Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 8, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 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 Kerry Yelk, Planner I Jasmine Correia, Clerk, Support Services 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, June 8, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 4th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, May 11, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 16 4. Reports 4.1 (Tabled at the April 13, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 45/22 B. Atique 2030 Duberry Road Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 45/22 by B. Atique be lifted from the table. Carried Unanimously The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1976/85, to recognize a minimum interior side yard width of 0.1 metres one side (north), 0.6 metre other side (south), whereas the By-law permits a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres one side, 0.6 metres other side. The requested variance is intended to recognize existing below grade stairs proposed to be covered. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend refusal. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and one area resident. Abhishek Rajgor, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Abhishek Rajgor explained that the variance is to permit a covered roof on top of the stairs, will not be an enclosed structure, it will be a roof held up by 6x6 posts so the owners will have protection from the snow. The roof will be aligned with the stairs and drainage will be contained to the property. The neighbour emailed City staff to state they have no objections with the application. In response to emergency services being able to have access from the side yard, the stairs are existing and currently complies with the By-law, the roof’s dimensions will not extend beyond the existing stairs. In response to questions from Committee Members, Abhishek Rajgor clarified he submitted a plan and elevations to the City for review showing the wood posts and that the roof would follow the stair profile. They are intending for the drainage to be directed to the east and west, away from the property line and the neighbour’s property. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 16 The agent understands the drainage is not shown clearly on the site plans, however ensures drawings will be submitted for City’s review. The existing ground condition around the stairs is sod/grass, it was also explained that it slopes towards the rear yard. Abhishek Rajgor indicated the staircase may have been constructed five years ago. The length of the staircase is 4.09 metres/13 feet. After a site visit of the property the project looks workable, however based on the information provided to the Committee there is not enough evidence to support that the drainage is being adequately addressed, especially with how close this is to the property line. Although the neighbour has no objections to the application, they are concerned with the water flow. In addition to that, City Development acknowledges concerns with Emergency Services being able to access the rear yard. Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 45/22 by B. Atique, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variance is not minor in nature, 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 4.2 (Deferred at the May 11, 2022 Hearing) 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. The applicant requests approval of this variance 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. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 16 Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. Saif Ahmed, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Saif Ahmed stated on final inspection the City advised the stairs and landing were okay and that the City Development staff advised this variance is minor in nature. In response to questions from Committee Members, Saif Ahmed explained that maintenance is manageable as there is no grass or other shrubbery in the rear yard to maintain. It is fairly simple to pass a shovel or broom by that area in order to clean and does not need to access the neighbour’s property in order to maintain that area. Unsure whether the railings are required by the Building Code, but a City Inspector and Engineering Services approved those plans with the railing indicated on it. Explained when an inspector visited for a final inspection he noted the landing was not properly indicated on the plans, the side entrance was but not the staircase therefore a minor variance application would be required in order for it to comply with the zoning. Saif Ahmed confirmed an inspector and engineer were present for the final inspection of the entrance. Initially there was a platform and steps in order to pass through materials for the construction of the basement. His architect provided specs for the steps and was told if the steps were lowered a permit would not be required. Saif Ahmed confirmed a City Inspector informed him if the steps were below 23.0 metres he would no longer require a permit. Saif Ahmed did not check the zoning by-law because the Engineer, Tran BIEU and Associates, did not advise he would need to. After performing a site visit and viewing the staircase in question, considering the 0.3 metre setback is only for a portion of the side of the house, recognizing maintenance of that area seems to be manageable, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 70/22 by S. & S. Ahmed, 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 property, 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 8, 2022). Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 16 Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson opposed Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sean Wiley in favour 4.3 P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 8831467 Canada Limited 1421 Rougemount Drive P/CA 105/21 – Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • minimum north and south side yards of 1.5 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 1.8 metres; and • a maximum dwelling depth of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres. P/CA 106/21 – Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, By-law 7874/21 and By-law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 15.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres; • minimum north and south side yards of 1.5 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 1.8 metres; and • a maximum dwelling depth of 22 metres, whereas the By-law states that the maximum dwelling depth for lots with depths greater than 40 metres shall be 20 metres. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 16 The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to construct two detached dwellings. 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 were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and 14 area residents. Muhammad Khan, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Muhammad Khan explained the intent of this severance aligns with the rest of Rougemount Drive north of Kingston Road. Most of the houses are 50 feet wide with 1.5 metre side yards. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Muhammad Khan explained he and his architect did research on the immediate neighbourhood and they found that all 24 newly built houses had 1.5 metre setback. In keeping with the neighbourhood he would like relief from this By-law in order to construct a 2-car garage and a home that has the same curb appeal to match the rest of the houses on that road. If they kept the 1.8 metre setback, the garage would overpower the home and would not fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood. Regarding water management, the required grading plan will be submitted. The proposed 1.5 metre side yards provide sufficient space to accommodate the grading, swale and proper drainage. After a site inspection of the street, reading the planning staff report, considering support letters from the neighbours, reading comments received by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that involved conveyance of the access rear yard, considering that the application for land severance has already been considered by the Region and trusting the conditions that will be imposed on the severance will address a number of technical items that the Committee often hears about, these variances appear to be consistent with newer developments on Rougemount Drive, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That applications P/CA 105/21 & P/CA 106/21 by 8831467 Canada Limited, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 16 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed lots and 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 June 8, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 76/22 M. Iqbal 1866 Fairport Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 & By law 7902/22, to permit: • a minimum (south) side yard of 1.4 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a minimum side yard depth of 1.8 metres; (deleted by applicant at hearing) and • a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metres, whereas the By-law establishes a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres (variance and plans modified by the Committee of Adjustment at the hearing). 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 single detached dwelling. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely upon the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City staff recommend approval of the requested variance to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 25.0 metres subject to a conditions, and refuse the requested variance to permit a minimum (south) side yard of 1.4 metres. Input from other sources have been received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and one area resident. Joanne Ying, agent, and Muhammad Iqbal, applicant, were present to represent the application. Ralph Allison was present in objection to the application. In response to a question from a Committee member, Joanne Ying stated after speaking with the neighbour to the south the drawings will be revised to comply with the required minimum 1.8 metre south side yard setback. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 16 Ralph Allison, owner of 1856 Fairport Road, south of the subject property, is in objection to the application. The following reasons were given: the City of Pickering allows for a depth of 20.0 metres, allowing a variance permitting a building depth of 25.0 metres is not minor as the total depth of the house would be 16.5 feet and that does not include the covered porch on the back; he is worried this home will overshadow around 50 feet of his backyard which will cause an issue to his wife’s garden and will be unappealing when trying to enjoy their backyard; worried construction of this house will cause damage to his plants along the lot line; by-laws are made for a reason and should be adhered to, not broken; and concerned construction material will encroach onto his property to facilitate the making of this home. In response to a question from a Committee Member, Ralph Allison confirmed the north side of the property between his property and the subject address is fenced. In response to questions from Committee Members, Joanne Ying stated a Shadow Study has not been completed but can provide one. The dwelling GFA will be 276 square metres (3,000 feet) for the ground floor and second floor. The height to the mid line of the roof is 8.9 metres, which complies with the Zoning By-law. Joanne Ying confirmed there are two doors located on the south side wall, one that leads into the mud room and the other leads into the study/library. The windows can be replaced if the proposed door placement is a concern. The reason why they are requesting the 25.0 metre building depth variance is to accommodate a growing family. The Secretary-Treasurer, clarified within By-law 7874/21 the maximum building depth is measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of the dwelling. Joanne Ying, confirmed the width of the home is 78 feet by 40 feet, approximately 3,000 square feet per floor. Confirmed the measurement of 25 metres on the plan is including the covered porch, the main wall measurement is 23.62 metres. Mohammed Iqbal, the applicant, stated the home will accommodate him, his wife and their four children. They are looking for a 5 bedroom home and most dwellings in the area are 4 bedroom houses so he decided to build his own home. This is approximately a 5,500 square foot house, which is normal in that area. The covered deck goes up to the swimming pool. There are many trees along the south lot line and feels the extra depth will not impact any visibility issues. In response to questions from Committee Members, Joanne Ying clarified the south wall depth, excluding the covered porch is 21.62 metres. The shed set to be demolished in the rear yard is 5.7 metres in length. It is a one-storey shed with a peaked roof. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 16 Given the depth and size of the property, a proposed extra building depth of 1.6 metres on the south side does not seem excessive. Also given the concerns of the neighbour to the south, and the potential for some shadowing impact, a modification is proposed to address these concerns. The proposed modification is intended to permit a maximum dwelling depth of 23.62 metres on the north side (as shown on the submitted site plan and measured from the proposed front yard setback of 12 metres to the main rear wall excluding the proposed front porch) while limiting the maximum dwelling depth on the south side to a maximum of 21.6 metres (measured from the proposed front yard setback of 12 metres to the main rear wall). The proposed rear covered porch is not permitted beyond maximum permitted dwelling depth on the south side. Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 76/22 by M. Iqbal, 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 the submitted plans be revised to show a minimum (south) side yard of 1.8 metres. 2. That a maximum dwelling depth of 23.62 metres on the north side (measured from the proposed front yard setback of 12 metres to the main rear wall excluding the proposed front porch) is permitted. A maximum dwelling depth of 21.6 metres on the south side (measured from the proposed front yard setback of 12 metres to the main rear wall) is permitted. 3. That the proposed rear covered porch is not permitted beyond the maximum dwelling depth of 21.6 metres on the south side. 4. 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. 5. That this variance applies only to the proposed detached dwelling, as generally sited and outlined on the plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 as amended). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 16 4.5 P/CA 77/22 N. Ajdarevic 1815 Spruce Hill Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent, whereas the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent. The applicant requests approval of this variance 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 Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and Amanda Lazardis. Michael Perger, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from Committee Members, Michael Perger stated the dwelling will be 6,500 square feet. Explained the garage is a little wider than the existing driveway due to it being a three car garage. The allowable coverage is 33 percent, the dwelling would only be over 3 percent, a lot of the coverage is being used for the veranda at the rear of the home. The veranda is included in the final lot coverage which is why the variance is being requested. After listening to the Applicant’s responses to Committee Member’s questions, understanding how large the family is and that the home alone is a 36 percent coverage, having the rear covered porch utilizing most of the allowed coverage Tom Copland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 77/22 by N. Ajdarevic, 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 proposed detached dwelling, 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 June 8, 2022). Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 16 Carried Vote: Tom Copeland in favour David Johnson in favour Eric Newton in favour Denise Rundle opposed Sean Wiley in favour 4.6 P/CA 78/22 H. Sanghera 402 Woodsmere Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4508/94, to permit: • a minimum rear yard depth of 4.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard of 7.5 metres; and • a maximum lot coverage of 49 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 38 percent. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a patio covering. 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 were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and seven area residents. Harprit Sanghera, applicant and Praful Bharadia, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Harprit Sanghera has lived in the home since 2019. Since COVID him and his wife have been looking forward to appreciating their home more and are looking to facilitate this covered porch to replace the current freestanding gazebo. Under the current by-law, the required minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres is not practical nor would allow for much option for a covered patio to be protected from the weather. With regards to the second variance, the current build of the home has a lot coverage of 37 percent, this would not allow us to build anything outside of the home without a variance. Seven immediate neighbours provided letters of support for the plans within his property. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 16 In response to questions from a Committee Member, Harprit Sanghera explained there are no plans to enclose the patio and would agree to a second condition to ensure the patio would not be enclosed. Confirmed the neighbour on the side is aware of the variance application and has not received any objections from his neighbour on the corner but no written support was received. After reading the documentation from the City Development Department, listening to the applicant’s reasons for the variances and the plans, as well as the City’s recommendation for approval of the application Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley That application P/CA 78/22 by H. Sanghera, 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 subject property, 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 8, 2022). 2. That the patio or any part thereof not be enclosed. Carried Unanimously 4.7 P/CA 79/22 J. Charles 846 Zator Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520 to recognize a minimum (north) side yard of 0.2 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard of 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to recognize an existing covered deck projecting into the required (north) side yard. 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 were received from the Applicant and City’s Engineering Services. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 16 Jacqueline Charles, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Jacqueline Charles explained the neighbour to the north has no objections and is in full support of the application. To the best of her knowledge the deck was built in the 1970s. A survey she received dated in the 1980s shows the structure. Given that this application is a byproduct of interior alteration work and noting the deck structure was constructed 40 years ago, recognizing the applicant wishing to continue enjoying the deck and that there are no public input or written submissions, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 79/22 by J. Charles, 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 property, 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 June 8, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 80/22 C. Warren 618 Springview Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1837/84 & 1964/85, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 5.1 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 facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of a one-storey addition to an existing detached dwelling. 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 were received from the Applicant and City’s Engineering Services. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 16 Carolyn Warren, applicant, and Daniele Orsini, agent, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Daniele Orsini, agent, is requesting this variance in order to accommodate a rear yard addition of 14.21 square metres. A Committee member reminded the agent that the applicant will need to ensure Engineering Services is satisfied when it comes to increased lot coverage and reduced setbacks to ensure drainage patterns are not affected. Given 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 Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 80/22 by C. Warren, 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 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 8, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.9 P/CA 81/22 SBB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc. Northwest corner of Highway 407 and Sideline 24 (Block 11 within Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2011-03) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 7364/14, as amended, to permit: • parking between a building and the front lot line, whereas the By-law states that in no case shall parking be permitted between a building and the front lot line; • a primary entrance door to be incorporated into the side yard wall of the building, whereas the By-law states that a primary entrance door shall be incorporated into the front wall of the building facing the front lot line; and • a maximum front yard of 46.1 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum front yard of 5.0 metres. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 16 The applicant requests approval of these variances to obtain Site Plan Approval and to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of an industrial building. 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 were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Carmine Caravaggio, agent, and Paula Bustard were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Carmine Caravaggio, agent, is requesting approval of this minor variance application to facilitate the development of and industrial building in the Seaton lands. The proposed building will serve as their tenant’s headquarters. They intend to provide a high class building with an attractive streetscape on all frontages. They’ve been working with the City to determine the front yard and the application is a byproduct of a unique lot configuration. The staff report has been read and there are no concerns. In response to a question from a Committee member, Carmine Caravaggio and Paula Bustard stated the building will act as corporate headquarters for their tenant. It will contain an office and warehouse component and will be their Canadian head office. They will be relocating the front yard to the side yard, so it will look like the front entrance of a typical warehouse building. Corner features will be extenuated where the offices will be located, as well as extra glazing and paneling to help differentiate and highlight those corners as well as different material will be used to make the building look more aesthetically pleasing. They are currently working with the City for partial registration of the Block. The original draft plan and registration was completed through Infrastructure Ontario (IO) and the applicant is purchasing land from IO which will close later this month. The applicant is working with the City to clear the conditions, and to build and construct Street A which will create this lot. It is hoped that the plan will be registered and the road constructed in the next couple of months. Sean Wiley recused himself and abstained from voting on the application once he became aware of the Purchasing Agreement with IO. To avoid a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, stated he too will abstain from voting on the application. Having read the report and understanding how these variances came to be due to the lot configuration. Given that there were no issues raised by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ministry of Transportation and the public, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, June 8, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 16 July 13, 2022 Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 81/22 by SBB Industrial (Seaton) GP Inc., be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed industrial building, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 3, contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated June 8, 2022). Carried 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the 5th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:54 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, July 13, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer