Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 14, 2021Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 16 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair – arrived at 7:05 pm Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Tanjot Bal, Planner II Isabel Lima, Planner I Felix Chau, Planner I 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, April 14, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, March 10, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried Due to technical difficulties Dave Johnson, Chair, joined the meeting at 7:05 pm and advised there are no Disclosures of Interest, and concurs with the adoption of the Agenda and the amended Minutes. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 16 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the March 12, 2021 Meeting) P/CA 12/21 K. & T. Acciaccaferri 4975 Sideline 20 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06 to permit a maximum height of 4.7 metres for an accessory building in a residential zone, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum height of 3.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an accessory building (cabana). 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. Tony Acciaccaferri, 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, Tony Acciaccaferri advised that the purpose of the chimney in the accessory building (cabana) is to accommodate a pizza oven. The cabana was constructed in May 2018 and is approximately 800-850 square feet (74-79 square metres). The cabana will serve as a pool house, and contains interior and exterior electrical lighting and plumbing for water. After considering the Report to the Committee of Adjustment, seeing no objections from the City’s Engineering Services Department, the Building Services Section, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, as well as no comments from neighbours, and agreeing with the comments from the City Development Department, given the large lot size, and separation from existing residential structures, the application appears to meet all four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 16 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 12/21 by K. & T. Acciaccaferri, 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 accessory building (cabana), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 18/21 M. & N. Kagdi 212 Twyn Rivers The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a minimum east side yard of 0.9 metres, whereas the By-law states where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard for a Residential Zone shall be 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for 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 Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure the proposed garage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Written comments were not received from the Canadian National Railway as of April 14, 2021. Sina Zekavaty, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 16 In response to questions from Committee Members, the Secretary-Treasurer stated the City Development Department has not received comments from the Canadian National Railway (CNR), an adjacent landowner; that any condition imposed by the Committee is to be enforceable, and an Application for a Building Permit would be circulated to CNR. In response to questions from Committee Members, Sina Zekavaty advised the dwelling was constructed without a garage. Additionally Sina Zekavaty noted the applicants were unaware of the recommendation from Engineering Services regarding drainage patterns of the lot. After consideration of the staff Report and the comments made by the applicant, City staff, Eric Newton suggested a condition be added regarding drainage patterns on the lot and moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 18/21 by M. & N. Kagdi, 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 proposed 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 April 14, 2021). 2. That the drainage patterns within the lot not be adversely affected, to the satisfaction of the City’s Engineering Services Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 16 4.3 P/CA 22/21 R. Sedara 422 Sheppard Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: • an accessory structure greater than 10 square metres in area to be setback 0.5 of a metre from the north lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines; • an accessory structure greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.5 of a metre form the north lot line, whereas the By-law requires a setback of 1.0 metre from all lot lines. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit to recognize an accessory structure (detached garage). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending deferral to the May 12, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to allow the application to be recirculated with revised variances and a revised site plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). No applicant or agent, 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 and Planner I, Felix Chau, advised that based on discussions between staff and the applicant, the May 12, 2021 meeting date is sufficient enough time to circulate the new materials. Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 22/21 by R. Sedara, be Deferred to the May 12, 2021 meeting of the Committee of Adjustment to be recirculated with revised variances and a revised site plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 16 4.4 P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 Tower Hill Homes Holdings Inc. 2434 & 2448 Florentine Place Application P/CA 23/21 (2434 Florentine Place) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 1.3 metres, and to encroach into the required north flankage side yard a maximum of 0.8 metres, whereas the By-law permits a bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into any required yard to a maximum of 0.6 metres. Application P/CA 24/21 (2448 Florentine Place) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a box window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into the required front yard a maximum of 2.2 metres, and to encroach into the required south flankage side yard a maximum of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law permits a bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres to encroach into any required yard to a maximum of 0.6 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to recognize deficient front yards and flankage side yards to the corner rounding on each lot. 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. Billy Tung, agent with KLM Planning Partners Inc., was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In support of application, Billy Tung stated the applicant has reviewed the Report to the Committee of Adjustment and is in agreement with the recommendation and condition for approval. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 16 After reviewing the application and understanding that the variances are required as a result of the shape of these two properties and the distance from the dwelling to the curve of the road, the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 23/21 & P/CA 24/21 by Tower Hill Homes Holdings Inc., be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing townhouse dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 25/21 M. & R. Leclair 239 Lawson Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2964/88 to permit a minimum rear yard setback of 15.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 17.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit to construct a sunroom addition and a rear yard platform. 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 applicant should ensure 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. Written comments were received from seven residents in the surrounding area on Lawson Street and Oakburn Street, in support of the application. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 16 Written comments were not received from the Canadian National Railway as of April 14, 2021. Michael Leclair, 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, Michael Leclair stated the purpose of this application is to facilitate the construction of a sunroom and upgrades made to the existing platform (deck). Michael Leclair went on to state the request is based on the existing shape of the dwelling with a bump-out style kitchen. Michael Leclair indicated this request does not encroach into any neighbouring lot lines and several letters of support were obtained from adjacent residents. When asked by a Committee Member; Michael Leclair stated he believes no negative impact on drainage will result from this application, having no change to the existing lot coverage. After reviewing the application and thanking the applicant for their efforts particularly with obtaining the letters of support from multiple neighbours, considering the recommendation from City staff, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 25/21 by M. & R. Leclair, 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 sunroom addition, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 16 4.6 P/CA 26/21 J. & J. Gray 819 Fairview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18 to: • recognize a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres; • recognize a minimum lot area of 295 square metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot area of 460 square metres; • permit a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres and a minimum south side yard of 0.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres; • permit a maximum lot coverage of 42 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • permit covered steps and a platform (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, not 1.0 metres into any required side yard; and • permit a chimney breast not projecting more than 0.6 of a metre into the required north side yard, whereas the By-law states no person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to chimney breasts not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate construction of 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 concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure 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. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 16 Written comments were received from residents of 821 Fairview Avenue expressing concerns with the requested variances to the minimum rear yard, maximum building height, maximum lot coverage, and the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist Items 10 and 12. Jesse Gray, applicant, was present to represent the application. Mike Harris of 821 Fairview Avenue, Alex Seres of 815 Fairview Avenue, and Lisa Jones of 823 Fairview Avenue, were present in objection to the application. Jesse Gray outlined the nature of the application. Mike Harris, 821 Fairview Avenue, reported that he and the applicant spoke the day following the Committee meeting held on March 10 2021, and have had no further discussions. Mr. Harris’ concerns with the present application include that the proposed dwelling has not been shortened, it is 1 centimetre taller, the angle of the front sloped roof line has been adjusted, the area of the mechanical room has increased from 12 square metres to 16 square metres, the roof top terrace has been revised to wrap around to the north side, the requested variances impact the size of the dwelling resulting in a massive home that will have shadow impacts, and the rear wall of the dwelling extends 24 feet beyond any other home on the street. In addition, he is of the opinion that Item 10 on the Urban Design Guideline Checklist is not a ‘Yes’, and Item 12 is not a ‘Yes’. Alex Seres, 815 Fairview Avenue, indicated that he supports the comments made by Mr. Harris. His concerns include that the slope of the roof was adjusted slightly to remove the requirement for a height variance. He understands that while it is not in the power of the Committee to deal with by-law interpretation, he reviewed the definition of ‘Building Height’ in By-law 2511 and is of the opinion that a mechanical room is to only house mechanical equipment and not serve other functions. It appears to Mr. Seres that the proposed mechanical room will house the furnace and water equipment, access, and a storage area. The wrap around terrace now presents a privacy risk for 821 Fairview Avenue. Lisa Jones, 823 Fairview Avenue, indicated her concerns are similar to the previous two speakers, that she believed the 9 percent increase in maximum lot coverage was not minor, and the proposed dwelling does not fit in with the street. Jesse Gray, the applicant, responded that it is difficult to reduce the size of the house, the mechanical room is not bigger but now includes an elevator, when the mechanical room is considered the proposed height is similar to 817 Fairview Avenue, and the redesign of the roof top terrace was due to trusses required by the design and was not intended to overlook 821 Fairview Avenue. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 16 In response to a question from a Committee Member, Jesse Gray responded that the mechanical room does not contain amenity space, storage area, or a sunroom, and there is no habitable space. An elevator and hallway are locateded within the mechanical room. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer, responded that ‘No’ should have been checked for Item 10 of the Urban Design Guideline Checklist which asks: Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? After acknowledging the removal of some variances, noting that zoning review interpretation is completed at the building permit stage, recognizing the variance to permit the porch to encroach the front yard is minor, noting that lot coverage is the footprint of the ground floor of the building and doesn’t address gross floor area or number of storeys, noting that the Committee is to consider how a building fits, noting that other homes in the area have front balconies, noting the house and garage comprise a lot coverage of 36 percent, noting that a modified variance decision approving all the requested variances along with a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent (requiring that the plans be revised to reflect the maximum coverage of 36 percent) may help reduce the penetration of the dwelling into the rear yard and address the neighbours’ concerns, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 26/21 by J. & J. Gray, be Approved as requested by the applicant and as modified by the Committee of Adjustment to permit a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent 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 proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 16 4.7 P/CA 27/21 to P/CA 29/21 Mattamy (Seaton) Limited Whitevale Road Application P/CA 27/21 – SP-2009-11 Phase 1 Lot 72 The applicant requests relief from the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a minimum flankage yard of 1.8 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard 2.4 metres. Application P/CA 28/21 – SP-2009-11 Phase 1 Lot 101 The applicant requests relief from the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a minimum flankage yard of 2.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard 2.4 metres. Application P/CA 29/21 – SP-2009-11 Phase 1 Lot 181 The applicant requests relief from the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit a minimum flankage yard of 2.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum flankage yard 2.4 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to construct detached dwellings. 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. Max Gargaro, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Max Gargaro spoke in support of the application stating the Report to the Committee of Adjustment has been reviewed and is believed to have captured the intent of application. After reviewing the application, and noting the reduction in flankage yard to accommodate a 5 metre safety buffer for pedestrians and vehicles from the property line to the sidewalk and roadway, it is believed that the applications meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 16 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 27/21 to P/CA 29/21 by Mattamy (Seaton) Limited, 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 Lots 72, 101 and 181, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 30/21 A. De Guzman & M. Morales 1981 Treetop Way The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94, to permit a covered patio not exceeding 3.5 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.9 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law requires uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres 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 in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an existing roof over a patio within the rear yard. 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 the applicant should ensure 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. Written comments were received from residents of 1985 Treetop Way expressing no objections to deck size, however, objections were noted regarding the height and positioning of the covering of the deck as views are obstructed, aesthetics, impact on property value, possibility of animal and rodent habitation, safety concerns related to string winds, and late night social gatherings. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 16 Allen Kevin De Guzman, 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 Allen Kevin De Guzman thanked City staff for all of their assistance with the application and apologized for not seeking a Building Permit in advance. Allen Kevin De Guzman stated the intent was to create additional outdoor space that was similar to other neighbours. Furthermore efforts have been made to address any concerns from neighbours, where the existing deck is to be removed. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Allen Kevin De Guzman stated the covered patio was constructed in June 2020. After having read the Report to the Committee of Adjustment and agreeing with the comments, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 30/21 by A. De Guzman & M. Morales, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance to be 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 covered roof over the patio, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated April 14, 2021). 2. That the applicant obtain a Building Permit for the existing roof by April 14, 2022, or this decision shall become null and void. Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 P. Ambalavanar 1964 Southview Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit: P/CA 31/21 (Part 1) • A lot frontage of 15.24 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 16 P/CA 32/21 (Part 2) •A lot frontage of 15.24 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate a future Land Division Application with the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending the application be Tabled until the applicant provides additional information to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Written comments were received from the TRCA stating, the subject site is entirely within the TRCA Regulated Area of the Duffins Creek watershed. The site is within the Regulatory Storm Floodplain associated with the Duffins Creek to the north of the site. A TRCA permit would be required prior to development taking place and prior to any municipal building approvals. The subject site is also within the Pickering Town Centre Special Policy Area (SPA) which is Provincially designated area identifying existing urban areas which are prone to flooding and allows for a lower level of flood protection in some circumstances. TRCA staff recommend the applications be tabled until such time that the TRCA has the opportunity to review the floodplain implications associated with 1964 Southview Drive through the TRCA Concept Development Application process. Concept Development Application requirements were provided to the applicant on March 31, 2021 however TRCA has not received an application. Written comments were received from residents of 1609 & 1613 Burnside Drive who wish to receive notice of any future meetings that pertain to this application. No applicant or agent, 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 stated the applicant is currently working with the TRCA. The application can be lifted from the table once comments are received from TRCA. Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 31/21 & P/CA 32/21 by P. Ambalavanar, be Tabled until the applicant provides additional information to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Carried Unanimously 5.Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 4th meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:31 pmand the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, May12, 2021. Carried Unanimously May 12, 2021__________________________ Date __________________________ Chair Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, April 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 16 of 16 __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer