Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 10, 2021Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 18 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Kevin Ashe, Regional Councillor, Ward 1 Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Isabel Lima, Planner I Felix Chau, Planner I 1. Disclosure of Interest Sean Wiley, Committee Member, indicated he would recuse himself from participating in application P/CA 15/21 having potential interest in the application. To avoid a tie vote on the item, David Johnson, Chair stated he will abstain from voting on application P/CA 15/21. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, March 10, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the minutes of the 2nd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, February 10, 2021 be adopted. Carried Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 18 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 65/20 (Deferred at the February 10, 2021 meeting) 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 0.3 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum rear yard setback of 1.7 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 of a metre, 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 52.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • permit an uncovered platform (front porch) not projecting more than 6.9 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; and • recognize a vehicle parked in the rear yard to be setback a minimum 0.3 of a metre from the rear lot line and 0.0 metres from the east side lot line, whereas the By-law requires in any Residential Zone, vehicles parked in a side or rear yard be setback a minimum 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line. 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 approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 18 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure reduced front/side/rear yard depth and additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the building permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments from the residents of 661 Front Road stating the proposed dwelling is too large for the size of the lot. There is new construction in the City of Pickering, that has enhanced the beauty and character of the neighbourhood, however, the current proposal does not enhance the neighbourhood. Helen and Atif Qamar, applicants, and Joe Battaglia, agent, were present to represent the application. Alanna Turney of 660 Pleasant Street, Maureen Metcalfe of 667 Front Road, and Corey Leadbetter of 604 Annland Street, were present in objection to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Joe Battaglia spoke in favor of the application stating they agree with staff’s recommendation for approval and are seeking approval from the Committee. They believe the variances are minor, and meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Atif Qamar spoke in favour of the application stating, it appears to be minor in nature, and indicated they are seeking the Committee’s approval to build their family dream home by providing additional space for the children. Alanna Turney, resident of 660 Pleasant Street, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the large size of the proposed dwelling, the basement apartment being a misrepresentation of the application, the proposed rear yard setback, the height of the proposed dwelling being 3-storeys, the shadow impact, lack of privacy, driveway sizing and location in proximity to adjacent dwellings, drainage related to the slope of the roof, and lack of proposed greenery and landscaping. Alanna Turney stated the totality of variances appear not to be minor. Maureen Metcalfe, resident of 667 Front Road, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the application appearing major given the amount of requested variances, lot coverage setting a precedent for future redevelopment in the neighbourhood, the shadow impact, lack of privacy, the proposed basement apartment related to parking, the application is not in keeping with the design of the nautical village, the lot size appears to be too small for this proposal, and the creation of sightline issues. Corey Leadbetter, resident of 604 Annland Street, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the front yard setback should be similar to other 1-storey dwellings on the street, this would assist with air flow and sunlight. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 18 Additional concerns were raised regarding lot coverage, height and the proposal being too large given the size and location of the lot. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Isabel Lima, Planner I, stated the plans show an existing easement for hydro purposes, and that the proposed building is sited beyond the easement. Furthermore, the current lot coverage of the existing dwelling exceeds the maximum 33% lot coverage and is approximately 50%. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Helen Qamar stated that a basement apartment is not proposed. The cedar hedge and front yard landscaping will remain. The maximum height requested was determined based on discussions with the City Development Department. The additional height is due to lot size restrictions and is intended to create a third bedroom and a laundry room. In response to questions from a Committee Member and the concerns raised by the neighbours, Joe Battaglia stated the requested 3-storey height is believed to be in keeping with the current neighbourhood and streetscape having a similar design located across from the subject property. The application has undergone revisions of the design based on the recommendations from the City’s Engineering Department which included a turning radius to assist with visibility. Based on the orientation of the proposed dwelling and the existing hedge already creating a natural shading, the sunlight exposure will not be negatively impacted. After much appreciation for the City Development’s contribution to the Report, and compromises made by the applicant after the application was originally deferred, and taking into account the comments made by the neighbours while assessing the total variances combined, as well as the failure to comply with the Urban Design Guidelines in not meeting a 2-storey requirement, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 65/20 by 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd., be Refused on the grounds that when the requested variances are considered together the variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 18 4.2 P/CA 12/21 K. & T. Acciaccaferri 4975 Sideline 20 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06 to permit a maximum height of 4.7 metres for an accessory building in a residential zone, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an accessory building (cabana). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending deferral of the application to recirculate the appropriate elevation drawings (Refer to Exhibit 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). The applicants were not present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Based on the recommendations from the City Development Department, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 12/21 by K. & T. Acciaccaferri, be Deferred to recirculate the appropriate elevation drawings (Refer to Exhibit 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 13/21 C. & C. Florea 2017 Bloomfield Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5632/00 to permit a minimum north flankage side yard width of 1.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage side yard width of 2.7 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an attached private garage. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 18 Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section stating no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating it appears the existing driveway has been significantly widened, more than doubling the impervious surface, generating more run-off. The proposed private garage would further increase the run-off, and therefore Low Impact Development measures must be provided at the building permit stage. Cristian Florea, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cristian Florea spoke in support of the application stating he has not heard from any neighbours who are against the application, and it is believed the proposal will add to the aesthetic and value of the neighbourhood. In response to questions from Committee Members, Cristian Florea stated the reason for garage doors at both ends of the addition is to assist with total height clearance of seasonal equipment such as kayaks. The existing garage will remain, it does have a bedroom located above it. The purpose for this request is to facilitate additional storage, it will not be to accommodate any work, mechanical repairs, or business of any kind. After reading the City Development Department’s Report, listening to the applicant’s responses based on questions posed by Committee Members, and understanding that the application appears to be more of an oversized shed with doors on both ends, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 13/21 by C. & C. Florea, 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 attached private garage, 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 March 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 18 4.4 P/CA 14/21 D. & T. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88 to permit: • a covered deck not exceeding 9.2 metres in height above grade, whereas the by- law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres 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 of a metre in any required side yard; • a minimum front yard depth of 7.7 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 15.0 metres; and • a maximum building height of 9.6 metres, whereas the by-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a new 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 stating no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure additional percentage of lot coverage due to the covered deck and reduced front yard depth does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the building permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) stating staff have reviewed the requested variances and have no objections. The applicant will be required to obtain a TRCA permit for the proposed new dwelling. Derrick Leue, applicant, and David Rolfe, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, David Rolfe, agent, stated the application appears minor in nature and the applicant is seeking approval of variances resulting from the topography of the site. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 18 In response to questions from Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer stated the application submitted is for a 2-storey dwelling and the TRCA comments have been shared with the applicant. Tanjot Bal, Planner II, indicated there was an error in the Urban Design Guidelines attachment. Item 3 on the Checklist should have been marked down as “Yes” instead of “No”, confirming the 2-storey height with a sloped roof away from the adjacent dwellings. After reviewing the application, seeing the approval from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), noting that the 7.7 metre setback is consistent with the current streetscape on Rougemount Drive, and that the height of the deck is due to the sloping of the rear yard configuration, the proposal appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, as documented and cited by the City Development Department, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 14/21 by D. & T. Leue, 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 new detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (Refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4 & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 15/21 L. & L. Taylor 472 Churchwin Street Sean Wiley, Committee Member, indicated he would recuse himself from voting on application P/CA 15/21 having potential interest in the application. To avoid a tie vote on the item, David Johnson, Chair, stated he will abstain from voting on application P/CA 15/21. The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88 to permit: • a maximum height of 4.6 metres for an accessory building in a residential zone, whereas the By-law requires a maximum height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone; Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 18 • an accessory building to be erected 4.1 metres from the flankage lot line, whereas the By-law requires on corner lots that no part of any accessory building detached from the main building be erected closer to the lot line of the flanking street than the required front yard of the abutting lot on the flanking street (15.0 metres). The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct an accessory building (detached garage). 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 concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure locating the proposed garage closer to the lot line of the flanking street does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot, or increase the volume of water draining to the Gladstone Street right-of-way. Consideration for Low Impact Development (LID) measures should be made at the building permit stage. Restoration on a minimum of 450 millimeter topsoil will be required, which is to be addressed with the building permit. Written comments were received from the City’s Heritage staff outlining the construction and renovation history of the property and it being protected under the Ontario Heritage Act. At the January 27, 2021 Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee meeting, the Heritage Committee passed a motion recommending approval of the Heritage Permit HP 01-21 to construct a 66.9 metre two car garage (issued February 25, 2021), and that the Heritage Committee support a minor variance application for an increased height of 4.6 metres (with a peak of 6.14 metres) for a garage and a decreased flankage set back 4.11 metres. Laura and Lee Taylor, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Laura Taylor spoke in support of the application stating the purpose of the accessory building (detached garage) height variance is to create additional dry storage space. The lot line variance is due to the heritage significance, zoning and lot line orientation of the subject property; where the existing dwelling is setback further than the “Bunkie” which is to be removed. The accessory building (detached garage) will not be used for habitation or business related purposes. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 18 After reading the staff recommendation, the elevation seems to fit and be appropriate development of the land, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and after hearing the applicant’s comments related to heating, plumbing, habitation and business, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 15/21 by L. & L. Taylor, 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 these variances apply only to the accessory building (detached garage), 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 March 10, 2021). 2. That no human habitation be permitted within the accessory building (detached garage), as confirmed through the issuance of a building permit. Carried 4.6 P/CA 16/21 J. & J. Gray 819 Fairview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to: • recognize a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres; • recognize a minimum lot area of 295 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; • permit a minimum rear yard of 5.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres and a minimum south side yard of 0.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres; • permit a maximum building height of 9.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 18 • permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metres into any required side yard; and • permit a chimney breast not projecting more than 0.6 of a metre into the required north side yard, whereas the By-law states no person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to chimney breasts not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required yard. 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 approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the building permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from residents of 809 Fairview Avenue, 817 Fairview Avenue, 844 Fairview Avenue, 723 Simpson Avenue, and 1244A Bayview Street in support of the application. Jesse Gray, applicant, was present to represent the application. Alex Seres, resident of 815 Fairview Avenue was present in objection to the application. Michael Harris, resident of 821 Fairview Avenue spoke in opposition to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Jesse Gray spoke in support of the application stating he agrees with the comments from the City Development Department, and the home design was based on the neighbourhood’s existing landscape and architecture. Alex Seres, resident of 815 Fairview Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application stating he has no concern with the overall appearance and proposed frontage of the subject property. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 18 Alex Seres’ concerns are with: the overall proposed height and depth of dwelling, appearance of not having a rear yard, impact on sunlight exposure, impact on privacy, appearance of building being too large for the size of the lot and not being in keeping with overall streetscape. Michael Harris, resident of 821 Fairview Avenue, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the minimum rear yard reduction, the requested height negatively impacting the sunlight, the requested height of the roof being 11 metres in total, the reduction of side yards, the future plans for the mature trees on the property, and the increase in lot coverage infringing onto adjacent properties. Michael Harris also discussed the Urban Design Guidelines checklist that was completed as part of the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, and Item Number 10 states that the proposed dwelling has similar dwelling depth to adjacent dwellings along the street – this would not be correct, this property will have an extra 8-10 metres if approved, compared to adjacent dwellings. Item Number 12 on the checklist states that shadows on adjacent dwellings have been mitigated by a greater setback – this too would not be correct. Lastly, Michael Harris had concern with Items 18-20 of the checklist that address a potential tree preservation plan to only be determined at the building permit stage. When asked about how the height is evaluated in the Urban Design Guidelines checklist, the Secretary-Treasurer stated, the reason for the discrepancy in requested height, is due to the design created for this dwelling which includes a mechanical room located at the top storey which is exempted from calculation of height within the Zoning By-law. When asked if the applicant has met with neighbours to go over their concerns, Jesse Gray advised that has not happened yet. A Committee Member posed the idea of having the applicant revise their design. In order to appeal to the neighbours, the applicant could consider removing the covered rear deck which would accommodate concerns around the lot coverage and setback variances requested. When asked if the applicant is willing to redesign some components of the application, Jesse Gray expressed no desire to amend the application or design. It was indicated that a significant amount of time and work went into creating the current proposal of the home to best enjoy the lot. Furthermore the equipment being stored in the mechanical room located at the top storey is a hot water tank and small furnace. It has been more ideal and beneficial for the applicant to have these amenities located upstairs instead of being traditionally stored in a basement. A Committee Member commented on the application stating a 25 foot wide (7.6 metres) rectangular lot with a depth of 38 metres does not appear to be overtly unique especially in urban settings. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 18 It is quite common to see side yard reductions to be in line with adjacent houses. A minimum 25 foot (7.6 metres) rear yard is not difficult to achieve and this dwelling exceeds it on one side. It is understood that the applicant has already gone through a redesign and is not in favour of another one that would increase amenity space by removing the covered rear yard deck. The Committee Member stated that they agree with the neighbour having concern for three variances: rear yard, building height, and lot coverage. The current design illustrates the appearance of a fourth-storey projecting out of the front of the dwelling with a terrace. As previously stated there could be merit in having the applicant redesign their proposal to address some of the concerns from the neighbours. However, as the applicant has already indicated they are not interested in this arrangement and feel that they have submitted proper responses to address all of the neighbours concerns. The applicant had lost connection with the electronic meeting and was reconnected. The Chair of the Committee of Adjustment asked the applicant if they heard all of the comments from the Committee Member and would be willing to review the application again. The applicant indicated they would not be willing to do so. Based on the massing of the property, the south side elevation causing visual impact to the north and south property owners, hearing the applicant’s responses to concerns raised, and evaluating the variances cumulatively, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 16/21 by J. & J. Gray, be Refused on the grounds that when the requested variances are considered together the variances do not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 17/21 G. Belcastro 781 Oliva Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • uncovered steps and a platform not exceeding 1.2 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 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 yard, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard; Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 18 • a main building on a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, with a minimum side yard width of 3.0 metres facing the street upon which the lot flanks, whereas the By-law requires where a main building is erected on a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the front of such lot, such main building shall have a full front yard as required in this By-law, but the minimum width of the side yard facing the street upon which the lot flanks shall be 4.5 metres and the other side yard shall comply to the requirements of the zone in which the lot is located; and • a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to an existing detached dwelling. 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 concerns on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Section stating the applicant should ensure additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the building permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. The City requires a corner rounding, with a radius of 5 metres, to be provided at the intersection of Olivia Street and Breezy Drive. The applicant will be required to provide a draft R-Plan showing the corner rounding and will then need to pay all the fees associated with conveyance of the lands to the City for road dedication purposes. Giuseppe Belcastro, applicant, was present to represent the application. Elena Walmsley, resident of 784 Oliva Street and Lori Matorcevic, resident of 782 Oliva Street, were present in opposition of the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Giuseppe Belcastro spoke in support of the application stating if granted approval the terms of the conditions will be satisfied. Elena Walmsley, resident of 784 Oliva Street, spoke in opposition to the application stating concerns with: the subject property being larger than 3,500 square feet (325 square metres) which is approximately three times the size of the average dwelling on the street. Elena Walmsley expressed support for the site to be rebuilt or have an addition, so long as it is in keeping with the existing streetscape and neighbourhood, which this application does not appear to do. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 18 Most homes in the area are single or two-storey dwellings that are quite different in design compared to the current proposal. There is concern for construction vehicles crowding the narrow street, where exiting and entering personal driveways have been obstructed in the past. Furthermore raising safety issues for emergency vehicles, it is requested these construction vehicles be parked on Breezy Avenue along subject property. Lastly, Elena Walmsley questioned why the Urban Design Guideline checklist has not been applied to this property. Lori Matorcevic, resident of 782 Oliva Street, spoke in opposition to the application addressing concerns with: presumed asbestos in the siding of the subject property as many of the homes on Oliva Street were originally constructed in the 1960s. Additionally, there are concerns with sewage and flooding on the street. It is requested that any changes made to the site would not negatively impact drainage in the neighbourhood. Concern was also raised regarding the size of the dwelling more than doubling from approximately 1,100 square feet (102 square metres) to almost 4,000 square feet (372 square metres). Lori Matorcevic described concern for this application being overbearing and setting a precedence for future development in the neighbourhood. Overall Lori Matorcevic believes this application does not appear to be minor, or desirable for the appropriate development of the land. In response to the concerns raised by neighbours, Giuseppe Belcastro stated the proposal is to create an addition that is approximately 700 square feet (65 square metres), and enclosing the carport to be a garage and repair the property which was in poor condition. Giuseppe Belcastro believes the architectural design to be similar to others along the street and the additional space is to be enjoyed with his family. In response to question from Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer stated this property was not subject to the Infill and Replacement Housing Study, and therefore is not subject to the Guidelines referred to by other properties earlier. Furthermore, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated the size of the dwelling is primarily regulated by the maximum lot coverage provision. The By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 per cent and the applicant is requesting 35 per cent. In response to questions from Committee Members, Giuseppe Belcastro stated the final square footage of the dwelling will be around 4,000 square feet (372 square metres). The existing dwelling will remain, an addition will be added and the carport will be enclosed. Giuseppe Belcastro indicated they were not aware of any asbestos siding and will take full measures to remove safely if asbestos is found to exist. A Committee Member indicated that based on the revised designs submitted with the floor plans, it appears that there will be a 2-storey addition on the second floor over the existing house containing a total of 6 bedrooms, 5 bathrooms, 2 front entrances, 2 separate staircases inside home and 3 parking spaces all presumably for one family. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 16 of 18 The Committee Member questioned if this proposal is to facilitate a second unit. In response to this, Giuseppe Belcastro stated the second entrance will be used as a mud room for the family dog and the addition will not be for a second unit. After hearing and appreciating the comments from the neighbours, having reviewed the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to the commentary made by the applicant, evaluating the three requests for relief of minor variances, and evaluating the application as a whole, it appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean W iley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 17/21 by G. Belcastro, 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 these variances apply only to the proposed addition to an existing detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 10, 2021); 2. That the applicant submit a draft R-Plan to convey a corner rounding with a radius of 5 metres at the intersection of Oliva Street and Breezy Drive within 1 year of the decision; and 3. That the applicant convey the corner rounding to the City for road dedication purposes, and associated fees, prior to obtaining a building permit for an addition to the existing detached dwelling. Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 19/21 S. & S. Persaud 1985 Guild Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum north side yard depth of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres; • a minimum south side yard depth of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 17 of 18 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 concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the Engineering Services Section stating the applicant should ensure reduced side yard depth does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development (LID) measures should be made at the building permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. The builder will be required to direct a minimum of 50% of the roof area to the front of the lot. This may require a revision to the lot grading/roof layout with the building permit. Yaso Somalingam, agent with Cantam Group Ltd., was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Yaso Somalingam, agent with Cantam Group Ltd., spoke in support of the application stating the applicant is seeking the side yard setback reduction by 1 foot on each side (0.3 of a metre) in order to build the applicant’s desired home on the lot. When a Committee Member asked why the dwelling cannot be built within confines of the current By-law, Yaso Somalingam stated the garage is 22 feet wide (6.7 metres) with access to the living room on one side, having the extra 1 foot (0.3 of a metre) on each side will better accommodate this. After reading the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, reviewing the subject site and the exhibits contained, the application appears to meet all four tests of the Planning Act, and Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 19/21 by S. & S. Persaud, 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 detached dwelling, 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 March 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 18 of 18 April 14, 2021 Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 3rd meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:57 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, April 14, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer