Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 13, 2024Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 10 Present Omar Ha-Redeye Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair Rick Van Andel Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Nilissa Reynolds, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer – Host Isabel Lima, Senior Planner Kerry Yelk, Planner II Absent Sakshi Sood Joshi Sean Wiley – Chair 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye That the agenda for the Wednesday, November 13, 2024 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye That the minutes of the 10th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, October 9, 2024 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 10 4. Minor Variance Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the October 9, 2024 Committee of Adjustment Hearing) MV 64/24 to MV 67/24 14532970 Canada Inc. & 14513703 Canada Inc. 145 & 151 Twyn Rivers Drive MV 64/24 – 145 & 151 Twyn Rivers Drive (Parts 3 & 8) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 16.4 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 35.3 metres; • a minimum side yard (south) setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum flankage yard setback of 2.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard setback of 4.5 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 36.4 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. MV 65/24 – 145 & 151 Twyn Rivers Drive (Parts 4 & 9) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum side yard (north and south) setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 34.1 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 10 MV 66/24 – 145 & 151 Twyn Rivers Drive (Parts 5 & 10) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum side yard setback (north and south) of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 33.8 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. MV 67/24 – 145 & 151 Twyn Rivers Drive (Parts 6 & 11) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum front yard setback of 9.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 35.3 metres; • a minimum side yard setback (north and south) of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 33.7 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications to permit the reduction in minimum lot frontages allowing the severance of the two properties resulting in a total of four lots and to construct a detached dwelling on each of the lots for a total of four detached dwellings. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, the City’s Building Services Section and five area residents. In support of the applications, the applicant submitted a cover letter-rationale. Nadeem Irfan, agent, was present to represent the applications. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the applications. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 10 In support of the application the agent stated the following; these applications are to facilitate land division applications that were approved last year at the Region of Durham Land Division Committee; during the Land Division process the applicant had not received any objections to the application from the Region’s Engineering Department or City Planning staff; and that at the time of the land division approvals there was only one variance required. The agent shared an alternate proposal to the requested applications. In reference to the requested lot coverage, the agent explained that the coverage includes the decks, the footprint of the dwellings is less than the required lot coverage. That agent believes the applications before the Committee are in good planning. The agent stated the applicant is willing to withdraw the lot coverage variance. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent stated that the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. A Committee member stated that across the street from the subject sites are lots with 45 and 50 foot lots. The member commented that at the July Committee of Adjustment hearing, the Committee had approved a similar application. Regarding concerns from an area neighbour, the member commented that the Region had already approved the land division applications, assuming that they would be able to service the proposed four dwellings. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent confirmed that these applications were heard at the October 9th Committee of Adjustment hearing and due to a variance being left out of the public notice, they were deferred. The agent stated they had had many conversations with Planning staff over the past year, along with Regional Engineering staff, and did not receive any objections or concerns. A Committee member mentioned the support from immediate neighbours who the proposal would have the greatest impact on. A Committee member commented that the subject properties are the gateway to the enclave on Woodview Drive, which has deep estate style lots. The member does not agree that the applications are infill properties, rather a redevelopment proposal. A Committee member argued that due to the properties being a gateway to the neighbourhood it would be more cohesive than if it were proposed in the middle of the neighbourhood. Regarding a question from a Committee member, the agent commented that the proposal is consistent within itself. Right across the street is a commercial property with a convenience store, giving the subject properties a unique character compared to the rest of the neighbourhood. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 10 In response to questions from a Committee member, the agent confirmed that the intention was to always split the land into four lots. A new Zoning By-law has come into effect, requiring further variances. In response to the letter in objection to the applications from an area resident, the agent stated all agencies had given their approval to the land division applications, indicating no objections regarding servicing of the land and road access. Having the driveways on Woodview Drive would be safer than on Twyn Rivers Drive. Moved by Rick Van Andel That applications MV 64/24 to MV 67/24 by 14532970 Canada Inc. & 14513703 Canada 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 lots and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11); and 2. That a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan and Arborist Report, as per the City’s comments for the associated Consent Applications LD 049/2023 to LD 052/2023 be submitted to the satisfaction of City staff showing the preservation of existing mature trees to the greatest extent possible. Motion Lost Moved by Denise Rundle That applications MV 64/24 to MV 67/24 by 14532970 Canada Inc. & 14513703 Canada Inc., be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. Carried Vote: Omar Ha-Redeye in favour Denise Rundle in favour Rick Van Andel opposed Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 10 4.2 MV 68/24 Pickering Valley Developments Ltd. 1515 Pickering Parkway The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended by By-law 8099/24, to permit a maximum podium height of 24.5 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum height of a podium shall be 23 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain Site Plan Approval for a 40- storey residential condominium building. 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 has submitted a Planning Justification Report. Please contact the City Development Department to receive a copy of this report at citydev@pickering.ca. Mallory Nievas and Merve Kolcak, agents, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agents made a brief presentation in support of the application. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye That application MV 68/24 by Pickering Valley Developments Ltd., 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 residential condominium building, 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 November 13, 2024). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 10 4.3 MV 69/24 STEC Holdings Inc. 1920 Silicone Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, to permit: • a minimum interior side yard setback of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits a minimum side yard setback of 7.5 metres; and • front yard parking be limited to 47.7 percent (75 parking spaces) of the total required parking, whereas the By-law limits front yard parking to 20 percent (31 parking spaces) of the total required parking. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain approval for a site plan application for a proposed addition to an industrial building. 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 best efforts have been made to maintain the location of the existing parking area and proposed building addition. Trinity Ho and Milica Zekanovic, agents, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent noted that they had done their best to create a functional site plan to propose these two additions, while maintaining as many existing conditions and mature vegetation as possible. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye That application MV 69/24 by STEC 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: 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 November 13, 2024). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 10 4.4 MV 70/24 Claremont Developments Inc. 5230 Lehman Court (Lot 17) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7966/22 to permit a minimum lot area of 0.26 of a hectare, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 0.27 hectares. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit for a 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 there was a surveyor’s error on 40M Plan and Lot Certificate. The noncompliance was flagged after subdivision registration during the building permit review. Rachel Grard, Jennifer Ormiston and Matthew Peticca, agents, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent commented that they became aware of this variance in October from a City zoning examiner during registration. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye That application MV 70/24 by Claremont Developments Inc., 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 subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 13, 2024). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 10 5 Consent Reports 5.2 LD 16/24 & LD 17/24 Maida Group Holdings Ltd. 1610 Goldenridge Road (Parts 1 & 2) LD 16/24 The purpose of the application is to permit the severance of a 405.7 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 1 on the Draft 40-R Plan), retaining a 812.4 square metre residential parcel of land (Parts 2 & 3) as outlined on Exhibit 2. LD 17/24 The purpose of the application is to permit the severance of a 405.9 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 2 on Draft 40-R Plan), retaining a 406.2 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 3), as outlined on Exhibit 3. The effect of the applications is to create two additional residential lots and retain a residential lot for a total of three lots. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section, The Toronto and Region Conservation Area and one area resident. Justin Mamone, agent, was present to represent the applications. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the applications. In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Planning Justification Report. Please contact the City Development Department to receive a copy of this report at citydev@pickering.ca. Regarding the concerns outlined in an area resident’s letter to the Committee, a Committee member commented that they will be addressed through a condition outlined Appendix II. The agent stated they agree with the conditions proposed within the report by Pickering’s City Development Department. Moved by Rick Van Andel That applications LD 16/24 & LD 17/24 by Maida Group Holdings Ltd., be Approved, with respect to Section 51(24) of the Planning Act criteria and recommend, subject to the following conditions: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 13, 2024 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 10 December 11, 2024 1. City Development and Engineering Services have no objections to the consent applications, subject to the applicant fulfilling the conditions outlined in Appendix I & II contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 13, 2024; and 2. Regional Planning and Regional Works have no objections to the approval of the consent applications, subject to the applicant fulfilling the conditions outlined in Appendix III contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 13, 2024. Carried Unanimously 6 Adjournment Moved by Denise Rundle That the 11th hearing of the 2024 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:50 pm. Carried Unanimously __________________________ 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