HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 13 2021Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 1 of 19
Present
Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair
David Johnson – Chair
Eric Newton
Denise Rundle
Sean Wiley
Also Present
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer
Cody Morrison, Principal Planner, Development Review
Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
Felix Chau, Planner II
Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II
1. Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
2. Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Eric Newton
That the agenda for the Wednesday, October 13, 2021 hearing be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
3. Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That the minutes of the 9th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday,
September 8, 2021 be adopted, as amended.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 2 of 19
4. Reports
4.1 P/CA 49/21
K. Chung
956 Essa Crescent
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit:
• a minimum rear yard of 6.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear
yard of 7.5 metres;
• a maximum lot coverage of 37 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot
coverage of 33 percent; and
• a covered platform (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.0 metre in
height above grade and not projecting more than 1.9 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, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate
the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a
detached dwelling.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
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
expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) staff expressing no objections to the proposed variances. A TRCA Permit will
not be required as the dwelling is sufficiently setback from the top of bank located
beyond the north property boundary and will not be located within the dripline of
vegetation associated with the ravine corridor to the north. For any future proposed
ancillary development (deck, shed, pool, hardscaping, etc.), a TRCA permit may be
required and the landowner should contact TRCA prior to any development taking
place.
Written comments were received in support of the application from the residents of 954,
955 and 962 Essa Crescent.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 3 of 19
Peter Barton, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation
was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Peter Barton outlined the application stating that the variances are required due to the
irregular pie shaped lot having an easement on the east side. He noted that the owner
has spoken to neighbours who were in support of the application.
After hearing from the applicant’s agent and noting the creativity regarding the design
and easement requirements, having no objections from the City’s Engineering
Department, Building Services and TRCA, and observing the neighbour’s comments in
support, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, and Sean
Wiley moved the following motion:
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That application P/CA 49/21 by K. Chung, 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 detached dwelling, as generally
sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3
contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 13,
2021).
Carried Unanimously
4.2 P/CA 89/21 & P/CA 90/21 (Parts 1 & 2)
R. Van Andel
1303 & 1307 Commerce Street
P/CA 89/21 – Part 1
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18,
to permit:
• a minimum lot area of 430 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum
lot area of 460 square metres; and
• a minimum west side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part
of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 4 of 19
P/CA 90/21 – Part 2
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18,
to permit:
• a minimum lot area of 430 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum
lot area of 460 square metres; and
• a minimum east side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part
of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres.
The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever
the property resulting in a total of 2 lots and to construct 2 detached dwellings.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variances meet the four tests of the Planning Act.
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
expressing that the applicant should ensure a reduced minimum lot area and reduced
side yards do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding
area. Multiple Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with
downspout connections, rain gardens and 450mm topsoil) will be required at the
Building Permit stage and Land Division stage.
Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Paul Demczak outlined the proposal stating the requested variances are to facilitate
severances creating a total of three lots. Parts 1 and 2 are equally sized and Part 3 is a
smaller portion intended to be merged with the adjacent property to the west.
The variances requested are for lot coverage and the interior side yards of the proposed
lots. A Planning Justification report has been submitted to the City along with the
application. The applicant has spoken to neighbours who are also in support of
proposal.
In response to questions from Committee Members, Paul Demczak stated concept
drawings and a site plan were submitted to the City with the Planning Justification report
and application. Full building elevations and floor plans are not fully developed at this
time. The applicant intends to maintain the existing dwelling on an enlarged lot.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 5 of 19
After reviewing the City staff Report, completing a site visit, seeing no agency or
neighbouring concerns, and having the application appear to meet the four tests of the
Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Eric Newton
That application P/CA 89/21 (Part 1) & P/CA 90/21 (Part 2) by R. Van Andel, 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 two proposed lots and detached dwellings, 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 October 13,
2021).
Carried Unanimously
4.3 P/CA 93/21
M. & P. Lowe
452 Churchwin Street
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88
to recognize a covered platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above
grade to project 1.6 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires
uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to not
project more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing
covered platform.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing
no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Senior Planner, Development Review
& Heritage, expressing no objections to the application. The porch was existing at the
time of the Heritage Conservation District By-law and a Heritage Permit was
successfully obtained for a new rear yard addition.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 6 of 19
Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(TRCA) staff expressing no objections to the proposed variances. The existing front
porch maintains approximately a 40-metre setback from the outer boundary of
unevaluated wetlands. There are no natural features (slope, floodplain, etc.) within
proximity to the existing front porch and it has no impacts on TRCA's programs or
policies.
Mark Lowe, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Mark Lowe spoke in support of the application stating this request was triggered by a
Build Permit application for a rear yard addition to this historic property. The dwelling
was purchased in the 1950s and the application facilitates an existing front porch with a
10 centimetre difference on the front porch from what was existing. This application
does not impact any neighbouring properties or the historical significance of the
property.
After reading the City’s staff Report, hearing from the applicant and noting that a
Heritage Permit was successfully obtained from the City, Tom Copeland moved the
following motion:
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Eric Newton
That application P/CA 93/21 by M. & P. Lowe, be Approved on the grounds that the
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 covered platform (front porch), as generally sited
and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 and 4
contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 13,
2021).
Carried Unanimously
4.4 P/CA 94/21
H. Marrow
1424 Major Oaks Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4183/93
and By-law 2015/85, to permit a total lot coverage of all accessory buildings of
11.5 percent, whereas the By-law permits the total lot coverage of all accessory
buildings excluding private detached garages of 5 percent.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 7 of 19
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to
facilitate the construction of an accessory structure (gazebo).
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing
no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received stating no objections to the application from ten
residents of 1418, 1422, 1423, 1425, 1426, 1427, 1429, 1431, 1433 and 1434
Major Oaks Road.
Hisham Marrow, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Hisham Marrow outlined the application stating the proposed gazebo is an open
structure without walls, it does not interfere with drainage, there are no easements in
the rear yard, a tent of the same size was erected previously with no objections from
neighbours, trees provide additional privacy screening, letters of support were submitted
by neighbours, and the gazebo is to be constructed at ground level to withstand
seasonal weather.
In response to questions from Committee members, Hisham Marrow stated the roof of
the gazebo is to be made of wood and heavy shingles. The structure is for personal use
of family gatherings and leisure.
Felix Chau, Planner II, confirmed that ten letters from neighbours were received with no
objections to the application.
After having heard the comments from the applicant, reviewing the City staff Report,
having no agency comments in objection, and receiving positive feedback from
neighbours, Sean Wiley moved the following motion:
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That application P/CA 94/21 by H. Marrow, be Approved on the grounds that the
requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the
land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the
Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 8 of 19
1. That this variance apply only to the accessory structure, 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 October 13, 2021).
Carried Unanimously
4.5 P/CA 95/21
D. & K. Bridges
1003 Cloudberry Court
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6992/09,
to:
• permit a minimum front yard of 3.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum
front yard of 7.5 metres;
• permit a minimum rear yard of 4.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum
rear yard of 7.5 metres;
• permit a minimum west side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas when a garage is erected
as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8
metres;
• permit a covered platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above
grade and 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 metre in height
above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear
yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard;
• permit a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a
maximum lot coverage of 33 percent;
• permit an accessory building (detached garage) to be erected in the east side yard,
whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main
building to be erected in the rear yard; and
• permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a height of 5.8 metres, whereas
the By-law states no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any
residential zone.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate
the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a
detached dwelling and detached garage.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 9 of 19
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff recommend that the variance
application be Tabled to allow the applicant to work with Engineering Services to
address the issues raised by Engineering, related to grading, drainage and stormwater
management.
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:
• Engineering Services is against many of the requested variances. This property was
created through the land division process (LD117/18) and the requested variances
conflict with the conditions of the land division.
• Engineering Services is against the 4.0 metre rear yard. The proposed infiltration
trench during the land division application requires the 7.5 metre rear yard to be
kept. This is because the infiltration trench must be placed 5.0 metre away from the
back of the house, away from the lot line and not conflict with the required tree
planting from the land division application.
• Engineering Services is against the proposed accessory building in the side yard.
During the land division application, one condition was to provide 16 trees on the lot
for tree compensation. Many of the trees are to be planted in the side yard area, and
therefore it is not possible to build the accessory building there. The location may
also conflict with the existing mailbox.
• The low impact development (LID) measures that were proposed during the land
division application were based on a smaller house envelope, and no accessory
buildings. There may not be enough space in the rear yard, (due to the proposed
tree planting and grading constraints) to provide additional LID measures to account
for the additional runoff being generated by what is being shown on this application.
• Engineering Services has no concerns with the proposed front yard of 3.2 metres,
west side yard of 1.2 metres and covered porch.
• Prior to approving any variances, the applicant is to demonstrate how the original
intent of the Land Division approval is to be maintained through submission of a
revised Preliminary Grading and Servicing Plan detailing Low Impact Development
Measures to be utilized on the lot. Cash-in-lieu of trees not planted per the approved
Land Division will be required.
Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation expressing no
comments on the application.
No applicant or agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 10 of 19
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That application P/CA 95/21 by D. & K. Bridges, be Tabled to allow the applicant to
address the matters raised by Engineering Services, related to grading, drainage and
stormwater management.
Carried Unanimously
4.6 P/CA 96/21
F. & M. Gauri
521 Cliffview Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7312/13
and By-law 7392/14, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the
By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent.
The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to
construct a one-storey rear yard addition.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section stating
Building Services will require an official statement prepared by the owner noting that this
is not a multiple dwelling unit building. This statement will be added to the Committee of
Adjustment Minor Variance Application and Building Permit Application file records.
Please refer to the attached Two-Unit Bylaw 7579/17 for a detail definition of ‘dwelling
unit’. As part of the Building Permit Application process, the owner will also require to
complete the attached Acknowledgment and Undertaking form.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
stating the applicant should ensure the increased lot coverage does not adversely affect
the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Considerations for multiple
Low Impact Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout
connections, rain gardens and 450 mm topsoil) must be made at the Building Permit
stage.
Written comments in objection to the application were received from the residents of
507 and 516 Cliffview Road along with a petition of 18 signatories from 11 residences.
Sam Zabaneh, agent, was present to represent the application. Paul White resident of
507 Cliffview Road and President of Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association and
Al Norrie of 536 Cliffview Road were present in objection to the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 11 of 19
Sam Zabaneh spoke outlined the application including that the owners intend to live on
the main floor of the property. The 1-storey addition will project 2.6 metres from the
existing rear wall of the dwelling, complies with all other By-law requirements, will be
located entirely in rear yard, will have no negative impact on adjacent neighbours, and
will not have an adverse impact on the streetscape. Sam Zabaneh stated a By-law map
was sent to City staff and Committee Members illustrating the various properties and
allowable lot coverages of 33% and 40%. Sam Zabaneh spoke to the lot size of the
subject property and lot coverage calculations in relation to other dwellings in the area.
Sam Zabaneh believes the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act.
Paul White, resident of 507 Cliffview Road and president of the Fairport Beach
Neighbourhood Association, and Al Norie resident of 536 Cliffview Road spoke in
objection to the application and provided the following comments:
• The property is currently being rented out illegally.
• There is uncertainty with the owners future plans with the property.
• The property was developed through plan of subdivision and rezoning applications
where the subject property was excluded from approval of 40% lot coverage.
• The massing of the existing dwelling with the proposed addition would be much
larger than other properties in the area.
• The existing dwelling size appears large enough for the site.
• There are other properties nearby that are subject to the Infill and Replacement
Housing study.
• Based on the elevations the addition appears to be 2-storeys.
• No other homes within the subdivision of 52 dwellings have 40% lot coverage.
• The staff Report discusses the history of the property in relation to other dwellings in
the area. Comparisons should be made based on appropriate properties.
• Does not appear to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, is
not desirable for the appropriate development of the land and is not minor in nature.
• There is concerns with the placement of the Public Notice sign posted incorrectly on
the property.
• There is concern with setting a precedent in the neighbourhood for similar requests
in the future.
In response to questions from Committee Members and concerns raised by residents,
Sam Zabaneh stated there is a second kitchen in the basement and the owner has
signed the Acknowledgment and Undertaking form stating the property is for a single
family and will not be used as secondary dwelling unit. The addition is to facilitate living
quarters on main floor to accommodate the owners health concerns. Sam Zabaneh
provided clarification about the elevation drawings stating that the basement is a walk-
out to the rear yard and the addition is to facilitate a bedroom on the main floor.
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer, corrected some of the information provided on the
petition as follows: the subject property is not subject to the Infill and Replacement
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 12 of 19
Housing in Established Neighbourhoods study, this property is not the largest home in
the neighbourhood, adjacent properties have a lot coverage of approximately 40
percent, and zoning provisions for the properties to the north allow a maximum lot
coverage of 40 percent. It was confirmed that the Notice of Public Hearing had been
appropriately circulated meeting the requirements of the Planning Act. The Notices were
distributed to properties within a 65 metre radius from the edge of the subject site.
After thanking the participants for their input, City staff and the departments for their
comments, noting an accessory dwelling unit currently exists in the basement, having
concern with the addition allowing for a multi-residential structure which is not permitted,
hearing concerns regarding massing from area neighbours, and having apprehension
with future use of the dwelling should an addition be permitted, Tom Copeland moved
the following motion:
Moved by Tom Copeland
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That application P/CA 96/21 by F. & M. Gauri, be Refused on the grounds that the
requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
Carried
Vote:
Tom Copeland in favour
David Johnson in favour
Eric Newton in favour
Denise Rundle in favour
Sean Wiley opposed
4.7 P/CA 97/21 to P/CA 99/21 (Parts 1-3)
P. McAlpine
532 Rougemount Drive
P/CA 97/21 – Part 1
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws
2839/88 and 7610/18, to permit:
• a minimum lot frontage of 16.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 18.0 metres; and
• a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part
of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 13 of 19
P/CA 98/21 – Part 2
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 2839/88
and 7610/18, to permit:
• a minimum lot frontage of 16.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 18.0 metres; and
• a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas when a garage is erected as part
of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres.
P/CA 99/21 – Part 3
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 2839/88
and 7610/18, to permit a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, whereas when a garage
is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of
1.8 metres.
The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever
the property resulting in a total of 3 lots and to construct 3 detached dwellings.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing
no concerns with the applications.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
stating the applicant should ensure the three proposed houses with the reduced
minimum lot frontages and side yards do not adversely affect the drainage patterns
within the lots and surrounding area. Considerations for multiple Low Impact
Development measures (such as infiltration galleries with downspout connections, rain
gardens and 450mm topsoil) must be made at the Land Division and Building Permit
stage.
Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation expressing no
comments on the application.
Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Paul Demczak outlined the application stating the subject property is proposed to be
severed into 3 lots. An analysis of the immediate neighbourhood and lot fabric was
completed in the submitted Planning Justification report evaluating a total of 24 lots.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 14 of 19
The report indicates that 18 of 24 lots do not meet the minimum lot frontage provisions
of the “R3” Zoning By-law requirements of 18 metres. The lot frontages for the proposed
lots will be greater than 15 of the 24 lots. Furthermore, over half of lots within the study
area have lot frontages of 15.24 metres or less. The applicant has canvased the
neighbourhood and received verbal support from area residents.
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer, and Isabel Lima (Acting) Planner II, discussed the
City’s fence By-law and recommended conditions of approval.
In response to a question from a Committee Member, Paul Demczak stated the
applicant intends to keep and maintain existing driveway accesses, as well as the
hedgerow at the rear of the property and along Pine Ridge Road frontage.
Given that the Urban Design Guidelines checklist has been substantially met, seeing no
issues from the respective agencies or the public, taking into account the input from the
applicant’s agent and the staff Report, the application appears to meet the four tests of
the Planning Act, and Sean Wiley moved the following motion:
Moved by Sean Wiley
Seconded by Denise Rundle
That application P/CA 97/21 to P/CA 99/21 (Parts 1-3) by P. McAlpine, 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 3 proposed lots and 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 October
13, 2021).
2. That the new driveways for Parts 1, 2 and 3 are located fronting Rougemount Drive
only, 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
October 13, 2021).
3. That no person shall erect a fence of solid type construction (“fence of solid type
construction” means a fence constructed of solid materials, which limits the ability of
motorists and pedestrians to see through the fence) that is greater than 1.0 metre in
any flankage side yard.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 15 of 19
4. That no person shall erect a fence of open construction (“fence of open construction”
means a fence constructed so that at least one third of its vertical surface area is
open space, enabling motorists and pedestrians to have a clear view through such
fence) that is greater than 1.5 metres in height in any flankage side yard.
Carried
Vote:
Tom Copeland in favour
David Johnson in favour
Eric Newton opposed
Denise Rundle in favour
Sean Wiley in favour
4.8 P/CA 100/21 & P/CA 101/21 (Parts 1 & 2)
A. Asokkanth, P. Santhiralingam & M. Subramaniam
1981 Guild Road
P/CA 100/21 – Part 1
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a
minimum lot frontage of 15.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 18.0 metres.
P/CA 101/21 – Part 2
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a
minimum lot frontage of 15.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot
frontage of 18.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever
the property resulting in a total of 2 lots.
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing
no comments.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
expressing no comments.
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 16 of 19
Asokkanth (Asok) Santhiralingam, applicant/agent, was present to represent the
application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the
application.
Asok Santhiralingam outlined the application stating a minor variance application to
reduce the minimum lot frontage was applied for in August 2019 and was approved.
The approval of the associated 2019 Land Division application lasped as conditions of
approval were not satisfied. New applications proposing the same severances and
requesting the same variances have been submiteed .
After having read the City staff Report, noting this application is a resubmission, seeing
no other consideration from the public or agency issues, 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 Eric Newton
That application P/CA 100/21 & P/CA 101/21 (Parts 1 & 2) by A. Asokkanth,
P. Santhiralingam & M. Subramaniam, 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 2 proposed lots, 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 October 13, 2021).
Carried Unanimously
4.9 P/CA 102/21
M. English
3470 Ninth Concession Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06,
to permit:
• a livestock facility (barn) to be located within the Minimum Distance Separation
established by the Province from an existing detached dwelling (72.3 metres
provided), whereas the By-law requires that notwithstanding any other yard or
setback provisions to the contrary, all farm and non-farm development for livestock
facilities will comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae established by
the Province in order to minimize odour conflicts between livestock facilities and
development (minimum distance required is calculated to be 97.0 metres);
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 17 of 19
• a livestock facility (barn) to be located within the Minimum Distance Separation
established by the Province from an existing detached dwelling (78.7 metres
provided), whereas the By-law requires that notwithstanding any other yard or
setback provisions to the contrary, all farm and non-farm development for livestock
facilities will comply with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae established by
the Province in order to minimize odour conflicts between livestock facilities and
development (minimum distance required is calculated to be 97.0 metres);
The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit
to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure (livestock facility – barn).
The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested
variance meets the four tests of the Planning Act.
Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing
no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department
expressing no comments on the application.
Written comments were received from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
(CLOCA) stating the location of the barn to be reconstructed is located within an
Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (ESGRA). ESGRA’s are areas of
land that contribute to the replenishing groundwater systems that directly support
sensitive areas like coldwater streams and wetlands. In this particular circumstance,
while the lands are within an ESGRA, the proposed barn reconstruction is not within a
regulated area of CLOCA, and as such, staff have no objection to the variance, subject
to the City being satisfied the proposal meets all applicable provincial regulations.
Jane English, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Jane English stated the purpose of the requested variances is for the refurbishment of
an existing barn built in 1894. The facility is to house goats. Additionally, both adjacent
neighbours have provided letters of support of the application.
After having read the City staff Report and noting that the application appears to meet
the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 18 of 19
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Tom Copeland
That application P/CA 102/21 by M. English, 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 accessory structure (livestock facility – barn),
as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2
contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated October 13,
2021).
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment
Hearing Minutes
Wednesday, October 13, 2021
7:00 pm
Electronic Hearing
Page 19 of 19
5. Adjournment
Moved by Eric Newton
Seconded by Sean Wiley
That the 10th hearing of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:31 pm
and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on
Wednesday, November 10, 2021.
Carried Unanimously
__________________________
Date
__________________________
Chair
__________________________
Assistant Secretary-Treasurer
November 10, 2021