Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 9, 2020Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 14 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That the agenda for the Wednesday, December 9, 2020 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 9th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, November 11, 2020 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 14 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the November 11, 2020 meeting) P/CA 63/20 A. & M. Washington 1674 Dellbrook Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2024/85 and By-law 2235/86, to permit an uncovered platform (deck) and associated steps not exceeding 2.45 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the required rear yard and not more than 1.2 metres in the required south side 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 these variances in order to obtain a building permit to revise a constructed 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Morlan Washington, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Morlan Washington stated he has no problem with removing a portion of the deck as per the revised drawings and removal would occur once the ground is soft enough to do so. After considering the City Development’s report, that a reduction in the size of the deck will address privacy concerns, that no further comments have been received from the neighbour, Building Services or Engineering Services, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 14 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 63/20 by A. & M. Washington, 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 uncovered deck and associated 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 December 9, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 65/20 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. 606 Annland Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to: • recognize a minimum lot frontage of 8.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres; • recognize a minimum lot area of 130 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; • permit a minimum front yard setback of 2.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum rear yard setback of 1.6 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum east side yard setback of 0.3 metres, and a minimum west side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 52 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • permit an uncovered platform (front porch) not projecting more than 7.2 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard and not more than 1.0 metres into any required side yard. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 14 The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending the application be tabled. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating to ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. In addition, consideration for rain harvesting or other low impact development (LID) measures be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the owners of 660 Pleasant Street expressing concerns with the proposed rear yard setback of 1.6 metres, as the tall dwelling will tower over the side yard of 660 Pleasant Street. The comments also indicated that the proposed dwelling has a number of windows at the rear of the dwelling that will look into the home to the north. In addition, the proposed height and lot coverage are not in line with the size of the lot, and that an appropriate lot should have been considered for the proposed structure. Concerns regarding privacy and height were identified with the proposed roof terrace, as most homes in the area are bungalows or 2-storey dwellings. A third-floor balcony in this location will look into several surrounding yards. The modern design with a flat roof and rooftop balcony are not in keeping with the style of dwellings in the surrounding streets. The comments noted that the Infill and Replacement Housing Study is looking to regulate roof pitch and design. Helen Qamar, applicant, and Joe Battaglia, agent, were present to represent the application. Alanna Turney of 660 Pleasant Street, Kathleen Fountain of 604 Annland Street, and Corey Leadbetter of 604 Annland Street were present in objection to the application. Helen Qamar, applicant, advised the Committee that she agreed with the staff recommendation to table the application. She also indicated that her family will be residing in the house. Alanna Turney, owner of 660 Pleasant Street, the property to the north of the subject lands, addressed the Committee indicating that while she recognized restrictions on development due to the size of the 606 Annland Street, the style of the proposed dwelling does not fit the neighbourhood. The scale and size of the existing house is appropriate. She indicated concerns with the proposed three storey dwelling regarding the proposed rear yard setback, effects of towering and shadowing over adjacent dwellings, and overlook from the roof top deck. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 14 Kathleen Fountain, resides at 604 Annland Street, indicated that while she is not opposed to redevelopment, she objects to the requested variances and agrees with the privacy and shadowing concerns voiced by the owner of 660 Pleasant Street. She voiced an additional concern over blocking of air flow, as well as, safety issues and obstruction of sight lines that the proposed front porch would create. Corey Leadbetter, owner of 604 Annland Street, resides on Commerce Street, objected to the requested variances as they would permit too much house on a tiny lot. He suggested that the new home be constructed to the footprint of the existing dwelling. Joe Battaglia, agent, agreed with staff’s recommendation to table the application to allow submitted comments to be addressed. Some changes to the proposed dwelling have already been initiated which include a sloping a portion of the roof to the property to the north. In response to comments regarding shadowing, Joe Battaglia indicated that the proposed dwelling would not impact the noon and afternoon sunlight that 604 Annland Street enjoys from the south and west directions. Tom Copeland recommended the applicant’s agent review the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Guidelines. He also indicated that the City and City Council undertook extensive community consultation resulting in these guidelines to help applicants prepare for infill development, and moved the following: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 65/20 by 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd., be Tabled to allow the applicant to consider design elements that address the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 67/20 P. Rahaman 1806 Westcreek Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2224/86, to permit an uncovered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.5 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps and 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. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 14 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Spencer Joy, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Spencer Joy stated the approvals are required in order to start building in the spring. After considering the City Development’s report, that no comments in opposition were received from the immediate surrounding neighbours, and 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 Sean Wiley That application P/CA 67/20 by P. Rahaman, 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 uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 9, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 68/20 P. Wheatle 563 Rougemount Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34 percent, whereas the by-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate a future Land Division application through the Region of Durham’s Land Division Committee to adjust a lot line. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 14 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Peter Wheatle, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Peter Wheatle stated Committee of Adjustment approval is required in order to move forward with the Land Division application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Peter Wheatle stated site plans have been provided to the City for the two proposed severed lots and that no additional variances will be required. After considering the City Development’s report, that 1 percent maximum increase in lot coverage is minor in nature, and no comments were received from Building Services and Engineering Services, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 68/20 by P. Wheatle, 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 conditions: 1. That this variance apply only to the proposed “Part 1” as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans. 2. That this variance only apply should a Land Division application generally reflecting the applicant’s submitted plans be approved by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 69/20 8543941 Canada Corp. 949 Dillingham Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 3981/71 to permit an outdoor swimming pool accessory to a tavern/patio bar, whereas the By-law does not permit a swimming pool. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 14 The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit the conversion of an existing water fountain feature to an outdoor swimming pool accessory to a tavern/patio bar. 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from Regional Councillor Ward 2, Bill McLean in opposition of the application. Written comments were received from Regional Councillor Ward 1, Kevin Ashe in support of the application. Robert Gawkins, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Robert Gawkins stated the fountain is in ground; there will be no construction required to convert the fountain into a pool; and the size of the existing fountain is approximately 24 feet x 24 feet x 4 feet. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated no building permit is required for the conversion of the fountain and the fence already exists. There are fencing requirements for pools and the applicant may already meet the requirements as the Engineering Services department were circulated and they have no comments on the application. After considering the City Development’s report, listening to the applicant’s response to questions from Committee Members, that no comments were received Building Services and Engineering Services, and that the proposal appears to be a simple conversion of use of an existing feature, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 69/20 by 8543941 Canada Corp., 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: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 14 1. That this variance apply only to the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans. Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 70/20 Daniels LR Corporation 1525 Kingston Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to permit: • air conditioners located in the front yard of a lot, whereas the By-law permits air conditioners on a lot provided they are located in the rear yard or interior side yard or on a balcony or roof; and • a minimum main wall stepback of 0.0 metres on a building face abutting a street line for a building equal to or less than 37.5 metres in height, whereas the By-law requires a minimum main wall stepback of 1.5 metres between 4.5 metres and 15.0 metres in height on any building face abutting a street line for buildings equal to or less than 37.5 metres in height. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain Site Plan Approval for stacked townhouses. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Sarah Millar, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Sarah Millar stated the distance between the property line and the sidewalk is 0.9 metres. After considering the City Development’s report; understanding locating air conditioner units between the building and the street on back to back stacked townhouses can’t be avoided, trusting the site plan process will ensure there will be adequate landscaping and screening of air conditioning units, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 14 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 70/20 by Daniels LT Corporation, 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 (refer to Exhibit 1 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 9, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 71/20 to P/CA 73/20 Zavala Developments Inc. 1071, 1073, and 1075 Orenda Street P/CA 71/20 (1071 Orenda Street) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14: • to permit a minimum interior side yard of 0.4 metres from the westerly lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum interior side yard of 0.6 metres; • to permit eaves and eaves troughs to project up to 0.0 metres from the westerly property line whereas the by-law requires projections of eaves and eaves troughs to project no further than half the distance of the required yard. P/CA 72 /20 (1073 Orenda Street) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14: • to permit a minimum interior side yard of 0.4 metres from the westerly lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum interior side yard of 0.6 metres; • to permit a minimum rear yard of 5.8 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum rear yard of 6.0 metres; • to permit eaves and eaves troughs to project up to 0.0 metres from the westerly property line whereas the by-law requires projections of eaves and eaves troughs to project no further than half the distance of the required yard. P/CA 73 /20 (1075 Orenda Street) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14: • to permit a minimum interior side yard of 0.4 metres from the westerly lot line, whereas the by-law requires a minimum interior side yard of 0.6 metres; • to permit a minimum rear yard of 4.8 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum rear yard of 6.0 metres; Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 14 • to permit eaves and eaves troughs to project up to 0.0 metres from the westerly property line whereas the by-law requires projections of eaves and eaves troughs to project no further than half the distance of the required yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain building permits for three detached dwellings. 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department indicating that after reviewing the overall grading plan, it appears the rear downspouts are going to rain barrels and all other downspouts are connected to a storm/RDC system. As a result, Engineering Services do not see an issue with the requested projection of eaves and eaves troughs up to 0.0 metre to the property line. Billy Tung, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Billy Tung stated the rain barrels are provided to all landowners within the Seaton community as part of the low impact development measures. Billy Tung stated he is not sure if the rain barrels will be a permanent structure that cannot be removed at some point by the purchaser of the property. In addition, on behalf of his client, Zavala Developments Inc., arrangements will be made with Legal Services for submission of Part Lot Control applications. After considering the City Development’s report, the addition of Condition #2 requiring the submission of an application for Part Lot Control; and 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 Sean Wiley That applications P/CA 71/20, P/CA 72/20 and 73/20 by Zavala Developments 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 conditions: 1. That the variances apply only to the subject properties, 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 December 9, 2020). Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 14 2. That the variances apply only should an application for Part Lot Control as generally shown on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 9, 2020) be approved by the City by December 31, 2021. Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 74/20 Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. 1855 Rosebank Road (Lot 6) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1929/84, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 41 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating to ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. In addition, consideration for rain harvesting or other low impact development (LID) measures be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface Samantha Bateman, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Samantha Bateman stated the building footprint has not changed and that the lot coverage was missed in the previous minor variance application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Samantha Bateman provided clarification on the Exhibits #2 and #3 of the staff report. Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 74/20 by Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd., 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: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 14 1 That this variance apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 9, 2020). Carried Unanimously 5. Other Business 5.1 Appointment of Chairperson Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That David Johnson be appointed as Chairperson for the 2021 term. Carried Unanimously 5.2 Appointment of Vice-Chairperson Moved by David Johnson Seconded by Denise Rundle That Tom Copeland be appointed as Vice-Chairperson for the 2021 term. Carried Unanimously 5.3 Acknowledgement David Johnson, Chair, noted this was the last meeting of the year and thanked City Staff and Committee Members for their hard work and support throughout the year. 5.4 City Staff Recognition Sean Wiley, Committee Member, put forward a motion on behalf of the Committee Members for recognition of City Staff for successful organization and management of virtual meetings in 2020 and moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That the City Planning staff and Technology support staff be commended by City Council and the City CAO for their organizational efforts to successfully and professionally enable and conduct Committee of Adjustment meetings in 2020. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 9, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 14 January 13, 2021 Throughout 2020 under the strain of the COVID pandemic, yet highly mindful of the needs of the community, the Planning Department along with Technology support developed the means and trained and guided the Committee, resulting in successful Committee of Adjustment meetings as per regulations and City rules of procedure and allowing for continued meetings and City public engagement. The Committee of Adjustment is greatly appreciative of these efforts to facilitate the City’s service to the community. Carried Unanimously 6. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 10th meeting of the 2020 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:12 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, January 13, 2020. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer