Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 13, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 12 Present Tom Copeland – Vice-Chair David Johnson – Chair Eric Newton Sean Wiley Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Yelk, Planner I Andy MacGillivray, Committee Coordinator – Host Jasmine Correia, Clerk, Support Services Absent Denise Rundle Lesley Dunne, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. To avoid a tie vote, David Johnson, Chair, will abstain from voting on the applications. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the agenda for the Wednesday, July 13, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That the minutes of the 5th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, June 8, 2022 be adopted. Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 12 4. Reports 4.1 P/CA 82/22 K. & D. Lebo 716 Simpson Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 4139/92, to permit: • a minimum front yard depth of 5.5 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; • a maximum building height of 9.0 metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum building height of 7.5 metres (variance modified by the Committee of Adjustment at the hearing to the height of 8.8 metres); • a covered platform and associated covered and uncovered steps (front porch) not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.0 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 roof soffit and eavestrough not projecting more than 1.3 metres into the required front yard, whereas the By-law states that no person shall obstruct in any manner whatsoever any front yard, side yard or rear yard required to be provided by this By-law, but this provision shall not apply to main eaves, belt courses, chimney breasts, sills or cornices not projecting more than 0.5 metres into the required yard. The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate the submission of an application for Building Permit to permit the construction of an 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, City’s Building Services, City’s Engineering Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). In support of the application, the agent/applicant indicated the following: • the front yard setback reduction and soffit encroachment variances are requested in order to maintain an acceptable rear setback to the provincially significant wetland and environmental features. The majority of the front elevation is set back over 7.0 metres, which exceeds the current minimum; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 12 • the covered porch encroachment is permitted to allow a covered area for the homeowners access and is in keeping with current City policies and initiatives; • the building height variance is required in order to maintain the required building elevation levels for openings and finished space, set by TRCA staff during initial discussions; the requested height of 9.0 metres is in keeping with current City policies and current by-laws; and • the uncovered stair encroachment is required due to the exterior stairs needed to get from the TRCA-required finished floor elevation down to the proposed grade. Samantha Bateman, agent, was present to represent the application. One area resident was present to voice concerns on the development. Samantha Bateman, agent, stated the majority of these variances are being requested as they are actively working with TRCA through a preliminary assessment, and eventually will obtain a detailed permit. They are working closely with staff to figure out the elevations of the building and setbacks from the wetlands. Jeff Skelton, area resident, stated the following: they are directly across the street from the subject property and wants to speak to the height and distance from the road; for many years they were told there would be bungalows along the waterfront and that has slowly changed to two-storey homes; this will be the third two-storey home on the street and it will really impede the quality of life and their views; 7.5 metres is tall as it is, now they are requesting a 9.0 metre home that will affect the views of this street and the street behind them; sometimes by-laws are generous in the first place; and over the years the views of the waterfront has become smaller. In response to a questions from Committee Members, Samantha Bateman, agent, stated they do not have any more detailed measurements or information at this time. They are at the point where they need things to move along in order to create detailed drawings to get to the stage of knowing those exact heights. TRCA staff set the finished floor elevation and they would have to work up from there. Although the current drawings state the height of the home will be 8.73 metres they are requesting 9.0 metres so they don’t have to return to the Committee for further approval once they receive that detailed elevation and grading. It is a unique situation because these are new policies that have come into effect since they completed the construction of the home at 714 Simpson Avenue. There are new policies based on the elevation on the property that the TRCA considers that the flood level on the property, plus a buffer space of an extra 0.3 metres and they are not able to have finished flooring, any living space or opening below that height. That is why the ground floor is pushed up, because of that elevation. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 12 Jeff Skelton, area resident, stated he sympathizes with pushing the ceiling higher; it is primarily because that property takes on water quite heavily if there is any rise in water levels. In fact, over the years TRCA heavily sandbagged that property to keep water from running into the road. He does not believe this warrants a taller building, just because they did not realize they bought a lot that is affected by the water levels. I have read the City Development Department report, and the comments from the agent and the neighbour are appreciated. In this part of the City we have a lot of challenges with height requirements. Height is the element of this application the Members need to be scrutinizing, the other elements of the application meet the four tests of the Planning Act. On the issue of height there are a few other homes that were approved for 8.5 metres and one for 9.5 metres. Considering the agent believes the height of the home would be 8.73 metres, the height variance will be approved for 8.8 metres rather than the requested 9.0 metres. Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 82/22 by K. & D. Lebo, 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 addition to the existing 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 July 13, 2022). Carried 4.2 P/CA 83/22 C. Weary 1703 Aberfoyle Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1837/84 and By law 1964/85 to permit uncovered steps and platform not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.1 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres in any required front or rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this application in order to recognize an existing uncovered deck with steps. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 12 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 was received from the Applicant, City’s Building Services and City’s Engineering Services. In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing deck in rear yard is 0.51 metres too close to the rear property line. Eric Weary, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Eric Weary, applicant, stated the purpose of this application is to recognize an existing deck in his rear yard, built in 2006. He inadvertently built it 51 centimeters too close to the rear property line. The reason it is too close to the property line is that he accidentally noted the dimensions as feet instead of metres when speaking to the City. In response to questions from Committee Members, Eric Weary stated he built the deck himself, no permit was required due to the height. After hearing from the applicant and how the deck came about, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 83/22 by C. Weary, 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 existing uncovered deck with steps, 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 July 13, 2022). Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 12 4.3 P/CA 84/22 S. Saeed & A. Al-Mutairi 1470 Old Forest Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036 to permit the extension of a legal non-conforming residential building. The applicant requests under Section 45(2)(a) Other Powers of the Planning Act, that the legally non-conforming building be permitted to be enlarged or extended in order to obtain a Building Permit for the construction of second storey addition. 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 was received from the Applicant, the City’s Building Services, the City’s Engineering Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. In support of the application, the applicant identified their existing house footprint is small (51.97 square metres), and that by providing a 7.5 metre setback to the proposed 2nd storey addition, the proposed 2nd storey will be even smaller than the ground floor are. Proposed is one bedroom only, and a 2nd bedroom is needed for their daughter. Adel Al-Mutairi, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Adel Al-Mutairi, applicant, explained his house is on the west side of Old Forest Road. The land slopes downward from the street. The finished ground floor is 8 feet below the street level and they have a bungalow, so the interior ceiling is almost at the same level of the street. They would like to make an extension of their existing house, exactly on the footprint of the existing bungalow. The area of the existing ground floor is almost 52 square metres. They would like to build the same size of the existing ground floor on the second floor. The legal nonconforming front setback is 5.99 metres and the required setback is 7.5 metres. The applicant considers the requested variance to be minor in nature and request that this application be approved. In response to a question from Committee Members, Adel Al-Mutairi explained that the existing front setback is 5.99 metres and the new addition will have the same setback. Having read the staff report, reviewed the drawings in the Agenda package and drawings and elevations provided from the applicant to the City, seeing that there are no objections to this application from other parties, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 12 Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 84/22 by S. Saeed & A. Al-Mutairi, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is 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, 4, 5, 6 & 7 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated July 13, 2022). Carried 4.4 P/CA 85/22 D. Leue 1447 Rougemount Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2912/88, to permit an uncovered platform and associated steps not exceeding 1.6 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.2 metres into the required south side 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. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered deck located along the south and east walls of the dwelling. The purpose of the deck is to provide pedestrian access from the front yard to the rear 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 was received from the Applicant, the City Building Services, the City Engineering Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). In support of the application, the applicant identified they require access to the garage rear door and back yard from the driveway. Due to existing grade and drainage required by the TRCA and without compromising the 0.6 metre buffer zone on south property line, a raised wood deck is required. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 12 Derrick Leue, applicant, and Cassie O’Neill, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Cassie O’Neill, agent, stated this submission is to provide access to the rear yard. When the new dwelling was built, this access was not initially considered, now it is their intention to keep any access as minimally invasive as possible to the land and the water flow along that side and address water issues underneath the deck with their expertise in stormwater management. In response to questions from Committee Members, Cassie O’Neill explained there is access on the other side of the building. However on this side (rear) of the building there is a garage door to allow for utility, and exercise equipment, etc. It would be cumbersome to bring access through the other side of the house, and through the garden area that they want to maintain for TRCA. They think the best option is to make a minimal deck along the back and side of the house to allow the residents to retrieve things from that side of the house. The space between the deck and the property line is 2.5 feet. The measurement from the property line to the neighbour’s lot is unknown, however the neighbour has their driveway in between the lot line and their dwelling. The agent indicated the neighbour is more than okay with the proposal. Derrick Leue has offered to plant some trees on their property. There are existing cedars towards the rear yard, and they will be planting shrubbery around the side of the house. After reading the report, listening to the agent’s responses, clarifying how this will work, and receiving no negative feedback from neighbours or TRCA, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 85/22 by D. Leue, 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 uncovered deck located along the south and east walls of the 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 July 13, 2022). Carried Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 12 4.5 P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra 1485 Altona Road P/CA 86/22 – 1485 Altona Road, Part 1 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, 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 north side yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum south side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum dwelling height of 9.8 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; P/CA 87/22 – 1485 Altona Road, Part 2 The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 and 7902/22, 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 north side yard setback of 1.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a minimum south side yard setback of 1.5 metres, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres; • a maximum dwelling depth of 27.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum dwelling depth of 20.0 metres for lots with depths greater than 40.0 metres; • a maximum dwelling height of 10.2 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; • a maximum front entrance elevation of 1.35 metres, whereas the By-law requires a maximum front entrance elevation of 1.2 metres (withdrawn by applicant at the hearing). The applicant requests approval of these variances in order to facilitate a consent application conditionally approved by the Durham Region Land Division Committee to sever the property resulting in a total of two lots and to facilitate the submission of building permit applications to permit two detached dwellings. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 12 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 was received from the Applicant, City Building Services and City Engineering Services. In support of the application, the applicant identified the requested minor variances required to facilitate a previously approved Land Division Application (LD 083/21) that was approved with conditions, and variances required to permit the construction of two detached dwellings. Antonio Greco, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Antonio Greco, agent, deleted the requested front yard elevation variance from P/CA 87/22, as after receiving and reviewing the grading plans, this variance is no longer required. In response to questions from the Committee Members, Antonio Greco explained that the height variance is required for the retained lot due to the design and use of the ground floor plan. The clients wanted a decent entertainment space to host themselves and their family and friends. At the rear of the building, the second floor is 17.0 metres in depth. Only the ground floor portion extends beyond the maximum building depth. They tried to mitigate any adverse obstructions to the neighbouring property by limiting the portion of the building that extends beyond the maximum building depth to a one storey rear yard bump out. It is very easy to build within the by-laws on a 100 foot lot, but once they move down to 50 foot lots it becomes more difficult. The owners would like to squeeze out as much useable area as they can, increase the curbside appeal and minimize the impact of the garage from the street view. It is also his understanding and confirmed in the staff report the intent of the minimum side yard of 1.8 metres is mainly to accommodate drainage and to provide sufficient room for maintenance of the dwelling. At the request of City Engineering Services, the southernmost dwelling shifted north by 0.3 metres to the satisfaction of Engineering Services. Having read the staff report, driving by the site several times a week, listening to the agent’s responses to questions, seeing no input from neighbours, and no conditions recommended from other sources, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Sean Wiley Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 12 That applications P/CA 86/22 & P/CA 87/22 by S. Pathmanathan & H. Sathyendra, 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 lots and detached dwellings, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, & 8 contained in the staff report to Committee of Adjustment, dated July 13, 2022). Carried 4.6 P/CA 88/22 C. Pierre 1178 Tanzer Court The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 1299/81, to permit a minimum rear yard depth of 3.75 metres for an uncovered deck, whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this variance in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered rear deck. 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 was received from the Applicant, City Engineering Services and City Building Services. In support of the application, the applicant indicated the by-law states that the distance from rear fence to the planned end of deck needs to be 7.5 metres. Distance from rear fence to house is roughly 10.0 metres. The applicant indicated that they love the area, have been working hard for past 40 years plus, are planning on retiring soon, enjoy sitting in back yard, and it is impossible to build an approximate 1.0 metre deck. Bervin Reid, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. In response to questions from the Committee Members, Bervin Reid, explained the height of the deck is 18 inches. The back of the lot is fenced in with aluminum fencing with a driveway to the parking lot of St. Martin’s Anglican Church. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, July 13, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 12 August 10, 2022 After hearing from the applicants, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That application P/CA 88/22 by C. Pierre, 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 uncovered rear deck, as generally sited and outlined on the applicant’s submitted plans (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to Committee of Adjustment, dated July 13, 2022). Carried 5. Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 6th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 7:51 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2022. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer