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