HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 10, 2025Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Electronic Meeting
December 10, 2025
07:00 PM
Pending Adoption
Present
Omar Ha-Redeye
Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair
Sakshi Sood Joshi
Rick Van Andel
Sean Wiley – Chair
Also Present
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer
Isabel Lima, Secretary-Treasurer
Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Nilissa Reynolds, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer – Host
Kerry Yelk, Senior Planner, Zoning
Tanejaé Page-Hamilton, Zoning Examiner
Figo Pham, Zoning Technician
Disclosure of Interest
Not applicable.
Adoption of Agenda
Moved By Sakshi Sood Joshi
Seconded By Rick Van Andel
That the agenda for the Wednesday, December 10, 2025 hearing be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Adoption of Minutes
1.
2.
3.
1
Moved By Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded By Rick Van Andel
That the minutes of the 11th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,
November 12, 2025 be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Draft November 12, 2025, Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
Minor Variance Reports
MV 59/25 - 1515 Pickering Parkway
Pickering Valley Developments Limited
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24 to permit a minimum
parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit for residents (286
resident parking spaces), whereas the By-law requires a minimum parking ratio of
0.55 parking spaces per apartment dwelling unit for residents (315 resident parking
spaces).
The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain Site Plan Approval for the
construction of a 40-storey residential condominium tower containing 571 dwelling
units.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering
Services, and the City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Cover Letter and Parking
Variance Letter in support of this application. Please contact the City Development
Department to receive a copy of these letters at citydev@pickering.ca.
Mallory Nievas, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent made a brief presentation in support of the application.
In response to a question from a Committee member the agent stated that at the
time of the Zoning By-law Amendment a parking requirement of 0.5 parking spaces
per unit was requested, however after collecting sales data it is showing the
reduction is necessary due to a lower demand of parking being purchased than
3.1
4.
4.1
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
2
predicted.
A Committee member commented that they found the cover letter useful in justifying
the four-part test of the Planning Act.
Moved By Rick Van Andel
Seconded By Omar Ha-Redeye
That application MV 59/25 by Pickering Valley Developments Limited, 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:
That this variance applies only to the proposed residential condominium tower,
as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to
Attachments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 attached to the staff report to the Committee of
Adjustment dated December 10, 2025).
1.
Carried Unanimously
MV 60/25 - 1557 Avonmore Square
J. Vrtik
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24 to permit:
an uncovered deck to encroach into the required rear yard setback to a
maximum of 2.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits an uncovered platform to
encroach into any required setback to a maximum of 2.0 metres; and
•
a maximum lot coverage of 54 percent, whereas the By-law permits a
maximum lot coverage of 50 percent.
•
The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain a building permit to
recognize an existing deck.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering
Services, and the City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that they need more usable
outdoor space.
Evan Connors, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
4.2
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
3
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent stated that the new deck will be the same size as the existing deck. The
existing deck is very unsafe, it is currently falling away from the house, the stairs are
collapsing, and three footings are missing.
After reading report, considering comments from the applicant regarding safety
issues, Denise Rundle found the application to meet the four-part test of the
Planning Act, and the following motion was moved:
Moved By Denise Rundle
Seconded By Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application MV 60/25 by J. Vrtik, 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:
That these variances apply only to the existing deck, as generally sited and
outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachments 2, 3 & 4
attached to the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December
10, 2025).
1.
Carried Unanimously
MV 61/25 - 2657 Delphinium Trail
Z. Mahmood
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a maximum
driveway width of 5.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum driveway
width of 4.6 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a
building permit to widen the driveway for an additional parking space needed for an
additional dwelling unit.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering
Services, the City’s Building Services Section, and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Area (TRCA).
In support of the application, the applicant identified three parking spaces are
4.3
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
4
required for the ADU. One space can be accommodated in the garage and one
within the permitted 4.6 metre driveway width, but a third space cannot be provided
without widening the driveway by 0.6 metres. The change is limited to the private
driveway and will have no impact on the street or neighbourhood, with only a minor
reduction in landscaped area.
Salman Syed, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Moved By Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded By Rick Van Andel
That application MV 61/25 by Z. Mahmood, 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:
That this variance applies only to the driveway, as generally sited and outlined
on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachment 2 attached to the staff
report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 10, 2025).
1.
Carried Unanimously
MV 62/25 - 1009 Dashwood Court
R. Sansanwal
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a deck to
encroach into any required rear yard to a maximum of 3.32 metres, whereas the By-
law requires a maximum rear yard encroachment of 2.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a
building permit for an existing rear deck.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering
Services, the City’s Building Services Section, and one area resident.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the lot is unique in the
sense the west property line angles to the east property line to form a triangle.
Vinti Sansanwal, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
4.4
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
5
The applicant commented that this variance is required due to the irregular lot. The
variance was noted after the building permit was issued.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent stated they have
amended drawings ready to submit to Building Services for a revised building
permit.
Moved By Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded By Denise Rundle
That application MV 62/25 by R. Sansanwal, 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:
That this variance applies only to the rear deck, as generally sited and outlined
on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachment 2 attached to the staff
report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 10, 2025).
1.
Carried Unanimously
MV 63/25 - 397 Brookridge Gate
S. & D. Farmer
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24 to permit:
a maximum lot coverage of 43.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a
maximum of 38 percent; and
•
a deck to encroach into the required rear yard setback to a maximum of 4.5
metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum of 2.0 metres.
•
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a
building permit to construct a rear deck.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering
Services, and the City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that to permit the construction
of an uncovered deck that exceeds the allowable lot coverage and reduces the
required rear yard setback, to provide access to the rear yard due to the grade
4.5
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
6
change.
Spencer Joy, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent commented that most of the deck is under 2 feet, a small portion towards
the edge is over 2 feet, requiring a railing. Most of deck won’t be in line of sight due
to fencing, trees and shrubbery around the property. The portion of the deck that
has privacy screening along one side is proposed because the applicants may
install a hot tub. The deck will not take up the whole backyard; there will still be a lot
of access around the property. The property once had an existing pool but there is
nothing currently there. No public input was received from the neighbours or the
church. They are going through the proper permitting and processes to ensure the
project is done correctly.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent stated that the
privacy screening will be on the south side of the deck, the remainder will have
three foot tall picket fencing. There is preexisting fencing to west, south and
easternmost of the property. The preexisting fencing provides sufficient privacy to
the neighbour’s yard.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent stated that the
church parking lot and a house are located south of the property.
In reference to the staff report, a Committee member asked why they cannot reduce
the size of the deck to relieve some privacy concerns.
The agent replied that the purpose of the deck is so the applicant can accommodate
space for friends and family, for entertainment and to enjoy the potential hot tub.
There will be ample grass area left in the backyard.
In response to a question from a Committee member the agent commented that
while the deck takes up a significant area of the backyard it is still desirable for area,
there is sufficient access to backyard, and the deck is very low to the ground it will
not affect waterflow from the property.
A Committee member commented that the size of the deck would not reduce
privacy concerns, if there were any privacy issues it would start the moment the
applicant steps outside of their home on to the deck.
Moved By Rick Van Andel
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
7
That application MV 63/25 by S. & D. Farmer, 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:
That this variance applies only to the rear yard, as generally sited and outlined
on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachments 2, 3 & 4 attached to
the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 10, 2025).
1.
Lost
Moved By Sakshi Sood Joshi
Seconded By Denise Rundle
That, based on the recommendations in the staff report citing prevalent concerns
regarding privacy and the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood, application MV
63/25 by S. & D. Farmer, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances
are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the
Zoning By-law.
Voters Yes No Abstain Conflict Absent
Sakshi Sood Joshi X
Omar Ha-Redeye X
Denise Rundle X
Rick Van Andel X
Sean Wiley X
Results 3 2 0 0 0
Carried (3 to 2)
MV 64/25 - 1851 Rosebank Road
Z. Valli
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a maximum lot
coverage of 41.2 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of
38 percent.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a
building permit to construct a balcony in the rear yard.
4.6
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
8
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering
Services, and the City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Cover Letter in support
of this application. Please contact the City Development Department to receive a
copy of this letter at citydev@pickering.ca.
Zulfikar Valli, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The applicant stated that they are looking to extend the existing balcony and add a
set of stairs to go down to the ground level from the balcony.
A Committee member noted that should the application be approved Attachment 2
will need to be revised to indicate the door that leads from the dwelling on to the
balcony.
Based on the staff report to the Committee, comments heard tonight and the
application meeting the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the
following motion:
Moved By Denise Rundle
Seconded By Omar Ha-Redeye
That application MV 64/25 by Z. Valli, 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:
That this variance applies only to the balcony, as generally sited and outlined
on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachments 2 & 3 attached to the
staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 10, 2025).
1.
That Attachment 3 be revised to clearly show the means of access from the
main wall to the approved balcony.
2.
Carried Unanimously
MV 65/25 - 741 Marksbury Road
A. Pettitt
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a minimum side
4.7
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
9
yard setback: one side 0.6 metres and other side 2.4 metres, whereas the By-law
requires a minimum side yard setback: one side 1.5 metres and other side 2.4
metres.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to permit an
attached carport.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering
Services, the City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Area (TRCA).
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the required 1.5 metre
setback for an attached structure the associated carport too narrow to park a
vehicle. Detached structure is not feasible as the detached structure is only allowed
in the rear yard.
Andrea Pettitt, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The applicant stated that they are looking to build a carport for protection from the
elements. The carport will fit in with the existing community. She has not received
hany concerns from neighbours. The structure will remain within the property line,
and away from the fence line.
Moved By Rick Van Andel
Seconded By Omar Ha-Redeye
That application MV 65/25 by A. Pettitt, 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:
That this variance applies only to the proposed carport, as generally sited and
outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachments 2, 3 & 4
attached to the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December
10, 2025).
1.
Carried Unanimously
MV 66/25 - 868 Reytan Boulevard
M. Hossain
4.8
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
10
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a maximum
driveway width of 6.25 metres at the front lot line, whereas the By-law permits a
maximum driveway width of 3.0 metres for lots with a lot frontage less than 11.0
metres.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to widen the
existing driveway.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering
Services, the City’s Building Services Section, and the Toronto & Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA).
In support of the application, the applicant identified that due to the narrow lot
frontage and the location of the side entrance, it is not possible to accommodate
additional parking elsewhere on the property. The proposed widening is minor,
maintains adequate landscaping, and will not negatively affect the streetscape or
neighbourhood character.
Aditi Desai, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent commented that they are looking for a 2.6 extension of the existing
driveway to accommodate an extra parking space for an additional dwelling unit
(ADU), for which a building permit has been issued. They do not anticipate any
negative effects on the neighbouring properties or community.
In response to questions from a Committee member, the agent commented that
they are aware a curb cut permit will be required if the application is approved. They
also understand that the request is for 6.25 metres relief from the By-law due to
partial of the existing driveway being non-conforming. They will continue to have
some green space in front of the house.
A Committee member voiced concerns on the impact of the street to accommodate
two parking spots in front of the house.
A Committee member commented that the streetscape impact is lessened due to
where the property is situated within the neighbourhood
A Committee member noted that that side of the street does not have a sidewalk.
There will be lanscaping along the travel portion of the street.
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
11
Based on comments from the applicant and input from Committee members, Omar
Ha-Redeye moved the following motion:
Moved By Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded By Rick Van Andel
That application MV 66/25 by M. Hossain, 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:
That this variance applies only to the proposed driveway, as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant’s submitted site plan (refer to Attachment 2
attached to the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December
10, 2025).
1.
Carried Unanimously
Other Business
Adoption of 2026 Hearing Schedule
Moved By Rick Van Andel
Seconded By Omar Ha-Redeye
That the 2026 Hearing Schedule be adopted for the 2026 term.
Carried Unanimously
Appointment of Chairperson
Moved By Denise Rundle
That Sean Wiley be appointed as Chairperson for the 2026 term.
Carried Unanimously
Appointment of Vice-Chairperson
Moved By Denise Rundle
Seconded By Sean Wiley
That Omar Ha-Redeye be appointed as Vice-Chairperson for the 2026 term.
Carried Unanimously
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
12
Adjournment
Moved By Rick Van Andel
Seconded By Sakshi Sood Joshi
That the 12th hearing of the 2025 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:07 pm.
Carried Unanimously
Minutes recorded on this 10th day of December 2025.
______________________________
Chair
______________________________
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
6.
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes
December 10, 2025
13