Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 14 2021Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 1 of 19 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley – Arrived at 7:05 pm Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Samantha O’Brien, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda and Reordering of Items Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, July 14, 2021 meeting be adopted, and that Item 4.4 be moved after Item 4.8. Carried 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 6th meeting of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, June 9, 2021 be adopted, as amended. Carried In order to prevent a tie vote, the Chair recused himself from voting, until such time as Committee Member, Sean Wiley joined the meeting. Sean Wiley joined the meeting at 7:05 pm having all members able to vote on the applications. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 2 of 19 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 53/21 N. Nedelcu 1107 Ridgewood Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2864/88, to permit: • an uncovered platform (rear main-floor deck) not exceeding 2.7 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 metres into the required rear 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 or rear yard and not more than 0.5 metres in any required side yard; and • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 48 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an uncovered 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 concerns with 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 Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority expressing no objections to the approval of this application. Written comments were received from the resident of 1105 Ridgewood Court in support of the application. Cristina Nedelcu, owner, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cristina Nedelcu spoke in support of the application stating the original deck is small making it difficult to entertain. The intent is to accommodate a larger deck that is similar in size to the adjacent neighbours. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 3 of 19 After reviewing the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, noting that the requested 10 percent increase from the maximum lot coverage of 38 percent to 48 percent is solely associated with the deck structure, and the application appears 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 53/21 by N. Nedelcu, 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 uncovered deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 55/21 P. Fuselli 1505 Whitevale Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6577/05, to recognize an accessory building (detached garage) which is not part of the main building to be erected in the east side yard, whereas the By-law requires all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building to be erected in the rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to recognize an existing detached 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 expressing no comments on the application. Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 4 of 19 Written comments were received from the City of Pickering’s Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage stating, the property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Alterations or additions to the property require a Heritage Permit. No concerns with the Minor Variance Application. The following written comments were received from the City’s Heritage Consultant, Branch Architecture: • The garage is placed on the site such that it maintains the visual prominence of the main house as viewed from the street and it does not obstruct views to the original house. It is located such that the front wall of the garage is significantly set back from the front face of the heritage building and adjacent to the rear addition. Further, the open space between the garage and the building reinforces the garage as a later construction. • The size, form and massing of the garage is acceptable. It is subservient to the house and, of note, replicates the front gable roof configuration in its design. • The materials of the garage also nicely tie in with those used at the rear addition. The use of similar materials, mainly the wood board and batten exterior cladding, asphalt shingle roofing, painted metal rain gear, link these two well. • The building incorporates a few salvage items including the gothic style wood window within the front dormer (salvaged from the main house) and the wood storm windows displayed on the west elevation. • If the application was provided prior to construction, the design of the garage door would have been recommended to be revised; the width, materiality and design of the garage door lends itself to a suburban element. Pamela Fuselli, 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 Pamela Fuselli stated the garage was constructed over 33 years ago and has no negative impact based on its current location. It has been built sympathetically in line with the heritage of the property given the large lot size and does not impede access to the back yard. In response to questions from a Committee Member, Pamela Fuselli stated the property was purchased in 2001. Furthermore, the construction of the garage without a building permit was discovered during the preliminary stages of selling a portion of their land to facilitate the Whitevale Road expansion project associated with residential development in the area. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 5 of 19 After hearing from the applicant and reviewing the City staff’s recommendation, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 55/21 by P. Fuseli, 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 garage, 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 July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 56/21 M. Russell 1770 Liatris Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7020/10, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage for all accessory buildings of 16.7 square metres, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 15.0 square metres for all accessory buildings; • a maximum height of 4.0 metres for an accessory building in a residential zone, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum height of 3.5 metres for accessory buildings in any residential zone. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a covered patio (pavilion). 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. Consideration for rain harvesting, soakaway pits, or other Low Impact Development measures should be made at the Building Permit stage due to the increase in the imperviousness of the lot surface. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 6 of 19 Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the residents of 1768 & 1772 Liatris Drive in support of the application. Matthew Russell, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Matthew Russell spoke in support of the application stating the requested variances are to facilitate a purchased cabana kit. In response to questions from Committee Members, Matthew Russell stated the structure is for entertainment purposes only. Furthermore, the wooden structure will not be built on top of a concrete pad, and will be built at grade with no future intent to construct walls or have a fireplace. After taking into consideration the feedback from the applicant and their responses regarding the walls and fireplace, noting the City Development Department’s Report to the Committee of Adjustment, and that the application appears to meet four tests of the Planning Act, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 56/21 by M. Russell, 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 covered patio (pavilion), as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 7 of 19 4.4 P/CA 62/21 H. Gray & A. Ferreira 689 Liverpool Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit: • a second storey balcony not exceeding 4.9 metres in height and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into the required front yard; and • a minimum front yard setback of 6.7 metres. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for an addition to the existing 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. An Application for Building Permit has been submitted. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure the reduced front yard setback does not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting, soakaway pits, 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 Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the resident of 695 Liverpool Road in support of the application. Hayley Gray, 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, Hayley Gray stated the desire to keep as much of existing dwelling as possible while maximizing space through the addition of a second storey. After reviewing the Recommendation from the City Development Department, hearing from the applicant, and noting the application appears to meet the four tests of Planning Act, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 8 of 19 Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 62/21 by H. Gray & A. Ferreira, 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 addition to the existing dwelling, 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 July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 63/21 C. & M. Antaris 1888 Rockwood Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 34 percent, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of a covered patio. 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 Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Chris Antaris, 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, Chris Antaris stated the increased lot coverage is to accommodate a covered patio in the rear yard, and to provide additional amenity space for the family. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 9 of 19 In response to questions from Committee Members, Mr. Antaris indicated that there is 1.36 metres from the south side lot line to the dwelling. The columns are made of 6 inches by 6 inches pressure treated lumber and may be covered at a later date with decorative stucco. After reviewing the Report to the Committee of Adjustment by the City Development Department, hearing from the applicant, and that the application appears to meet the four tests of the Planning Act, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 63/21 by C. & M. Antaris, 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 covered patio, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 64/21 J. Saunders 132 Highway 7, Green River The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88, to permit: • an office use provided a dwelling unit exists on the lot, whereas the By-law permits a bookstore provided a dwelling unit exists on the lot; and • a minimum of 6 parking spaces for 185 square metres of office space, whereas the By-law requires a minimum off street parking requirement of 5.0 parking spaces per 93 square metres of gross floor area. The applicant requests approval of these variances to allow a commercial office use. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined the staff recommendation from the City Development Department recommending Approval. Written comments were received from the City’s Building Services Section expressing no concerns with the application. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 10 of 19 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 Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) stating the subject site contains the Regulatory Storm Floodplain associated with a tributary of the Duffins Creek located in the north portion of the site. The floodplain elevation and velocity for the subject site is 184.0 m and 0.05 m/s respectively. TRCA staff understand that the existing building/structure on the site is currently being utilized as a bookstore with staff and customer parking to the northeast. TRCA policies require that the change of use within a structure does not increase the level of risk associated with the structure and property. The site is currently operating as a commercial use and there is no site alteration proposed, therefore TRCA are of the opinion that the proposed office use will not increase the level of risk on the property from a flooding perspective. TRCA staff indicated that the proposal can be supported in principle. Joe Cimer, agent, 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, Joe Cimer stated he spoke with the neighbours to the west and those located at 110 Highway 7 who gave their verbal support on the application. In response to questions from Committee Members Joe Cimer stated the current By-law requires 10 parking spaces for office use and 1 for residential, totaling in 11 parking spaces. The applicant is asking for 7 parking spaces (with 2 of them in the existing garage) to be accommodated. Moreover, no changes to the site are required, all spaces currently exist within the gravel parking lot and meet requirements of the By-law while being in legal compliance. After reviewing the Recommendation Report by the City Development Department to the Committee of Adjustment, hearing the responses made by the agent, noting the request for 7 parking spaces is to facilitate staff parking for an office having no visitors, seeing the support given by the TRCA, 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 64/21 by J. Saunders, 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. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 11 of 19 4.7 P/CA 65/21 P. Shevnandan 1641 Hollyhedge Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2015/85, to permit: • a covered platform and steps 2.6 metres in height to project 2.4 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered platforms and steps not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade to project not more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard; • an accessory structure (shed) greater than 1.8 metres in height to be setback 0.9 of a metre from the north side yard and the rear yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of a platform (deck) and associated steps, and to recognize and existing 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 concerns with the application. Written comments were received from the City’s Engineering Services Department stating the applicant should ensure reduced setbacks do not adversely affect the drainage patterns within the lot. Consideration for rain harvesting, soakaway pits, 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 Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments were received from residents of 1628 & 1636 Major Oaks Road, 1633, 1637, 1643, 1644, 1645 & 1649 Hollyhedge Drive, in support of the application. Written comments were received from the residents of 1639 Hollyhedge Drive expressing concern and opposition to the application. Purnanand Shevnandan, 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 Purnanand Shevnandan stated, the desire to make better use of amenity space in the rear yard by installing a cover over the existing deck. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 12 of 19 In response, to a question from a Committee Member, Purnanand Shevnandan stated there is no intent to fully enclose the deck by adding walls in addition to the roof. Having reviewed the Report to the Committee of Adjustment by the City Development Department, and noting 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 application P/CA 65/21 by P. Shevnandan, 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 associated steps, and existing shed, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2 & 3 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 14, 2021). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc. 1383 Rougemount Drive P/CA 58/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 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 any required yard. P/CA 59/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 13 of 19 • a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 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 any required yard. P/CA 60/21 – Part 3 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.1 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.8 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 any required yard. P/CA 61/21 – Part 4 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.3 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • a minimum south side yard of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.8 metres; and • a chimney breast to project not more than 0.7 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 any required yard. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to sever the property resulting in a total of 4 lots and to construct four 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 and that Low Impact Development measures may be required with the future Land Division application due to the increase in the imperviousness of the lot surface. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 14 of 19 Written comments were received from the Region of Durham Planning & Economic Development Department expressing no objections to the application. Written comments in opposition to the applications were received from the residents of: 1394 & 1479 Rougemount Drive, and 360, 365, 367, 371 & 377 Rouge Hill Court. Written comments were received from Councillor Brenner, Ward 1 City Councillor, indicating community concern over the applications, lack of engagement by the applicant with the community, completion of a checklist not yet supported by Council, confusion as to whether a proposal creating a total of 4 lots can be considered by the Committee of Adjustment, the character of Rougemount Drive which is recognized as a Special Policy Area R3 with 60 foot frontage lots is separate and distinct from Rougehill Court, and the potential that the proposals will further require variances for both height and coverage. Councillor Brenner asked that the Committee consider either deferring or tabling these applications to enable the applicant to engage in meaningful dialog with the impacted residents. Paul Demczak, agent, was present to represent the application. The following were present in opposition to the applications: Artur Gevorgyan, Sevay Yeghoyan, Jeremy Golden, Keri Kubik, Diego Roccasalva, June McGivern and Clement Marleau, Bhupinder Bajwa, and Oliver Rohn. In support of the application, Paul Demczak described the property, the surrounding neighbourhood context, and the applications. He indicated a lot fabric analysis of the immediate neighbourhood submitted in support of the applications demonstrates the proposed lot frontages are compatible with the character of lots within the neighbourhood and are identical to many of the immediate adjacent lots to the north, south and east. Mr. Demczak stated that the proposal meets the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, is appropriate development of the land, and the requested variances are minor. He pointed out that the proposed reduced side yards will not be adjacent existing neighbouring dwellings, and that no variances to height or coverage are requested. Dwellings are proposed to be staggered to fit the character and to blend with the neighbourhood. All boundary trees will be maintained while accommodating for construction. Retaining walls and storm water management techniques are proposed to the satisfaction of the City to address the grade of the property that slopes down from north to south. The applicant has no concerns with the staff recommendation and conditions. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer stated that the requested reduced lot frontages are to facilitate the creation of four lots. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 15 of 19 Artur Gevorgyan, requested clarification of the proposal and the Secretary-Treasurer responded that one lot currently exists, and that the applications would facilitate the severance of the one lot into four lots where two lots would have frontage on Rougemount Drive and two lots would have frontage on Rouge Hill Court. The Chair further clarified only one lot exists at this time, that a severance has not yet taken place, and the matter of severance is not before the Committee of Adjustment but is a matter to be decided by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. Mr. Gevorgyan indicated his primary concern is with the significant construction and general traffic created as a result of the four proposed lots. In response the Secretary-Treasurer indicated that the application will be required to submit a construction management plan at the building permit stage. Mr. Gevorgyan asked that the record state that he is opposing the applications. Sevay Yeghoyan expressed that when considering the four homes across the street having 100 foot frontages, the proposed four lots having 50 foot frontages are out of character with the uniqueness of the neighbourhood and if approved will change the flavour of Rougemount Drive north of Kingston Road. In addition, the proximity to the street of the two homes proposed to front onto Rougemount Drive is a concern for the safety of children. Mr. Yeghoyan also expressed concern over the increase in noise since the cutting of some trees on the subject property as well as concern about wildlife living on the property. Jeremy Golden expressed his main concern that there is an unique difference between the Rougemount Drive zoned R3 and Rouge Hill Court zoned R4 neighbourhoods. He noted that Section 2.9 and 3.9 of the Official Plan states that the character of the neighbourhoods is to be maintained. Rougemount Drive is part of the Ontario Trail Council and connects to the Waterfront Trail. He noted that allowing higher density will take away from the character of the neighbourhood, allows for other similar smaller development across the road, encourages land assembly, allows for development more similar to that permitted by R4 zoning, is not minor, and is more like subdivision development. He also noted that unique species of animals live here. He stated that he opposes the applications and suggested that the applications are premature, and should be tabled or differed. Keri Kubik, neighbour to the north indicated that his concerns regarding the side yard abutting his property and boundary trees have been addressed. Diego Roccasalva asked the Committee why the applicant can’t meet the provisions of the current bylaws and noted that the building designs don’t complement the uniqueness of homes in the area. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 16 of 19 June McGivern and Clement Marleau expressed the following concerns: the buildings are too large for the small lots, the buildings will be too close to their rear yard towering over their lot with views into their lot, there will be an impact on wildlife, the small lots don’t fit in with the area, loss of privacy, and not in agreement with proposal. Bhupinder Bajwa agrees with previous statements about safety, environmental concerns and the uniqueness of the neighbourhood. Mr. Bajwa expressed concerns that the proposal is not a minor but is a major change, that the applicant appears to be by passing the process, the proposal is not appropriate for an area the City has designated as a special policy area, the proposed homes will be on a higher elevation than the home to the south and homes on Rouge Hill Court, that an environmental assessment been not been done, the two storey high buildings on a higher elevation will be an eyesore, the proposed development will impact the resale value of existing homes, requests that falling down fence be repaired, that the chimney breast will be an eyesore to the home to the south, and there will be adverse impact on the entire neighbourhood. Oliver Rohn expressed that the applications are not minor but major and complex. Mr. Rohn indicated that the proposed four units should require a draft plan of subdivision and rezoning to be considered by City Council such as the Dunn Crescent proposal where the proposed four lots were considered by the Land Division Committee and a rezoning was considered by City Council. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained that Official Plan policy permits up to a total of four lots be created through the land division process. He further expressed concern that the proposed 15.2 m frontages are unprecedented in the area; that two homes would be appropriate for the area; there is a lack of street parking and tight passage for delivery and emergency vehicles on Rouge Hill Court; that no environmental assessment has been undertaken; that massing and hardscaping in excess of 40 percent of the land and a retaining wall is a recipe for disaster; that 3 homeowners bordering on the subject lands have grave concerns about the environmental impact; and that the future streetscape of Roungemount Drive and area will be negatively impacted. He is not opposed to two homes, and asks Committee to reject the request for relief. In response to a question from a member of the Committee, the Secretary-Treasurer commented that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) comments on proposals within the TRCA regulated area and this property is not within the TRCA regulated area. The Secretary-Treasurer also commented that the Official Plan policies do not require an environmental impact assessment to look at natural features or wildlife for this property. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 17 of 19 In response to concerns raised by residents, Paul Demczak indicated that the proposed four lots complies with the lot fabric in the immediate area, a construction management plan will be required, the black and white building elevation plans don’t appropriately reflect the quality of his client’s custom homes, and the proposed dwellings will be complimentary to the range of architectural styles found in the neighbourhood. In response to a question from a Committee member, Paul Demczak indicated that his client has spoken to the abutting neighbours to the north and on Rouge Hill Court and would be open to meeting with the neighbours. Paul Demczak continued to address residents comments indicating that if one dwelling were built on this property it would have the identical sittings as the proposed dwellings having 1.8 metre side yard setbacks, and two storeys at a height of a maximum of 9 metres having the same overlook and impacts on the properties to the south and on Rouge Hill Court. He also stated that his client would be happy to discuss opportunities for replacing fences and tree planting where appropriate. In response to questions from Committee members, Paul Demczak, indicated that the dwellings will have above grade square footage of about 3,600 square feet, dwellings have been designed with the architect and civil engineer to make sure that the stairs will work with the grading and design, the side yards to the abutting existing properties will be 1.8 metres, he is not aware his client is working with potential purchasers for the lots, land division applications will be submitted after favourable decision of the Committee of Adjustment, and four lots with the frontages proposed is the most appropriate development of the site. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed that variances are not requested for the side yards abutting the existing properties to the north and south, and those side yards will comply with the minimum By-law requirement of 1.8 metres. In response to a question from a Committee member, a staff member indicated that the Region of Durham has no objection to the minor variance applications. Mr. Bajwa indicated that he is not against development and is of the opinion that the severances should be handled first and the minor variances be considered after the severances. He supports further community consultation. Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 18 of 19 After listening to applicant and concerns raised by residents, considering the Committee member’s suggestion that the applicant consider revising the proposal to propose 3 lots (1 lot fronting onto Rougemount Drive and 2 lots fronting onto Rouge Hill Court), and that the applicant meet with the community to perhaps incorporate the residents’ concerns, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That applications P/CA 58/21 to P/CA 61/21 by Wiltshire Eccleston Developments Inc., be Deferred Sine Die to allow the developer an opportunity to speak with the neighbours and residents. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 14, 2021 7:00 pm Electronic Meeting Page 19 of 19 5.Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 7th meeting of the 2021 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:03 pmand the next meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, August11, 2021. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date August 11, 2021 __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer