HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 14, 2024Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 1 of 14
Present
Omar Ha-Redeye Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair
Sakshi Sood Joshi Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair
Also Present
Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer
Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer – Host Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Nilissa Reynolds, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Liam Crawford, Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I
Ziya Cao, Planner I
Absent
Not applicable.
1. Disclosure of Interest
No disclosures of interest were noted.
2. Adoption of Agenda
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 14, 2024, 2024 hearing be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
3. Adoption of Minutes
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That the minutes of the 7th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, July 10, 2024, be adopted.
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 2 of 14
4. Minor Variance Reports
4.1 MV 03/24 C. & J. Neblett
1338 Poprad Avenue
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended to permit:
• a minimum rear yard setback for an accessory building containing an additional dwelling unit on lots with an area of 2,000 square metres or less shall be 1.0 metre, whereas the By-law requires the minimum rear yard setback for an accessory building containing an additional dwelling unit on lots with an area of
2,000 square metres or less shall be 1.2 metres; and
• no more than 68.1 percent (84 square metres) of the gross floor area of the detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, block townhouse dwelling unit, or street townhouse dwelling unit on the same lot, whereas the By-law requires no
more than 50 percent (61.7 square metres) of the gross floor area of the detached
dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, block townhouse dwelling unit, or street townhouse dwelling unit on the same lot.
The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain a building permit for an additional dwelling unit in an accessory building.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services
and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the owner purchased the property in 2022 with an existing dwelling unit in the accessory building. Reducing the size of the existing building would require massive construction at an extensive cost.
Candice Neblett, the applicant, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The applicant reminded the Committee that the home was purchased with the accessory building already built. The fence is setback 0.6 metres from the property line so they believe the setback is actually 1.2 metres, however without a survey they
cannot be certain.
In response to a question from a Committee member the applicant confirmed there is a kitchen in the accessory dwelling unit, located in the living room area. There is sufficient parking provided.
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 3 of 14
Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application MV 03/24 by C. & J. Neblett, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That these variances apply only to the existing accessory building containing the additional dwelling unit, 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, date August 14, 2024).
Carried Unanimously
4.2 MV 38/24 K. Li
734 Hillcrest Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws
7610/18, 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7900/22 to permit:
• a maximum dwelling depth of 17.6 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling depth of 17.0 metres for lots with depths up to and including 40 metres;
• a maximum front entrance elevation of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits the maximum front entrance elevation to be 1.2 metres above the average grade;
• a maximum dwelling height of 9.9 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum
dwelling height of 9.0 metres;
• a maximum lot coverage of 38.8 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and
• a covered porch and associated steps, not exceeding 2.2 metres in height, to
project a maximum of 5.8 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered platforms and steps, not exceeding 1.0 metre in height and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard.
The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain a building permit for a two-
storey dwelling.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section.
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 4 of 14
In support of the application, the applicant identified the following:
• They comply with all the setback requirements, and only a small projection to the
rear yard in the breakfast area makes the building depth exceed the by-law limits. The remaining rear main wall is within the 17m building depth limit.
• The neighbour at 738 Hillcrest, which is located one house away from our project on the same street, has a greater building depth.
• The building height variance is due to the calculation based on the average grade, as per the infill bylaw 7822/21. It would be 9m, if measured from the established grade according to the definition of building height in By-law 2511. The proposed building height won’t have a significant impact on the neighbourhood.
• The owner desires to provide a modern home with a spacious living space for his large family. We believe all the variances to be minor and desirable for the appropriate development of land.
Keqin Li, applicant, and Shenshu Zhang, agent, were present to represent the
application. One area resident was present in objection to the application.
In objection to the application an area resident listed the following concerns: street flooding; shadowing due to the height of the dwelling; and tree protection.
The applicant commented that this dwelling is in a dynamic neighborhood with many different styles of houses. The height requested is due to the sloped lot, the rear yard is
higher than the front yard. An engineer will be contracted to create a grading plan to ensure drainage goes toward the City swell drainage and the grass area. No trees are being removed due to construction. There is no anticipated impact of shadowing to the neighbour across the street.
In response to a question from a Committee member regarding the need for a variance
for the porch and steps, the applicant commented that the lot is deep, and they would like to have more use out of the backyard. They’re requesting a covered porch so that it is a more functional space. The stairs are required to enter the house at the ground level. The ground floor is one storey higher than the grade in the front yard.
In response to a question from a Committee member the agent commented that the
metal canopy in the rear yard is included in the lot coverage calculation, without it the coverage would be 36 percent.
The Chair reassured the area resident that the report included Engineering comments regarding the drainage, which will be addressed during the building permit stage.
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 5 of 14
After reading the report and the Engineering Services comments, and hearing the applicant’s rationale for the application, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That application MV 38/24 by K. Li, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 14, 2024).
Carried Unanimously
4.3 MV 44/24 R. & B. Chung 1598 Major Oaks Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2015/85, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40.3 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent.
The applicant requests approval of the variance to obtain a building permit for an existing front yard deck (balcony) attached to a detached dwelling.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that a deck that abides by the currently permitted maximum lot coverage of 38 percent would be too small to be useful.
No representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed that the balcony was built without the benefit of a building permit. Once the owner was notified a permit was applied for. The subject variance was noted during the
building permit process.
Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 6 of 14
That application MV 44/24 by R. & B. Chung, 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 Zoning
By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That this variance applies only to the front yard deck (balcony), 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 August 14, 2024).
Carried Unanimously
4.4 MV 45/24 S. Monaghan 459 Churchwin Street
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88 to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 4.85 metres, whereas the By-law requires that no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone.
The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain a building permit to
construct a detached garage.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the Whitevale HCD Guidelines recommend garages to be detached from the principal structure.
Steve Monaghan, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The applicant said many garages near his home are over the density height. The garage will only be seen by the neighbour across the street and is located at the rear of the property.
Given that the proposed garage conforms to the Whitevale Heritage Conservation Guidelines, and after reading the report, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 7 of 14
That application MV 45/24 by S. Monaghan, 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 Zoning
By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That this variance applies only to the proposed accessory building, 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 August 14, 2024).
Carried Unanimously
4.5 MV 46/24 K. Gharib 2161 Denby Drive
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, to permit a covered deck not exceeding 3.6 metres in height and not projecting more than 3.1 metres into the required rear yard.
The applicant requests approval of the variance to obtain a building permit for a rear
yard deck attached to a detached dwelling.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the deck existed when the property
was purchased, the deck must be legalized to finalize the sale of the property.
No representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application MV 46/24 by K. Gharib, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1. That this variance applies only to the proposed rear yard deck, 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 August 14, 2024).
Carried Unanimously
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 8 of 14
4.6 MV 47/24 A. Uthayakumaran 275 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit an accessory building that shall not exceed 285 square metres in area, whereas the By-law permits accessory buildings and/or structures that do not exceed 10
square metres in area.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to convert an existing dwelling into an accessory building (storage).
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Area
(TRCA).
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the old residential building is in good standing and the proposed change from a residential use to an accessory storage use utilizes the building without creating the need to dispose of it in a landfill. The building has been decommissioned to ensure it is not used for residential purposes.
Peter Jauczik, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
In response to a question from a Committee member the agent commented that they are currently in conversation with TRCA, and they have a permit in for the construction of the dwelling.
A Committee member commented that the owner’s willingness to repurpose an old dwelling and turn it into an accessory storage building, and retaining said building with due diligence is a great effort and should be considered in making the decision.
Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That application MV 47/24 by A. Uthayakumaran, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this variance applies only to the proposed accessory building (storage), as
generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, date August 14, 2024).
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 9 of 14
2. That a TRCA permit be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Carried Unanimously
4.7 MV 48/24
I. Chishi 186 Bralorne Trail
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7537/17
to permit a rear deck to encroach a maximum of 3.4 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits a porch or rear deck to encroach a maximum of 2.0 metres into any required rear yard.
The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain a building permit for a rear
deck.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Area (TRCA).
In support of the application, the applicant identified the following:
• The subject property backs on to open space area regulated by Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority (TRCA). We have received clearance from the TRCA. The proposed deck would provide an outdoor living space that takes full advantage of this scenic backdrop. The reduced setback does not impinge on the
privacy or enjoyment of neighboring properties.
• The request is minor in nature, meets the intent of the zoning by-law, official plan and is an appropriate development.
Shehryar Khan, agent, was present to represent the application. No further
representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent commented that the deck faces a wooded area, confirmed they are aware of the Engineering comments and noted that they have also supplied TRCA with requested plans, and that they had no comments.
Moved by Rick Van Andel
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application MV 48/24 by I. Chishi, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 10 of 14
1. That this variance applies only to the rear deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 & 3).
Carried Unanimously
4.8 MV 49/24 S. Raza 2099 Duberry Drive
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1976/85, to permit an uncovered platform (rear yard deck) not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.9 metres into the required rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side 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 the required rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to construct a new deck and remove the old deck in the rear yard.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services,
and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the height relief as due to the lot's grade and the patio door height. The existing deck is worn down and needs replacement. The size of the deck is needed to accommodate family seating and is
consistent with the decks in the surrounding lots.
Syed Raza and Farva Raza, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The applicant commented that they would like to replace their existing deck with a larger size.
In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant confirmed that the
existing deck (small balcony) came with the house when the purchased it from the builder.
A Committee member noted that this variance is only for half of the deck due to how it is positioned.
Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 11 of 14
That application MV 49/24 by S. Raza, 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 Zoning By-law,
subject to the following condition:
1. That this variance applies only to the proposed rear yard deck, 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 August 14, 2024).
Carried Unanimously
4.9 MV 50/24 S. Nazarinia 621 West Shore Boulevard
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18 to permit:
• a minimum front yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a
minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres;
• a minimum rear yard setback of 2.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres;
• a maximum lot coverage of 36.8 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and
• to permit a maximum building height of 10.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain a future building permit for a three-storey detached dwelling.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section, the Fairport Beach Ratepayers Association and the
Pickering West Shore Community Association.
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the subject property has a lot depth of only 15.24 metres. As such, it is not possible to build a dwelling on the lot without variances for the front and rear yard setback. The proposed lot coverage includes the area of two porches and the basement walk up. The dwelling height is
consistent with other new buildings in the neighbourhood.
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 12 of 14
Arlene Beaumont, agent, was present to represent the application. Two representatives from the FBNA & PWSCA were present.
Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application MV 50/24 by S. Nazarinia, be Deferred to the September 11, 2024, Committee of Adjustment hearing for discussions with neighbours, and neighbourhood associations.
4.10 MV 51/24
GHR Investments Corp. & G. Torcivia 1494 Rosebank Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by Infill By-law
7874/21 to permit:
• a maximum dwelling depth of 26.5 metres for a lot with lot depth greater than 40.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling depth of
20.0 metres for lots with depths greater than 40.0 metres; and
• a maximum front yard setback of 13.75 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum front yard setback of 13.41 metres.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to construct a two-
storey detached dwelling.
Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section.
In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing location of the adjacent dwellings front yard setbacks and where they are currently located makes it difficult to
comply with the requirements of the front yard setback and building depth.
Jonathan Benczkowski, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent confirmed to a Committee member that due to the way the zoning by-law calculations are read, the dwelling depth is 21.3 metres.
Given that this application is due to the partial conveyance of the property for corner
rounding purposes, that often throws off the dimensions of the lot, and after reading the report and making a site visit, Denise Rundle moved the following motion:
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 13 of 14
Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Rick Van Andel
That application MV 51/24 by GHR Investments Corp. & G. Torcivia, 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 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 & 5 contained
in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 14, 2024).
Carried Unanimously
4.11 MV 52/24 K. & P. Newman 1375 Uxbridge-Pickering Townline Road
The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06 to permit an accessory building (detached garage) in the front yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected
in the rear yard.
The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to construct an accessory building in the front yard.
Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Area
(TRCA).
In support of the application, the applicant identified that the By-law does not allow accessory structures in the front yard. However, the property is large and does not cause an obstruction.
Katelyn Newman, applicant, Sean Will, agent, were present to represent the application.
No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application.
The agent commented the following: that the garage will follow the existing neighbourhood characteristics; the façade will match the current bungalow; the height is modest; and the garage will have a man door and two windows to match the north side
of the dwelling.
In response to a Committee member, the agent confirmed that the garage will only be utilized to store cars and garden tools.
Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 14, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing
Page 14 of 14
September 11, 2024
A Committee member stated this is a large property, located outside of the TRCA regulated area.
Moved by Denise Rundle
Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi
That application MV 52/24 by K. & P. Newman, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition:
1.That this variance applies only to the detached garage, as generally sited andoutlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, & 4 contained inthe staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 14, 2024).
Carried Unanimously 5.Adjournment
Moved by Sakshi Sood JoshiSeconded by Omar Ha-Redeye
That the 8th hearing of the 2024 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:14 pm.
Carried Unanimously
__________________________
Date
Please note the Committee of Adjustment Hearings are available for viewing on the City of Pickering YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/SustainablePickering
Original Signed By
__________________________ Chair
Original Signed By
__________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer