Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 09, 2021Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 15 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Absent 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the revised agenda for the Wednesday, June 9, 2021 meeting be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 5th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, May 12, 2021 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 15 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 43/21 K. Deol & F. Dirani 642 Annland Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a maximum building height of 11.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • a covered platform and uncovered steps (front porch and associated steps) not exceeding 1.1 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.7 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard, nor 1.0 metre into any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit for the 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 comments on the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure the additional percentage of lot coverage does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot and surrounding area. Consideration for rain harvesting or other Low Impact Development (LID) measures should be made at the Building Permit stage if increasing the imperviousness of the lot surface. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no objections to the proposal. Pamir Rafiq, 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, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 15 In support of the application, Pamir Rafiq stated he believes the application to be minor and meets the general intent of the By-law, and it is similar to adjacent properties in height and design. The proposal does not encroach into neighbouring properties. If not approved, the site would fall subject to privacy concerns from existing neighbouring dwellings. City Zoning indicated building height is calculated to the midpoint for two-storeys. This design has three-storeys with dormers, where building height is calculated to the highest point of the roof. It is for that purpose that the requested height is up to 11.3 metres, which is in line with adjacent properties. Regarding the maximum lot coverage variance request from 33 to 36 percent, Pamir Rafiq indicated this is similar coverage that exists on adjacent properties. The proposed projection into the rear yard appears similar to the furthest point of the adjacent property, however most of the rear wall is placed further back. The Chair noted that when the neighbouring dwellings were constructed, they were in keeping with the By-law at that time. In response to questions from Committee Members, Pamir Rafiq stated the third floor contains outdoor space of approximately 10.68 square metres (150 square feet). Trees on the lot will also be preserved to address privacy concerns. When asked about the possibility to redesign the home to appear more like the adjacent dwellings and not like a four-storey home with floor space being located at the roof line, and potentially relocating the windows to be more compatible with neighbouring properties; Pamir Rafiq stated he believes the dwellings to the far left and far right mimic the same design as proposed. A redesign is not preferred, however the applicant is willing to work with the Committee and City staff to gain the necessary support. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer stated building height is measured to the midpoint of a sloped roof. For a flat roof, building height is measured to the top of the roof. The applicant is proposing a roof line that has both sloped and flat roofs. Zoning review indicates that the building height for the proposal is measured to the top of the flat roof. Two Committee Members agree that the proposed dwelling appears to be 4-storeys in height, where neighbouring properties appear to be 3-storeys. After visiting the site, noting the massing of the homes to be large, reviewing the staff Report and recommendation to approve, noting the requested variance of most concern is building height, noting the proposed building is a fit with the existing adjacent buildings, noting the Council adopted Urban Design Guidelines Checklist, seeing no comments from neighbours, hearing from the applicant and understanding the calculation of height, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 15 Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 43/21 by K. Deol & F. Dirani, 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 proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). Carried Vote: Tom Copeland opposed David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.2 P/CA 37/21 S. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri 721 Hillcrest Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a minimum rear yard of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; and • a fireplace not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard, whereas the By-law permits main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an Application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval subject to a condition. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 15 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 and surrounding area. 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 the Region of Durham expressing no objections to the proposal. Seyed Shekarforoush, applicant, Mohammad Shekarforoush, son of the applicant, and Miaoyi Xue, agent, were present to represent the application. Kim Hopper of 724 Hillview Crescent, and Pat Arsenault of 717 Hillcrest Road were present in objection to the application. Gaetan Imbeau of 728 Hillview Crescent was also present to receive additional information on the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Miaoyi Xue, agent, spoke in support of the application stating the dwelling was demolished by the previous owner. The applicant is proposing a new 2-storey dwelling to facilitate more living space for their family, children and in-laws. The applicant wishes to be consistent with both existing and new dwellings in the neighbourhood. Miaoyi Xue spoke to the Official Plan designation, describing the history and built form of the neighbourhood over the years, and spoke to the requested variances stating the minimum rear yard setback of 7 metres is to accommodate a proposed deck. This requested variance is to enhance usable amenity space, improve landscaping, and provide access to the rear yard from main floor of dwelling. Regarding the requested maximum lot cover of 35 percent, the proposed dwelling and attached garage accounts for 34 percent of total lot coverage and the covered front porch accounts for 1 percent, to accommodate weather protection at the main entrance of the dwelling. Miaoyi Xue went on to state that the intent of the By-law promotes lot coverage to limit massing of structures and provide adequate open space. This application was designed to provide sufficient outdoor amenity space while addressing storm water infiltration system concerns. The proposal has no significant negative impact from the massing of the dwelling, there is sufficient landscape area in both the front and rear yards, and there is no significant loss of open space. With regards to the variance to facilitate a fireplace to project 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard, the By-law permits chimney breast to project 0.5 of a metre. The proposed fireplace is similar in use at the chimney breast and therefore the requested variance is in keeping with intent of the By-law and will not cause any potential encroachment to the neighbouring property. Miaoyi Xue indicated that she has reviewed the Report to the Committee of Adjustment and recommendation with a condition, and agree with City staff. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 15 Mohammad Shekarforoush, son of the applicant stated, the initial design of house was submitted by a different architectural firm. After the original submission and consultation with City staff, the variances were determined to not be minor. A new architect was retained, which resulted in a costly and timely project. Mohammad Shekarforoush indicated they wanted to ensure this new design was in keeping with the Infill study and have the requested variances be deemed minor in nature. Kim Hopper of 724 Hillview Crescent is the neighbour on the south-east lot to the subject property. She addressed her concerns with irregular lots in the neighbourhood, the design of the subject property projecting 0.5 of a metre, privacy concerns, drainage issues and grading of the street which is on a hill. Kim Hopper stated neighbours in the area have sump pumps installed and she would like to avoid any negative impacts to her property. Laura and Gaetan Imbeau of 728 Hillview Crescent are the neighbours to the rear of the property. They expressed their concerns with the requested 0.5 of a metre projection, drainage, lack of privacy, and a tree preservation plan. They indicated a new fence will have to be erected and relocated closer to their lot. Jaimie Leumans spoke on behalf of Pat Arsenault of 717 Hillcrest Road, who has been part of the West Shore community since 1970, and is the direct neighbour south of the subject site. Pat Arsenault strongly objects to this application and notes the lot size is approximately 20 feet deeper than any lot to the south. The proposed size of the dwelling and lot coverage will be larger than existing homes in the neighbourhood under the current By-law. Pat Arsenault noted the proposal will have a negative impact on available sunlight due to the massing and not being aesthetically pleasing. Additional concerns were raised regarding the location of the fireplace being directly beside her residence. In response to a question from the Chair, Isabel Lima, Planner I, stated the applicant did not have an arborist report prepared. The City’s Engineering Services department has reviewed the application and currently has no concerns. Additionally, Engineering will review drainage at the Building Permit stage and ensure Low Impact Development (LID) measures are taken into account. In response to questions from Committee Members, Miaoyi Xue, agent, stated the large tree is located outside the property line and the applicant will be maintaining adequate tree protection and preservation, while not removing any trees on the property. The requested variance for a 2 percent increase in lot coverage amounts to approximately 10 square metres. Miaoyi Xue continued, a grading plan has been finalized to address any concerns with drainage. The design was created to meet the applicant’s aesthetic requests which resulted in this minor variance application, and regard was given to make the proposal conform to the applicable By-laws. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 15 Mohammad Shekarforoush, stated the covered porch and bay windows account for approximately 1 percent of the lot coverage. The removal or alteration of the porch and bay windows would not change the footprint of the dwelling. Both the front and rear yard setbacks will be maintained with the exception of the deck in the rear yard. The additional percentage of lot coverage would not have any impact on privacy concerns and the fireplace is approximately 4.6 metres (15 feet) from the property line. The Secretary-Treasurer confirmed that the additional lot coverage does amount to 10 square metres and the staff Report addresses the overage accounted for by the covered porch, which would not alter the footprint if amended. Any bay windows or extensions would also count towards lot coverage, where streamlining the footprint of the house could bring it down to required 33 percent. Furthermore, the variance for rear yard setback is to accommodate a deck and not the size of the dwelling. A Committee Member spoke to the application addressing the additional 2 percent lot coverage increase and calculations where the impact on neighbours would not be noticeable if 33% is maintained. Isabel Lima, Planner I, stated the garage is setback 7.72 metres from the front property line, and if moved forward, it would still comply with the 7.5 metre front yard requirement. A Committee Member addressed some concern with the application stating the increase in building coverage does account for the massing of the property. Concerns are also noted in the Urban Design Guidelines Checklist and those stated by the neighbours. The proposal asks for 17 metres in depth, where the abutting homes are 9 and 11.9 metres deep. This would result in the house being deeper and closer to adjacent homes to the east. While taking under consideration no variance request for the house length, the building coverage can contribute to the massing and request for rear yard setback. Furthermore new dwellings have the opportunity to design in accordance with meeting the By-laws, and if pushed back 0.5 of a metre no variance would be required. After listening to the neighbours concerns with drainage, fencing, light access, property value and size, and noting that the applicant has gone through a redesign where there was opportunity to meet the requirements of the By-law; noting this lot is deeper than others, there is possibility for the design to be shifted 0.5 of a metre and have the covered porch and windows amended. Additionally, after looking at the Urban Design Guidelines “no” response to Items 10, 15, 19, 20, and the proposal does not appear to be in keeping with the abutting homes. The larger lot size has more coverage and more massing which results in a longer house with larger impact on adjacent dwellings, as such Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 15 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That a fireplace not projecting more than 0.5 of a metre into the required south side yard for P/CA 37/21 by S. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri, be Approved on the grounds that this 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 plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). and That a minimum rear yard of 7.0 metres and a maximum lot coverage of 35 percent for P/CA 37/21 by S. Shekarforoush & N. Baseri, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances do not meet the four tests of the Planning Act and are not desirable for the appropriate development of the land. Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley opposed 4.3 P/CA 46/21 S. & N. Patel 1439 Old Forest Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit uncovered steps (front porch steps) not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front 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 in any required side yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to complete the building permit for a detached dwelling. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 15 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 Region of Durham expressing no objections to the proposal. Peter Jaruczik, agent with Arc Design Group, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Peter Jaruczik spoke in support of the application stating construction took place in accordance with the approved Building Permit, and this minor variance application is believed to meet the four tests of the Planning Act. In response to questions from Committee Members, Peter Jaruczik stated the minor variance application is a result of an oversight during the Building Process stage. The grading was not accounted for in the plans yet construction followed the designs, resulting in a slight difference in height of the uncovered steps. The owners acted as the contractors for the construction of the subject site. Based on the contents of the staff Report, the responses and explanations made by the agent 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 46/21 by S. & N. Patel, 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 existing detached dwelling with front porch steps, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 15 4.4 P/CA 47/21 J. Luttmer 814 Fairview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 35.1 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • covered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 0.4 of a metre into the required front yard whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into any required front yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a single 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 stating the applicant should ensure reduced setbacks and increased lot coverage do 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 the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), expressing no objections to the minor variance application and that the drawings circulated to TRCA as part of this minor variance application are consistent with the plans received with the TRCA permit revision. Written comments were received from 5 neighbours in support of the application. Peter Higgins, agent, was present to represent the application. Multiple attempts were made at connecting Russell Kearns, a resident and registered participant in the electronic meeting, however all attempts were unsuccessful. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 15 Peter Higgins spoke in support of the application stating he is the architect for the applicants. The property owners have operated the Frenchman’s Bay Marina for many years and are working towards creating their dream home for themselves and their family. Peter Higgins stated 16 packages were hand-delivered to all immediate neighboring residents on Favirview Avenue, and he met with four of them to discuss the proposal in more detail. Four letters of support were received from residents of 808, 809, 812 and 823 Fairview Avenue. Peter Higgins outlined the details of the application to include a modest number of requested variances. The request for an increase in lot coverage is a difference in 2.1%, which amounts to 12.34 square metres (130 square feet). This variance is to facilitate a fully accessible main floor of living space. It is believed the massing and scale of the house will mitigate any concern for the increase in lot coverage. The remaining two variances are also believed to be minor in nature. The requested front yard setback would be greater than the existing setback and allows for one step down from the front porch to the grade. The applicants have been working closely with the TRCA who would not allow the dwelling to be shifted further to the rear. After considering the staff Report, stating the dwelling is set forward to create an adequate buffer from TRCA lands, and seeing no additional comments or concerns from the TRCA, noting the letters of support, and having no issues with the Urban Design Guideline Checklist, 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 47/21 by J. Luttmer, 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 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 June 9, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 15 4.5 P/CA 48/21 S. McLean & M. Olsina 1715 Central Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit a minimum front yard setback of 8.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 9 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for converting the existing carport into an attached garage within the required front 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 Building Services Section stating no concerns with the proposal and an application for a Building Permit has been submitted. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. Shannon McLean, 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, Shannon McLean stated the request is to accommodate a front yard setback variance to convert an attached carport to an attached garage. The existing carport roof cannot be relocated since it is part of the main structure. The current carport foundation must also remain to support the home and future attached garage. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Shannon McLean stated the existing front yard setback with the carport is 8.6 metres. After reading the staff Report to the Committee of Adjustment, completing a site inspection, agreeing with the staff recommendation that the the four tests of the Planning Act are met, and understanding that this is a common request to convert an existing carport to an attached garage, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 15 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 48/21 by S. McLean & M. Olsina, 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 garage, 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 June 9, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 51/21 L. & T. McCulloch 1890 Falconwood Way The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4997/97, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 6.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for a sunroom. 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 stating no concerns with the proposal and an application for a Building Permit has been submitted. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham expressing no comments on the application. Syed Ahmed, agent with Lifestyle Sunrooms, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. After hearing the comments from the agent and reviewing the materials provided by the City Development Department, along with the staff Report, and the application appearing to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 15 Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 51/21 by L. & T. McCulloch, 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 sunroom, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2 and 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 9, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 15 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 6th meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:28 pm and the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, July 14, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer July 14, 2021