Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 8, 2020-Cfi:;of-p](KER]NG Present Tom Copeland -Vice-Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O'Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Felix Chau, Planner I Isabel Lima, Planner I Absent David Johnson -Chair 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting That the agenda for the Wednesday, July 8, 2020 meeting be adopted. 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton Carried Unanimously That the minutes of the 4th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, June 10, 2020 be adopted as amended. Carried Unanimously Tom Copeland, Vice-Chair stated that he will abstain from voting on all applications heard for the Wednesday, July 8, 2020 Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to prevent a tie vote. Page 1 of 13 -Cif:;of-p](KER]NG 4. Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the June 10, 2020 meeting) PICA 22/20 M. & M. Snedden 2022 Trailwood Court Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1228/81 and By-law 1308/81, to permit an uncovered deck and attached pergola not exceeding 2.7 metres in height and not projecting more than 3.8 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires 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 not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck and attached pergola. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating that the rear portion of the subject site is regulated by TRCA and confirmed that the proposed attached pergola and uncovered replacement rear deck will not be located any closer to the ravine than the existing limits of development. As such, TRCA staff have no objections to the proposal in principle and support the requested variances. The drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit application. Written comments were received from Parks Canada expressing no comments on the application. Joey Fletcher, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Joey Fletcher spoke in support of the application stating the purposed variance is to facilitate replacement of an existing rotting deck with an expansion. Page 2 of 13 -Cd:Jof-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Given that there are no objections from TRCA, Parks Canada or neighbours, and the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application PICA 22120 by M. & M. Snedden, 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 apply only to the proposed uncovered deck and attached pergola, 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 July 8, 2020). 4.2 PICA 29120 P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown 494 Rougemount Drive Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610118, to permit an accessory structure (shed) greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 metres from the south side lot line, whereas the By-law requires accessory structures greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback a minimum of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing shed with a deficient side yard setback. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval (subject to conditions). Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section stating the structure has been built without a permit. Committee of Adjustment approval is required prior to issuing a building permit. Written comments were received from the TRCA indicating the required TRCA permit for the existing shed was issued on February 24, 2020, and that TRCA has no objections to the approval of the variance. Page 3 of 13 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from the owner of 492 Rougemount Drive expressing no objection to the structure. Written comments were received from the owner of 496 Rougemount Drive expressing no objection to the structure. Paul Szkwyra & Nancy McKeown, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Paul Szkwyra stated the accessory structure (shed) was previously setback approximately 8 inches from the property line and was replaced roughly 5-6 years ago. At that time the new shed was relocated from 8 inches to approximately 20 inches from the property line. Paul Szkwyra indicated he is unaware of how the deficiency was identified however, he did have a City By-law Enforcement Officer and an Inspector visit the property. Additionally, the TRCA did provide permission for the proposal and indicated a minor variance would be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Given that the application is replacing an existing shed and increasing the building setback, there are no objections from neighbours, TRCA issued approval, and the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application PICA 29/20 by P. Szkwyra & N. McKeown, 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 conditions: 1. That this variance 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 dated July 8, 2020). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the existing shed. Carried Unanimously Page 4 of 13 4.3 PICA 30/20 D. Clarke & A. Bates 1480 Old Forest Road Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 202~ 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 5.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a minimum north side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum north side yard setback of 1.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 34.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department suggesting grading and roof design changes to mitigate the amount of water flowing to the rear of the property and potentially affecting the property on Highbush Trail. Additional measures such as extra depth topsoil and soak away pits may be required. These changes will be addressed at the building permit stage. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. David Clarke, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, David Clarke stated he is prepared to incorporate changes in grading and drainage to satisfy the City's Engineering Services Department, at the building permit stage. Regarding the design of the property, David Clarke indicated 4-storeys containing 2 dwellings is proposed due to the existing grading of the property. The top 2-storeys are allocated for his family. An in-law suite is proposed on the next level which will walk-out at the rear, followed by an unfinished basement which will also walk-out at the rear. When asked if a duplex is permitted at this location under the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Secretary-Treasurer advised the proposal and application was reviewed and interpreted as an Accessory Dwelling Unit, which is permitted on site. Page 5 of 13 -Cd:Jof-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting When asked about the maximum permitted size for an Accessory Dwelling Unit within detached dwellings under the Zoning By-law, Isabel Lima, Planner I, advised that the maximum permitted size for an Accessory Dwelling Unit is 100 square metres (approximately 1,100 square feet), identified under the Zoning By-law. David Clarke advised that the current design for the Accessory Dwelling Unit is approximately 111 square metres (1,200 square feet) or less, and they can alter the plans to accommodate the requirements of the Zoning By-law. The Secretary-Treasurer has advised that an open Building Permit is with the Building Services Section, where a zoning review has been conducted and no additional variances appear to be required. Furthermore, Building Services has expressed no comments on this application. Based on the recommendations of City staff outlined in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act and taking into account the friendly amendment made by Committee Member Sean Wiley to include a condition of a building permit, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application PICA 30/20 by D. Clarke & A Bates, 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 conditions: 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020). 2. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction. Carried Unanimously Page 6 of 13 4.4 PICA 31/20 R. Helgesen 940 Mink Avenue Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • minimum front yard depth of 3.2 metres, whereas the by-law requires 7.5 metres; • minimum rear yard depth of 3.4 metres, whereas the by-law requires 7.5 metres; • maximum lot coverage of 36.5 percent, whereas the by-law requires 33.0 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to facilitate the construction of a residential addition and an attached garage. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department to ensure that the increase in lot coverage does not adversely affect the existing drainage patterns in the surrounding area. Consideration for rain harvesting and other LID measures should be made to maintain pre-development runoff volumes. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Robin Helgesen, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of her application, Robin Helgesen stated the property currently does not have a garage/carport. Additionally, the main floor of the existing dwelling is approximately 46.5 square metres (500 square feet) or less, and does not contain a laundry or bathroom facility on the main floor. The requested variances are in keeping with the existing neighbourhood streetscape. The proposal will accommodate an attached two-door garage and addition for a laundry facility and a bathroom to be located on the main floor. Moreover, due to the dwelling being on a corner lot, the interpretations of the side yard and front yard are unique, which is the reason for the minor variance application. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Robin Helgesen stated there is adequate usable amenity space on the east side of the property, which acts as a "rear yard" being approximately 3.5 metres (12 feet) in depth or less. There is an existing fence surrounding this location currently, which will be extended to the proposed garage. Page 7 of 13 -Cd:fof-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting After taking into consideration the Recommendation Report from the City Development Department, hearing the comments made from the applicant, having no comments from the neighbours particularly to the north where a majority of the construction will take place, and the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application PICA 31120 by R. Helgesen, 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 this variance apply only to the residential addition and attached garage, 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 July 8, 2020). Carried Unanimously 4.5 PICA 32120 E. & A. Barron 279 Waterford Gate The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964188, to permit an uncovered platform (deck) measuring 2.5 metres in height above grade to project 1.0 metre into the required rear yard (for a total projection of 2.5 metres from the rear wall of the house and setback 5.1 metres from the rear lot line), whereas the By-law requires uncovered platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into the required rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to an uncovered deck in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Page 8 of 13 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Evita Barron, 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, Evita Barron advised the intent of the dwelling is to be used as a multi-generational home for her family and parents who reside in the basement. At this time, the rear yard is only accessible through the basement. The application will facilitate a walk-out deck to enjoy the rear yard's usable amenity space while maintaining the privacy of her parents in the basement. Additionally, the height of the deck is similar to others in the neighbourhood. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Evita Barron advised the height of the uncovered platform (deck) is at the main floor of the dwelling. Given that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application PICA 32120 by E. & A. Barron, 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 apply only to the rear yard uncovered deck, 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 July 8, 2020). 4.6 PICA 33120 P. & S. Keller 1965 Spruce Hill Road Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.2 metres into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law requires 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 not more than 0.5 metres into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered deck. Page 9 of 13 -Ct46f-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending refusal, however if the applicant were to request the application to amend the uncovered deck not projecting more than 0.9 metres into the required south side yard staff would recommend approval subject to conditions. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing that any structure proposed near a lot line must be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres and not the proposed 0.3 metres. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) indicating the property is regulated by the TRCA and that Minor Works Permit was issued in March. TRCA have no objections to the approval of the variances. Paul & Sandra Keller, applicant, and Robert Reid, agent with Durham Decks Inc., were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After taking into consideration Building Services and their recommendations via the Engineers, Robert Reid advised that the applicants wish to amend the proposal to no longer require a variance to the south side yard setback and the height of the deck to be the only requested variance. The applicant was unable to provide the revised drawings to City staff prior to the meeting and was therefore unable to share the document electronically with the Committee Members. In response to questions from Committee Members, Robert Reid advised the rear yard maintains a setback of approximately 12 metres (42 feet) from the property line to the existing dwelling. The stairs can now be relocated to only encroach the rear yard without being in violation of the Zoning By-law's rear yard setback requirements. In response to questions from the Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer advised that based on the amended proposal from the applicant; there is no foreseeable concern with this new request. The amended proposal is to have a requested variance in height and no projection into the south side yard. By relocating the stairs to encroach the rear yard, it should comply with the Zoning By-law for the rear yard setback requirements. This change in request would trigger an alteration to their building permit application and a new zoning compliance review to determine if this is the only variance required. Taking into account the comments and recent changes in the amended proposal from the applicant, and the comments and answers to questions from the City Development Department, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Page 10 of 13 -C~of-p](KER]NG Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting That amended application PICA 33120 by P. & S. Keller, be Approved on the grounds that an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height and not projecting into the south side yard 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 conditions: 1. That the submitted plans be revised to show an uncovered deck not exceeding 2.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting into the south side yard. 2. That the applicant obtain a permit from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the uncovered deck. 3. That the applicant obtain a building permit for the proposed construction. 4.7 PICA 34120 Unique AT Holding Corporation 14 70 Bayly Street Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553117, as amended by By-laws 7707119 and 7728119 to permit a parcel of land that does not have frontage on a street, whether or not occupied by a building or structure, whereas the By-law requires a parcel of land to front on a street. The applicant requests approval of this variance to permit the creation of a parcel of land (Universal City -Phase Two) without frontage on a public street. The proposed variance is to facilitate the phased comprehensive development known as Universal City (refer to Exhibits 1 & 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment dated July 8, 2020). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to a condition. Written comments were received from the City's Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City's Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) expressing no objections to the approval of this variance. Page 11 of 13 -Ct46f-p](KER]NG Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from Ministry of Transportation (MTO) expressing no comments or concerns regarding this application, and have no objection to this variance application. The site is within the MTO permit control area and a MTO building permit will be required prior to constructing anything on this site. Written comments were received from Metrolinx expressing no objections with the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham, Planning Division expressing no objections to the application, subject to a condition: that the requested variance will expire once the Universal City -Phase 2 development is provided legal frontage onto a year-round maintained municipal public road. Ryan Guetter, agent with Weston Consulting, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions raised by Committee Members, Ryan Guetter stated a detailed engineering submission of the proposed road has been provided to the City. The Master Plan Development Agreement has been finalized. This Agreement will be signed off and executed after final discussions with the City's Legal Department are complete. Furthermore, there are a number of commitments in place similar to subdivision agreement, to ensure the infrastructure of the road is delivered appropriately. After reviewing the application and having some concern with land-locked parcels, it appears that through the Master Development Agreement and Consent Application there are safeguards in place to ensure construction of the public road; and due to discussions with City staff, having no objections from residents or agencies, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion after a friendly amendment by Sean Wiley to include the second condition: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application PICA 34/20 by Unique AT Holding Corporation, 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 apply only to Universal City -Phase Two, 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 July 8, 2020). 2. That the requested variance expire once the Universal City -Phase Two development is provided legal frontage onto a municipal public road. Carried Unanimously Page 12 of 13 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting That the 5th meeting of the 2020 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8: 12 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, August 12, 2020. Carried Unanimously August 12,2020 Date Vice-Chair Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Page 13 of 13