Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment

Transcription

1 Minutes of the 14th Meeting of the Committee of Adjustment Meeting Date: Thursday November 05, 2015 Meeting Time: Meeting Location: 7:00 p.m. Whitby Municipal Building 575 Rossland Road East, Committee Room 1 Present: D. McCarroll, Chair S. Haslam B. O Carroll J. Cardwell N. Chornobay K. Kram, Secretary-Treasurer B. Hunt, Planner II Item 1: Disclosure of Interest: There was no disclosure of interest by the members of the Committee of Adjustment Carried

2 Item 2: Public Hearings A/13/15 Smith, Matthew 720 Taunton Road East An application has been received from Smith, Matthew for a variance from the provisions of By-Law The application is to permit the additional use of a take-out eating establishment within the kiosk for the existing gas bar. The subject property is located at 720 Taunton Road East and is zoned Central Area Commercial Thickson Taunton (CAC-TT), Gas Bar Car Wash (GB-CW) and Greenbelt (G). This application applies to the portion of the property which is zoned Gas Bar Car Wash (GB-CW). In Support of Application In Opposition of Application Matthew Smith - Applicant None at this time. The Chair introduced the application and asked if anyone would like to speak to the M. Smith addressed the Committee in support of the He explained that he works for G.L. Smith Planning and Design and he is representing the property owner. He noted that there is currently an existing self serve coffee station in the existing gas bar kiosk and they are looking to replace this with a Tim Hortons Express location. B. O Carroll asked for clarification that there would be no drive thru. M. Smith stated that there would be no drive thru. The Chair asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak to the subject application. There was no one. Moved by: N. Chornobay That the application to permit the additional use of a take-out eating establishment within the kiosk for the existing gas bar be Granted. Carried

3 Reason: The members of the Committee were of the opinion that the variance is minor in nature; that the general intent and purpose of the By-law and the Official Plan is being maintained, and further that the granting of the application is desirable and would result in the appropriate development of the property.

4 Item 2: Public Hearings A/32/15 Suleman, Amina 113 Hunter Street An application has been received from Suleman, Amina for a variance from the provisions of By-Law The application is to permit a second driveway on a lot with metres of frontage whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 25 metres for a second driveway. The subject property is located at 113 Hunter Street and is zoned Residential (R2). In Support of Application Martin Topolie Agent for applicant Hoosain Suleman Owner In Opposition of Application John McDermott Agent for area landowners Alison Jimmo Area resident Thomas Coughlan Area resident Wallace Shepperdson Area resident The Chair introduced the application and asked if anyone would like to speak to the M. Topolie addressed the Committee in support of the He explained that he works for Ovido Sbrissa and the Architects Workshop Inc. and that he is representing the property owners. After the last meeting, he and the owners studied the minutes of the meeting and made changes to the site plan. He then submitted a cover letter outlining the changes. M. Topolie noted that the culvert leading to the proposed second driveway is preexisting and dates back to approximately the 1960s. He stated that a number of properties in this area feature similar entrances and that this is not so much a new driveway, but a reconstituting of a formerly existing driveway. He stated that there are a number of properties in this area that have two driveways. M. Topolie stated that one of the changes to the plan is that the proposed driveway now leads to a proposed detached garage to be situated in the rear yard. He noted that the owners are willing to relocate the gas meter presently situated on the east wall of the

5 dwelling if it becomes an issue, but the plan as proposed has a bollard to protect the gas meter. M. Topolie stated that the issue of drainage from the subject property flowing to the east was raised at the last meeting. He stated that drainage flowing from the subject property is captured on the subject property. However to address concerns raised by residents the owner will install a French drain. He noted that the proposed second driveway has been reduced to be 3 metres wide in the front yard. The proposed detached garage in the rear yard will be serviced by the proposed second driveway. The Chair asked about the cover letter referenced by M. Topolie which outlined the changes to the application. K. Kram explained that the Committee was already provided with a copy of this letter. J. Cardwell asked about the applicant s plans for construction. M. Topolie explained that they would construct everything at the same time. B. O Carroll asked who will use the proposed detached garage. M. Topolie noted that the garage will be used by the tenants. The existing one car attached garage is also a functional garage space. The Chair asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak to the subject application. J. McDermott addressed the Committee and noted that he is a Registered Professional Planner who has been retained by two area property owners. He told the Committee that it is incumbent upon them to look at all zoning provisions that need relief. He stated that when you change something about a property any legal non-conformity is lost. This principle has been held up in the courts. He suggested that several zoning issues are not being addressed by the application. J. McDermott raised another matter related to what an application is about. He referenced an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision from 2005 (Decision No. 0942, PL040203). The Chairman commented in that decision that completing a planning application is not simply a perfunctory task. J. McDermott stated that the application form is not complete and that the Committee does not have sufficient information to consider the application. He does not believe the applicants properly answered the question of why it is not possible to comply with the Zoning By-law. J. McDermott asked if the application was circulated to Enbridge. B. Hunt, Planner II advised that the application was not circulated to Enbridge, nor would it normally be in this circumstance. He also noted that the applicant has offered to move the gas meter from the side yard. J. McDermott stated that Enbridge has requirements that would be impossible to meet so the meter would have to be moved. He showed the Committee a picture of what happens when someone hits a gas meter. J. McDermott stated that the purpose of a side yard is to provide spatial separation for privacy, to accommodate equipment such as an air conditioner, to provide for drainage and to provide for access to the rear yard. He stated that the purpose and function of the side yard would be impaired by the introduction of the proposed driveway. He

6 stated that the French drain will not solve the run-off problem and that from an engineering standpoint this application should not be approved. J. McDermott noted that the intent of the Zoning By-law was to not allow a second driveway. He felt that approval of the proposed second driveway was intensification that was not necessary. While the variance would be minor in mathematical terms it is not minor in qualitative terms. It is also not appropriate or desirable since the character of the area would be impaired and the streetscape would be negatively affected. He stated that for these reasons he was requesting that the Committee deny the application. J. McDermott referred to an OMB decision from 2011 (PL110889) related to a consent to sever in the area (lot line adjustment between 109 Hunter Street and 209 Kendalwood Road). In this decision Mrs. Suleman stated that she would build a fence along the northerly lot line of the mosque from the rear yard of 113 Hunter Street over to Kendalwood Road. There is still no fence and the decision is four years old. J. McDermott stated that if the Committee does approve the application it should be subject to conditions: 1. that the gas meter be moved from the side yard 2. that a fence be constructed to separate the subject property from the mosque property to the south. N. Chornobay asked if the applicant were to address all of the issues raised by J. McDermott would his clients be happy. J. McDermott stated that they would still not be happy because the introduction of the second driveway leading to the rear yard would be out of character for the area. N. Chornobay asked for clarification that if every issue raised is addressed, J. McDermott s clients would still not support the application. J. McDermott noted that the applicant owns the mosque property to the south and the basic issue for his clients is the potential for the subject property to provide a secondary means of driveway access to the mosque resulting in traffic issues. S. Haslam asked about lot coverage. B. Hunt explained that staff reviewed the subject application related to the Zoning Bylaw and the only provision identified as requiring a variance was the minimum required lot frontage for a second driveway. The application meets the maximum permitted 20% lot coverage provision and the maximum permitted lot coverage for accessory structures of 60 square metres. If staff were to explain in every staff report how an application meets every provision in the Zoning By-law aside from the requested variance, this would be a very onerous task. The Chair asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak to the A. Jimmo addressed the Committee and noted that she lives across the street from the subject property. She does not see the need for a second driveway when the existing driveway could be widened and there is enough parking on the subject property. She assumes the reason for the request for a second driveway is that the residents do not

7 want to juggle cars, but people do it all the time. The second driveway will not look nice and she would prefer to see a circular driveway or the widening of the existing driveway. She stated that cars should not be parking on the second driveway and noted that cars have been parked overnight on the property that do not belong to residents of the dwelling. The Chair asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak to the T. Coughlan addressed the Committee and noted that he lives on Kendalwood Road. He wanted to state on the record that the notice of public hearing was not mailed to him. He received it from his agent and from the Town when he went to the Planning and Development Department counter. He raised a concern with the gas meter and the proposed bollard. He also asked why the existing driveway at the front of the house could not be widened. The Chair noted that the Committee was made aware that through a clerical error T. Coughlan s notice was sent to his next door neighbour at 201 Kendalwood. He apologized on behalf of the Town for the clerical error. T. Coughlan stated that the best solution would be to widen the existing driveway at the front of the house. He questioned the applicant s reason for needing a driveway into the rear yard. The Chair asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak to the W. Shepperdson addressed the Committee and stated that he lives next door to the east of the subject property. He questioned why since the proposed driveway was already there that they need approval now. He also asked how close the driveway could be to his interior side lot line. He noted that if the driveway is paved the runoff will go on to his property. B. Hunt explained that the proposed driveway must be setback a minimum of 0.6 metres from the interior side lot line in the front yard. In the interior side yard (beside the house) there is no required setback for the driveway from the side lot line. He also noted that the Town of Whitby Public Works Department had no concerns with the application except to add conditions of approval related to grading and drainage and any culvert works. W. Shepperdson stated that there has already been damage to his metal fence because the driveway is too close to his side lot line. He stated that the culvert was there because the original owner wanted a circular driveway but never got around to constructing it. B. Hunt explained the history of the application to the Town s knowledge. The Chair asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak to the H. Suleman addressed the Committee stating that the fence related to the referenced severance application was constructed. He noted that a property on the north side of Hunter Street had also constructed a driveway leading to a detached garage in the rear yard.

8 M. Topolie stated that side yards have been used to access garages in rear yards all across the country; this is not a unique situation. He noted that the proposed detached garage was sited such that it would be located away from a tree in the rear yard. The Chair asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak to the A. Jimmo addressed the application and spoke to the fence issue related to the 2011 OMB decision. She stated that activity related to this proposed second driveway has been going on for one and a half years. She questioned who was taking care of the interests of the neighbours. She reiterated that the neighbours would like to see a circular driveway. The Chair asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak to the J. McDermott stated that when he talked about the function of a side yard he did not say it could not be used for a driveway. He hopes the Committee is not minimizing any of his comments. He reiterated the point that the Committee is required to look at all aspects of the application and consider the cumulative affect of an approval of the application. The Chair stated that he does not think any member of the Committee is minimizing J. McDermott s remarks. The Chair asked if there was anyone else from the public who wished to speak to the There was no one. S. Haslam stated that there is a safety issue with the gas meter in the side yard. He would be comfortable approving the application on the condition that the gas meter must be moved. J. Cardwell asked if there should be a timeframe for the work to be completed. B. Hunt stated that since it is November he would advise that any time limit for construction be until at least the spring or summer of Whether the Committee adds this type of condition is for the Committee to decide. N. Chornobay asked for clarification that the Town has issued a permit for the accessory apartment on the subject property. B. Hunt stated that a Building Permit has been issued for the accessory apartment. Moved by: S. Haslam That the application to permit a second driveway on a lot with metres of frontage whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 25 metres for a second driveway located be Granted subject to the following conditions: 1. That the site grading and all other services conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department and adhere to the Town s standards and design criteria. 2. The Public Works Operational Services Division must complete an inspection prior to any driveway works commencing, so that if the inspection yields the

9 culvert is no longer in good working condition, then the Town will replace the existing culvert with a new culvert, equal in sizing. 3. The applicant is to provide Operational Services with the proposed driveway width, prior to inspection. If the design of the driveway requires the culvert to be extended, then the applicant will be responsible for the additional cost of material and works. A culvert extension shall require an Application for Culvert permit from the Public Works Department, prior to the Town installing the culvert. 4. That the new driveway be limited to a maximum width of 3 metres in the front yard. 5. That the gas meter be moved from the side yard. The motion was lost. N. Chornobay stated that he does not support the application as the property already provides the minimum required amount of parking spaces and the neighbour has a concern about future drainage issues. He does not believe the variance is necessary or that it is in keeping with the neighbourhood. Moved by: N. Chornobay That the application to permit a second driveway on a lot with metres of frontage whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 25 metres for a second driveway be Denied because it is not necessary as there is sufficient parking on-site, the existing parking is in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood and because of technical issues. Carried

10 Item 2: Public Hearings A/43/15 Highmark (Orchards) Inc. 21 Glengowan Street An application has been received from Highmark (Orchards) Inc. for a variance from the provisions of By-Law The application is for permission to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 43% to permit the construction of a two storey single detached dwelling The subject property is located at 21 Glengowan Street and is zoned Residential (R2B*- 9). In Support of Application In Opposition of Application Peter Jaruczik - Applicant None at this time. The Chair introduced the application and asked if anyone would like to speak to the P. Jaruczik addressed the Committee in support of the subject application and explained that he is representing Highmark Homes. He noted that the proposed dwelling on the subject property has already been purchased and that the model elevations were changed through the Architectural Control process to include a larger porch. P. Jaruczik stated that this lot is shallower than most of the other lots in this subdivision. He explained that the proposed dwelling will comply with all of the other zone provisions (i.e. minimum required setbacks). He noted that these are the last few lots to be developed in this Plan of Subdivision and that the staff report had no objections to the application. There was a short discussion about the proposed dwelling and the location of the subject property. B. Hunt, Planner II clarified that for certain subdivisions the implementing Zoning By-law amendment was written to exclude front porches from the maximum permitted lot coverage calculation. This was not the case for this subdivision. The Chair asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak to the subject application. There was no one.

11 Moved by: J. Cardwell That the application to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 43% to permit the construction of a two storey single detached dwelling be Granted subject to the following condition: 1. That the site grading and all other services conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department. Carried Reason: The members of the Committee were of the opinion that the variance is minor in nature; that the general intent and purpose of the By-law and the Official Plan is being maintained, and further that the granting of the application is desirable and would result in the appropriate development of the property.

12 Item 2: Public Hearings A/44/15 Highmark (Orchards) Inc. 23 Glengowan Street An application has been received from Highmark (Orchards) Inc. for a variance from the provisions of By-Law The application is for permission to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 42.5% to permit the construction of a two storey single detached dwelling. The subject property is located at 23 Glengowan Street and is zoned Residential (R2B*- 9). In Support of Application In Opposition of Application Peter Jaruczik - Applicant None at this time. The Chair introduced the application and asked if anyone would like to speak to the P. Jaruczik addressed the Committee in support of the subject application and explained that he is representing Highmark Homes. He noted that this is the same model as in the previous application A/43/15, however with a slightly different front porch design. P. Jaruczik stated that this lot is shallower than most of the other lots in this subdivision. He explained that the proposed dwelling will comply with all of the other zone provisions (i.e. minimum required setbacks). He noted that these are the last few lots to be developed in this Plan of Subdivision and that the staff report had no objections to the application. The Chair asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak to the subject application. There was no one. Moved by: B. O'Carroll That the application to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 40% to 42.5% to permit the construction of a two storey single detached dwelling be Granted subject to the following condition:

13 1. That the site grading and all other services conform to the requirements of the Public Works Department. Carried Reason: The members of the Committee were of the opinion that the variance is minor in nature; that the general intent and purpose of the By-law and the Official Plan is being maintained, and further that the granting of the application is desirable and would result in the appropriate development of the property.

14 Item 2: Public Hearings A/45/15 Highmark (Orchards) Inc. 35 Glengowan Street An application has been received from Highmark (Orchards) Inc. for a variance from the provisions of By-Law The application is for permission to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 45% to 48.6% to permit the construction of a one storey single detached dwelling The subject property is located at 35 Glengowan Street and is zoned Residential (R2A*- 9). In Support of Application In Opposition of Application Peter Jaruczik - Applicant None at this time. The Chair introduced the application and asked if anyone would like to speak to the P. Jaruczik addressed the Committee in support of the subject application and explained that he is representing Highmark Homes. He explained that the proposed dwelling to be constructed on the subject property is a one storey dwelling. He noted that it has been difficult to find a product to site on this lot as the Architectural Control Guidelines require two one storey dwellings to be located side by side (i.e. a one storey dwelling can not be constructed with two storey dwellings on either side). P. Jaruczik stated that they had a letter from an engineer prepared for the Town of Whitby Public Works Department in response to their comments in the staff report. The letter states that the increase in lot coverage on the subject property will not impact storm water drainage in the area. He noted that there are many larger lots in this Plan of Subdivision that are under the maximum permitted lot coverage and storm water design capacity; therefore the increase in coverage for a few select lots will not cause a drainage problem. He provided a copy of the letter to the Secretary-Treasurer for the file. P. Jaruczik stated that delays will push the construction late into the season and this will be problematic. He requested that the Committee approve the

15 There was a discussion about wanting to see comments from the Town of Whitby Public Works Department in response to the engineers letter. The Chair stated that it is incumbent upon the Committee to get a response from the Town of Whitby Public Works Department before making a decision. P. Jaruczik noted that the Public Works Department has responded to him informally but he has not received a formal response to his letter. N. Chornobay noted that another solution would be to build a smaller house on the subject property. The Chair asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to speak to the subject application. There was no one. Moved by: S. Haslam That the application to increase the maximum permitted lot coverage from 45% to 48.6% to permit the construction of a one storey single detached dwelling be Tabled for up to three months to allow for the storm water management issue to be resolved with the Public Works Department. Carried

16 Item 3: Approval of Previous Minutes Moved by: B. O'Carroll That the minutes of the Committee of Adjustment held on Thursday October 15, 2015 be adopted. Carried Item 4: Other Business There were no items raised under other business Item 5: Adjournment Moved by: N. Chornobay That this meeting of the Committee of Adjustment be adjourned. Carried Original approved and signed Secretary Treasurer Original approved and signed Chair Minutes of the 14th Meeting of Committee Of Adjustment