Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 12, 2021Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 16 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair – arrived at 7:05 pm Eric Newton – arrived at 7:05 pm Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Felix Chau, Planner I Isabel Lima, Planner I 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That the agenda for the Wednesday, May 12, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That the minutes of the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, April 14, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 16 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 21/21 Universal City Six Development Inc. 1010 Sandy Beach Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 7810/21 to permit: • a maximum building height of 79.5 metres (27-storeys), whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 78.0 (26-storeys); and • a 0.0 metre stepback between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres of the point tower for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum 3.0 metre stepback between the top 6.0 metres and 18.0 metres of a point towner for buildings equal to and greater than 73.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to construct a 27-storey residential building. 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. Michael Vani, agent with Weston Consulting, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, Michael Vani stated that his client is in agreement with the Staff Recommendation. He added that there has been a detailed review of the design and drawings to account for the one-storey addition based upon an increase in height of 1.5 metres. The step-back requirements are the same as the initial approval adopted by Council. There was a misstep in drafting the Zoning By-law and a provision was missed. The applicant is able to meet all provisions of the By-law, including additional parking and amenity space based on the one-storey addition. When questioned by a Committee Member if the trees along Sandy Beach Road will be retained, Michael Vani stated the applicant is in the process of obtaining Site Plan approval, where the underground parking is designed to be built out along the edge of the property line. Furthermore all appropriate fees will be paid for adequate compensation of tree loss. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 16 In the absence of the Chair, the Vice-Chair advised he would abstain from voting on this item in order to prevent a tie vote. After having reviewed the comments of City staff, and understanding that the building is consistent with the objectives of the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines, and that a thorough review has been completed by City staff and Council, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 21/21 by Universal City Six Development 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 (refer to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 12, 2021). Carried 4.2 (Deferred from the April 14, 2021 meeting) P/CA 22/21 R. Sedara 422 Sheppard Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 of a metre from the east lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; • an accessory structure greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.5 of a metre from the east lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an accessory structure (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 comments on the application. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 16 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating downspouts should be directed away from the shared lot line with 426 Sheppard Avenue. Ranga Sedara, 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 a Committee Member, Ranga Sedara advised the accessory structure (detached garage) was constructed approximately 27 years ago in 1993. Furthermore, the downspout has been directed away from the shared lot line. Based on the recommendation of the City Development Department, the applicant’s responses to the questions from the Committee Members, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 22/21 by R. Sedara, 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 structure (detached garage), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 12, 2021). 2. That no human habitation or home business be permitted in the accessory structure. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 16 4.3 P/CA 33/21 P. Raju 1561 Oakburn Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88, to permit a minimum south side yard width of 0.6 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to construct a roof over the below grade stairs within the south side yard. 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 and that the application for Building Permit has been revised to show the constructed roof over the below grade entrance. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Matthew Thomas, agent, was present to represent the application. Linda & Peter Brightling, of 1559 Oakburn Street were present in opposition to the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Linda and Peter Brightling stated their concerns with the application indicating the submitted drawings do not represent verbal communication with City planning staff. The existing posts where the roof is to be constructed remains too close to the property line to meet a 0.6 of a metre sideyard. City planning staff advised that the applicant is to remove the posts and erect new posts that are in line with the railing of the below grade entrance. This issue was identified when the posts were first installed without a building permit. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that if the Committee were to approve the application for a 0.6 of a metre side yard, the issuance of a Building Permit will require a new set of drawings be submitted. The Chair indicated that the City has processes in place during the Building Permit stage to ensure construction mirrors any approvals granted. Tanjot Bal, Planner II, explained there is a provision within the Zoning By-law that allows for a maximum projection of up to 0.6 of a metre for the eaves. This does not necessarily mean the eaves will be 0.6 of a metre, however it is allowable. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 16 Matthew Thomas spoke in support of the application expressing the intent to adhere to the rules and regulations of the By-law, while also ensuring proper drainage be maintained within the property. The Secretary-Treasurer described the submitted minor variance application and the provision of the Zoning By-law. The applicant did not include the encroachment of the side yard in their application. Should the Committee approve the application, it may also be appropriate for a condition to be added indicating that any eaves shall not encroach more than 0.3 of a metre into the side yard. That would prohibit any eaves to extend over the property line. After hearing the concerns addressed from the neighbour, the applicant’s responses to questions and comments from the City, and after noting the side yard setback reduction to 0.6 of a metre only being associated with the covered below grade entrance, and the addition of a condition regarding the eaves not project more than 0.3 of a metre into the required side yard to enable proper spacing between this structure and the lot line to enable proper drainage, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 33/21 by P. Raju, 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 roof, 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 May 12, 2021). 2. That the eaves not project more than 0.3 of a metre into the required side yard. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 16 4.4 P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 T. Luong & L. Lu 566 West Shore Boulevard Application P/CA 34/21 – Part 1 on Proposed Site Plan The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. Application P/CA 35/21 – Part 2 on Proposed Site Plan The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit a minimum lot frontage of 10.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to sever the property and construct two detached dwellings. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Refusal on the grounds that the requested variance does not appear to be minor in nature and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. 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 the applicant should ensure the additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. 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. Daniel Berry, agent, was present to represent the applicants. Paul White: President of Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association, Shawna Stanleigh & Glenn Marquardt of 576 West Shore Boulevard, Gary Winsor of 600 West Shore Boulevard, and Sue Baldaro of 564 West Shore Boulevard were present in objection to the applications. Multiple attempts were made at connecting David Steele: Pickering West Shore Community Association, a registered participant in objection, however all attempts at connecting him to the electronic meeting were unsuccessful. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the applications. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 16 Daniel Berry spoke in support of the minor variance applications and potential land severance expressing the justification is based on the existing character and streetscape, while mirroring the dwellings to the north and south of the subject site. Paul White, President, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association spoke in opposition to the application speaking to the design and streetscape of the neighbourhood over the years, and the recent endorsement from Council regarding Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods as well as the Urban Design Guidelines that apply to new development. Gary Winsor spoke in opposition to the applications stating his support for the City Development Department’s Recommendation for Refusal. He believes that the intent of Zoning By-law 2511 is to limit smaller frontages of dwellings in the area and these applications do not represent the character of neighbourhood. Shawna Stanleigh & Glenn Marquardt spoke in opposition to the applications stating, the proposal appears inconsistent with other single detached homes in the neighbourhood. Dwellings that currently remain with smaller frontages were established prior to By-law 2511 being in effect. This By-law discourages that type of construction in the area. Committee Members should not be asked to overrule decisions made by Council, and only minor relief should be granted. Sue Baldaro spoke in opposition to the applications, stating that she is in agreement with the previous comments. In response to questions from Committee Members, Daniel Berry stated there is no intent for future minor variance applications for changes to side yards, lot coverages or building height. The current design is already in compliance with all zoning requirements for lot coverage, setbacks and building heights, as well as the Urban Design Guideline Checklist. If the Committee requires it, the applicant is open to redesigning one of the dwellings to create diversity in the housing pattern to meet all necessary zoning requirements. The tree located at the front of the property on the south side will likely be removed during excavation, and the current frontage of the property is 21.34 metres. After considering previous approvals made by the Committee of Adjustment for infill lots all across the city, it is important to review the character, fit, design and compatibility of a proposal. It is understood where the applicant is coming from by requesting a 10.6 metre lot frontage. This part of the West Shore neighbourhood is characterized by a variety of housing patterns, notably in the form of cottage-style dwellings. These lots have a wide characteristic and need careful attention. The request for a 10.6 metre lot frontage can accommodate dwellings as appropriate development of the land. However, the test that is most compromised is maintaining the intent of the Zoning By-law. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 16 After reading the staff Report, hearing comments made, recognizing the studies that were completed on infill housing, and evaluating the request as not meeting the intent of the Zoning By-law, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 34/21 & P/CA 35/21 by T. Luong & L. Lu, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances do not appear to be minor in nature and are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley opposed 4.5 P/CA 38/21 S. Milanovski 1789 Spruce Hill Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. 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 the applicant should ensure the reduced side yard setback 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. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 16 Simeon Milanovski, applicant, and Michael Mandarello, agent, were present to represent the application. Multiple attempts were made at connecting the five residents: Sabrina, Imtiaz, Adil, Imran, and Yasmin Dharshi, from 1787 Spruce Hill Road who registered to participate in objection to the application, however all attempts at connecting the individuals to the electronic meeting were unsuccessful. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Michael Mandarello spoke in support of the application stating the applicant agrees with the City Development Department’s recommendation, the purpose of the application is to facilitate the large easement on north side of the property, the application was previously approved in 2016, however the applicant was unable to complete construction within the required two year time frame, which triggered a resubmission of the application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Michael Mandarello stated the drawings have been submitted to the City, and construction is set to begin, pending approval. After having read the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, agreeing with the City staff’s Recommendation, rehearing the previously approved application from 2016, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 38/21 by S. Milanovski, 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 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 May 12, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 16 4.6 P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 GHR Investment Corp. 1856 Pinegrove Avenue (Lots 1, 2 & 3) P/CA 39/21 (Lot 1) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • minimum interior side yard of 1.2 metres on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 1.5 metres • maximum lot coverage of 36.5 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent • minimum flankage yard depth of 2.5 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum flankage yard depth of 4.5 metres P/CA 40/21 (Lot 2) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the north side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres • maximum lot coverage of 37 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent P/CA 41/21 (Lot 3) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • minimum side yard of 1.2 metres on the west side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres • maximum lot coverage of 37.5 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to in order to facilitate the construction of three single 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. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 16 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating no comments on the application. Please note that the applicant is to ensure all approved variances are reflected on the plans submitted for clearance of conditions of the land severance applications. Michael Mandarello, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the previous applications submitted by this applicant to include severing the property into four lots fronting onto the east/west portion of Pine Grove Avenue. The previous applications requested reduced frontages, which the Committee denied. The applicant appealed the Refusal Decision to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), where a date has not yet been determined. Michael Mandarello stated the appeal has been withdrawn from LPAT, where the current application is different in that it has larger frontages that are in keeping with the zoning of the property. After reading the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to the Secretary-Treasurer describe the history of the property, and understanding that the applicant has withdrawn their appeal to LPAT, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 39/21 to P/CA 41/21 by GHR Investment Corp., be Approved on the grounds that the 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 dwellings, 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 May 12, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 16 4.7 P/CA 42/21 W. Liu 3615 Markham-Pickering Townline Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88 to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 23 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 20 percent; and • an accessory building with a maximum height of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone and 4.5 metres in any commercial zone. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached garage. 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 stating no concerns on the application and that an application for Building Permit has been submitted. 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 and surrounding area. 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 City’s Heritage Planner stating the property is not listed or designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. XuDong Tang, agent, was present to represent the application. Multiple attempts were made at connecting the property owner, Wei Liu, to the electronic meeting, however all attempts were unsuccessful. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, XuDong Tang stated the application is appropriate development of the land with no adverse effects to adjacent property owners. The detached garage is situated in the rear yard, with limited visibility from the street, and sufficient landscaping exists to screen the proposed garage. Furthermore, the neighbours to the south have a garage in the rear yard, the neighbours to the east have existing mature trees that assist with screening, and the neighbours to the north have submitted comments stating no concerns with the application. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 16 In response to questions from Committee Members, XuDong Tang stated the property was purchased last year in October, and the existing two car garage is to be demolished. The 6 space garage will be used for storage of personal vehicles and a boat, where the single over-head garage door is sufficient to accommodate the owner’s needs. The application is not to facilitate any commercial use and is only to house the owner’s personal collection. After reviewing the application, at first glance the variances appear to be inconsequential and straight forward, with no impact to adjacent neighbours. This location is not part of a typical community or neighbourhood and has three isolated dwellings on the east side of the road, north of Highway 7. The dwelling to the north does have over half a dozen vehicles parked in the driveway, and the existing subject site can accommodate over six vehicles. There is concern with the context, location and size of the dwelling, where the site does not appear to have a single family residing on it. The existing zoning on the property would allow for storage of six vehicles and a boat, without minor variance requests. There is concern that if approved and there is a change in ownership, the site could be used for commercial storage and would not be permissible under the current zoning. The application does not appear to meet the intent of the Zoning By-law and is not appropriate development of the land. The applicant has the opportunity to meet the current zoning to suit their needs, as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 42/21 by W. Liu, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and are not in keeping with the intent of the zoning by-law. Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 43/21 K. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum building height of 9.9 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 16 • a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits 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, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Deferral to the June 9, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with a revised variance to building height. No applicant or agent were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 43/21 by K. Deol & F. Dirani, be Deferred to the June 9, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with a revised variance to building height. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, May 12, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 16 of 16 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 5th meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:25 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, June 9, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer June 9, 2021