Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 10, 2020-C1of-p](KERJNG Present Tom Copeland -Vice-Chair David Johnson -Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O'Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Felix Chau, Planner I Isabel Lima, Planner I Absent 1. Adoption of Revised Rules of Procedure Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting That the revised Rules of Procedure be adopted. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle Carried Unanimously That the agenda for the Wednesday, June 10, 2020 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously Page 1 of 17 -C~of-p](KER]NG 4. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting That the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, March 11, 2020 be adopted. 5. Reports 5.1 PICA 02/20 E. & T. Papadimitropoulos 1270 Abbey Road Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1861/84, to permit: • a minimum front yard depth of 4.25 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 6.0 metres; and • a private garage attached to the main building to be located 4.25 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street, whereas the By-law requires the minimum one (1) private garage per lot attached to the main building and located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to an existing attached garage. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Dale Theriault, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Page 2 of 17 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Dale Theriault thanked the Committee of Adjustment for their efforts during the COVID pandemic. He stated the applicant is looking to add a third-car garage to the existing dwelling and assist with the desirability of the streetscape and landscape of the property by eliminating vehicle storage on the driveway and the street. He continued to describe the request for the front yard setback, which created two variances. Dale Theriault indicated the applicant has worked with staff and agreed to install windows. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Dale Theriault stated the purpose for the construction of a garage is to accommodate the owner's large family. Additionally the purpose of the third garage is only to accommodate vehicular storage and not to facilitate living quarters or an additional dwelling unit. After considering the staff Report, and comments from the applicant regarding maintaining a consistent streetscape, the installation of the windows to the addition, sufficient space for soft landscaping, and the use of similar building materials, this proposal appears to be appropriate development of the neighborhood and minor in nature; Sean Wiley moved the motion as documented and outlined by the City of Pickering City Development Department's recommendation. To ensure the proposed improvements to the garage elevations be undertaken, Committee Member Denise Rundle proposed a friendly amendment that the decision require that the variances apply to the proposed garage as generally sited and outlined on Exhibits 2 and 4 contained in the staff Report dated June 10, 2020. Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application PICA 02/20 by E. & T. Papadimitropoulos, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances to permit the construction of an addition to an existing attached garage is desirable for the appropriate development of land, maintains the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and is minor in nature subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply to the proposed garage as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and Exhibit 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously Page 3 of 17 -C1of-p](KER]NG 5.2 PICA 18/20 C. & J. Arterton 1177 Gloucester Square Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 20.20 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 0889/78, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 1.5 metres in height and not projecting more than 3.1 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and to not project more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Charlene Arterton, applicant, and Daniel Wasson, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Daniel Wasson spoke in support of the application indicating the applicant's cooperation to work with staff and have all the necessary criteria compliant with the City's by-laws. In response to a question posed by a Committee Member, Daniel Wasson indicated the proposed deck will maintain the same configuration of the existing deck with the exception of having the stairs oriented in a different direction. Given that, the proposed deck is essentially replacing the existing structure, and based on the comments and recommendations of the City of Pickering City Development Department, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Page 4 of 17 -C1of-p](KER]NG Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday,June10,2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting That application PICA 18120 by C. & J. Arterton, 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 the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, 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 June 10, 2020). 5.3 PICA 19120 C. Gallo & 0. Peralta 1803 Pine Grove Avenue Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law states 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 variance in order to recognize a deficient side yard setback. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Cesare Gallo, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cesare Gallo spoke in support of the application stating the reason for the application is to accommodate a construction error in siting the property of the house resulting from an irregular lot line. In response to a question posed by a Committee Member, Cesare Gallo indicated he was the builder and original owner of this property. Page 5 of 17 -Cdt;of-p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Given that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application PICA 19120 by C. Gallo & 0. Peralta, 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 the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the existing dwelling on the subject site, 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 June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously 5.4 PICA 20120 B. & C. Bailey 1004 Rambleberry Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2470187, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required rear 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 or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Dustin Winfield, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Page 6 of 17 -C~of-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday,June10,2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Dustin Winfield spoke in support of the application stating the proposed deck will maintain the same configuration of the existing deck with the exception of the stairs having a different direction. The applicants purchased the dwelling last year and believe the deteriorating stairs have existed for approximately 20 years. The current · homeowners were not aware that the existing deck was built without compliance to the required zoning by-laws. Given that there appears to be no major concerns with this application, having received no comments, and after reading and being in agreement with the staff Report and recommendations to the Committee of Adjustment, as well as the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application PICA 20120 by B. & C. Bailey, 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 the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated June 10, 2020). 5.5 PICA 21120 2227959 Ontario Inc. 962 Alliance Road Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 12.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 4.5 metres; • 1 parking space per 60 square metres of gross floor area for industrial uses, whereas the By-law requires 1 parking space per 56 square metres of gross floor area for industrial uses; • front yard parking to be limited to 25 percent of the total required parking area, whereas the By-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the total required parking area. Page 7 of 17 -C~of-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate an addition to an existing industrial building. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Due to technical difficulties the agent Paul Gaskin, was unable to be connected to the meeting. Committee Members agreed to move to the next agenda item until such time as all participants for this item were able to be connected to the electronic meeting. Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton To dispense the rereading of application PICA 21/20 by 2227959 Ontario Inc. Carried Unanimously Gus Regas, applicant, and Paul Gaskin, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Paul Gaskin spoke in support of the application. Gus Regas spoke in support of the application stating the reason for the submission is to accommodate a larger show room and storage area. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the applicant stated the proposed construction is not believed to increase the current parking needs of the business. The focus of the business is to support the medical and dental communities by appointment only. After having read the City staff's Report to the Committee of Adjustment and acknowledging that there will be sufficient and adequate buffers established for the front yard and side yard setbacks, and given that parking reduction is minor, as well as the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Page 8 of 17 -Cif:16/-p](KER]NG Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday,June10,2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting That application PICA 21120 by 2227959 Ontario Inc., 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 the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed addition to the existing industrial building, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated June 10, 2020). 5.6 PICA 22120 M. & M. Snedden 2022 Trailwood Court Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1228181, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2. 7 metres in height and not projecting more than 3.2 metres into the required rear 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 or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending the application be Tabled until further comments are received from the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and the matter of the differing drawings is resolved. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. . Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating that the plans circulated by the City were not the same as the plans the TRCA were reviewing for permit issuance. Page 9 of 17 -Cd:fof-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Joey Fletcher, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Joey Fletcher spoke in support of the application stating the requested revisions to the design of the deck by the TRCA were received on June 1, 2020, and due to time restraints he was unable to complete the revisions by June 3, 2020, to meet the City of Pickering's deadline for comment submission. The revisions have been completed, submitted and approved by TRCA to their satisfaction. The newly submitted drawings will be slightly different from those that are part of the June 10, 2020 Committee of Adjustment Agenda. In response to questions posed by Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer stated the revised drawings from the applicant have not been submitted to the City to circulate to the TRCA, and therefore no new formal comments have been received from the TRCA to date. After hearing the responses from the agent, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application PICA 22120 by M. & M. Snedden, be Tabled until further comments are received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the matter of the differing drawings is resolved. 5.7 PICA 23120 to PICA 26120 GHR Investment Corp. 1865 Pine Grove Avenue PICA 23/20 (Lot 1) Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot area of 445 square metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres • to permit a minimum front yard setback of 6.5 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the east side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent; whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit a minimum flankage yard setback of 4.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard setback of 4.5 metres Page 10 of 17 -C~6f-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting • to permit uncovered steps and a platform with a maximum height of 2.65 metres above grade to project 1.5 metres into the required side yard; whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.5 metres into the required side yard • to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.5 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard PICA 24120 (Lot 2) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot frontage of 14.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres • to permit a minimum lot area of 427 square metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the west side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the east side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38.5 percent; whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.45 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard PICA 25120 (Lot 3) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot frontage of 14.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres • to permit a minimum lot area of 427 square metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the west side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the east side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38.5 percent; whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.45 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the By-law requires Page 11 of 17 -C1of-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday,June10,2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard PICA 26/20 (Lot 4) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended: • to permit a minimum lot frontage of 14.0 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres • to permit a minimum lot area of 427 square metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the west side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres for the east side yard; whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 38.5 percent; whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • to permit an uncovered platform measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.4 metres into the required rear yard; whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the creation of three residential lots through Consent Applications and obtain building permits for the construction of four single detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Refusal of the proposed variances. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department stating they have no objections to the proposed applications and advise that they will include a condition in the subsequent Consent Application to ensure that the increase in lot coverage does not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns in the surrounding area. Consideration for rain harvesting and other Low Impact Development measures should be made to maintain pre-development runoff volumes. No comments were submitted from the City's Building Services Section at the time of completion the Committee of Adjustment Reports were written. Written comments were received from two area residents of Pine Grove Avenue in objection to the applications. Written comments were received from a resident of Sandcherry Court in support of the application. Page 12 of 17 -C1of-p](KERJNG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from 2 area residents on Pine Grove Avenue in support of the application. Written comments were received from a resident of Woodview Avenue and local Realtor in support of the application. Written comments were received from a resident of Prohill Street in support of the application. Cesare Gallo, applicant and Amy Emm, agent with 181 Group, were present to represent the application. Jody & John McDermott, and Ken & Jennifer Pettigrew were present in opposition to the application. David Malesich, and Michael Mandarello were present in support of the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Amy Emm spoke to the presentation that was submitted to City staff and the Committee Members in support of the submitted applications addressing the following evidence: -City staff support the built form variances but not the lot variances. -An eclectic mix of lot patterns and sizes as well as smaller lot areas and frontages than proposed exist within a 5 minute walk of the subject site. -The proposal is not a new precedence of lot configuration on Pine Grove Avenue or within the immediate neighbourhood. -Approved variances for minimum lot frontages of 13.5 metres at 1839 Pine Grove Avenue would facilitate future severance applications. -Summary of letters of support and objection received. -The applicant received verbal support from residents of 1861 Pine Grove Avenue (property immediately south of the subject site) confirming his support of a four lot configuration over a three lot configuration. - A traffic review has been completed and provided to City staff and the Committee Members, which reveals no evident traffic, parking or safety concerns as a result of this proposal. The safety and sightline will be improved by removing the mature trees that currently cause a visual impairment at this location. - A brief summary was provided outlining how the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. David Malesich spoke in support of the application stating his agreement with the presentation given by Amy Emm and his preference for a diverse residential mix within the neighbourhood and preference for a larger tax revenue base. Michael Mandarello spoke in support of the application stating he is a local resident and realtor in the neighbourhood for the past 16 years. He believes the community would benefit in terms of curb appeal and tax revenue by the development of four lots. Page 13 of 17 -C4)of-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Additionally, Michael Mandarello stated it would mirror the same type of planning that has taken place at the corner of Woodview Avenue and Pine Grove Avenue, as illustrated on the slides shown on Amy Emm's presentation. Jody McDermott spoke in opposition of the application stating she does not believe these applications improve the character of the neighbourhood. Jody and John McDermott have been residents of the City of Pickering for over ten years and enjoy residing on one of the original streets of Pickering. Furthermore, spacious lots characterize part of the great aesthetic of the neighbourhood near Pine Grove Park and the Rouge National Urban Park. Jody McDermott stated anything beyond the creation of one dwelling on the property is seen as overdevelopment. She expressed concern about a blind corner at the intersection, on-street overflow parking from the park, and that this location has high traffic volumes from busses and residential vehicles. There is much concern with the creation of four driveways having vehicles emerging into traffic creating even more of a blind corner for drivers. Moreover, the 5-minute walking radius includes not only diverse shapes and sizes of residential lots but also larger agricultural properties and the Toronto Zoo. The great number of variances requested does not appear to be minor. Jody McDermott asks the Committee to maintain the integrity of the neighbourhood and have the applicant comply with all required by-laws for the property. Ken and Jennifer Pettigrew spoke in opposition to the application stating they have lived in the neighbourhood for fifteen years and echo the McDermott's stated concerns about the proposal. They also indicated they are not opposed to development in the area, however they believe the creation of four lots on the property is in excess. The curb appeal of this neighbourhood is in larger dwellings situated on larger lots on Pine Grove Avenue. Amy Emm spoke in response to the concerns raised by the McDermotts and the Pettigrews stating the City's Engineering Services staff have reviewed this proposal and have not highlighted any concerns associated with traffic, safety and parking for this area. The transportation study conducted to respond to the comments submitted by the area residents. A sightline analysis illustrated no impact by this proposal. The proposal will accommodate more than the minimum parking required by the by-law. Amy Emm described the provincial government's mandate to have mild increase to density to facilitate housing shortages and affordability issues. She also stated that the density requirements are met as part of this proposal and seen as mild infill proving this location to be an appropriate place for additional lot creation. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Amy Emm stated the current lot frontages of the dwellings on Pine Grove Avenue and Woodview Avenue are 12 metres. The side yard setbacks are 0.9 metres or 1.0 metres for those same properties. In response to a question posed by a Committee Member, Cesare Gallo stated on average the approximate square footage for each of the four dwellings proposed is 2850-3050 square feet. Page 14 of 17 -Cd:Jof-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting In response to questions from a Committee Member, Amy Emm confirmed that the immediate abutting lands to the east have previously undergone mild infill with the creation of a differing lot, which resulted in the current size of the subject property. Furthermore, consideration was given for the potential of creating two lots over four, where the creation of two lots would not require any minor variance applications. Committee Member Tom Copeland, thanked Amy Emm and IBI Group for the presentation and the traffic study, as well as the residents for their comments and concerns with the development of the neighbourhood. Based on the slides as part of Amy Emm's presentation, where the red infill is denoted as lots having less than 460 square metres in area, and looking at the fabric of the immediate neighbourhood, the four lots appear not to conform to City Policy 12.12. Individually the applications appear to be minor variances, however collectively these variances do not appear to be as minor, they do affect the community, and what is deemed as not appropriate for the development of the land, therefore Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application PICA 23120 to PICA 26120 by GHR Investment Corp., be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not minor in nature. Vote Tom Copeland David Johnson Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley 5.8 PICA 28120 A. & A. Stanley 506 Driftwood Court in favour in favour in favour in favour opposed Carried The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2759188 to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 4.5 metres for a covered platform (deck), 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 a covered deck. Page 15 of 17 -C1of-p](KER1NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Max Merchasin, agent with Acadia Design Consultants Inc., 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, Max Merchasin stated the covered deck is not habitable space but rather a covered canopy to keep the elements away. Given that the application as noted in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment states that the covered deck will contribute to the total usable amenity space in the rear yard, as well as having no feedback from neighbours, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application PICA 28/20 by A. & A. Stanley, 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 the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed covered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant's submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment dated June 10, 2020). Carried Unanimously Page 16 of 17 -C1°f-p](KERJNG Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting That the 4th meeting of the 2020 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:35 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, July 8, 2020. Carried Unanimously July 8, 2020 Date Vice-Chair Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Page 17 of 17