Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 11, 2024 Page 1 of 9 Minutes/Meeting Summary Property Review Committee October 11, 2024 Electronic Meeting 1:30 pm Attendees: J. Ali, Member G. Ferandes, Member I. Joseph, Member M. Naeem, Member S. Upadhyayula, Member S. Cadogan, 1380 Poprad Avenue W. Eisnor, 494 Lightfoot Place F. Gujol, 496 Lightfoot Place G. Gujol C. Parnell F. Vani, 498 Lightfoot Place H. Vani M. Vani M. Holloway, Municipal Law Enforcement Officer lI S. Mangas, Municipal Law Enforcement Officer ll J. Hayden, Supervisor, Supervisor, Licensing & Enforcement (Staff Liaison) A. MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Absent: Councillor S. Butt (Member) Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1. Welcome & Introductions J. Hayden welcomed everyone to the meeting and provided an overview of the order of proceedings. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Fence Variance Applications 3.1 498 Lightfoot Place Order No. 03-378-2024 M. Holloway, Municipal Law Enforcement Officer lI provided his statement of evidence, and stated that: Page 2 of 9 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • the issue is regarding a retaining wall located in between the properties located in the rear yard of 496 and 498 Lightfoot Place; • an Order Requiring Examination was issued to both property owners on April 13, 2023 to allow the property owners to obtain a current survey of the property to determine the location of the base of the retaining wall in relation to the property line; • both parties neglected to obtain a current survey, so the City contracted J.D. Barnes to conduct a property survey, which was conducted on October 25, 2023; • both parties received a letter and package noting the result of the survey, which indicated the owner of the retaining wall to be 498 Lightfoot Place; • a Property Standards Order was issued to the owner of 498 Lightfoot Place to repair or remove and build a new retaining wall by September 16, 2024; and, • the property owner of 498 Lightfoot Place appealed the Property Standards Order. A questions and answer period ensued between the Committee and M. Holloway regarding the option to repair or remove and build a new retaining wall in the Property Standards Order. F. Vani, 498 Lightfoot Place, provided their statement, and stated that: • the property did not have a retaining wall or fence in the Summer of 1988 upon moving in; • the retaining wall was later erected by a contractor on behalf of the builder; • he has a survey stamped and certified by the City from May 1988 that includes the same measurements of the property line found in the recent survey conducted by J.D. Barnes; • the retaining wall sits on the property line when measured with a tape measure from the south foundation wall of his home to the retaining wall; • his neighbour W. Eisnor has a survey and has taken measurements that indicate that his retaining wall between 494 and 496 Lightfoot Page 3 of 9 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) Place, and another wall on the opposite side, is on the center of the property line; • the portion of the street they live on is on a hill and all properties have retaining walls in between them; • he does not understand why the J.D. Barnes survey depicts the retaining wall being solely on his property; and, • he does not dispute that the retaining wall requires repair, but rather the City’s claim that it is his sole responsibility to repair and bear all costs. A questions and answer period ensued between the Committee, F. Vani, and M. Vani regarding: • clarification regarding F. Vani’s survey from the City dated May 1988; • clarification that the retaining wall was not on F. Vani’s survey from the City dated May 1988, as no walls or fences were built, however the measurements on the survey remained unchanged; • whether F. Vani would be open to obtaining his own survey should he dispute the findings of the survey conducted by J.D. Barnes; • clarification that F. Vani is disputing the placement of the retaining wall on the J.D. Barnes survey; • clarification that measurements taken with a tape measure from 498 Lightfoot Place to the retaining wall seem to indicate that the base of the retaining wall is shared with 496 Lightfoot Place; and, • clarification as to why F. Vani neglected to conduct his own survey when requested to do so by the City. W. Eisnor, 494 Lightfoot Place provided his statement, and stated that: • he had 35 years of experience as a general contractor; • he had taken measurements and found that the base of retaining wall was on the center of the property line; Page 4 of 9 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • he had retaining walls on both sides of his property that were erected by the same company as the wall in question; • he had measured these retaining walls and the wall in question, and noted that they are on the center of the property line; and, • he believes that the J.D. Barnes survey placing the retaining wall entirely on the property of 498 Lightfoot Place, and not on the center of the property, is wrong. A question and answer period ensued between the Committee and F. Vani regarding: • the retaining walls being erected by a contractor hired by the builder, after some of the original homeowners had moved into the neighbourhood; and, • clarification that measurements were conducted from foundation of the home to the base of the retaining wall. F. Gujol, 496 Lightfoot Place and G. Gujol provided a statement, and stated that: • he questioned the validity of the measurements taken by the property owners at 494 and 498 Lightfoot Place; • work performed at 498 Lightfoot Place and weight from a shed and other materials had caused damage to the retaining wall and fence; • the responsibility for the retaining wall and costs associated should not only be based on the location of retaining wall, but on the party that caused the damage; and, • other retaining walls in the neighbourhood, without additional weight or modifications, being in good condition. Moved by J. Ali Seconded by S. Upadhyayula That F. Gujol be granted an additional two minutes to make his statement. Carried F. Gujol continued his statement, stating that the additional height of the retaining wall added by the Page 5 of 9 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) owner of 498 Lightfoot Place had caused the fence to lean out farther. A question and answer period ensued between the Committee and F. Gujol regarding whether F. Gujol had taken measurements from his property to the retaining wall. A question and answer period ensued between the Committee and F. Vani regarding when the retaining wall was built and whether F. Vani’s survey was conducted before or after the retaining wall was built. Moved by J. Ali Seconded by G. Fernandes That the Committee move into closed session for deliberations. Carried The Committee took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be severed. Note: This portion of the meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] The Committee took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be resumed. 4. Fence Variance Applications 4.1 1380 Poprad Avenue Jennifer Hayden welcomed everyone to the meeting and provided an overview of the order of proceedings. S. Mangas, Municipal Law Enforcement Officer ll provided his statement of evidence, and stated that: • a complaint was received by the City on September 16, 2024 regarding a fence being built in the rear yard of 1380 Poprad Avenue in excess of the maximum height of 6 feet and 6 inches; Page 6 of 9 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • he attended 1380 Poprad Avenue and spoke with the property owner S. Cadogan regarding why the fence was built; • he noted that there were 8 boards erected on the north east side of the property, and only 3 boards erected on the south side of the property; • the property owner was advised that the height of the fence contravened the City’s By-law, however the owner could apply for a Fence Variance; and, • the property owner applied for a Fence Variance. A questions and answer period ensued between the Committee and S. Mangas regarding: • when the fence was erected and when the Fence Variance was applied for; and, • the purpose of the fence being to deter racoons. S. Cadogan, 1380 Poprad Avenue, provided his statement, stating that: • he had a conversation with his neighbour C. Parnell in August 2024 regarding the erection of the corners of the fences with a height of 8 feet; • he was advised by C. Parnell that he could do what he wanted, as long as her side of the fence was left as is and that it didn’t make her feel enclosed in; • he reminded C. Parnell on September 11, 2024 about his plans regarding the fence and to request access to her property to loosen some boards, and no issues were raised; • he purchased the material and began modifying the fence while being supervised by C. Parnell; • part way through the modification, C. Parnell approached him with concerns regarding the fence; • he didn’t understand why concerns were not raised by C. Parnell prior to beginning the work, as he had already purchased the materials; Page 7 of 9 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • his family’s experience and concerns with racoons entering their yard; and, • the partially constructed fence in the corners of the yard having seemed to have deterred the racoons. A question and answer period ensued between the Committee and S. Cadogan regarding: • clarification regarding the racoons being able to enter the yard by climbing staggered fences or by travelling along the 2 x 4 boards; • clarification regarding the fence between 1380 Poprad Avenue and C. Parnell’s property being staggered on her side, and flat on the other; • clarification regarding the intention of only having 8 foot boards erected in the corners of the yard, and the rest remaining 6 feet in height; • clarification that S. Cadogan intended to cover the cost of the materials used to modify the fence; • S. Cadogan’s experience working with C. Parnell and her late husband building the fence between their properties; and, • clarification regarding the specifications of the 8 foot corner fences that have been erected; • whether there were alternatives like plexiglass were considered. C. Parnell provided a statement, and stated that: • she objects to the 8 foot boards that are erected at the north end of the fence between her property and the owner of 1380 Poprad Avenue; • the owner at 1380 Poprad Avenue asked her if he could make the fence board to board on his side, and the height a “little higher”; • she had granted the owner at 1380 Poprad Avenue to change only his side of the fence to make it board to board, but was not aware that he intended to make the fence 8 feet tall; Page 8 of 9 Item/ Ref # Details & Discussion & Conclusion (summary of discussion) Action Items/Status (include deadline as appropriate) • she told him to stop, and reported the fence to the City’s By-law Services; • that the fence height did not comply with the By-law and that an incomplete fence could dissuade potential buyers of her property in the future; • she did not think this would be effective at detracting racoons; • she did not want to feel like she is living in a 14 foot hole with such a high fence. A question and answer period ensued between the Committee and C. Parnell regarding: • whether C. Parnell would be agreeable to have S. Cadogan install a 6 foot fence that is flat on both sides; and, • whether C. Parnell would be agreeable to have S. Cadogan install an even 8 foot fence. Moved by J. Ali Seconded by I. Joseph That the Committee move into closed session for deliberations. Carried Note: This portion of the meeting was closed to the public. Refer to the In Camera meeting minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] The Committee took a brief pause to allow the livestream of the Meeting to be resumed. 5. Moved by J. Ali Seconded by G. Fernandes That the meeting be adjourned. Carried Meeting Adjourned: 3:44 pm Minutes/Meeting Summary "[Click here and type Subject]" Page 9 of 9 "[Click here and type date]" For more information regarding the Property Review Committee, please contact: City of Pickering By-law Enforcement Services 905-420-4660 bylaw@pickering.ca