Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 13, 2026Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Electronic Meeting May 13, 2026 07:00 PM Present Omar Ha-Redeye – Vice-Chair Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Nilissa Reynolds, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer – Host Ash Roy, Planner II Figo Pham, Planner I Absent Denise Rundle Sakshi Sood Joshi Land Acknowledgment Statement Disclosure of Interest Not applicable. Adoption of Agenda Moved By Rick Van Andel That the agenda for the Wednesday, May 13, 2026 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously Adoption of Minutes 1. 2. 3. 4. 1 Moved By Omar Ha-Redeye That the minutes of the 4th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, April 8, 2026 be adopted. Carried Draft April 8, 2026 Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Minor Variance Reports MV 30/26 & MV 31/26 - 400 Finch Avenue, Units 3 & 4 N. Brandon & K. Farhan MV 30/26 – Unit 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit maximum lot coverage of 54.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires maximum lot coverage of 50 percent. MV 31/26 – Unit 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit: maximum lot coverage of 50.8 percent, whereas the By-law requires maximum lot coverage of 50 percent; • an uncovered deck to encroach 4.1 metres into the required rear yard setback, whereas the By-law requires maximum encroachment of 3.0 metres; and • stairs to an uncovered deck to encroach 4.9 metres into the required rear yard setback, whereas the By-law requires maximum encroachment of 3.0 metres. • The applicant requests approval of these variances to replace the existing rear deck with a larger rear deck with added stairs. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, the City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Area (TRCA). In support of the application, the agent identified that the client would like a specific size deck. 4.1 5. 5.2 Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes May 13, 2026 2 Kyle Falvo, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent stated the applications are minor in nature and appropriate for the property. The lot coverage increase is modest, the rear deck is uncovered with transparent glass railing to reduce visual and privacy impacts. Both units decks face west. TRCA has no outstanding concerns. In response to questions from Committee members the agent stated that: the decks back on to large sum of trees; the applicant spoke to immediate neighbours and have not received any objections or concerns; the dwellings are townhouses; and all houses within the complex have decks. After a site visit and considering the staff report, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved By Rick Van Andel That applications MV 30/26 & MV 31/26 by N. Brandon & K. Farhan, 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: That these variances apply only to the proposed deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachments 2, 3, 4 & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 13, 2026). 1. Carried Unanimously MV 29/26 - 2670 Delphinium Trail S. Muhammad The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit maximum driveway width of 5.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires maximum driveway width of 3.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance application to accommodate an additional parking space for the proposed basement additional dwelling unit (ADU). Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering 5.1 Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes May 13, 2026 3 Services, the City’s Building Services Section, and three area residents. In support of the application, the applicant identified that the proposed driveway widening is minor in nature and maintains the general intent of the zoning by-law. The variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the land as it improves functionality, parking safety, and accessibility. The proposal is compatible with surrounding properties, many of which have similar driveway widths. Few Examples: All the houses on Spindle Mews street/Peter Mathew Drive. e.g., House 2751 Peter Mathews Drive. The variance will not create adverse impacts on drainage, streetscape, or neighbouring properties. Therefore, the request meets the four tests under the Planning Act. Saad Muhammad, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicant made a brief presentation in support of the application. In response to questions from a Committee member, the applicant confirmed that should the application be approved they will still require a permit from Engineering Services for the driveway widening. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer stated that if the applicant receives a permit from Engineering Services for the widening they will not have any concerns over the use of the boulevard for parking. In response to questions from Committee members, the applicant confirmed the developer is going to relocate the light pole as it is currently on his private property, currently it is 2.5 metres away from the driveway and will not impact this application. The Secretary-Treasurer commented that through the process of this application they determined the light post may have been installed on the applicant's private property. An inspector will be going out to the property to confirm whether or not that is true. A Committee member commented that much of the resulting issues from this application will be resolved via a review by Engineering Services, and reminded the applicant that there is no guarantee of the approval of the widening. After considering the staff report, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved By Rick Van Andel Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes May 13, 2026 4 That application MV 29/26 by S. Muhammad, 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: That this variance applies only to the proposed driveway, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachments 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated May 13, 2026). 1. That the applicant obtain approval from the City’s Engineering Services for the proposed driveway widening, to the satisfaction of the City. 2. Carried Unanimously MV 33/26 - 1894 Glendale Drive N. Balachandra The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24 to permit a maximum lot coverage of 33.7 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain a building permit to construct a two storey detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, and the City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified that variance is required in order to be in keeping with the size and massing of recent developments Sia Zanjani, 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 they needed to reapply for this variance because it was missed during the zoning review of their first application that had been approved at the February 11, 2026 Committee of Adjustment hearing. The size and massing has not changed since the first application. The lot coverage covers all built form on the property, including the gazebo or any walk outs, etc. Given the size of the property they have ensured there is sufficient open space and no impact to stormwater flows or drainage. 5.3 Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes May 13, 2026 5 In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent stated that the garage protrusion is required to accommodate additional parking space for tandem parking, the face of the garage remains behind the required front yard set back, and the character aligns with the adjacent dwellings. After considering the staff report and recalling the February 11, 2026 Committee of Adjustment hearing, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved By Rick Van Andel That application MV 33/26 by N. Balachandra, 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: That this variance applies only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Attachments 2, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 13, 2026). 1. Carried Unanimously Adjournment Moved By Omar Ha-Redeye That the 5th hearing of the 2026 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:38 pm. Carried Unanimously Minutes recorded on this 13th day of May 2026. Minutes adopted the 10th day of June 2026. ______________________________ Chair ______________________________ 6. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes May 13, 2026 6 Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes May 13, 2026 7