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