Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 8, 2021Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 12 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, (Acting) Planner II Absent Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, December 8, 2021 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That the minutes of the 11th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, November 10, 2021 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 12 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 44/21 and P/CA 45/21 Marvel Homes Incorporated 1424 Altona Road P/CA 44/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 12.8 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the north side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; and • a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres. P/CA 45/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 12.8 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre on the north side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; and • a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres on the south side yard, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate a Land Division application through the Region of Durham’s Land Division Committee. 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 not received from the City’s Building Services Section on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating there would not be enough space between the lots for a rear lot catch basin (RLCB) lead and easement, should one be required for the future severance application. An alternate solution would be required. In support of the application, the applicant submitted a Planning Justification Report. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 12 Brian Moss, agent, and Michael Perciasepe, owner, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Brian Moss spoke in support of this request stating the application is to facilitate the last lot fronting onto Altona Road within this development. The application requests to sever the property, and stated agreement with the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment. In response to questions from Committee Members, Michael Perciasepe stated the maple tree in the middle of the property is diseased and the neighbour is concerned with it falling down. The other tree nearest to Fawndale Road is in good health and will remain. Regarding the comments received from the City’s Engineering Services Department, there is a catch basin at the south-east corner of the property and extending it should not pose any issues. Committee Member Denise Rundle indicated she is pleased to see two infill lots maintain existing compatible elevations along Fawndale Road. With adjoining dwellings having similarly established setbacks and maintaining existing compatibility with the neighbourhood and streetscape, the applications appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, as such Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That applications P/CA 44/21 and P/CA 45/21 by Marvel Homes Incorporated, 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 subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 12 4.2 P/CA 109/21 and P/CA 110/21 S. Perks 1882 Appleview Road P/CA 109/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21, to: • permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres; • permit minimum north and south side yards of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres; and • permit a maximum dwelling depth of 20.6 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres. P/CA 110/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21, to: • permit a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres; • permit minimum north and south side yards of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that when a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.8 metres; • permit a maximum dwelling depth of 20.6 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres; and • recognize an existing accessory structure (shed) with a height of 4.3 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 these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 2 lots and to construct a detached dwelling on each lot. 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 applications. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 12 Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the applications. In support of the applications, the applicant identified it is necessary to reduce the lot frontage and the side yards in order to accommodate two lots. With concerns being raised on the proposed elevations from the resident to the south, the applicant and agent have provided Committee Members with a letter and drawings of the corrected elevations of the dwelling on the proposed south lot. Grant Morris, agent, and Stephanie Molinaro and Trevor Perks, owners, were present to represent the applications. Murray Tetford, resident of 1878 Appleview Road, was present to discuss the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Grant Morris spoke in support of the applications stating agreement with the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment and several lots along the street having similar lot frontages and depths comparable to those requested through the submitted applications. Grant Morris indicated the south elevations drawings were shared with the resident to the south. Murray Tetford who had previously expressed concern with the application expressed gratitude toward the applicants and agent for the additional elevation drawings and information that were provided, stating agreement with the proposal. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Grant Morris stated the existing attached brick garage will not remain. After reviewing the applications and noting the consultation and clarification that was discussed during the Hearing, the applications appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act and are compatible with the neighbourhood, as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 109/21 and P/CA 110/21 by S. Perks, 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 and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 12 4.3 P/CA 111/21 M. Vattipulusu & D. Akula 1817 Parkhurst Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7020/10, to permit: • uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.3 of a metre from an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law requires a covered or uncovered porch, veranda or balcony and with or without a foundation to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from an interior side lot line; and • a deck in the rear yard to be setback a minimum of 2.1 metres to the rear lot line, whereas the By-law requires uncovered decks of any height provided a minimum setback of 3.0 metres is provided to the rear lot line. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of an above grade staircase leading to an entrance of an accessory dwelling unit and to recognize an existing rear yard platform (deck). 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 not received from the City’s Building Services Section on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure reduced setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lots and surrounding area. Written comments from the residents of 1815 Parkhurst Crescent were received in objection to the application, outlining concerns related to the staircase within the side yard and the safety and maintenance access between the adjacent dwellings. In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing by-law requires an interior side yard setback of 0.6 of a metre whereas 0.34 of a metre is being provided. Valiuddin Mohammed, agent, was present to represent the application. Subashini Thurairaja and Bharat Panner, of 1815 Parkhurst Crescent 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, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 12 Subashini Thurairaja of 1815 Parkhurst Crescent spoke in opposition to the application, stating concerns with safety and discomfort with infringement onto their property due to the lack of space and privacy fence between the dwellings where the side yard steps and entrance are proposed to be located. In response to a question from a Committee Member; Subashini Thurairaja outlined there is not currently a fence located between the properties. In response to a question from a Committee Member regarding the permission of fences; Cody Morrison, Secretary Treasurer, stated fences are governed by the City’s Fence By-law. The City’s Fence By-law allows for fences to be erected within the front and side yards provided they maintain the height and material prescribed under the fence by-law. In response to questions from Committee Members, Valiuddin Mohammed stated intent to create a landscaped hard pathway from the front yard to the side entrance, as well as confirmed additional landscaping to be professionally finished for safe access of all parties. Neighbouring concerns can be addressed by relocating the air conditioning unit currently located on the north side of the dwelling to the rear of the property. The gas metre is located on the south wall, however it will not impede the access to the side entrance. New window wells are to be included as part of the building code requirements and will be located beyond the proposed steps. Valiuddin Mohammed stated larger furniture items can be accessed through the front or rear yard entrances, when required, however the side entrance will be the principal entrance to the accessory dwelling unit. The accessory dwelling unit will have two bedrooms and be located in the basement. Providing an alternative access to the basement is cost prohibitive. No other side yard comparisons were completed along this street referencing similar adjacent dwellings with such narrow side yards. After listening to the applicant, this proposal appears to provide very limited space to accommodate access. Basement occupants and guests visiting the property would be seemingly obtrusive to the neighbours and the application does not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act; as such Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 111/21 by M. Vattipulusu & D. Akula, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances do not appear to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 12 4.4 P/CA 112/21 Marathon Homes Limited 2601 Delphinium Trail The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit: • a parking space to be a minimum of 2.6 metres in width and 3.8 metres in length, whereas the By-law requires parking spaces to be a minimum of 2.6 metres in width and 5.3 metres in length; and • a parking space to be within a daylighting triangle, whereas the By-law states no parking space shall be permitted within any daylighting triangle. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit an outdoor parking space that is partially located in a daylighting triangle. 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. In support of the application, the applicant identified the large daylight triangle does not permit the required parking space of 2.6 metres by 5.3 metres to be within the lot boundaries. Richard Vink, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Richard Vink spoke in support of the application stating the subject site is a corner lot of an eight unit townhouse block. Richard Vink indicated all efforts to alter the design have been made, save and except the requested variances due to the daylight triangle associated with parking. The encroachment resulting from the application is believed to have minimal effect and meets the four tests of the Planning Act. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Richard Vink stated the distance between the front property line and the travelled portion of Delphinium Trail is just under 4 metres, which also contains a sidewalk. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 12 After review of the application, noting the irregular shape of the lot and the sufficient space between the parking space and the travelled portion of the road, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act; as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 112/21 by Marathon Homes Limited, 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 outdoor parking space, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 8, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 12 4.5 P/CA 113/21 A. & R. Lopez 2124 Erin Gate Boulevard The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5493/99, to permit a total of two parking spaces on the property where an accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of three parking spaces. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit within a dwelling with two parking spaces on the lot. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that City staff are of the opinion that the requested variance does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Written comments were not received from the City’s Building Services Section on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. In support of the application, the applicant identified that only a total of 2 parking spaces are possible at this property despite 3 parking spaces being required for a second dwelling unit in the basement. Ravinder Singh, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Ravinder Singh spoke in support of the application stating the second unit is located in the basement of the property and that the lot is angled. A third parking space is not possible given the irregular shape of the lot. The proposal is to accommodate zero parking spaces for the accessory dwelling unit and 2 parking spaces for the primary dwelling unit. In response to questions from Committee Members, Ravinder Singh stated 1 bedroom is proposed in the basement apartment unit. To clarify, there was a typographical error on the site plan, which should indicate the property is a semi-detached dwelling. The basement is a walk-out, where the deck is connected to the first floor of the property, above the basement entrance. The main floor is occupied by the primary residents, having 2 vehicles. To enforce such parking arrangements, there could be a clause in the lease agreement stipulating no available parking to the tenants. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Felix Chau, Planner II, confirmed this property is a semi-detached dwelling, and the attached dwelling south of the subject lands may have been omitted in the drawings provided by the applicant. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 12 After reading the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, listening to comments and responses made by the applicant’s agent, the application appears to not to meet the four tests of the Planning Act; as such Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 113/21 by A. & R. Lopez, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance does not meet the four tests of the Planning Act. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, December 8, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 12 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 12th hearing of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:58 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, January 12, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer January 12, 2022