Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 15, 2025Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 10 Present Omar Ha-Redeye Sakshi Sood Joshi Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Nilissa Reynolds, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer – Host Kerry Yelk, Planner II Absent Denise Rundle 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. Due to the absence of a Committee member, Sean Wiley will abstain from voting in tonight’s hearing to prevent a tie vote. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That the agenda for the Wednesday, January 15, 2025, hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Rick Van Andel That the minutes of the 12th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, December 11, 2024, be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 10 4. Minor Variance Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the December 11, 2024, Committee of Adjustment hearing) MV 72/24 S. Ramsarran 852 Antonio Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, to permit a minimum side 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 a minimum side 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. The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain a building permit for an additional residential unit in an accessory structure. 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 identified that the variances are required to convert a detached garage into an additional dwelling unit. Sunil Ramsarran, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicant commented that he is requesting approval of this application in order to construct an accessible ADU for his elderly grandmother. Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That application MV 72/24 by S. Ramsarran, 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 additional residential unit in an accessory structure, 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 January 15, 2025). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 10 4.2 MV 71/24 J. Ricketts 901 Vistula Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • an accessory building (shed) to be erected in the flankage yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard; and • an accessory building (shed) with a height of 3.8 metres, whereas the By-law states no accessory building shall exceed a height of 3.5 metres in any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to permit a shed in the flankage yard. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and two area residents. In support of the application, the applicant identified that this application is to replace an existing shed in the side yard. Jerome Ricketts, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicant commented the following in support of the application: the new, bigger shed is in the same location as the previous older shed; it will not cause any obstruction to the neighbours; will be completed nicely with finishings; and the house beside and across the street from the subject address has similar sheds at the side of the house. In response to questions from Committee members the applicant explained that they began construction on the shed in late October, early November. He was advised by a City inspector that he could continue construction. The shed is two storeys, due to the grading and the posts that were added to the foundation to level the shed. A Committee member commented that this shed is located on a corner lot giving it a greater impact on the streetscape. The shed is permitted in the rear yard but it would have the same impact on the streetscape. A Committee member commented that this application could set a precedent in the neighbourhood and alter the character of the street. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 10 Given that the shed would have the same impact on the street should it be moved to the rear yard, and receiving comment letters from area neighbours in favour of the application, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 71/24 by J. Ricketts, 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 shed, 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, date January 15, 2025). Carried Vote: Omar Ha-Redeye opposed Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel in favour 4.3 MV 74/24 D. Paripati & S. Satpute 1981 Treetop Way The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94, to permit a minimum of 3 parking spaces, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 4 parking spaces. The applicant requests approval of this variance to obtain a building permit for an additional residential unit in an accessory structure. 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 identified that the house is located at the corner and the front lot line does not permit the creation of another parking space. Deepak Paripati, applicant, and Ismatullah Amiri, agent, were present to represent the application. One area resident was present in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 10 City staff indicated an error to staff report MV 74/24, page 27 of the January 15, 2025, agenda. Under the “General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan” section the third paragraph should read “The subject site is designated Urban Residential Areas – Medium Density Area within the Highbush Neighbourhood. The applicant is proposing to construct an accessory structure for an additional dwelling unit within the rear yard. Official Plan Policy 6.7(a) permits one additional dwelling unit within a building accessory to a single detached dwelling. Furthermore, Official Plan Policy 6.4(e) encourages additional dwelling units in all residential areas, where appropriate, including in accessory buildings.” An area resident made the following comments in objection to the application: what is the intent of the ADU, concerns for the environmental impact and drainage, over urbanization, concerns for safety as Treetop Way is a busy street, concerned where the tenants will park, property standards on the property, and the driveway addition is poorly made. In response to the area resident’s comments, the agent explained that the ADU is for a living space with one bedroom. The agent reassured the Committee and resident that the driveway will be restored and other property standard issues with be resolved. The grading was done by the builder and properly drains the lot. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent explained that the driveway can accommodate four cars if utilizing the apron parking. In response to a question from a Committee member, City staff clarified that the By-law requirement of 0.5 parking spaces per unit is rounded up. Currently the property provides three parking spaces on-site. The City does permit apron parking through Engineering Services subject to review for location of utilities in the boulevard which could bring the number of parking spaces to four. After reading the report and the applicant currently providing three parking spaces with the option to potentially utilize the apron parking space, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 74/24 by D. Paripati & S. Satpute, 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 additional residential unit in an accessory structure, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 10 to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 15, 2025). 2. That the condition of the existing driveway and associated parking spaces are brought into compliance with Section 23 of the Property Standards By-law 7887/21, or this Decision is null and void. Carried Vote: Omar Ha-Redeye opposed Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel in favour 4.4 MV 75/24 M. Chinapen 135 Secord Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4271/93, to permit uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.8 metres into the 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 rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit for a rear yard deck with associated steps. 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 the application is required to replace an existing deck to access the rear yard. Merlyn Chinapen, applicant, and Spencer Joy, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application the agent commented that the variance is minor in nature. This application is required to replace the old rear deck to gain access to the rear yard. Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 10 That application MV 75/24 by M. Chinapen, 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated January 15, 2025). Carried Unanimously 4.5 MV 82/24 K. Kengatharampillai 1162 Caliper Lane The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended by By-law 7857/21, to permit stairs to a porch or deck to encroach to within 0.95 of a metre of an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law requires stairs to a porch or deck may encroach to within 0.6 of a metre of an interior side lot line. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to construct a side yard entrance. 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 is a 0.6 metre level difference between the existing grade and proposed deck level. Therefore, a landing is required to comply with O.B.C requirements. Ketheesan Kengatharampillai, applicant and Kaushik Suthar, 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 in order to meet O.B.C requirements a platform is required. It is a standard 0.9 metre by 0.9 metre platform. The variance is minor in nature. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent commented that the homeowner began construction and received an Order to Comply. They applied for a building permit and this variance was noted in the zoning review. If they cannot receive this variance the basement will be used for personal use. A Committee member commented that Fire Services noted that the layout of the landing is satisfactory. During the site visit it was noted that another homeowner on the street has a similar landing and looks functional. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 10 Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 82/24 by K. Kengatharampillai, 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 side yard entrance and associated steps, 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 January 15, 2025). Carried Unanimously 4.6 MV 01/25 Claremont Developments Inc. 1732 Samarillo Place (Lot 25) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7966/22, to permit a minimum lot area of 0.29 of a hectare, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 0.3 hectares. And The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, Exception Zone 347, to permit a minimum lot area of 0.29 of a hectare, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 0.3 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 Surveyor’s error on 40M Plan and Lot Certificate. Noncompliance was flagged after subdivision registration during the building permit review. Matthew Peticca, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of the application, the agent commented that this variance is required due to a survey error that was not caught prior to the registration of the Plan. The lot adheres to all other zoning provisions. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 10 Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application MV 01/25 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 detached dwelling, 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 January 15, 2025). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, January 15, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 10 February 12, 2025 Original Signed By Original Signed By 5. Other Business 5.1 Adoption of the Revised 2025 Hearing Schedule Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That the revised 2025 Hearing Schedule be adopted for the 2025 term. Carried Unanimously 5.2 Appointment of Secretary-Treasurer Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Omar Ha-Redeye That Isabel Lima be appointed as Secretary-Treasurer. Carried Unanimously 6. Adjournment Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That the 1st hearing of the 2025 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:22 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