 11
The depth of the lot is excessive. The homeowner is proposing a pool, perhaps he can
gain additional floor space by making the home longer instead of imposing on the side
yard. Compliance with the By-law can be achieved by adjusting the depth of the
dwelling.
Catherine Ristau, area resident; commented the trees the agent claimed are in bad
condition are not, they are healthy. There is a hedge that is about 20-30 feet that is
healthy, as well as the trees on her property.
Committee member commented they are not here to judge the size of the house.
The Planning Report does recommend approving the variance to the north.
Understands the concerns with the trees as it could cause impact in regards to the
cohesiveness of this new home within this established neighbourhood.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent commented there was
another variance on the street that was approved to provide relief to the height
requirement. He is not aware of any other applications requesting side yard relief.
Committee member commented the judgement of whether a proposal is considered to
be minor in nature is not a mathematical exercise. Instead the Committee should be
looking at the question of degree of adverse impact on adjacent properties, uses and
areas. These variances seem to stem from the Infill By-law and will be using that
exclusively in determination of the four tests.
The applicant commented his objective for the proposal was not to upset his
neighbours. The reason why they are looking for a reduction of the side yard setback is
because there is a seven-foot hedge and trees on that side and therefore will not be
used as much and did not think it would cause much of an impact.
Secretary-Treasurer clarified the variances are to By-law 2511, and not to the Infill
By-law. The Infill By-law is Council adopted but not in effect as it has been appealed to
the Ontario Land Tribunal.
After reading the report, hearing the discussions from both sides, and determining the
application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved the
following motion:
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Motion not seconded
That application P/CA 34/23 by B. & Y. Javaid, as amended, be Approved on the
grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate
development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the
Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 6 of 11
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, 6 & 7
contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated August 9,
2023).
2. That the applicant revise the submitted plans to reflect a minimum south side yard
setback of 1.5 metres.
Motion Lost
The variance being requested would cause adverse impact on adjacent properties and
uses in the area, making the proposal not minor in nature. The variance is not
compatible with the existing development in the neighbourhood and therefore is
undesirable and inappropriate for the development of the land, and does not meet the
intent of the Zoning By-law or the Official Plan. Given the above-noted reasons,
Omar Ha-Redeye moved the following motion:
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That application P/CA 34/23 by B. & Y. Javaid, as amended, 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
Omar Ha-Redeye in favour
Denise Rundle in favour
Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour
Rick Van Andel opposed
Sean Wiley in favour
4.3 P/CA 35/23
A. Bronkhorst & S. Smith
679 Front Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws
7610/18, 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7900/22, to permit:
• a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires the minimum
lot frontage for a R4 zone to be 15.0 metres;
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 7 of 11
• a minimum lot area of 343 square metres, whereas the By-law requires the
minimum lot area for a R4 zone to be 460 square metres;
• minimum side yard setback of 0.9 of a metre on the south side and 1.0 metre on
the north side, whereas the By-law requires the minimum side yard setback to be
1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side;
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to recognize
the existing lot frontage and lot area and to obtain a future building permit for the
construction of a three-storey detached dwelling.
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 due to the size of the lot, the
required setbacks would create an insufficient width for a house.
Peter Pomeroy, applicant/agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent explained they are requesting these variances because the lot size is very
narrow. The current width of the entire house is just over 14 feet. This home is lived in
by an older family, mixed with the younger generation of the family so there is a need
for the house to have barrier free entrances and an elevator.
Vice-Chair commented the report states that the proposed north side yard is more
generous than the current setback which is currently at zero metres. The north side yard
will be improved with this variance.
After reading the staff report, receiving no comments from the public and the proposal
creating an improvement in the north side yard setback, Denise Rundle moved the
following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application P/CA 35/23/23 by A. Bronkhorst & S. Smith, 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 development, 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 August 9,
2023).
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 8 of 11
2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services shall be
satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed.
Carried Unanimously
4.4 P/CA 36/23
M. MacPhaden
963 Mountcastle Crescent
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1998/85
to permit an uncovered platform with steps not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above
grade and not projecting more than 2.3 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 rear yard.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a
building permit to construct an uncovered deck with steps.
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 existing deck age is unsafe and
requires a replacement to provide access to the rear yard.
In response to a question from the Chair, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified that there is
one variance being sought tonight due to how the By-law is written. This one zoning
provision regulates both the height and the encroachment of the stairs.
Michael MacPhaden, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Given that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel
moved the following motion:
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application P/CA 36/23 by M. MacPhaden, 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, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 9 of 11
1. That this variance apply only to the uncovered platform (deck) with steps, as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2
contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 9, 2023).
Carried Unanimously
4.5 P/CA 37/23
811501 Ontario Ltd.
954 Dillingham Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6780/07,
to permit:
• a maximum of 10 percent of the building to be designated for accessory retail use,
whereas the By-law states that retail stores and retail operations shall not be
permitted;
• a maximum of 40 percent of the required parking spaces (10 parking spaces) to be
provided in the front yard, whereas the By-law limits front yard parking to be
20 percent of the total required parking area;
• a minimum side yard setback of 5.4 metres from the north parking spaces, and a
minimum side yard setback of 0.0 metres from the south parking spaces, whereas
the By-law permits side yard parking to be no closer than 7.5 metres from the side
lot line on one side and 1.5 metres on the other side;
• a minimum setback of 0.9 of a metre between the parking area and Dillingham Road,
whereas the By-law requires parking areas to have a 3.0 metre setback from the
abutting road allowance.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a
future building permit to permit the conversion of a portion of the building for accessory
retail use.
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 their business relies on retail as a
part of our operations as we sell, service and offer parts for the outdoor power
equipment industry.
Andy Paterson, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 10 of 11
The agent stated the business is currently on Brock Road and with the median on the
street it is tough to get in and out. With Dillingham Road it will make it much easier to do
business. They have been in business for nine years.
In response to a question from the Chair, the agent explained their business sells lawn
and garden equipment.
In response to a question from the Vice-Chair, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed the
site is within Site Plan Control.
Given that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Omar Ha-Redeye
moved the following motion:
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application P/CA 37/23 by 811501 Ontario Ltd., be Approved on the grounds that
the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development
of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the
staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 9, 2023).
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, August 9, 2023
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 11 of 11
September 13, 2023
5. Adjournment
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That the 8th hearing of the 2023 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:09 pm.
Carried Unanimously
__________________________
Date
__________________________
Chair
__________________________
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Please note the Committee of Adjustment Hearings are available for viewing on the City of
Pickering YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/SustainablePickering