Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 9, 2022Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 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 – Host Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Yelk, Planner I Ziya Cao, Planner I Absent (if 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, November 9, 2022 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously Due to her absence at the October 12, 2022 hearing, Denise Rundle abstained from voting. 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Tom Copeland That the minutes of the 9th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, October 12, 2022 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 16 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the October 12, 2022 Hearing) P/CA 120/22 S. Chowdhury & S. Masrin 1969 Woodview Avenue The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7389/14, to permit: • an uncovered platform (balcony) not exceeding 3.3 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 3.7 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By- law requires uncovered decks, platforms and steps not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above grade may encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard; and • a maximum lot coverage of 42.5 percent, whereas the By-law requires a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of an uncovered platform (balcony). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on 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, City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Area (TRCA). In support of the application, the applicant identified they are seeking to extend an existing balcony. Shakawat Chowdhury, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicant clarified that they are on a corner lot with the ravine at the back and the side. The deck will be at the rear of the building/property. Having read the staff report and agreeing with the recommendation, receiving no objections from the Toronto and Conservation Authority and there is no public input, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 16 That application P/CA 120/22 by S. Chowdhury & S. Masrin, 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 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 November 9, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 121/22 M. Yousaf-Zai & L. Amiri 1935 Lodge Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 4325/73, to permit an accessory structure (gazebo) greater than 1.8 metres in height to be set back a minimum of 0.4 of a metre from the north side lot line. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit a proposed accessory structure (gazebo) in the rear yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to a condition. In support of the application, the applicant identified the proposed accessory structure (gazebo) does not meet the minimum setback requirements to the north side lot line. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and one area resident. Mohammad Yousaf-Zai, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicant stated he would have moved the gazebo to another location but the posts are in the ground and it has interlocking around. He is requesting approval of this application, as it would be very costly to relocate. In response to questions from Committee members, the applicant stated the gazebo in the picture submitted to staff is the finished product, short of decorative features and reinforcing the structure. The gazebo roof slopes down to the back of the rear yard, similar to the primary dwelling, and an eavestrough is located at the front right side of the gazebo that directs water to the corner back of the property away from neighbouring houses. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 16 After hearing from the applicant, and staff’s recommendation, Eric Newton moved the following motion: Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Denise Rundle with an amended condition That application P/CA 121/22 by M. Yousaf-Zai & L. Amiri, 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 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 November 9, 2022). 2. The maximum height of the accessory structure (gazebo) shall not exceed 2.3 metres and is to remain unenclosed. Carried Unanimously 4.3 P/CA 123/22 C. Leadbetter & K. Metcalfe 1290 Commerce Street The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 7610/18, to permit an accessory building (detached garage) with a maximum height of 5.2 metres in a residential zone. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a future building permit for the construction of an accessory building (detached garage). The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on 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, City’s Building Services Section and five area residents. In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing house does not have enough storage space as there is no basement. A second floor is proposed on the detached garage for extra storage space. Corey Leadbetter, applicant, was present to represent the application. One area resident was present in favour of the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 16 The applicant stated the following in support of the application: the height of the proposed garage is no taller than the principle dwelling; the height and design is based on the needs and requirements of his growing family; they own a 100 year old farmhouse with historic value that maintains character; building a detached garage will ensure the home remains as is; Engineering comments state the construction of the garage will result in removal of many trees, however only two trees need to be removed; the trees are Manitoba maples which are undesirable due to their fast and uncontrollable growth, short life span, brittle branches that break during storms; one of two trees are growing at a 45 degree angle which poses a danger to the family; back of the lot is covered with the invasive Japanese knotweed, it is beneficial to remove those and replant native trees; planting plan can be provided if requested; and the existing driveway is made out of gravel and plans on using gravel for the garage driveway. Alanna Turney, area resident; stated the following in support of the application: house on that lot is significant to the neighbourhood as it is one of the original farmhouses in Pickering, also making it a smaller house; the garage plans follow the exact look and feel of the primary residence; does not believe the height will cause any visual impact; garage will be located far in the back of the property; and also battles Japanese knotweed on her property that can damage home foundations. In response to questions from Committee members, the applicant explained the double garage doors that line up with the driveway will be for the vehicles. The other garage door if for a workshop area, so they may view the backyard from the shop. The last garage door area will be used for storage of yard equipment and demolished material. The applicant assured a business will not be conducted out of the garage. The primary dwelling does not have a basement and storage space is an issue for the family. The second level will solve that problem. The washroom on the ground level is for convenience due to a medical condition. The space upstairs will be open for storage. The purpose of the requested height is so that when you’re on the second level you’re not having to constantly crouch while moving storage boxes. The goal was to get rid of the three existing sheds on the property as they are old and decrepit. The two pedestrian doors are requested out of convenience due to the size of the building. The front gates are going to remain. After a site visit, and considering the following: it appears that Engineering Services and City Development concerns are addressed, the desire of the applicant wanting to maintain the historic elements of the property, that the size of the yard will accommodate a structure of this size, and there appears to be a good landscaping plan proposed by the applicant, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Denise Rundle with an amended condition Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 16 That application P/CA 123/22 by C. Leadbetter & K. Metcalfe, 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 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 9, 2022). 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. 3. That a planting plan and securities for the proposed value of the proposed planting be provided to the satisfaction of Engineering Services to compensate for the removal of trees and to provide screening for the adjacent properties. 4. No human habitation or kitchen amenities are permitted within the accessory building (detached garage). Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 124/22 Met-Star Holdings Limited 1211 Kingston Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6112/03 and 6218/04, to permit: • “Restaurant – Type B” shall mean a building or part of a building where the principal business is the preparation of food and drinks for retail sale to the public for immediate consumption on or off the premises, or both on and off the premises but shall not include a nightclub • the aggregate of the gross floor area of all restaurants on the lot shall not exceed the aggregate gross floor area permitted under Section 5(2)(c)(ii) of By-law 6112/03 The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the conversion of an existing retail unit into a take-out restaurant. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on 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, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 16 Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Engineering Services, City Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). In support of the application, the applicant identified they are seeking to convert an existing retail unit into a takeout restaurant. Wajid Mansuri, agent, Yuija Hu, agent, and Hussain Naim, applicant were 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, the agent clarified the applicant is leasing the building from the property owner, the agent is representing the restaurant owner. It is believed there are two other restaurants on the property that went through the same process and was approved. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified that the definition of “Restaurant – Type B” is found within the Parent Zoning By-law 3036. It is proposed to permit the revised definition to include food consumption both on and off the premises. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent explained once building permits are issued his client plans to begin working on the project diligently. After reading the staff report, listening to the intended use and desire to open a restaurant and considering the responses from the City Development Department, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Denise Rundle with an amended condition That application P/CA 124/22 by Met-Star Holdings 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 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 November 9, 2022). 2. The aggregate of the gross floor area of all restaurants on the lot shall be the greater of 700 square metres or a total identified by the City Development Department based on the current application (City Development has identified a maximum of 1,000 square metres). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 16 4.5 P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 J. Mauch 1235 Radom Street, Units 17, 83 & 88 P/CA 125/22 – 1235 Radom Street (Unit 17) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 3991/71 & 1574/82, to permit: • an accessory dwelling unit within a multiple family dwelling unit, whereas the By-law permits an accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling; and • a total of 1.25 parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of 3 parking spaces provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located P/CA 126/22 – 1235 Radom Street (Unit 83) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 3991/71 & 1574/82, to permit: • an accessory dwelling unit within a multiple family dwelling unit, whereas the By-law permits an accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling; and • a total of 1.25 parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of 3 parking spaces provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located P/CA 127/22 – 1235 Radom Street (Unit 88) The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended by By-laws 3991/71 & 1574/82, to permit: • an accessory dwelling unit within a multiple family dwelling unit, whereas the By-law permits an accessory dwelling unit within a detached dwelling or semi-detached dwelling; and • a total of 1.25 parking spaces are provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located, whereas the By-law requires a total of 3 parking spaces provided on the property where the accessory dwelling unit is located The applicant requests approval of these minor variance applications in order to obtain permits for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the basement each of three multiple family dwelling units. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 16 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the applications and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Engineering Services, City Building Services Section, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and 45 area residents. In support of the application, the applicant identified the minimum parking requirements for ADUs are out of date. ADUs are not permitted in a townhouse, as per the By-law. Jane Man-Hung Mauch, applicant, was present to represent the applications. Four area residents and a representative of Board of Ontario Condominium Corporation 11 were present in objection to the applications. The applicant stated the following: would like to split the units internally to create additional dwelling units; design is simple and easy to construct; design doesn’t disrupt any neighbours; anticipates having 5-6 people within the units; has rented out to single families and her tenants have been in keeping with the condo regulations; will be constructed according to Ontario Building Code; will provide affordable living units during this housing crisis in Pickering and all over Ontario; would like to provide housing to her elderly parents and children while still having her own privacy within the unit; and would like her family to stay together in the coming years. Shannon Penney, a representative from Rutherford & Matthews for the Board Members of Ontario Condominium Corporation 11, stated the following in objection to the applications: units in question are within the condominium property; the directives of the corporation have an obligation to ensure the owners comply with the Condominium Act and its own governing documents mainly the declaration, by-laws and the rules; the applications should not have been accepted as the City has no jurisdiction to permit the requested changes; the Corporation’s Declaration states a unit shall be occupied only as a one family residence and prohibits roomers and boards, meaning an owner cannot rent a unit in exchange for money, no owner can install a boundary or partition wall, toilet or bathtub or shall make any structural change without written consent from the Board of Directors; the applicant advised of approval from the Corporation was given however that is untrue; for the applicant to make the requested changes the Declaration would have to be amended to remain consistent and compliant, which is an expensive process and would not benefit all property owners; the condominium building is almost 50 years old and the changes could impact the integrity of the building; applicant is violating the Corporation’s governing documents by continuing construction on the units, as well as advertising a new section or suite is available to rent; and due to the additional uses of amenities by extra tenants which will increase monthly fees for all residents. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 16 Martha Klopp, area resident, stated the following in objection to the applications: condominium declaration states we cannot have multiple units; there was no housing crisis when the applicant split unit 17 with two kitchens and a laundry room, and illegally moved two separate tenants in; and concerns about insurance costs and monthly fees going up as well as access for emergency services into the units. Aaron Phillips, area resident, stated the following in objection to the applications: lives in close proximity to units 83 and 88 and has witnessed construction continue while a Stop Order was placed; applicant is not following Condominium rules that every resident agrees to when purchasing; concerned with the integrity of the construction occurring and it not being up to Code; concerned condo fees will increase; and parking shortage in the complex. Ruth O’Shea, area resident, stated the following in objection to the applications: in addition to what has been said prior to her speaking, she is concerned with access to parking. Sue Passmore, area resident, stated the following in objection to the applications: agrees with the objections above; signed a Declaration when purchasing that all rules of the Condominium would be adhered to; the units have already been split; there are advertisements for the rental of these units; concerned with the integrity of the structures as these are older buildings; construction continuing while Stop Order has been issued; concerned with parking shortage; concerned with condo fees increasing, and the applicant owns 9 units at 1235 Radom Street, if these applications are approved she is concerned it would set precedent. In response to questions from Committee members, the Secretary-Treasurer advised unsure if Fire Services has inspected the units, however Building staff has completed inspections in all three units and indicated the work done without a building permit and issued a Stop Work Order on all three units. If an ADU is permitted all work must adhere to the Fire Code and Building Code. Details from Building staff were not received regarding the inspections. In response to questions from Committee members, the applicant stated in 2015 a building permit was obtained for unit 17 to erect two doors in the main floor hallway and the kitchen alcove and is rented out to a single family. No additional construction occurred after 2015. Unit 83 also has two doors erected and a bathroom in the basement, which was already constructed prior to purchasing the unit. Work has not continued after the Stop Work Order, she has only cleaned, painted and sanded the floor. She owns nine units within the complex. She is aware of the Condominium Declaration and has been in contact with the Condo board and the property manager. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 16 Denise Rundle, Committee member, commented that on her site visit, she did have issues finding parking, it is a very old condominium complex. The solicitor was very clear on the requirements of Condominium unit owners on the Declaration. Concerned these applications are premature and the Committee will be setting precedent for this applicant and other property owners to submit applications for ADU. In past experiences it is the Condominium who makes the application of Zoning By-law Amendment and receives a thorough review before approving. Tom Copeland, Committee member, commented that this Committee has jurisdiction over a small section of the Planning Act. Should the Committee approve the applications the Condominium Board may not accept the new variances. Sean Wiley, Committee member, commented that these applications are about two things: parking and amending multi-family dwelling unit rules for an accessory dwelling unit. The Committee has not heard solutions about how the parking will be managed or any arguments as to why multi-family units should be permitted. After reading the staff report and recommendations, reading the information provided by the applicant, listening to the neighbours and Condominium Corporation’s counsel, with the lack of parking on site currently, and the lack of attention to the ADU, Tom Copeland moved the following motion: Moved by Tom Copeland Seconded by Eric Newton That applications P/CA 125/22 to P/CA 127/22 by J. Mauch, be Refused on the grounds that the requested variances are 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 4.6 P/CA 128/22 P. Cummins 1796 Fairport Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 7874/21 & 7902/22, to permit a minimum (north and south) side yard setback of 1.5 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, whereas the By-law requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.8 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detaching dwelling. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit for the construction of a detached dwelling. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 12 of 16 The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified they are requesting approval to maximize square footage of the lot. Jerry Stockla, 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, the agent clarified the area is relatively flat and is unsure why a retaining wall is required by Engineering Services however after speaking with their Engineer it is feasible to comply with the Engineering requirements and consents to the Engineering condition. In response to a question from a Committee member, the Secretary-Treasurer explained the approved minor variance application from 2017 was for the same variance relief before the Committee tonight. After reviewing the City Development Department Report and hearing from the agent tonight and concerns with meeting Engineering Services requirements were satisfied and receiving no neighbour concerns, Sean Wiley moved the following motion: Moved by Sean Wiley Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 128/22 by P. Cummins, 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 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 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 9, 2022). 2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services must be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria for Lot Grading can be adequately addressed within the subject property. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 13 of 16 4.7 P/CA 129/22 R. Subbian & K. & T. Rajasekar 1256 Barnwood Square The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 1104/80 & 1193/80, to permit a minimum interior (south) side yard width of 0.6 of a metre, whereas the By-law requires a minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to permit an existing attached garage having a reduced interior (south) side yard. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on 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 Engineering Services and City Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified a minor variance is required due to technical discrepancies after the issuance of a building permit. Rajasekar Subbian, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The applicant explained they are looking for approval of this variance to fulfill a Zoning By-law requirement for an existing garage. The property had a preexisting garage that the Region of Durham demolished for infrastructure purposes. They had built a new garage and tried to follow all zoning by-laws however this one is not in compliance and requires a variance. In response to questions from a Committee member, the applicant explained when the property was purchased in October 2020 the original garage had already been demolished. In response to questions from Committee members, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed a copy of the survey would have been required to apply for a building permit application. After reviewing the report, the application and submitted drawings you notice this is an odd shaped lot, the variance applies to a pinch point on the garage and the staff report explains the situation, and appears there is no impact on adjacent neighbours, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Tom Copeland Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 14 of 16 That application P/CA 129/22 by R. Subbian & K. & T. Rajasekar, 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 attached garage, 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 November 9, 2022). Carried Unanimously 4.8 P/CA 130/22 Joriki Holdings Inc. 885 Sandy Beach Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit: • a minimum front yard setback of 25.3 metres when on the opposite side of the street is a Residential Zone, whereas the By-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 30.0 metres when on the opposite side of the street is a Residential Zone; • a minimum parking requirement for an industrial use to be 1 space per 192 square metres of gross floor area, whereas the By-law requires the minimum parking requirement for an industrial use shall be 1 space per 56 square metres of gross floor area; and • front yard parking to be limited to 22 percent of the total required parking area, whereas except for commercial zones used for commercial purposes, the By-law requires front yard parking to be limited to 20 percent of the total required parking area. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application to facilitate an 8,114.0 square metre addition to an existing industrial building. The Secretary-Treasurer outlined that based solely on the application and supporting documentation filed by the applicant, that City Development staff recommend approval subject to conditions. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City Engineering Services, City Building Services Section, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and one area reasident. In support of the application, the applicant identified the following: • setback of addition matches the setback of the existing building; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 15 of 16 • Traffic Report confirms that the provided parking spaces (101 spaces) is sufficient parking since the plant operates with 3 shifts; and • there is limited area available for parking at the rear of the building due to the presence of a floodplain. Bob Martindale, agent, Yogi Sennick, applicant, and Swan Im, traffic consultant, were present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent explained the setback variance is a technical variance as they provide the necessary 30 metre setback from the existing limit of Sandy Beach Road, the City will be widening the road and they were asked to convey 3.0 metres of the front yard to the City resulting them to fall out of compliance with the By-law. In regards to the parking variances, the traffic consultant completed a Traffic Report study and determined the parking requirements in the By-law were not congruent with the parking demand. The number of parking spaces provided is in excess of what is required for the number of staff onsite. In response to a question from a Committee member, the applicant explained the site has transit on Bayly Street, which is walking distance on Sandy Beach Road. There are no bus stops on Sandy Beach Road. David Johnston, Chair, commented there is a transit stop on Krosno Boulevard, down the road where the variances are proposed. After reading the report, listening to the applicant and noting the front yard setback is due to a future road widening, the parking requirement variance was well addressed in the peer reviewed Transportation Impact Study and no objections from the public, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Eric Newton That application P/CA 130/22 by Joriki Holdings 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 development, 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 November 9, 2022). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, November 9, 2022 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 16 of 16 January 11, 2023 5.Adjournment Moved by Eric Newton Seconded by Sean Wiley That the 10th hearing of the 2022 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 9:03 pm and the next hearing of the Committee of Adjustment be held on Wednesday, January 11, 2022. Carried __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer