Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 9, 2023Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 1 of 11 Present Omar Ha-Redeye Denise Rundle – Vice-Chair Sakshi Sood Joshi Rick Van Andel Sean Wiley – Chair Also Present Deborah Wylie, Secretary-Treasurer Jasmine Correia, Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Kerry Yelk, Planner I – Host Ziya Cao, Planner I Absent Not applicable. 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Adoption of Agenda Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Denise Rundle That the agenda for the Wednesday, August 9, 2023 hearing be adopted. Carried Unanimously 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That the minutes of the 7th hearing of the Committee of Adjustment held Wednesday, July 12, 2023 be adopted. Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 2 of 11 4. Reports 4.1 (Deferred at the July 12, 2023 Hearing) P/CA 32/23 J. & T. O’Leary 730 Kingfisher Drive The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2520, as amended, to permit: • a minimum setback of 2.9 metres on the flankage yard where a main building is erected on a corner lot, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 4.5 metres on the flankage yard where a main building is erected on a corner lot; • a minimum front yard setback of 4.9 metres, whereas the by-law requires a minimum front yard setback of 7.5 metres; • a maximum lot coverage of 36 percent, whereas the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; • an existing shed to be located 0.2 of a metre from the rear lot line, whereas the by-law requires accessory structures to be setback a minimum of 0.6 of a metres from all lot lines; and • an existing shed to be located 0.2 of a metre from the rear lot line on a corner lot, whereas the by-law requires a minimum setback of 3.0 metres from the rear lot line for detached garage or other accessory buildings on a corner lot. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a future building permit to permit the construction of a two-storey addition at the front of the existing detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and Bell Canada. In support of the application, the applicant identified the proposed addition cannot be achieved with the existing structure, without encroaching on the required setbacks. James O’Leary, 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 a Committee member, the applicant explained the space above the garage is to accommodate an in-law suite and extra space for their family. There will be a separate entrance on the second floor to access the addition. The garage has a garage door facing the driveway and another door facing the backyard. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 3 of 11 A Committee member commented the addition will be using an existing footprint already occupying the lot. Finding the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application P/CA 32/23 by J. & T. O’Leary, 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, 4 & 5 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 9, 2023). Carried Unanimously 4.2 P/CA 34/23 B. & Y. Javaid 326 Dyson Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended, to permit a minimum (north and south withdrawn by applicant at the hearing) side yard setback of 1.2 metres, where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, whereas the By-law permits where a garage is erected as part of a detached dwelling, the minimum required side yard shall be 1.5 metres. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct a two-storey detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services, City’s Building Services Section and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). In support of the application, the applicant identified to achieve an effective house frontage a minor variance is requested. Badar Javaid, applicant and Jamshaid Durrani, agent, were present to represent the application. Four area residents were present in objection to the application. The agent stated they have read the report and agrees with staff’s recommendation. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 4 of 11 Debbie Sommerville, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: the owner of the subject property expressed to her they will maintain the five feet (1.5 metres) side yard setback; feels the proposed dwelling will overpower the two homes beside it to the north and south; and worried about losing her privacy in the backyard which will cause great stress to her. Catherine Ristau, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: concerns about how close the home is proposed to be from her property line; potential damage to existing trees during construction; access to backyard by construction vehicles without utilizing her property; the proposed window wells bringing the window wells even closer to the property line; whether there will be provisions for drainage should the variance be approved; fire safety and emergency access; increased noise; and the resale value of her own home due to the proximity of the proposed home. Robert Ristau, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: concerns with the setbacks and the size of the house being proposed; the house will not follow the established neighbourhood character; and there are building regulations for a reason that should be adhered to. Wendy Tollett, area resident; stated the following in objection to the application: concerns that Dyson Road will eventually resemble Rougemount Drive with massive homes and very small setbacks that is not aesthetically pleasing or compatible with the existing dwellings in the neighbourhood. In response to concerns from area residents, the agent commented the following: the setback on the north side will be 1.2 metres which is the minimum distance for fire separation under the Building Code; and construction materials and equipment will be contained on the subject property and will not encroach the neighbours’ property. In response to questions from Committee members, the agent stated the following: they are working with TRCA on the Tree Preservation Plan; they plan on preserving the trees during construction however there are a few that are in bad condition; most zoning by-laws are being maintained, they are requesting the reduction of the north side yard to accommodate a bigger home with a larger living room and bedroom on the lot; Dyson Road has a mix of different types of houses, in terms of style and size, and is a dead end street with a staircase that goes down to the Rouge; the west boundary of the home also includes the Rouge and all adjacent properties on the western side of Dyson Road would also have the same western boundary along the Rouge; the total gross floor area of the home is around 6,500 square feet. Vice-Chair commented neighbours are concerned with the character of this area. Character is defined by the look of the home, the width of the side yards, the height of the home, etc. When we have new builds, the Committee needs to be cautious. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 5 of 11 The depth of the lot is excessive. The homeowner is proposing a pool, perhaps he can gain additional floor space by making the home longer instead of imposing on the side yard. Compliance with the By-law can be achieved by adjusting the depth of the dwelling. Catherine Ristau, area resident; commented the trees the agent claimed are in bad condition are not, they are healthy. There is a hedge that is about 20-30 feet that is healthy, as well as the trees on her property. Committee member commented they are not here to judge the size of the house. The Planning Report does recommend approving the variance to the north. Understands the concerns with the trees as it could cause impact in regards to the cohesiveness of this new home within this established neighbourhood. In response to a question from a Committee member, the agent commented there was another variance on the street that was approved to provide relief to the height requirement. He is not aware of any other applications requesting side yard relief. Committee member commented the judgement of whether a proposal is considered to be minor in nature is not a mathematical exercise. Instead the Committee should be looking at the question of degree of adverse impact on adjacent properties, uses and areas. These variances seem to stem from the Infill By-law and will be using that exclusively in determination of the four tests. The applicant commented his objective for the proposal was not to upset his neighbours. The reason why they are looking for a reduction of the side yard setback is because there is a seven-foot hedge and trees on that side and therefore will not be used as much and did not think it would cause much of an impact. Secretary-Treasurer clarified the variances are to By-law 2511, and not to the Infill By-law. The Infill By-law is Council adopted but not in effect as it has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal. After reading the report, hearing the discussions from both sides, and determining the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Motion not seconded That application P/CA 34/23 by B. & Y. Javaid, as amended, 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: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 6 of 11 1. That this variance applies 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 August 9, 2023). 2. That the applicant revise the submitted plans to reflect a minimum south side yard setback of 1.5 metres. Motion Lost The variance being requested would cause adverse impact on adjacent properties and uses in the area, making the proposal not minor in nature. The variance is not compatible with the existing development in the neighbourhood and therefore is undesirable and inappropriate for the development of the land, and does not meet the intent of the Zoning By-law or the Official Plan. Given the above-noted reasons, Omar Ha-Redeye moved the following motion: Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Denise Rundle That application P/CA 34/23 by B. & Y. Javaid, as amended, 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 Vote Omar Ha-Redeye in favour Denise Rundle in favour Sakshi Sood Joshi in favour Rick Van Andel opposed Sean Wiley in favour 4.3 P/CA 35/23 A. Bronkhorst & S. Smith 679 Front Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-laws 7610/18, 7872/21, 7873/21, and 7900/22, to permit: • a minimum lot frontage of 7.6 metres, whereas the By-law requires the minimum lot frontage for a R4 zone to be 15.0 metres; Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 7 of 11 • a minimum lot area of 343 square metres, whereas the By-law requires the minimum lot area for a R4 zone to be 460 square metres; • minimum side yard setback of 0.9 of a metre on the south side and 1.0 metre on the north side, whereas the By-law requires the minimum side yard setback to be 1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side; The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to recognize the existing lot frontage and lot area and to obtain a future building permit for the construction of a three-storey detached dwelling. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified due to the size of the lot, the required setbacks would create an insufficient width for a house. Peter Pomeroy, applicant/agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. The agent explained they are requesting these variances because the lot size is very narrow. The current width of the entire house is just over 14 feet. This home is lived in by an older family, mixed with the younger generation of the family so there is a need for the house to have barrier free entrances and an elevator. Vice-Chair commented the report states that the proposed north side yard is more generous than the current setback which is currently at zero metres. The north side yard will be improved with this variance. After reading the staff report, receiving no comments from the public and the proposal creating an improvement in the north side yard setback, Denise Rundle moved the following motion: Moved by Denise Rundle Seconded by Rick Van Andel That application P/CA 35/23/23 by A. Bronkhorst & S. Smith, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following conditions: 1. That these variances apply only to the proposed development, 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 the Committee of Adjustment dated August 9, 2023). Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 8 of 11 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Engineering Services shall be satisfied that the Engineering Design Criteria can be adequately addressed. Carried Unanimously 4.4 P/CA 36/23 M. MacPhaden 963 Mountcastle Crescent The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1998/85 to permit an uncovered platform with steps not exceeding 1.4 metres in height above grade and not projecting more than 2.3 metres into the required rear yard, whereas the By-law permits uncovered steps or platforms not exceeding 1.0 metre in height above grade and not projecting more than 1.5 metres into any required rear yard. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a building permit to construct an uncovered deck with steps. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified the existing deck age is unsafe and requires a replacement to provide access to the rear yard. In response to a question from the Chair, the Secretary-Treasurer clarified that there is one variance being sought tonight due to how the By-law is written. This one zoning provision regulates both the height and the encroachment of the stairs. Michael MacPhaden, applicant, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Given that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Rick Van Andel moved the following motion: Moved by Rick Van Andel Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application P/CA 36/23 by M. MacPhaden, be Approved on the grounds that the requested variance is minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, subject to the following condition: Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 9 of 11 1. That this variance apply only to the uncovered platform (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 August 9, 2023). Carried Unanimously 4.5 P/CA 37/23 811501 Ontario Ltd. 954 Dillingham Road The applicant requests relief from Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 6780/07, to permit: • a maximum of 10 percent of the building to be designated for accessory retail use, whereas the By-law states that retail stores and retail operations shall not be permitted; • a maximum of 40 percent of the required parking spaces (10 parking spaces) to be provided in the front yard, whereas the By-law limits front yard parking to be 20 percent of the total required parking area; • a minimum side yard setback of 5.4 metres from the north parking spaces, and a minimum side yard setback of 0.0 metres from the south parking spaces, whereas the By-law permits side yard parking to be no closer than 7.5 metres from the side lot line on one side and 1.5 metres on the other side; • a minimum setback of 0.9 of a metre between the parking area and Dillingham Road, whereas the By-law requires parking areas to have a 3.0 metre setback from the abutting road allowance. The applicant requests approval of this minor variance application in order to obtain a future building permit to permit the conversion of a portion of the building for accessory retail use. Input from other sources were received from the Applicant, City’s Engineering Services and City’s Building Services Section. In support of the application, the applicant identified their business relies on retail as a part of our operations as we sell, service and offer parts for the outdoor power equipment industry. Andy Paterson, agent, was present to represent the application. No further representation was present in favour of or in objection to the application. Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 10 of 11 The agent stated the business is currently on Brock Road and with the median on the street it is tough to get in and out. With Dillingham Road it will make it much easier to do business. They have been in business for nine years. In response to a question from the Chair, the agent explained their business sells lawn and garden equipment. In response to a question from the Vice-Chair, the Secretary-Treasurer confirmed the site is within Site Plan Control. Given that the application meets the four tests of the Planning Act, Omar Ha-Redeye moved the following motion: Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Sakshi Sood Joshi That application P/CA 37/23 by 811501 Ontario Ltd., 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 plan (refer to Exhibit 2 contained in the staff report to the Committee of Adjustment, dated August 9, 2023). Carried Unanimously Committee of Adjustment Hearing Minutes Wednesday, August 9, 2023 7:00 pm Electronic Hearing Page 11 of 11 September 13, 2023 5. Adjournment Moved by Omar Ha-Redeye Seconded by Rick Van Andel That the 8th hearing of the 2023 Committee of Adjustment be adjourned at 8:09 pm. Carried Unanimously __________________________ Date __________________________ Chair __________________________ Assistant Secretary-Treasurer Please note the Committee of Adjustment Hearings are available for viewing on the City of Pickering YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/SustainablePickering