Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 9, 2025Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 15 Present Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair 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 Ash Roy, Planner I Figo Pham, Zoning Technician Absent Omar Ha-Redeye 1. Disclosure of Interest Sakshi Sood Joshi declared a conflict of interest for Item 4.7, MV 27/25, and will abstain from participating in that application. Due to an absence, Sean Wiley will abstain from voting in tonight’s hearing, with the exception of Item 4.7. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That the agenda for the Wednesday, April 9, 2025, hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Denise Rundle That the amended minutes of the 3rd hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, March 12, 2025, be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 15 4. Minor Variance Reports 4.1 MV 14/25 S. Sharieff 1875A Glendale Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a minimum parking requirement of 2.0 spaces in total, whereas the By-law requires a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces for a detached dwelling, plus 1.0 additional space for an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU), for a total requirement of 3.0 parking spaces. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to construct a basement additional dwelling unit. Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and Durham Region Community Growth and Economic Development. In support of the application, the applicant identified that under the By-law, each dwelling unit must have a minimum of two parking spaces, provided either within an attached garage or as one space in an attached garage and one in the driveway immediately in front of the garage. Shajuddin Sharieff, applicant, and Muhammad Usama, agent, were present to represent the application. One area resident was present to provide comments on the application. The agent commented that the intent of the application is to build a secondary dwelling basement apartment. In objection to the application, an area resident listed the following concerns: not appropriate for a townhouse complex; the report states this request is for a detached dwelling however they live in a row townhouse; the grading between the houses; as per the developer and City Hall there is a requirement for a specific amount of greenery on each property; the loss of useable space; and the neighbourhood is already congested. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary Treasurer confirmed that the application description should read townhouse rather than detached, however an ADU is a permitted use within a townhouse unit and the parking requirement is the same. A Committee member expressed concerns with the potential negative parking impact on Glendale Drive due to witnessing several cars parked on the east side of Glendale Drive along with boulevard parking during a site visit. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 15 In response to a question from a Committee member the agent confirmed that the tenant will receive one designated parking space on site. The owner currently uses the garage for parking. The owner is aware of the parking bylaws. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary Treasurer clarified that amended zoning requirements for ADUs were undertaken in 2023. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent clarified that access to the unit would be from the side of the house. The windows noted on the plan exist. This house is slightly raised, and they do not anticipate any negative impacts with the grading. After reading the report and the province’s position on housing, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel That application MV 14/25 by S. Sharieff, 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 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 April 9, 2025). Motion Lost After a site visit and due to the potential negative impact on parking, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 14/25 by S. Sharieff, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, 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. Carried Vote: Denise Rundle in favour Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel opposed Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 15 4.2 MV 17/25 R. Navaratnam & N. Rasanayagam 405 Frontier Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 43 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to recognize an existing uncovered deck. Input from other sources was received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, the City’s Building Services Section, and one area resident. In support of the application, the applicant identified that as the deck was constructed by the previous owner, the applicant respectfully requests to preserve the deck in its current condition. Noeline Rasa and Ruban Navaratnam, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicants stated that when they purchased the home, they were not aware that there was a pending building permit. They had come to an arrangement with the neighbours to heighten the fence to aid in privacy with lattice work. In response to a Committee member, the Secretary Treasurer stated there is a fence by-law and the maximum height is 2.0 metres. There is a process if owners require something slightly higher. Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Denise Rundle That application MV 17/25 by R. Navaratnam & N. Rasanayagam, 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 rear yard 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 April 9, 2025). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, a fence is to be constructed along the rear lot line to the maximum permitted height in accordance with Fence By-law 6943/09. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 15 4.3 MV 23/25 A. Carinelli 1428 Parkham Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 35.7 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to construct an addition to the existing detached dwelling. Andrew Carinelli, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicant withdrew the application. 4.4 MV 24/25 2797373 Ontario Ltd. 1837 New Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit: • a maximum dwelling height of 9.6 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres; and • a minimum side yard setback: one side (south) 1.5 metres and other side (north) 1.8 metres, whereas the By-law permits one side 1.5 metres and other side 2.4 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain a building permit to construct a detached dwelling. 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 that the requests are minor in nature and consistent with the new development on the street Sarah Molinaro, applicant, 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 Secretary-Treasurer confirmed that the subject lands meet the minimum lot frontage requirement. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 15 Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application MV 24/25 by 2797373 Ontario 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 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 April 9, 2025). Carried Unanimously 4.5 MV 25/25 L. Cinco 1486 Old Forest Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit: • a maximum dwelling depth of 22.9 metres, whereas the By -law permits a maximum of 20.0 metres; • a minimum side yard setback of 0.9 metres, whereas the By-law permits a minimum of 1.5 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to construct a replacement 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 Department. In support of the application, the applicant identified that the average lot frontage in the neighborhood is 15.24 metres. However, this lot has a reduced frontage which would result in a house width of just 4.33 metres. Daren Hanna, agent, was present to represent the application. One area resident was present to comment on the application. The agent commented that these variances are required as a result of the lot configuration. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 15 An area resident expressed concerns regarding loss of trees and damage of existing trees. In response to resident concerns, the agent confirmed that the proposal does remove at least six trees, and are willing to replant new trees, especially in the front of the house. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent confirmed the owner’s intention is for the house to be used as a single-family dwelling. Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 25/25 by L. Cinco, 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 replacement dwelling, 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 April 9, 2025). Carried Unanimously 4.6 MV 26/25 2706858 Ontario Inc. 985 Brock Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a maximum aggregate gross leasable floor area of 505 square metres for all restaurants on the lot, whereas the By-law permits the maximum aggregate gross leasable floor area of 400 square metres for all restaurants on the lot. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to obtain a building permit to permit an additional restaurant use within the existing commercial building. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant has submitted a Planning Rationale. Please contact the City Development Department to receive a copy of this rationale at citydev@pickering.ca. Mallory Nievas and Sidra Asif, agents, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 15 The agent made a brief presentation in support of the application. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent confirmed that they do have a tenant lined up for the space. The tenant was not aware of the restrictions on the use of the subject lands; they were made aware when they applied for a building permit for internal modifications. The intent is for this to be a take-out restaurant; the space is too small to accommodate seating. It is believed that this variance is consistent with the PPS given the fact that it is already an existing use, it is a small increase. A Committee member commented that in terms of consistency this does look like it would suite the neighbourhood as there is a plaza to the south with two restaurants, a convenience store and a cannabis shop. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent stated that the zoning that applies requires around three spaces per square footage which equates to what the existing supply is. A Committee member commented that an extra 1000 square feet of restaurant use will not change the mix of the building, it will increase the floor area of the restaurant use. Looking at the site, this is a highly visible corner with auto related uses, small food establishments, a huge vacant parcel of land to the north, and other commercial uses and strip plazas on that corner. Given the fact that this application does not offend the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement and Official Plan, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application MV 26/25 by 2706858 Ontario 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 conditions: 1. That this variance applies only to the proposed restaurant use in the existing commercial 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 April 9, 2025). 2. No seating to be permitted in the proposed take -out restaurant. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 15 4.7 MV 27/25 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Whitevale Road (Lot 41, Block 92 on SP-2009-11) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 8149/24, to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 5.32 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 6.0 metres. The applicant seeks approval of this minor variance application to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling as part of Phase 2 of the Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2009-11. 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 Cover Letter. Please contact the City Development Department to receive a copy of this letter at citydev@pickering.ca. Jacob Stampfli, 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 Denise Rundle That application MV 27/25 by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, 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 development, 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 April 9, 2025). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 15 5. Consent Reports 5.1 LD 03/25 & MV 12/25 I. Syed 900 Vistula Avenue Consent Application LD 03/25 proposes the creation of one additional residential lot. The applicant is proposing to sever a 437.7 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 2), retaining an 806.8 square metre residential parcel of land (Part 1). The exi sting dwelling on Part 1 will remain. Minor Variance Application MV 12/25 requests variances to permit a proposed dwelling on Part 2. This application will be considered concurrently with Consent Application LD 03/25. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section, the City’s Fire Services Department, Region of Durham Community Growth and Economic Development and Works Departments and the Toronto and Region Conservation Area (TRCA). In support of the application, the applicant identified that TRCA required rear lot line to be moved inward for tree protection. Rock Kim, agent, was present to represent the application. Three area residents were present to comment on the application. The agent stated the following in support of the applications: the applicant had tried to receive a severance in 2023 and were unable to resolve TRCA conditions; the setback issues are due to the property backing onto TRCA lands, the awkward configuration of the rear of the property; and the number of trees in the area and between houses that are TRCA regulated to assist in the impact. An area resident stated the following concerns in objection to the application: a petition was submitted in objection; property standard issues; tree damage and removal; loss of open space between houses; the aesthetic of the house isn’t consistent with the neighbourhood; and the potential of multiple tenants. An area resident stated the following concerns in objection to the application: noise complaints regarding Air BnB bookings; safety with the fire pit; loss of privacy; loss of trees and wildlife; and increased traffic regarding construction. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 15 An area resident stated the following concerns in objection to the application: size of the building and the setback from the street; loss of privacy; the proposed size of the deck and the proximity to the lot line; property standards issue; the potential for it to become an Air BnB; and fire pit safety. In response to questions from a Committee member the applicant clarified the following: the property was temporarily used as an Air BnB, now it is currently rented out to student tenants; the fire pit is not permitted, the tenants have been advised of that ; the firepit was moved and any ads that advertised the pit was removed; they are currently renovating the house and have neighbourhood kids who come by to cut the lawn; and they have hired a professional pool company to assist with maintenance of the pool. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent clarified that the deck is on the ground floor, there is no variance required for the height of the deck or the size of the deck. In response to questions from Committee members the applicant commented that the design of the house or backyard is not the focus as they are subject to change at the building permit stage, and they are willing to take resident concerns into consideration. The property is on a large piece of land with a large open space on the left side that is unused and can accommodate a single-family dwelling. The variances being requested is to allow for buildable space on the property. There will be no further variance requests for the severed parcel. The Secretary-Treasurer commented that the minimum lot coverage is the only variance required to facilitate the severance. The other four variances are based on the proposed design of a proposed dwelling shown on the submitted plans. A Committee member advised the residents to continue contacting the City regarding the property standard and fire safety issues. Concerned that the proposed severed lot may cause a negative impact to traffic turning maneuvers, driveway location, and proposed dwelling being closer to the intersection. There is only one variance required to permit the severance, the other four variances are being requested without having a solid building plan, as the applicant stated there is potential for it to change are the building permit stage. The proposed dwelling seems too large for the pr oposed parcel size. A Committee member commented that there would not be a need for variances if the TRCA land wasn’t behind the house. The proposed dwelling is almost in line with the existing dwelling, without too much encroachment to the north properties. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 15 In the matter of LD 03/25, after reviewing the staff report, agency comments, resident comments and the petition, and after a site visit and with considering Section 51(24) criteria, particularly as it relates to existing and proposed restrictions, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle That application LD 03/25 by I. Syed, be Refused, with respect to Section 51(24) of the Planning Act criteria. And In the matter of MV 12/25, the proposed shape and size of the new lot is not compatible with the existing lotting arrangement on Vistula Drive, the proposed reduction in lot area together with the increase in lot coverage and reduce the rear yard setback is not appropriate development of the land, and the five variances do not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-laws, as such, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle That application MV 12/25 by I. Syed., be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not minor in nature, 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 Bylaw. 1. That these variances apply only to the severed lot (Part 2) and proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, April 9, 2025). Motion Lost Considering the applicant had made it clear that the plan for the future lot is not yet confirmed, Sakshi Sood Joshi made the following motions: Moved by Sakshi Sood Joshi Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application LD 03/25 by I. Syed, be Approved as applied for, as it generally complies with all applicable plans and policies, subject to the conditions outlined within Appendices I, II, III and IV. And Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 15 That the variance for the lot area for application MV 12/25 by I. Syed, 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 the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance applies only to the severed lot (Part 2) and proposed development, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, April 9, 2025). And That the variances for the maximum driveway width, lot coverage, rear yard setback and the deck encroachment for application MV 12/25 by I. Syed, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are not minor in nature, not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law. Carried Vote: Denise Rundle opposed Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel in favour 5.2 LD 04/25 & MV 16/25 B. & M. Marchand 696 & 692 Hillview Crescent The applicant is proposing to sever a 375.6 square metre portion of land (Part 3) to convey it to the abutting land locked property to the west, municipally known as 692 Hillview Crescent, to provide access to Hillview Crescent. A 1,395.0 square metre parcel of land (Parts 2 & 3) is proposed to be retained. A variance is required to permit a reduced lot frontage for the severed parcel (Part 3). Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section, the City’s Fire Services Department, the Region of Durham Community Growth and Economic Development and Works Departments and the Toronto and Region Conservation Area (TRCA). In support of the application, the applicant would like to sever the existing easement of 696 Hillview Crescent and add it to 692 Hillview Crescent. The purpose is to make the driveway part of 692 Hillview Crescent and no longer have an easement. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 15 Ben Marchand, 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 they are trying to eliminate the access right-of-way over 696 Hillview Crescent and to combine the lands subject of the right-of-way with 692 Hillview Crescent. The lands to be combined with 692 Hillview Crescent will continue to function as a driveway for 692 Hillview Crescent. The purpose of these applications is to ensure that should 696 Hillview Crescent be purchased by someone, access to 692 Hillview Crescent is not disrupted or that the access to 692 Hillview Crescent will not be blocked or used for other purposes. In response to a question from a Committee member the applicant stated that t his property was severed in 1986, and part of that severance is that you are not allowed to landlock anyone, as a result the right-of-way was granted. Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application LD 04/25 by B. & M. Marchand, be Approved, with respect to Section 51(24) of the Planning Act criteria, subject to the conditions outlined within Appendices I, II and III. And That application MV 16/25 by B. & M. Marchand, 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 severed land, 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 April 9, 2025) Carried Unanimously 5.3 LD 05/25 W. Iqbal Burnside Drive The applicant is proposing to sever a 611.9 square metre parcel of land (Part 1) while retaining a 387.3 square metre parcel of land (Parts 2 & 3). The subject lands are presently vacant. The applicant intends to construct new detached dwellings on the severed and retained parcels. Part 4 will be conveyed to the city for a future cul-de-sac. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, April 9, 2025 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 15 May 15, 2025 Wajid Iqbal, applicant, and Imran Khan, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application LD 05/25 by W. Iqbal, be Tabled to allow the applicant to address the comments identified in the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) memo dated April 2, 2025, to the satisfaction of TRCA. Carried Unanimously 6.Adjournment Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Denise Rundle That the 4th hearing of the 2025 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:12 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 www.youtube.com/@CityPickering Original Signed By Original Signed By