Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 10, 2021Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Absent Denise Rundle 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, February 10, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 1st meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, January 13, 2021 be adopted as amended. Carried Unanimously David Johnson, Chair stated that he will abstain from voting on all applications heard for the Wednesday, February 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting in order to prevent a tie vote. Page 1 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 4. Reports 4.1 Tabled at the December 9, 2020 meeting P/CA 65/20 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd. 606 Annland S treet Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 65/20 be lifted from the Table. Carried The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to: • recognize a minimum lot frontage of 8.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres; • recognize a minimum lot area of 130 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; • permit a minimum front yard setback of 2.3 m etres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum rear yard setback of 1.7 metres; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres; • permit a minimum east side yard setback of 0.3 metres, and a minimum west side yard setback of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 m etres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 52 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • permit an uncovered platform (front porch) not projecting more than 6.9 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 1.0 m etre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard and not more than 1.0 metres into any required side yard. 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 deferral. Page 2 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating t o ensure reduced front/side/rear yard depth and additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting or other low impact development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. The City requires a corner rounding, with a radius of 5.0 metres, to be provided at the intersection of Annland Street and Pleasant Street. The applicant will be required to provide a draft R-Plan showing the corner rounding and will then need to pay all the fees associated with conveyance of the lands to the City for road dedication purposes. Helen Qamar, applicant, was present to represent the application. Maureen Metcalfe of 667 Front Road and Corey Leadbetter of 1290 Commerce Street were present in objection to the application. Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton To dispense with reading of the application and move that application P/CA 65/20 by 4AMCA Enterprises Ltd., be Deferred to the March 10, 2021 Committee of Adjustment meeting to allow the applicant to revise the submitted site plan to include a 5.0 metre radius corner rounding at the intersection of Annland Street and Pleasant Street, to be conveyed to the City of Pickering. Carried 4.2 Deferred at the January 1, 2021 meeting P/CA 02/21 C. & J. Cagna 2615 Cerise Manor The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a maximum driveway width of 6.0 metres, whereas the By-law established a maximum driveway width of 3.0 metres for lots having l ot frontages less than 9.0 metres with attached private garages associated with a residential use that are accessed only by a driveway from a street. The applicant requests approval of this variance i n order to widen the driveway. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department. Page 3 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing they reviewed the updated plans submitted in support of the application and provide the following comments: 1. Original Comment: Widening the driveway will increase the impermeable area of the lot having a negative impact on the overall stormwater management scheme for the development. Response to Updated Submission: The applicant is proposing the use of permeable pavers for the driveway widening, which addresses our stormwater management concerns. 2. Original Comment: The proposal includes widening within the City’s road allowance, which is not permitted. Response to Updated Submission: The widening is now located entirely on private property. 3. Original Comment: Widening the driveway will require the removal of a City owned boulevard tree. Response to Updated Submission: The driveway located on private property ensures the required minimum 1.0 metre clearance to the tree is provided. Based on the applicant’s response to our previous comments, we have no further engineering related concerns with this application. Michael Annarilli, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Michael Annarilli spoke in support of the application stating he has satisfied all City comments and provided any additional information as required. Additionally, he has a compact SUV and is confident the vehicle would fit within the recommended minimum driveway size width requirement provided from Engineering S ervices staff of 2.6 metres x 5.3 metres. When a Committee Member posed the question of reverting the lands back to the original state upon sale or change of ownership, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated this would be difficult to enforce. That is based on the fact that the City is not informed when a change of ownership or property sale occurs, and that the proposed addition of hard landscaping would require removal and restoration. After considering the letters of support r eceived from neighbours, Engineering Services having no further concerns on the application where the original concerns have been addressed, and the applicant demonstrating a willingness to work with the City, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Page 4 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 02/21 by C. & J. Cagna, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, subject to the following condition: 1. That the variance only apply to the proposed driveway widening located entirely within private property, be setback 1.0 metre from the existing municipal tree and constructed with permeable paving to the satisfaction of Engineering Services, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 3 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried 4.3 P/CA 03/21 C. & L. Eliopoulos 737 Aspen Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 942/79: • to permit a platform less than 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 7.3 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires establishes a maximum projection of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard; • to permit a platform less than 1.0 metre in height to project a maximum of 1.0 metre into the required southerly side yard, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum projection o f 0.5 of a metre into the required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an existing rear yard deck. 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the deck is slightly elevated which should not cause any drainage issues and have no concerns with this application. Written comments were received from the owners of 756 Pebble Court and 735 Aspen Road in support of the application. Page 5 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from the owner of 754 Pebble Court in opposition to the application. Chris Eliopoulos, applicant, was present to represent the application. Thomas Robert of 754 Pebble Court and Midori Fujita of 758 Pebble Court were pr esent in objection to the application. Chris Eliopoulos spoke in support of the application stating he has provided all the necessary documents required for the application as well as received comments from the neighbours directly affected who are in support of the application. Thomas Robert spoke in objection to the application reiterating concerns addressed in the comments and photographs he submitted regarding the difference in grading and heightened fence line of the rear yard properties. Midori Fujita spoke in objection to the application mirroring the same position as Thomas Robert and expressing a concern with the increased amount of rodents in the neighbourhood, particularly related to the increased projection of a platform in the rear and side yard. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Felix Chau, Planner I, indicated that the maximum permitted height for a fence is 2 metres in the rear and side yards. The applicants will have to apply to the Property Review Committee which is administered by the City’s By-law Enforcement team. In response to questions from Committee Members, Chris Eliopoulos stated the platform (deck) was constructed in the summer of 2020 by a local handyman and a small group of friends all of which were unaware that a building permit was required. Additionally, the platform height has been reduced and is sealed with cement so not to allow animals to reside underneath it. The property does not have any trees or shrubs on it so maintenance of debris is minimal. After considering the comments received from the neighbours, and the concerns for the height of the fence being able to be addressed by the Property Review Committee, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 03/21 by C. & L. Eliopoulos, 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: Page 6 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 1. That these variances apply only to the uncovered platform, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried 4.4 P/CA 06/21 B. & N. Sukra & W. Bain 312 Dyson Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to permit a maximum building height of 11.35 metres, whereas the by-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) stating they have been working the landowners at 312 Dyson Road regarding this new build. The landowners have satisfied all of TRCA’s requirements and are waiting for these variances to be reviewed to receive a TRCA permit. TRCA staff have no objections to the variance pertaining to building height as it does not impact the TRCA’s policies or programs. Written comments were received from a resident of 317 Dyson Road on behalf of themselves and the property owners of 313 & 319 Dyson Road, in objection to the application. Written comments were received from Parks Canada identifying the proposal to have negative impacts on the Rouge Natural Urban Park where species at risk were identified and request for certain mitigation measures to be implemented by the subject property. Bobby Sukra, applicant, Atif Aqeel, agent, were present to represent the application. John Miron of 314 Dyson Road w as present in objection to the application. Page 7 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Atif Aqeel spoke in support of the application stating the subject site is uniquely situated at the end of Dyson Road with the view of the Rouge River as well as Lake Ontario. There is only one neighbour directly adjacent to the property which is also three-storeys in height. The proposal has been designed to be compatible with the location, and cause the least amount of impact on the neighbourhood. The developable footprint of the site is significantly less due to the lot configuration and the setback requirements outlined by the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). The application is believed to be compatible with the intent of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law and is supported by City staff. John Miron, owner of the property immediate adjacent to the subject site addressed some concerns with the development. He stated his concern with the elevation on west property line a ppearing to have four-storeys facing R ouge River when no other dwelling facing the Rouge River is of similar design. John Miron questioned what the necessity is for a dwelling of such a height. In response to the concerns raised by the adjacent neighbour Atif Aqeel stated the design is in fact only three-storeys in height where the third-storey is quite small and significantly setback from the primary elevation. The Rouge River view appears to be two-storeys high or a penthouse type structure that has a very unique architectural design which “funnels” the view. There is a partial basement walkout where a small portion of basement has a step-up design. It has been created to have a desirable visual perspective. In response to questions posed by a Committee Member, Atif Aqeel indicated the elevation drawings submitted are accurate and can be viewed in the Report to the Committee of Adjustment. Additionally, Atif Aqeel stated both him and the applicant are in receipt of the letter from Parks Canada, dated February 9, 2021, and will be working in collaboration with Parks Canada and the City to ensure the natural habitat and species at risk are protected. Moreover, Atif Aqeel noted that if required by Parks Canada, an environmental consultant will be retained by the owner. After reading the comments submitted by Parks Canada, the neighbours, the City and listening to the neighbour’s concerns being addressed during the Hearing, it is encouraged the applicant follow the requests and guidelines provided by Parks Canada, Tom Copeland moved the following m otion: Page 8 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 06/21 by B. & N. Sukra & W. Bain, be Approved on the g rounds 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 detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted pl ans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried 4.5 P/CA 07/21 V. & V. Joshi 1519 Avonmore Square The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to permit a total of 2 parking spaces on a property where an accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of three parking spaces provided on a property where an accessory dwelling unit is located. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit within a street townhouse dwelling w ith two parking spaces on the lot. 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation expressing no concerns with the application. Veena & Vijay Joshi, applicants, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Veena & Vijay Joshi spoke in support of the application stating they have currently applied for a building permit and submitted all necessary drawings, and they will continue to complete the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) as requested by the City. Page 9 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting In response to questions from Committee Members, Veena & Vijay Joshi stated the property currently has two parking spaces for both of their vehicles: one located inside the garage and one outside on the driveway. The prospective tenant will not have a vehicle and will be able to utilize local transit and retail shops in the area. Eric Newton moved the following condition: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 07/21 by V. & V. Joshi, 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 subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan ( refer to Exhibit 2 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). 2. That the applicant obtain a building per mit for the proposed accessory dwelling unit as determined by Building Services. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland opposed Eric Newton in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.6 P/CA 08/21 P. Therucheelvam 2150 Saffron Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7384/14: • to permit an uncovered platform less than 1.0 metre in height to project 0.6 of a metre into the south side yard, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum projection of 0.5 of a metre into an required side yard; • to permit an uncovered platform less than 1.0 metre in height to project 4.7 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum projection of 1.5 metres into the required rear yard; Page 10 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting • to permit an accessory building 3. 15 metres in height to be set back 0.1 of a metre from the rear lot line, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; and • to permit an accessory building 3.15 metres in height to be set back 0.1 of a metre from the flankage (north) lot line, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum setback of 1.0 m etre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain building permits to recognize an existing platform (deck) and an accessory building (shed). 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating to ensure reduced rear/side yard setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. The resident should be aware that they may be held liable for any damages to adjacent properties caused by blocked drainage. Prakash Therucheelvam, applicant, and Akaljan Kanagaratnam, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Akaljan Kanagaratnam spoke in support of the application stating the subject property has a difference in grading which caused the owners to construct a platform (deck) to allow for recreational space for children. The accessory building (shed) is also located on the lot for storage of recreational equipment. In response to questions from Committee Members, Akaljan Kanagaratnam indicated the platform (deck) and accessory building (shed) were constructed in 2020 by a friend of the owner. The owner is aware of the comments provided by Engineering Services addressing the property owner’s responsibility of being held liable for potential damages caused by blocked drainage that may occur to adjacent properties. When as ked about the ability to maintain the area in between the accessory building (shed) and the lot line, the agent stated there is approximately four inches in between that would allow the owner to tidy up the area with the necessary yard maintenance equipment. Moreover the 3.15 metres in height has been requested to account for the difference in grading of the lot which has a significant slope. Page 11 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting In agreement with the City Development’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment in that the platform serves as an enhancement to the usable amenity area and that the variances appear to have no significant adverse affect on neighbouring properties, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 08/21 by P. Therucheelvam, 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 platform (deck) and accessory building, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 09/21 S. Muthulingam 945 Third Concession Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 10.5 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 10.0 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance i n order to obtain a building per mit to construct a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending the application be Tabled until an amendment to the Minister Zoning Order 154-03 is obtained through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), or arrangements are made to the satisfaction of the MMAH. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Page 12 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Written comments were received from the owners of 2365 Fairport Road expressing concerns with the requested variance. They believe the proposed dwelling would be the largest along Third Concession Road and would not conform to the average lot size of homes along the street. They noted the property recently changed ownership and the public notice for this information was received less than two weeks from the scheduled Committee of Adjustment date, indicating there is little opportunity to discuss the proposal with neighbours or the Committee due to COVID-19 restrictions. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) stating that an amendment to the MZO is required for the subject proposal. No representation was present to discuss the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 09/21 by S. Muthulingam, be Tabled until an amendment to Minister’s Zoning Order 154-03 is obtained through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), or arrangements are made to the satisfaction of the MMAH. Carried 4.8 P/CA 10/21 1329575 Ontario Inc. 1030 Salk Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a trucking terminal and associated outdoor storage, whereas in the By-law a trucking terminal and associated outdoor storage is not listed as a permitted use within the M1 Zone. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing trucking terminal and associated outdoor storage of vehicles on the subject property. 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 Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the drawings that have been provided show two proposed additions to the existing building. However, the applicant has indicated these additions were not constructed and t here is no intent to construct them. Page 13 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Engineering Services has reviewed this application based on the aforementioned information. Based on the above, we have no comments. Written comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation expressing no concerns with the application. Angela Sciberras, agent, 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, Angela Sciberras stated the us e has existed since approximately the 1970’s where the current owner had purchased the property around the mid-1980’s. Additionally the previous owner applied for Site Plan approval for an addition to the existing building, however they chose not to move forward with that application. When asked if there are any future plans for restoration and enhancements made to the subject site, Angela Sciberras noted the owner does have an individual interested in potentially purchasing the property and understands it is advisable to replace the fence and enhance the site. At this time there is no intent to change the use of this site, thus a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Study would not be required. After considering the City’s staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment and listening to the responses made by the agent on behalf of the property owner, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 10/21 by 1329575 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 w ith 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 existing trucking terminal and associated outdoor storage on the subject property, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated February 10, 2021). Carried Page 14 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting 4.9 P/CA 11/21 Nuteck Homes Ltd. 516 Oakwood Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum side yard depth of 1.0 metre on the northerly side yard, whereas the by-law requires 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate a Land Division application through the Region of Durham’s Land Division Committee. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending approval subject to conditions. Felix Chau, Planner I, provided clarification on the proposed road allowance that is illustrated on Exhibit 5 of the P/CA 11/21 Report. He stated the road allowance is not reflective of what is shown on the Official Plan map. The road allowance shown is based on a Pre-Consultation meeting with the applicant that is not before the Committee of Adjustment. The applicant was given a recommendation from the City’s Fire department to include that road allowance as part of a previous application, independent of the Committee of Adjustment. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating t o ensure the reduced side yard setback does not adversely affect the drainage patterns of the lot or limit the requirement for a side yard swale with the building permit. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Grant Morris, agent, was present to represent the application. Rene Vince of 512 Oakwood Drive, Michael Bigioni of 520 Oakwood Drive, Istvan Szolocsinszki of 513 Oakwood Drive, Greg and Deborah Carkner of 515 Oakwood Drive, James and Lorie Phair of 522 Oakwood Drive and Chris Can of 458 Oakwood Drive were present in objection to the application. Grant Morris spoke in support of the application stating the owner has a frontage of 30.48 metres on Oakwood Drive with an existing dwelling on that parcel. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and build one dwelling on the northerly property while retaining the balance of the land. The applicant is in the process of working with the City to create a Plan of Subdivision t hat will be heard by City Council. Neighbours will have an opportunity to speak to the proposed plan of subdivision at that time. Currently P/CA 11/21 is separate from that application. Page 15 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Rene Vince, property owner to the south of the subject lands, spoke in opposition t o the application stating, it is deemed a corner lot and not currently part of the Master Plan. Michael Bigioni spoke on behalf of Frank and Donna Bigioni of 520 Oakwood Drive which is on the north side of the subject site, and who are in opposition to this application. It is believed that this application is not minor in nature, and does not coincide with the character of the neighbourhood. Additionally, the proposed structure will adversely impact the amount of sunlight that is exposed to their property. Michael Bigioni went on to describe that if the repositioning of the dwelling one-third the distance to the property line is in fact independent of the Plan of Subdivision, there appears to be no merit in the relocation of the existing structure. Greg Carkner resident of 515 Oakwood Drive spoke in opposition to the application stating the information provided to residents in the public notice was misleading and did not provide enough time to review. The report appeared different to the original public notice that did not contain the exhibit showing the proposed road allowance. It is not believed this application conforms to the Official Plan. The intent of the Official Plan is not to have two east-west roads 200 feet apart facing out onto Oakwood Drive. Moreover it is believed that the City of Pickering Engineering Services deems a typical cross-section, to have a minimum of 15.35 metres of road allowance, which the applicant would n ot have if this road was to be created. The applicant has the required side-yard depth to fulfill the creation of a new dwelling w here a minor variance would not be required. This application appears to facilitate the Plan of Subdivision should the proposed road allowance be approved. Deborah Carkner, spouse of Greg Carkner also spoke in opposition to the application, reiterating the concerns noted by her partner. She indicated the application appears to be related to the Plan of Subdivision and corresponding road allowance which is not minor. The Master Plan has guided all previous development and subdivisions including the one s ubmitted by Geranium Homes which has followed the Plan and created a design in keeping with the community. The current land owner of the subject property is land-locked on both sides and is attempting to in-fill. There is much concern for this potential approval setting the precedence for other larger lots in the vicinity to also be approved and create unnecessary networks of streets and inappropriate in-fill. James Phair spoke in opposition to the application stating the subject lands can accommodate the construction of a new dwelling w ithout having to apply for a minor variance application. This request is an eyesore and should not be deemed minor in nature. Furthermore, James Phair indicated the Pickering O fficial Plan for the Rosebank Neighbourhood, issued in July 2018, has no mention of a road proposed in this location. Chris Cann spoke in opposition to the application stating he does not agree with the City’s recommendation meeting the four tests of the Planning Act. The subject lands can facilitate the c onstruction of a new dwelling without the need for a minor variance. Page 16 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting The minor variance application has been submitted to ac commodate the future road allowance. This application appears to be a major variance and if approved, will adversely impact the whole neighbourhood. Lastly the discrepancies in the road allowances and extensions within the Official Plan map and the Plan of Subdivision associated with this application are concerning. Istvan Szolocsinszki of 513 Oakwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the application stating the approval of this request will cause an increase in traffic that is unsafe to the residents in the neighbourhood. In response to the residents’ concerns Grant Morris stated the Mountain Ash Drive extension into a cul-de-sac was proposed by the City’s Fire Department. He went on to describe that this application is independent of the Plan of Subdivision application. Moreover, extensive steps have bee n taken to ensure that staff, the Committee and the neighbourhood has not been misled in any way. Grant Morris indicated that this type of minor variance request has been approved in various locations throughout the City, previously. This application is before the Committee of Adjustment to facilitate the creation of a lot with one v ariance deemed as minor in accordance with the Planning Act. When asked by a Committee Member if this proposal would be better suited through a Master Plan application, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated, the schedule in the Official Plan does attempt to provide a Master Plan in terms of road design. It is understood that recent Pre-Consultations with City staff and the Fire Department has identified that the road extension proposed in the Official Plan exceeds their current maximum road length. Through the Pre-Consultation, there has been some review of looking at the area as a whole. At this time it does not appear that the City Development Department has requested the applicants or adjacent landowners to submit a Master Plan application that this proposal could be assessed against. In response to questions from Committee Members, Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer stated the Official Plan’s explanatory Schedule illustrates Mountain Ash Drive extending southerly to a point that would connect to an east-west road that would be in a similar alignment as Staghorn Road. There is an east-west road shown on Map 11 Neighbourhood 1: Rosebank that connects from Rougemount Drive to Oakwood Drive. No lands have been purchased by the City to facilitate the creation of this. It would be completed through a Subdivision application where the lands would be created and conveyed to the City. It is believed that the City will not be purchasing lands to extend either Mountain Ash Drive or a proposed east-west road. After considering the requested variance, the Report prepared by the City Development Department and reviewing the comments from the neighbours, the overall request does not appear to be desirable for the appropriate development of the land, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Page 17 of 18 Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 11/21 by Nuteck Homes Ltd., be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried 5. Adjournment Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the 2nd meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:48 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, March 10, 2021. Carried Unanimously ______M___arc__h 10,___ 20___2_1 ___ _____ Date Original Signed By: __________________________ Chair Original Signed By: __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Page 18 of 18