Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 11, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 16 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Denise Rundle Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Cody Morrison, Secretary-Treasurer Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Felix Chau, Planner II Isabel Lima, Planner II Kerry Yelk, Planner I Jasmine Correia, Clerk, Support Services Absent Not applicable. 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, May 11, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3.Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 3rd hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, April 13, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 16 4. Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the April 13, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 61/22 S. Wyce & B. Grant 624 Park Crescent Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 61/22 by S. Wyce & B. Grant be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, By-law 7872/21 and By-law 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum front yard of 7.0 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum rear yard of 2.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; • a minimum north side yard of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres; • a minimum front yard of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a main building is erected upon a corner lot with its main front entrance facing the flank of such lot, such main building shall be deemed to have two front yards, one on the street upon which such lot fronts, and one on the street upon which such lot flanks, and shall conform to the respective front yard requirement of 7.5 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 23 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths up to and including 40 metres shall be 17 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 16 • a covered platform and associated uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 6.2 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, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; • an uncovered platform and associated uncovered steps (side porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.2 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, not 1.0 metre into any required side yard; and • a vehicle in the rear yard to be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from the south lot line, whereas the By-law states that vehicles parked in a rear yard must be setback a minimum 1.0 metre from the nearest lot line. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant that City staff’s recommendation from the City Development Department is recommending approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and 11 area residents. Chris Langley, agent and Sarah Grant, applicant, was present to represent the application. Carlie Weppler was present in favour of the application. Carlie Weppler spoke in favour of the application and indicated the following: support of the 40 percent lot coverage as it is common in the neighbourhood; support the variance of maximum building depth; identified this is a unique shaped lot with respect to interpretation of required setbacks and the road configuration of Park Crescent, and hopeful the Committee will approve the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Chris Langley explained raising the foundation will provide adequate head room for habitable living area and adequate window size to allow for more natural lighting within the space. The area referred to as “Front Yard #1” on the Exhibits, fronting onto Victory Drive will be acting as the resident’s rear yard space, at this time the agent is unsure whether the space will be fenced in. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 16 After listening to the applicant, the agent, as well as their responses to Committee Member’s questions, and that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 61/22 by S. Wyce & B. Grant, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022); and 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall agree to perform grading works up to the lot line to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 66/22 JMPM Holdings Ltd. & S. Golvin 1635 Bayly Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7828/21 & 6974/09, to permit an accessory outdoor storage use, whereas the By-law prohibits outdoor storage and display. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an outdoor storage area, accessory to a proposed warehouse facility. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval of the requested variances subject to a condition (note this is a revised recommendation). Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, Bill McLean, City of Pickering Regional Councillor – Ward 2 and Christine Doody-Hamilton, City of Pickering Councillor – Ward 2. Eldon Theodore, the agent, and Aaron Platt, legal counsel to the applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 16 In response to a question from a Committee Member, Eldon Theodore confirmed that the outdoor storage and display area will be subject to the Site Plan Review process and the warehouse will store items that have been seized by the federal government that will later then be disposed of. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Aaron Platt clarified that the warehouse will not store any harmful or dangerous items, it will store items such as vehicles that will then go up for auction. The warehouse will have a heightened security design to ensure security of the higher end items to be stored there. After review of the report, a very thorough presentation submitted by the applicant/agent, comments received from staff as well as the fact that this proposal will require Site Plan Approval to address the landscaping and screening of the display and storage area, and with no public objections, this application meets 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 66/22 by JMPM Holdings Ltd. & S. Golvin, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That this variance apply only to the subject lands, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 67/22 K. Ganeshalingam 2342 Heska Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit a minimum flankage (north) yard depth of 3.0 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum flankage yard depth of 4.5 metres The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a single family detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval of the requested variances subject to a condition. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 16 Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Yaso Somalingam, the 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, Yaso Somalingam explained the ground floor is raised to allow for more natural lighting in the basement, as permitted by the current zoning by-laws. Yaso Somalingam clarified the second entrance on the front façade of the building will be used as a separate entrance into the applicant’s home office. He explained incorrect information was provided to him at the Building Permit stage and therefore needs the variance to accommodate a setback of 3.0 metres. He also assured the Committee this home office is for the applicant’s own private use, and further explained that clients may attend the home office sporadically as permitted by the zoning by-laws. The agent agreed to reduce the driveway as the entrance of the driveway is in close proximity to the Martins Street and Heska Road intersection. Given that the 3.0 metre setback is supported by a generous existing boulevard on Martins Street and provides adequate separation distance between the single detached dwelling and the flanking street activity, Sean Wiley agrees the application keeps the general intent of the flankage yard setback provision. Considering support from Engineering Services, Building Services and the TRCA, that there is no public input and subject to a friendly amendment adding a condition, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wylie Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 67/22 by K. Ganeshalingam, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this variance applies only to the proposed single family detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (see Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). 2. That the applicant attempt to revise the proposed circular driveway with a hammerhead driveway. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 16 4.4 P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 Canaan Canada Developments Ltd. 1240 Bayview Street P/CA 68/22 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 47 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent; • a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum front yard depth of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a dwelling unit fronting the same street exists on each lot on either side, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average of the front yard depths of each of those dwellings. P/CA 69/22 – Part 2 on Exhibit 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92, to permit: • a maximum lot coverage of 47 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 45 percent; • a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres; and • a minimum front yard depth of 3.9 metres, whereas the By-law states that where a dwelling unit fronting the same street exists on each lot on either side, the minimum front yard depth shall be the average of the front yard depths of each of those dwellings. The applicant is in the process of severing the property resulting in two lots. The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to construct a detached dwelling on each lot. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and one area resident. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 16 Joel Gerber, the 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, Joel Gerber stated there are no flat topped roofs in that immediate stretch of Bayview Street. He has noticed an upward trend in this area of residents attempting to maximize useable space on these residential lots, in lieu of having an underutilized attic space. In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer indicated the subject address is not located in one of the Established Neighbourhoods and therefore is not subject to the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing. Given that the lot coverage variance and minimum front yard depth seem to be minor in nature. The height variance from 7.5 metres to 9.0 metres seems to be appropriate given that the third floor of both buildings are setback in order to minimize the impact on the street view. Considering no comments were received from Engineering Services, Building Services or public input Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 68/22 & P/CA 69/22 by Canaan Canada Developments Ltd., 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 70/22 S. & S. Ahmed 1632 Winville Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 7022/10, to permit: • uncovered steps and a platform to be setback a minimum of 0.3 of a metre from an interior side lot line, whereas the By-law requires a covered or uncovered porch, veranda or balcony and with or without a foundation to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metre from an interior side lot line. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 16 The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the construction of an above grade staircase leading to an entrance of an accessory dwelling unit. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Fredi Fazli the 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, Fredi Fazili clarified that maintenance of the backyard is not a concern of the applicant because the backyard is paved. The uncovered steps and platform provides the owners access to the backyard as well as access to an entry door that leads into the home’s basement apartment. Mr. Fazili confirmed that this is a single detached dwelling with a basement apartment containing two bedrooms, a washroom and a kitchen. He also confirmed the platform, stairs and railing are existing. To allow for further site inspections by the Committee Members, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 70/22 by S. & S. Ahmed, be Deferred to the June 8, 2022 hearing to allow Committee Members to conduct site inspections. Carried Unanimously 4.6 P/CA 72/22 K. & J. Avis 1272 1274 Wharf Street & 595 Annland Street The applicant requests that, under Section 45.2(a) Other Powers of the Planning Act, the legal non-conforming residential use be extended to permit the construction of an accessory structure for the storage of a personal boat; And The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 3179, to permit: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 16 • a new accessory building for the storage of a personal boat to be erected in the front yard, whereas the By-law states that all accessory buildings which are not part of the main building shall be erected in the rear yard; and • the total lot coverage for all accessory buildings to be 6 percent of the lot area, whereas the By-law states that the total lot coverage of all accessory buildings, excluding private detached garages, shall not exceed 5 percent of the lot area. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an accessory structure for the storage of a personal boat. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources have been received from the City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Peter Barton, the 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, Peter Barton clarified that the boathouse dimensions are roughly 25 feet by 35 feet, allow the applicant to have a workbench, tools and materials in order to perform regular maintenance on their boat. This structure is not intended to act as communal boat storage area for neighbouring residents. Given the context and location of the lot, this application seems to be appropriate for the development of the land, and considering responses by the agent, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 72/22 by K. & J. Avis, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed accessory structure for the storage of one personal boat, 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 May 11, 2022). Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 16 2. That if the residential use of the property is discontinued, that these variances become null and void. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 73/22 M. Charles & M. Boivin 1368 Gull Crossing The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 7528/16, to permit a balcony to encroach into the required rear yard to a maximum of 1.3 metres, whereas the By-law permits a porch or uncovered deck to encroach into any required rear yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to facilitate the construction of a balcony. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Mitchell Charles, the applicant, 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, Mitchell Charles confirmed the residence backs onto Frenchman’s Bay Memorial Park. After reviewing the report, considering the applicant’s comments pertaining to the rear yard balcony projection, that the by-law is silent with respect to balconys, this is a minor decrease on the allowed maximum 2.0 metre encroachment, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 73/22 by M. Charles & M. Boivin, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 16 1. That this variance apply only to the balcony, 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 May 11, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 74/22 C. & S. Macaluso 1525 Kodiak Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06: • to permit an accessory structure (shed) to be located less than 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands), whereas the By-law requires all buildings or structures to be located a minimum of 30 metres from the base of the outermost tree trunks within a woodland (Significant Woodlands); • to permit a proposed accessory building (shed) measuring 22.3 square metres in area, whereas the By-law requires no accessory buildings and/or structures to exceed 10 square metres in area; and • to permit a maximum lot coverage of 15 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 10 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a shed, pergola, and to extend an existing cabana. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources have been received from the City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and two area residents. The Host was unable to connect with the applicant and the time the application was ready to be heard. Given that the Committee Members have questions regarding the application, and the applicant not being present to represent the application, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 16 That application P/CA 74/22 by C. & S. Macaluso, be Deferred to the following Hearing or until the host is able to contact the Applicant prior to the adjournment of this Hearing. Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 75/22 K. Brown 4984 Canso Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06, to permit an accessory dwelling unit with a maximum floor area of 147 square metres, whereas the By-law establishes the maximum floor area of an accessory dwelling unit shall be 100 square metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to permit an accessory dwelling unit. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and two area residents. Nathan Proctor, the agent and Kristina Brown, the applicant were present to represent the application. Carol and Rob Timmings and David and Julie Badurina were present in objection to the application. Carol and Rob Timmings appeared in objection to the application and stated the following: this request is not minor in nature and would provide a 50 percent increase of the current By-law; concerned that this would reduce the open space to their property line; it is not in keeping with the distance of spacing between houses on Canso Drive; the proposed design of this structure very much resembles a duplex because it is over 1,500 square feet; it is not representative of the houses in the neighbourhood; and respectfully ask for other solutions be explored for an in-law dwelling unit. David and Julie Badurina appearing in objection to the application and indicated the following: this request should not be characterized as minor in nature due to 50percent deviation from the By-law; the underlying policy for the accessory dwelling by-law has been disregarded; if granted this would set a precedent in the neighbourhood and would represent a shift from the original intent for this street; in a practical sense the Committee would be allowing for a duplex due to the increase of the floor square area after the project is complete; by granting this request it would alter the look and feel for the street; house values would be changed and certain buyers would be dissuaded from purchasing their house; and other alternatives should be explored by the applicant and agent that would comply to the By-Laws as this is a big lot with lots of space. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 16 In response to a question from a Committee Member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained that the side yard requirement is 1.8 metres therefore the proposed addition does meet the minimum zoning by-law requirements. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Nathan Proctor explained that when the floor area calculations were made for the apartment they took into account the exterior wall as well as the proposed elevator shaft. The total overage of the floor area is not only to accommodate the spare bedroom but to allow for proper wheelchair accessibility and to meet the requirements for an elevator shaft. Removing the spare bedroom would not change the size of the dwelling but the space would be used for something else. He explained their firm employs an Aging in Place Specialist and the front door is required for EMS as well as for accessibility for the elderly. Mr. Proctor stated there are multiple homes on Acorn Street that have a two door entrances. A lot of care and aesthetics has been invested to ensure this is appealing for the neighbourhood. After listening to the applicant, considering immediate residents’ input and other member’s questions, Denise Rundle recognizes the additional floor space for this ADU would not necessarily be visible and the applicant could technically get a building permit for this dwelling today and would satisfy the City’s objective of the By-Law allowing for the construction of accessory dwellings, considering there are no setback issues. There is the issue of the 50 percent increase in the size of the unit, it must be ancillary to the primary dwelling unit, which are substantial dwellings on spacious lots. If this variance were to be granted then the possibility for this specific Aging in Place dwelling to, in the future, be turned an apartment is viable, which would then double the density on the street. Denise Rundle finds that this application does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-Law of 100 square metres passed by Council and moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 75/22 by K. Brown, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, is not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Carried Unanimously 4.10 P/CA 74/22 C. & S. Macaluso 1525 Kodiak Street After several attempts, the Host was able to connect with the applicant. The Chair dispensed with the reading of the application as it was already read out. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 16 Colleen Macaluso, the applicant, 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, Colleen Macaluso explained that they may add a split A/C and heating unit in the cabana so that it may be used comfortably in the Fall, Spring and Summer. It will also act as storage of the lawn furniture. The lawn shed will not be heated, there will be storage for lawn appliances such as gardening tools, lawnmower, etc. She also ensured that the cabana is not intended to be used for residential purposes in the future. After reading the staff report, listening to the applicant’s presentation and response to questions, reviewing the input from other sources and TRCA having no objections to the minor variance Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 74/22 by C. & S. Macaluso, 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 Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the existing detached dwelling, proposed and existing accessory structures (shed, pergola, and cabana) as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plan (refer to Exhibit 2, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated May 11, 2022). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, May 11, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 16 June 8, 2022 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 4th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:00 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, June 8, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer