Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 12, 2024Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 22 Present Omar Ha-Redeye Sakshi Sood Joshi Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair Also Present Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer – Host Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Isabel Lima, Senior Planner Liam Crawford, Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I – Host Ziya Cao, Planner I Absent Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair 1.Disclosure of Interest A disclosure of interest was noted for MV 34/24, as such Rick Van Andel will not be voting on that application. Due to an absence, Sean Wiley will abstain from voting to prevent a tie vote, except for MV 34/24. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That the agenda for the Wednesday, June 12, 2024, hearing be adopted. Carried 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That the minutes of the 5th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, May 8, 2024, be adopted. Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 22 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the May 8, 2024, Committee of Adjustment Hearing) MV 22/24 Delta Property Holdings Inc. 975 Dillingham Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5502/99, to: • permit a maximum gross leasable floor area of 2,390 square metres for any bingo facility, whereas the By-law requires that the gross leasable floor area of any bingo facility shall not exceed 1,740 square metres; • recognize a maximum gross leasable floor area of 1,007 square metres for any office use, whereas the By-law requires that the gross leasable floor area of any office use shall not exceed 950 square metres; and • recognize side yard parking no closer than 3.5 metres from the north side lot line and 1.5 metres from the south side lot line, whereas the By-law states that side yard parking shall only be permitted no closer than 7.5 metres from the side lot line on one side and 1.5 metres on the other side. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to recognize an existing parking area setback and office uses, and permit enlargement of an existing bingo facility. No exterior alterations to the building or site are being proposed. Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, and the City’s Building Services Section. Jessica Baker, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After reading the report, the proposal does not seem to impact traffic or parking in the neighbourhood, as such Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That application MV 22/24 by Delta Property Holdings Inc., 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: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 22 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, 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 June 12, 2024). Carried 4.2 MV 26/24 R. Thiyagarajah & Y. Gopalapillai 425 Rougemount Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21, and 7900/22, to: • permit a maximum front yard setback of 21.9 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum front yard setback of 10.65 metres (1.0 metre beyond the existing average front yard setbacks of the adjacent dwellings along the same side of the street and within the same block); • permit a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres for lots with depths greater than 40.0 metres; and • permit a maximum lot coverage of 27 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent for lots greater than or equal to 1,000 square metres in area. 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, City’s Building Services Section and one area resident. In support of the application, the applicant submitted a Justification Letter. Sean Toussi, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent made a brief presentation in support of the application. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent clarified the appearance and the location of the proposed ramps. The agent explained the complexity of designing an accessible house. The variances proposed are minor in nature in the fact that the request does not contribute to the overall massing of the house. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 22 A Committee member commented that should the application be refused, it would severely impact the occupants and while the new proposal is not consistent with the current aesthetic of the neighbourhood, it does follow newer developments in the area. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent advised the concerns raised by an area resident had been resolved. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 26/24 by R. Thiyagarajah & Y. Gopalapillai, 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 detached dwelling, 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, dated June 12, 2024). Carried 4.3 MV 27/24 2519644 Ontario Inc. 2000 Clements Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5836/01: • to permit a truck wash use in association with a General Truck Stop, whereas the By-law does not permit a truck wash in association with a General Truck Stop; • to recognize a maximum Gross Leasable Floor Area of 355 square metres for accessory retail sales, whereas the By-law requires that the Gross Leasable Floor Area of accessory retail sales shall not exceed 270 square metres; and • to recognize a maximum Gross Leasable Floor Area of 270 square metres for a Restaurant – Type A, whereas By-law requires that the Gross Leasable Floor Area of a Restaurant – Type A shall not exceed 120 square metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain site plan approval for a truck service and repair building. The requested variances are to recognize an existing restaurant and retail sales area, and to permit a truck wash in association with a truck stop. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and the City’s Building Services Section. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 22 In support of the application, the applicant identified that the current By-law provisions do not permit a truck wash as part of the “General Truck Stop” use. We believe the washing of trucks can be considered part of their maintenance and servicing as per the “General Truck Stop”. The proposed Truck Wash would be 1 of 3 bays inside the proposed Truck Repair building. Trucks would park on the existing truck spaces adjacent to the building and would be washed in the building in sequence. Please note a Traffic Memorandum has been prepared to confirm that the proposed use will function within the existing site, existing parking supply, and road network. Francesco Fiorani, 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 explained the role of truck washing within the context of a general truck stop. A Committee member commented they have no concerns with the application as truck washing seems like a logical and complementary use to the establishment, the other two requested variances are to recognize existing uses on the site. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application MV 27/24 by 2519644 Ontario Inc., 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 12, 2024). Carried 4.4 MV 28/24 M. Haas 133 Secord Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 4271/93, to permit an uncovered platform (deck) not exceeding 1.3 metres in height above grade to project a maximum of 2.9 metres into the required rear 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. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 22 The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application for a building permit to construct a rear yard deck. Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, and the City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified the rear yard lacks the space to accommodate a deck of sufficient size. The size of the proposed deck is in keeping with the decks of the neighbouring houses. Michael Haas, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 28/24 by M. Haas, 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 the variance applies only to the proposed deck, 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 June 12, 2024). Carried 4.5 MV 29/24 A. Saksea 1044 Dalewood Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1703/83, to permit: • a minimum front yard depth of 4.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres; • a minimum flankage side yard width of 1.8 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage side yard width of 2.7 metres; and • a covered porch not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front or rear yard. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 22 The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit for the construction of a two-storey addition to the existing detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and three area residents. In support of the application, the applicant identified seeking variances to the Zoning By- law as the two-storey addition to the front of the house does not comply. Ambar Saksea, Anjali Saksea and Gaurav Saksea, applicants, and Benan Hanoudi, agent, were present to represent the application. Two area residents were present in objection to the application. The agent explained the layout and design of the addition, and reasoning for the variances. The applicant made a brief presentation supporting the application. An area resident listed the following concerns: the side yard variance is not minor; the proposal is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land as it is not consistent with the current neighbourhood; negative impact of light and visibility; and property standard issues. An area resident listed the following concerns: property standards issues may increase during construction. In response to resident comments the applicant commented that the property was not in good condition when it was acquired and that they will try to address their concerns. They have considered the current neighbourhood while creating the design of the addition. The applicant stated the covered porch is to provide coverage from the weather. In response to a question from a Committee member the agent commented that the existing roof pitch and the front facing brick will remain. An area resident stated that the application will negatively impact the neighboughood due to the size and shape of the house. In response to a question from a Committee member the agent confirmed they will oblige Engineering Services’ comments for tree preservation. The applicant does not have any nieghbours on the side where the addition is being proposed which is why they consider the side yard variance minor. The same footprint would be maintained, the only change is that the house would be one storey taller. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 22 A Committee member said the residents may contact the City about the property standards concerns. Based on the report, materials provided at the hearing and a site visit it is difficult to understand how the proposal conforms with the appearance of the neighbourhood. A Committee member said the side yard variance is due to a function of the property's shape. Moved by Rick Van Andel That application MV 29/24 by A. Saksea, 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 addition, 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 June 12, 2024). Motion Lost Based on comments received from area residents, and not being able to reconcile the application being desirable for the appropriate development of the land and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw, Omar Ha- Redeye moved the following motion: Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded By Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 29/24 by A. Saksea, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. subject to the following condition: Carried Vote: Omar Ha-Redeye in favour Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel opposed Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 22 4.6 MV 30/24 R. Kush 1015 Mountcastle Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1826/84, to permit an uncovered platform (deck) and associated steps, not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 3.5 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By law permits uncovered steps and platforms, not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade, and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit for a rear-yard deck. Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section, the Toronto and Region Conservation Area (TRCA) and two area residents. In support of the application, the applicant identified that to provide safe access to the rear yard due to grade change. Rick Kush, applicant, and Spencer Joy, agent, were present to represent the application. One area resident was present. An area resident commented that their concern was resolved regarding tree preservation. The applicant confirmed that no trees will be affected during the construction of the deck. The applicant confirmed that the dimensions will be the same as the existing deck, except the railing will be narrower. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application MV 30/24 by R. Kush, 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 the variance applies only to the rear yard deck and uncovered stairs, 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 June 12, 2024). Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 22 4.7 MV 31/24 P. Tekumalla & S. Vedantam 2719 Sapphire Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-laws 7857/21 and 8038/23, to permit a minimum 0.9-metre-wide path of travel from the entrance of an additional dwelling unit to a public street, whereas the By-law requires that all lots containing additional dwelling units shall provide a minimum 1.2 metres wide path of travel from the entrance of each additional dwelling unit to a public or private street. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit for the construction of an additional dwelling unit in the basement of the existing single detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section, and the City’s Fire Services. In support of the application, the applicant identified that the 0.3 metre deficiency along the length of the porch area is due to the outward projection of the front porch foundation. The front porch has 2 columns (posts) which support the roof structure. This would entail significant demolition, construction, and costs since it involves removing the front porch roof and moving the posts that are supporting the structure. Phani Tekumalla, applicant, and Nadeem Ismaili, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent said they are not making any changes to the structure of the house or adding any new openings in the basement apartment. The agent made a brief presentation in support of the application. The Secretary-Treasurer clarified the Fence By-law and confirmed that as of this hearing the comments made by Fire Services shown in the staff report stand. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent commented that they cannot reduce the front porch size because of the columns on the porch that support the roof and cost. The applicant commented that a 0.9-metre-wide path of travel is currently in use in other cities and provided the Committee with supporting documentation. The 0.9 metre deviation from the By-law will only occur in the area abutting the porch. The agent proposed a sprinkler system be installed in the basement to address Fire Services’ comments. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 22 A Committee member said it is hard to go against the recommendation of Fire Services when it comes to residents' safety. In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant commented that they were not able to speak with Fire Services in regard to the resolution they are proposing. Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 31/24 by P. Tekumalla & S. Vedantam, be Deferred to the July 10, 2024, Committee of Adjustment hearing to allow for a resolution to be sought with the Fire Services Department. Carried A five-minute recess was held at 8:47 pm. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 22 4.8 MV 32/24 F. Elhami 1691 Shade Master Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 4873/96 and 6618/06, to permit: • uncovered steps, not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade, to project a maximum of 2.5 metres in 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 • an uncovered platform (deck) and steps, not exceeding 2.9 metre in height above grade, to project a maximum of 2.8 metres into the required rear 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. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for a two-storey detached dwelling. 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 house is currently under construction, additional steps are required to reach the ground. Frank Elhami, applicant, was present to represent the application. And two area residents were present in objection to the application. An area resident stated concerns with the placement of the shed. In response to the area resident comment the applicant stated that the concrete pad is setback one foot from the retaining wall fence. An area resident made the following comments in objection to the application: the proposal is not minor; the height of the deck causing lack of privacy and value of the house; drainage. In response to area resident comments, the applicant stated the work done on the property was done with a building permit. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 22 In response to questions by Committee members the Secretary-Treasurer commented that a grading plan will need to be approved by Engineering Services prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The applicant commented that the variance for the deck is so that they can access the backyard from the kitchen. In response to questions by Committee members the Secretary-Treasurer commented that the first floor is higher than what was approved in the plans, requiring more steps in the front yard. The deck was an addition to the original permit. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application MV 32/24 by F. Elhami, 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 the variance applies only to the proposed development, 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 June 12, 2024). 2. That Engineering Services be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Carried 4.9 MV 34/24 Jeflin Farms Ltd. 1125 Squires Beach Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, to: • permit a minimum rear yard of 3.25 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum side yard of 3.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum parking requirement for a commercial office use to be 5 spaces per 223 square metres of gross floor area, whereas the By-law states that a minimum parking requirement for a commercial office use shall be 5 spaces per 93 square metres of gross floor area; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 22 • permit a minimum parking requirement for an industrial use to be 1 space per 136 square metres gross floor area, whereas the By-law states that a minimum parking requirement for an industrial use shall be 1 space per 56 square metres of gross floor area; and • permit front yard parking to be limited to 31 percent of the total required parking area, whereas the By-law states that, except for commercial zones used for commercial purposes, front yard parking shall be limited to 20 percent of the total required parking area. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain site plan approval for a warehouse expansion. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section. Dean Taylor and David Leaung, agents, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. A Committee member commented on the geographical location of this application and the limited impact on residential neighbouhoods. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 34/24 by Jeflin Farms Ltd., 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 plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 12, 2024). Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 22 5. Consent Applications 5.1 (LD 078/2023 Tabled at the Region of Durham Land Division Committee Meeting) LD 078/2023, LD 08/24 to LD 10/24 MV 35/24 to MV 37/24 S. Gleed & F. Maida 1754 & 1756 Appleview Road Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That application LD 078/2023 be lifted from the Table. Carried LD 078/2023 The purpose of the application is to permit the severance of a 995.7 square metre residential parcel of land (Parts 5 and 6), retaining a 1,502.7 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 2) as outlined on Exhibit 3. LD 08/24 The purpose of the application is to permit the severance of a 322.7 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 5), retaining a 670.9 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 6), as outlined on Exhibit 4. LD 09/24 The purpose of the application is to permit the severance of a 946.9 square metre residential parcel of land (Parts 3 and 4), retaining a 1,429.0 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 1), as outlined on Exhibit 5. LD 10/24 The purpose of the application is to permit the severance of a 324.2 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 4), retaining a 670.9 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 3), as outlined on Exhibit 6. The above noted applications will facilitate the creation of three new residential lots (Part 6, Part 4 & 5 and Part 3) for detached dwellings, fronting onto the future extension of Goldenridge Road. Two lots (Part 1 & Part 2), each with an existing dwelling fronting Appleview Road, will be retained (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7). Parts 7 to 12 will be conveyed to the City of Pickering for the future extension and connection of Goldenridge Road. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 22 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21, and 7902/22, as it relates to the severed lots, to permit: MV 35/24 (Severed Parcel – Part 6) • a minimum lot frontage of 15.8 15.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; (amended by the applicant at the hearing) • a minimum north and south side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • a maximum dwelling height of 10.5 10.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling height of 9 metres. (amended by the applicant at the hearing) MV 36/24 (Several Parcel – Parts 4 & 5) • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north and side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • a maximum dwelling height of 10.5 10.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling height of 9 metres. (amended by the applicant at the hearing) MV 37/24 (Severed Parcel – Part 3) • a minimum lot frontage of 15.8 15.7 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; (amended by the applicant at the hearing) • a minimum north and side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • a maximum dwelling height of 10.5 10.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling height of 9 metres. (amended by the applicant at the hearing) Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 17 of 22 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and the Region of Durham Planning and Works Departments. Frank Maida, applicant, and Justin Mamone, agent, were present to represent the application. Two area residents were present. The agent made a brief presentation in support of the application. An area resident listed the following concerns: tree preservation; the view from her home will change; the space between the proposed houses; and lack of greenspaces. In response to the area resident’s comments the agent assured that a Tree Preservation Plan and Arborist Report will be required, and the applicant is committed to preserve as much of the hedge as possible. Additional street trees will be planted along the right-of-way of Goldenridge Road. An area resident listed the following concerns: proposed variances will negatively change the look and feel of the neighborhood; the tighter spaces between homes go against the established pattern; 38 percent maximum lot coverage will decrease the greenspace and increase the visually mass of dwellings; disruptions to the natural biodiversity of the neighbourhood; and tree preservation. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent clarified the houses to the north are approximately 13.0 metres. Moved by Rick Van Vandel That application LD 078/2023, LD 08/24, LD 09/24 and LD 10/24 by S. Gleed & F. Maida, be Approved. And That applications MV 35/24 to MV 37/24 by S. Gleed & F. Maida, 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 severed parcels (refer to the submitted Draft Reference Plan), 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 June 12, 2024). Motion Lost Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 18 of 22 Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That application LD 078/2023, LD 08/24, LD 09/24 and LD 10/24 by S. Gleed & F. Maida, be Approved, subject to the following: Applicants/owners are responsible for fulfilling all conditions. Conditions 1. That the applicant satisfies the requirements of the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment and Appendix I, dated June 6, 2024. 2. That the applicant satisfies the requirements of the City Engineering Services Department’s memo, Appendix II, dated June 3, 2024. 3. That the applicant satisfies the requirements of the Regional Planning and Economic Development Department’s letters, Appendix III, dated June 4, 2024. 4. That the applicant satisfies the conditions of approval for LD 078/2023, LD 08/24, LD 09/24 and LD 10/24, to the satisfaction of the Secretary-Treasurer. 5. That the applicant submits two copies of a registered plan on the subject parcel. 6. That the consent be subject to the following periods: • Last day for fulfilling Conditions is June 12, 2026. • Expiry Date of Applications is July 12, 2026. Clearing Agencies 7. Prior to the signing of the certificate by the Secretary-Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary-Treasurer is to be advised in writing by the City Planning Department that Condition #1 has been carried out to its satisfaction. 8. Prior to the signing of the certificate by the Secretary-Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary-Treasurer is to be advised in writing by the City Engineering Services Department that Condition #2 has been carried out to its satisfaction. 9. Prior to the signing of the certificate by the Secretary-Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary-Treasurer is to be advised in writing by the Regional Planning and Economic Development Department that Condition #3 has been carried out to its satisfaction. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 19 of 22 10. Prior to the signing of the certificate by the Secretary-Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary-Treasurer is to be satisfied that the time periods outlined in Condition #6 have been adhered to. Advisory Comments 1. Once all the conditions contained in the Committee's Decision are fully satisfied by the applicant, the applicant’s solicitor must prepare and forward the legal document(s) with the applicable stamping fee to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee office, to the attention of the Secretary-Treasurer for review and approval with stamping. The document(s) will be returned to the solicitor for registration purposes. Failing receipt by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Deed Package by the requisite date, the application shall be deemed expired and shall lapse. That the variances for minimum lot frontage, minimum north and south side yard setback and maximum lot coverage, 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 severed parcels (refer to the submitted Draft Reference Plan), 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 June 12, 2024). and That the variance for maximum dwelling height, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance does not maintain the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, are not minor in nature and is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Vote: Omar Ha-Redeye in favour Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel opposed Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 20 of 22 5.2 LD 11/24 R. Taghipour 1964 Royal Road Land Division Application LD 11/24 proposes to sever a 354.84 square metre parcel of land (Part 2), retaining a 354.79 square metre parcel of land (Part 1). The existing dwelling is proposed to be demolished. The application will facilitate the creation of 1 new lot for a semi-detached dwelling. Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, the City’s Engineering Services and the Region of Durham Planning and Works Departments. Bob Martindale, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application LD 11/24 by R. Taghipour, be Approved as applied for, as it generally complies with all applicable plans and policies, subject to: Applicants/owners are responsible for fulfilling all conditions. Conditions 1. That the applicant satisfies the requirements of the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment and Appendix I, dated June 6, 2024. 2. That the applicant satisfies the requirements of the City Engineering Services Department’s memo, Appendix II, dated May 29, 2024. 3. That the applicant satisfies the requirements of the Regional Planning and Economic Development Department’s letter, Appendix III, dated June 6, 2024. 4. That the applicant submits two copies of a registered plan on the subject parcel. 5. That the consent be subject to the following periods: • Last day for fulfilling Conditions is June 12, 2026. • Expiry Date of Application LD 11/24 is July 12, 2026. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 21 of 22 Clearing Agencies 6. Prior to the signing of the certificate by the Secretary-Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary-Treasurer is to be advised in writing by the City Planning Department that Condition #1 has been carried out to its satisfaction. 7. Prior to the signing of the certificate by the Secretary-Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary-Treasurer is to be advised in writing by the City Engineering Services Department that Condition #2 has been carried out to its satisfaction. 8. Prior to the signing of the certificate by the Secretary-Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary-Treasurer is to be advised in writing by the Regional Planning and Economic Development Department that Condition #3 has been carried out to its satisfaction. 9. Prior to the signing of the certificate by the Secretary-Treasurer that the consent has been given, the Secretary-Treasurer is to be satisfied that the time periods outlined in Condition #5 have been adhered to. Advisory Comments 1. Once all of the conditions contained in the Committee's Decision are fully satisfied by the applicant, the applicant’s solicitor must prepare and forward the legal document(s) with the applicable stamping fee to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee office, to the attention of the Secretary-Treasurer for review and approval with stamping. The document(s) will be returned to the solicitor for registration purposes. Failing receipt by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Deed Package by the requisite date, the application shall be deemed expired and shall lapse. Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 22 of 22 July 10, 2024 6.Other Business That the revised 2024 Hearing Schedule be adopted. Carried 7.Adjournment Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That the 6th hearing of the 2024 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 10:00 pm. Carried __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer 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 Original Signed By